The Three Leading US Broadsheets on Judge Kavanaugh

by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org - Home - Stephen Lendman)

Major media editors largely support Washington's domestic and geopolitical agendas, no matter the enormous harm inflicted on ordinary people at home and abroad.

They lack credibility when occasionally diverging from the official narrative. I criticize them often for falling deplorably short of what credible journalism is supposed to be.

Here's how America's three leading broadsheets addressed the controversial Kavanaugh nomination - ahead of his Friday Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation along party lines.

A scheduled Saturday procedural vote may be postponed, a final full Senate vote delayed for a week. See below.

Is Kavanaugh a sexual predator as Christine Blasey Ford claimed or a victim of an undemocratic Dem/anti-Trump media conspiracy against him?

NYT editors praised Ford's believability, calling her demeanor "calm and dignified," eager to cooperate fully with questioners, her accusations of sexual abuse compellingly credible.

In contrast, Kavanaugh was "volatile and belligerent," said the Times, adding he "rag(ed) against Senate Democrats and the 'Left' for 'totally and permanently' destroying his name, his career, his family, his life" - calling his confirmation process a 'national disgrace.' "

Like the American Bar Association, the Times called for suspending the confirmation until until a "proper investigation" is conducted and completed.

Kavanaugh's right-wing extremism should have disqualified him straightaway, confirming him as a Supreme Court justice disgracing the nation's highest judicial body more than already.

The neocon/CIA house organ Washington Post called for vetting Ford's accusations before voting on Kavanaugh - calling her sexual assault accusations "credible," adding:

"The logical next step would be to take the time to see if an investigation can bolster either contention." 

It's highly unlikely beyond a few days with GOP senators hellbent on confirming him, especially ahead of November midterm elections when majority power may shift to undemocratic Dems.

Guilty as charged or innocent, Kavanaugh's rage was polar opposite what judicial temperament at any level is supposed to be. 

He should have been rejected instead of likely heading for appointment to the nation's highest judicial body.

Wall Street Journal editors disagreed. Supporting his confirmation, they called Thursday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing "an embarrassment that should have never happened."

They agreed with Kavanaugh, calling his confirmation process a "disgrace." They demeaned Ford instead of recognizing her credibility and courage to come forward, putting herself through an excruciating and embarrassing ordeal few abused women are willing to endure.

Journal editors conceded that she's a "sympathetic witness…(h)er description of the assault and its impact on her…wrenching."

At the same time, they demeaned her by saying there's "no confirming evidence beyond her own testimony."

Most often in rape and sexual abuse cases, witnesses aren't available to confirm or deny accusations made.

Calling Kavanaugh's defense "powerful and emotional," nothing  in his "public life" suggesting what he's accused of, downplayed the severity of sexual abuse whenever it occurs.

Judicial fairness demands full and impartial disclosure of all relevant information, nothing kept secret except for constitutional protection from self-incrimination - both sides allowed to make their case. 

Julie Swetnick and Deborah Ramirez also accused Kavanaugh of sexual abuse. Their claims warrant vetting just like Ford's.

Thursday's Judiciary Committee hearing was reminiscent of what Anita Hill endured in 1991, her sexual harassment charges against Clarence Thomas demeaned the way women accusers most often are mistreated in these type cases.

Senate members are expected to confirm Kavanaugh along party lines, despite his unacceptability for any judicial position.

On Friday, Senate Judiciary members advanced his nomination along party lines. Republican Jeff Flake voted "yes" - provided a full body vote is delayed for a week to give the FBI (an unacceptably inadequate amount of time) to investigate Ford's accusations.

Retiring at the end of his term, Flake issued a statement saying "(t)his country is being ripped apart here and we've got to make sure that we do due diligence."

It requires full impartial vetting of all Kavanaugh accusers, a process likely requiring weeks or longer, what's virtually certain not to happen.

A Final Comment

Four senators are swing votes - Republicans Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, along with undemocratic Dems Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp.

All Dems and two Republicans are needed to defeat Kavanaugh's nomination - what's possible but highly unlikely to happen.

Affirming his lifetime Supreme Court appointment could affect November midterm election results.

Russia again will likely be falsely accused of meddling no matter how things turn out, China as well if Dems regain control over either or both houses.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home - Stephen Lendman). Contact at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html