I’ll admit it: I prepared for this yesterday. I’ll also confess that I post it in part to metaphorically rub the noses of the obstinate New York Times defenders who might visit here in their destructive denials of what is, daily, right in front of their noses.
As I knew it would as surely as I knew the Republican Senators would not do the ethical and statesmanlike thing and be polite, perfunctory and non-confrontational in their examination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, I knew that whatever they did would be attacked by the Times and mainstream news media as racist and hyper-partisan. Thus I tracked down the Times’ story following Justice Kanaugh’s confirmation, from October 6, 2018. You can read it here: Half of the focus was on the fact that his confirmation made the Court dangerously conservative, and not on the Democrats’ despicable smearing of the nominee with a contrived accusation of sexual assault (that supposedly occurred before he attended college or law school, much less before he was a judge).
The other half concentrated on Kavanaugh’s angry attack on the authors of this character assassination attempt, which, sayeth the Times and the anti-Kavanaugh partisan professors it chose to interview, raised questions about his “judicial temperament.” This was the most disgraceful treatment of any Supreme Court nominee ever, before or since, yet no hint of that verdict appeared in the Times.
Now, however, nearly four years later, the Times’ summary of another confirmation hearing, concentrated on a single point: “The Republican manhandling of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson this week was convincing evidence that the Senate’s Supreme Court confirmation process is irredeemably broken.” The two front page stories, looked at together, compel just one conclusion: The New York Times believes that conservative SCOTUS nominees picked by a Republican President can be justly slandered by ambush witnesses, accused of rape by Senators and attacked for juvenile drinking habits, but the designated Supreme Court justices selected by Democratic Presidents are being abused if they are questioned regarding their positions on contentious social issues of the day. This is, the Times believes, especially true when such mean-spirited examinations mar “a historic moment.”
This is today’s article in a metaphorical nutshell:
The aggressively hostile interrogation of Judge Jackson, featuring political dog-whistling and relentless re-litigating of Supreme Court feuds of the past, marred what could have been not only a reset for the Senate, but a significant national moment in seeing the first Black woman ascend to the pinnacle of American jurisprudence with strong support.
Here is the funny part: I agree with everything in that paragraph, as well as with the earlier proposition that the confirmation process is broken. Of course it is, but it was broken, by the Democrats, when Robert Bork was “Borked,” then broken further, by the Democrats, when Clarence Thomas was attacked by another ambush witness, Anita Hill, whom Democrats and feminists announced they “believed” because she was, well, a woman, and because they didn’t want Thomas on the Court because he is a conservative. When Thomas thundered on live TV that he was being subjected to a virtual “lynching,” his “judicial temperament” was attacked. Then Democrats stomped the wreckage of the confirmation process into slivers by ratcheting up their disgusting tactics another notch or ten, this time producing a witness with a “recovered memory” no less, to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape at a party no one could identify, at an unknown locale, at an uncertain date, when the judge was a teenager.
Why did Democrats take this route? They did it because #MeToo was hot at the time, “believe all women” was a feminist mantra being pushed by the media, because they feared that Kavanaugh might be a decisive vote against Roe v Wade in a future case that didn’t exist yet, and most of all, like Harry Reid’s lie about Mitt Romney not paying taxes, because they thought it would work.
But that didn’t prove that the process was ‘irredeemably broken” to the New York Times. Indeed, the word “broken” doesn’t appear in the 2018 article at all, because that would require the New York Times to be honest, objective and fair about the ethics rot in the Democratic Party. It can’t and won’t do that, because the Times is one of the most important propaganda organs of the Left.
Thus it picks now, when the paper can blame Republicans for their petty, tit-for-tat payback for Kavanaugh’s treatment, to say the process is broken. This, however, the New York Times may not ethically say, because it is ethics estoppel of the first order. I can say it, you can say it, Ethics Alarms can say it, Fox News can say it, Andrew McCarthy, Jonathan Turley can say it, anyone can say it who didn’t cheer on, support and try to justify the Democratic mistreatment of Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh, each more unjust, destructive and wrong than the one before.
For the New York Times was a full participant in breaking the process. Its “shocked–shocked!” response now would be laughable if it wasn’t so infuriating.