The Washington Post attempts to whitewash the murder plot against Justice Kavanaugh

A few days back, the Washington Post carried an op-ed by Ruth Marcus regarding the gunman who was apprehended outside Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh's home.

The piece began well, condemning the assassination plot as "horrifying and intolerable."  It also demanded that there be adequate security for that the justices, their families, and staff.  It also called for better funding to protect justices of all courts and measures to shield personal information.

The piece acknowledged the grave tragedy that could have occurred and placed the blame on those who create a climate of intolerance that may have fueled this dangerous moment.

Was this the rare occurrence, as rare as Halley's Comet, when the WaPo was standing up for what is morally right?

Unfortunately, this was merely the setup — i.e., a ploy to draw you in by feigning fairness.

The piece then pivots to the standard spinning, deceiving, and whataboutery that the WaPo is known for.

The piece urges its readers not to "assign blame or hijack the episode to reinforce preexisting conclusions" and that "deranged individuals do deranged things," which is true "at both ends of the political spectrum."

When the Democrats commit an egregious mistake, propagandists frequently attempt to dilute the impact by applying the "both sides" argument.

The piece proceeds to indulge in a bit of monkey balancing.  You can almost sense the effort here.

It quotes N.Y. Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer's vitriolic remarks targeting Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch — but covers that up by adding that Schumer said he did not intend to threaten the justices or incite violence.  It then adds that in the current environment, Schumer's language was "unnecessarily incendiary."

The false equivalence continues as the author compares Sen. Schumer's vile threats with Kavanaugh's remarks following his confirmation hearings: "You sowed the wind for decades to come.  I fear that the whole country will reap the whirlwind."

The piece initially misquoted Kavanaugh but fixed it later.

The piece also conveniently misses the context.  Kavanaugh was excoriating Democrats for their nefarious campaign of fabrications that attempted to derail his confirmation.  He was warning them that a similar campaign could be mounted against a liberal judge up for confirmation.  Most importantly, he did not say this before a mob as Schumer did, and Kavanaugh's tone was not provocative like that of Schumer. 

Since Politico published a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito that provides the rationale on why Roe v. Wade (1973), which legalized abortion nationwide, has to be overturned, there has been a relentless campaign of demonization and dehumanization of the conservative justices, with copious threats hurled at them.

But the piece paints a false equivalence, by comparing this wave of hate that led to an assassination plot with the murders of federal judges by disgruntled litigants.

A handful of federal judges have been killed in office, mostly by disgruntled litigants. In 2005, the husband and mother of a federal judge in Chicago were murdered. In 2020, the son of a federal judge was fatally shot at her home by a man who lost a case before her; there was evidence that the man was also targeting Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

The piece attempts the "both sides" maneuver referring to threats of violence faced by anti-segregationist Southern judges.  The inference the author wants her WaPo readers to draw is that the perpetrators were white supremacist Republicans.

There is a reference to the federal jurist from Alabama, Frank M. Johnson, Jr., whose historic civil rights decisions led to ostracism, cross-burnings, and death threats.  But Johnson was appointed by Republican president Eisenhower.  He was appointed to the Democrat South, which vehemently opposed desegregation.  Johnson famously took on staunch segregationist Democrat governor Wallace to ensure black voter registration and desegregation.

The piece then asks the following:

Do we now find ourselves in another such era, with abortion rights protesters taking the place of massive resisters?

And, if so, are Democrats who rail against the excesses, past, and future, of this Supreme Court complicit in the threat of violence in the same way that segregationist politicians spurred on Judge Johnson's attackers?

The author purposefully refers to Democrats and segregationist politicians as if they were separate entities.  But the truth is that the perpetrators of violence against Judge Johnson back then and Judge Kavanaugh right now are groups of violent extremists within the same Democrat party.

The piece proceeds to question if the Judiciary should enter into a political debate better left to the Legislative and Executive Branches.  If this thinking is followed, the courts will have no cases to adjudicate because everything from crime to science has been politicized.

The piece concludes by urging readers to be "thankful that the man arrested outside Kavanaugh's home did not get further with his scheme."  But it also warns people not to "read too much into one deranged individual's actions."

Since the piece is filled with whataboutery, let's imagine a scenario where an armed Trump-supporter was caught outside the home of one of the liberal Supreme Court justices.  Everyone from Biden to the WaPo would be placing the entire blame on President Trump and demand another impeachment.

These people continue to blame the GOP and Trump after every mass shooting despite it truly being a sole mentally unstable individual.

But since it is a liberal intending to kill for liberal causes, it is just "one deranged individual," nothing to see here; let's move on.

The author also conveniently forgets the various incidences of violence after the leak.  Miscreants had vandalized Catholic churches and pregnancy centers.  Hoodlums tossed a Molotov cocktail into the offices of a pro-life group.  Profanity-laced demonstrations outside the homes of conservative justices have been going on for over a month.

These are not isolated incidences of violence, but the result of a toxic campaign that emanated from Washington, where the powers that be gave an impression that women will be pushed back to the Stone Age if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

The gunman probably sees himself as a civil rights activist who is bravely taking matters into his hands because Kavanaugh was going to do great harm to women.

We now look at the record of the author of the piece.  She wrote pieces entitled "We now see stark evidence of Trump's toxic judicial legacy"; "Another activist Trump judge strikes, this time at the mask mandate"; "The FBI's 'investigation' of Kavanaugh was laughable"; and "The impeachment of Donald Trump must proceed."

This piece is more proof that the mainstream media are devoid of any morality.  They will do all in their power to defend the left and their operatives. 

This piece reads like the works of a Democrat spokesperson.  This is because the mainstream media function as a department of the Democrat party.

However, even as a piece of propaganda, it is weak, verbose, unfocused, and unconvincing.

The only reason it merits our attention is that it reveals the thinking within Washington and the thinking that influences Washington.

If you experience technical problems, please write to