There’s no reason to believe Judge Brett Kavanaugh won’t get a quick confirmation hearing, and you can base that solely on how unjustifiably angry the New York Times is about his nomination.
Kavanaugh has served as a federal judge for more than a decade now, and yet the Times’ front-page headline covering his nomination reduced his stature to “former Bush aide.”
The paper’s editorial board conceded this week that President Trump and congressional Republicans “will almost certainly win” any fight to confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court but not without first casting doubt over his legitimacy.
An editorial on Monday described Kavanaugh as “a fixture in conservative politics” and said that his selection was the result of the Constitution being “hijacked” by the Federalist Society, which had recommended Kavanaugh, among others, as the next justice.
Nowhere in the Times’ coverage has there been a critique of Kavanaugh’s basic qualifications or judicial record.
There was, however, editorial board member Michelle Cottle bitter that President Trump’s official nomination of Kavanaugh interrupted “The Bachelorette.”
“The entire production was, in short, classic Trump — an overhyped, self-aggrandizing display aimed at focusing the spotlight on himself for reasons of both personal gratification and political expedience,” she wrote, adding, “As the president well knows, an event of this magnitude must be covered, even if it means interrupting more conventional reality fare like ‘The Bachelorette’ and ‘American Ninja Warrior.’”
The rest of the national media also know the outcome is inevitable, despite some hysterical screaming about rights threatened — the journalist and frequent MSNBC guest Michelle Bernard actually suggested that interracial marriage could be ruled illegal — or about the injustice done to Hillary Clinton.
There is so much at stake with the next appt to the #SupremeCourt, not just abortion rights. The right 2 privacy, integrated public schools, voting rights, marriage equality, inter-racial marriage, birth control… Democrats need to learn how to play hardball FAST!!! https://t.co/0GToXiVtoO
— Michelle Bernard (@MichelleBernard) July 8, 2018
CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin on Monday night asked that his colleagues take a moment of silence to reflect on how Clinton must feel.
“[H]illary Clinton has to watch yet another Supreme Court nomination that she thought she was going to be able to pick,” said a wistful Toobin, as I drifted off to the deepest, most satisfying sleep I’ve ever had.
True, Kavanaugh will presumably tilt the court toward more conservative rulings, but that’s a matter of his judicial philosophy and interpretation of existing law, and not indicative of any failings he has as a legal mind. By the way, liberals, it shouldn’t come as news that laws can always be changed by Congress or constitutional amendment, and aren’t stained in blood by court decisions.
As for Clinton, well, you can’t win ‘em all. Or, if you run for president twice, maybe any.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said he wants to block Kavanaugh’s nomination, but you probably haven’t heard much more about that. Because Democrats don’t control the Senate, and there’s no reason to believe Kavanaugh won’t breeze through his confirmation.
