To recap, the Times recently carried a thinly sourced article purporting that Justice Kavanaugh engaged in sexual misconduct at a party while an undergraduate at Yale. For the prurient, the specific unverified allegation was Kavanaugh exposed his penis to college-age women at a drunken party.
Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelley, who are shilling their book about Kavanaugh, used as their source a former Clinton lawyer who was not a witness to the alleged incident. His information was third-hand. Even the victim refused to corroborate the event for the reporters.
However, the article did not mention the alleged victim had denied any knowledge of the incident to her friends. None of the victim's friends came forward to offer any supporting testimony. This smacks of nothing less than a deliberately vicious attempt to blacken Justice Kavanaugh's reputation.
Putting aside the appalling lapse in journalistic ethics, the Times tried to save its red face by blaming the fiasco on the editing of the article rather than indict the two biased reporters. Any person with a modicum of understanding of newsroom operations knows this is a canard.
Putting aside the appalling lapse in journalistic ethics, the Times tried to save its red face by blaming the fiasco on the editing of the article rather than indict the two biased reporters. Any person with a modicum of understanding of newsroom operations knows this is a canard.
Copy editors do not delete relevant evidentiary information without consulting the writers. In a story flaunting such damaging allegations, even a senior editor likely would check with the writers before reaching a decision to remove significant revelations. That's why the explanation is rubbish.
The Gray Lady, as the Times was known in its heyday, has become the Scarlet Tramp.
Only after being exposed by another reporter, the Times' offered a correction on Monday conceding key facts were missing. Nonetheless, Democrat presidential candidates raced to the microphones to demand impeachment of Kavanaugh. Others called for his immediate resignation.
Democrats tried to justify their renewed effort to remove Kavanaugh based on the fact the FBI never interviewed the alleged victim at the Yale party during the agency's probe for the confirmation hearings. That is a flimsy excuse because it is apparent the victim had no intention of testifying.
Kavanaugh's background, including his college days, has been investigated during at least five federal background checks. No current sitting justice or former Supreme Court justice has been subjected to such scrutiny. It strains credulity to imagine investigators missed the improprieties five times.
There is no secret about the Times motive. From the second Kavanaugh, a practicing Catholic, was nominated, liberals have operated on the political assumption that the justice will take "a scalpel" to the Roe vs. Wade abortion ruling once he assumed his seat on the Supreme Court.
The assault began when Democrats ambushed Kavanaugh during the confirmation hearings with sexual misconduct allegations by Christine Blasey Ford. Since her testimony, every single person she claimed could verify her story has disavowed knowledge, including her best friend Leland Keyser.
Despite this fact, Democrats lamely assert that Ms. Ford's account deserves to be believed.
That is why the Times latest hit job on Kavanaugh was needed to provide cover for those Democrats hell bent on forcing Kavanaugh off the court by whatever means. Their efforts have taken on a new desperation because at least 20 abortion cases are flowing in the pipeline to the Supreme Court.
Democrats are wading in hazardous and uncharted political waters. If a party can remove a sitting justice based on unsubstantiated allegations, then it will set a precedent that will be used to intimidate members of the court who do not see eye-to-eye on judicial matters with members of Congress.
In fact, the only sitting justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1804 for partisan reasons. Chase, appointed by President George Washington, irked Thomas Jefferson's allies with his opinions, leading to the justice's impeachment. The Senate acquitted Chase of all charges.
There is a reason Supreme Court justices serve lifetime appointments. It is to remove the judges from being influenced by politics so they can rule impartially without fear of political retribution. That was the clear intent of our founding fathers. It remains a valid protection today.
In the event impeachment craters, Democrats have another scheme to bully the conservative majority. Several presidential hopefuls have floated the idea of expanding the court under a Democrat president. Even liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has pooh-poohed the idea.
Democrats should remember the lesson of the Senate's nuclear option invoked by Majority Leader Harry Reid, who broke decades of tradition. Once Republicans returned to power, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell employed the same tactic. Democrats fumed. They shouldn't have been surprised.
Political intimidation of justices, if the Democrats succeed, surely will be used by Republicans against Democrat appointed judges in the future. It is a dangerous precedent that should be rejected by even those who hold opposing views to Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
The assault began when Democrats ambushed Kavanaugh during the confirmation hearings with sexual misconduct allegations by Christine Blasey Ford. Since her testimony, every single person she claimed could verify her story has disavowed knowledge, including her best friend Leland Keyser.
Despite this fact, Democrats lamely assert that Ms. Ford's account deserves to be believed.
That is why the Times latest hit job on Kavanaugh was needed to provide cover for those Democrats hell bent on forcing Kavanaugh off the court by whatever means. Their efforts have taken on a new desperation because at least 20 abortion cases are flowing in the pipeline to the Supreme Court.
Democrats are wading in hazardous and uncharted political waters. If a party can remove a sitting justice based on unsubstantiated allegations, then it will set a precedent that will be used to intimidate members of the court who do not see eye-to-eye on judicial matters with members of Congress.
In fact, the only sitting justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1804 for partisan reasons. Chase, appointed by President George Washington, irked Thomas Jefferson's allies with his opinions, leading to the justice's impeachment. The Senate acquitted Chase of all charges.
There is a reason Supreme Court justices serve lifetime appointments. It is to remove the judges from being influenced by politics so they can rule impartially without fear of political retribution. That was the clear intent of our founding fathers. It remains a valid protection today.
In the event impeachment craters, Democrats have another scheme to bully the conservative majority. Several presidential hopefuls have floated the idea of expanding the court under a Democrat president. Even liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has pooh-poohed the idea.
Democrats should remember the lesson of the Senate's nuclear option invoked by Majority Leader Harry Reid, who broke decades of tradition. Once Republicans returned to power, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell employed the same tactic. Democrats fumed. They shouldn't have been surprised.
Political intimidation of justices, if the Democrats succeed, surely will be used by Republicans against Democrat appointed judges in the future. It is a dangerous precedent that should be rejected by even those who hold opposing views to Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
No comments:
Post a Comment