As the final vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh nears, the Left is frantically waving one final false flag in a last-ditch hope to derail his confirmation: a Friday op-ed from Kavanaugh in The Wall Street Journal.
Kavanaugh addressed criticism of his tone and display of emotions in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee last week, saying he was there not as a judge, but “as a son, husband and dad” who has been “subjected to wrongful and sometimes vicious allegations,” and whose wife and daughters face “vile and violent threats.” He acknowledged his “tone was sharp,” and he said a few things he should not have said, while defending his family, his good name, and his lifetime of public service.
Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in the mid-1980s—natch summer of 1982—is in tatters, the other charges of sexual misconduct against him look to be nothing but gossip and farce, and Americans are finally learning the rules for drinking in the Devil’s Triangle. So Twitter pundits are resorting to using Kavanaugh’s op-ed for proof—PROOF—of his unfitness for the high court, claiming it’s outrageous for a federal judge and Supreme Court wanna-be publicly comment on his hearing performance.
Once again, though, the liberals have misjudged the American public. When Kavanaugh testified last week, Americans of all-stripes—except the extreme resistance Left—saw righteous indignation. They shared his anger, heartbreak, and frustration; and many women wept along with his dear mother. His Wall Street Journal op-ed returned those images to the foreground, while providing proof once again that Kavanaugh is a good and decent man able to acknowledge that, in the heat of the hearing, he said a few things he should not have said.
He also presented proof once again of the Left’s ridiculous double-standard: Kavanaugh publishing an op-ed is nothing compared to sitting Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s penchant for inappropriate commentary. In fact, as Reuter’s—but few others—reported, Ginsburg cheered on the MeToo movement while implying the veracity of the charges against Kavanaugh in what the outlet called a “striking statement” on the eve of Kavanaugh and Ford’s testimony.
“Every woman of my vintage has not just one story but many stories, but we thought there was nothing you could do about it — boys will be boys — so just find a way to get out of it,” Justice Ginsburg, 85, told first-year law students at Georgetown University, adding: “So it was one complaint and then one after another the complaints mounted. So women nowadays are not silent about bad behavior.”
Ginsburg’s foray into the public sphere, though, goes much farther than these comments or anything Kavanaugh has said—either in his public hearings or the op-ed. In the heat of the 2016 election season, Ginsburg pontificated on presidential politics in an interview with The New York Times. “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” she said.
Days later, Ginsburg doubled-down on her swipe in another interview: “He is a faker,” she said, adding:
He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.
While the press portrayed the liberal jurist’s commentary as “candor,” Ginsburg apologized after a strong backlash. “On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised, and I regret making them,” she said in a statement. “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”
While the Left portrayed Kavanaugh’s defense of himself as demonstrating a judicial temperament ill-suited to the Supreme Court, an apology by Ginsburg for her blatantly political commentary did satisfy liberals.
Of course, we all know why: Roe v. Wade. You know, that Supreme Court decision which, as Ginsburg explained with her typical candor in an interview for The New York Times Magazine, was decided at a time when “there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”