Press Coverage on the Assassination Attempt of Justice Kavanaugh

The New York Times lists sixteen news stories above the attempted murder of a Justice.

If you log onto NYTimes.com now, and check above the fold, you will see a lovely story about the Jurassic Park cast and Kelly Clarkson's performance. If you scroll down, down, down, down, down, you will find a story about the attempted assassination of a Justice. By my count, the Kavanaugh assassination attempt is perhaps the sixteenth most important news item of the day! Oh, and according to the Washington Post, Kavanaugh and his family were home last night.

I agree with Nate Silver.

I don't agree at all with blaming the leak for it, but yeah it's sort of crazy that it's not being treated as a bigger story (NYT homepage screenshot presented for posterity). There's often more bias in which stories are deemed to be salient than how they're written about. pic.twitter.com/aNJZAdmUG8

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) June 8, 2022

 

Comments

[Martinned]

Have you considered the possibility that you might be overreacting just a tiny bit?

[New signup]

Your leaders haven't told you what to think about it, but that doesn't mean the rest of us can't think.

[DaivdBehar]

There are 2 people lower than the lawyer. One is a serial rapist and murderer of children. The other is the journalist.

[DaivdBehar]

Biden would nominate a replacement if a conservative Justice were to be killed. This is part of the Replacement Theory.

[Lee Moore]

I agree. Prof B is overreacting at Warp Factor 2.

On the same scale the Jan 6 Committee, the DoJ, the media and roughly 50% of Volokh commentators are overreacting at Warp Factor 12.

Folk like to overreact.

[Josh R]

Are you equating the Jan 6 riot and this plot?

[MP]

Pretty sure that intent to murder does not morally equate to intent to disrupt.

[not guilty]

There was plenty of murderous intent among the January 6 rioters. The chants of "Hang Mike Pence" should give a clue.

[The original jack burton]

The local Home Depot was pretty much sold out of rope from what I hear. At least 1,000 nooses were seen across the District as people searched in every nook and cranny to find Pence so they could hang him off from the top of the Washington Monument.

[Leo Marvin]

How many nooses do you think it takes to hang Mike Pence?

[Martinned]

Is that some kind of variation on the familiar "How many X does it take to screw in a lightbulb?"

[Leo Marvin]

Might as well be.

[Trollificus]

That must have been a YUUUUGE crowd of white supremacists, since, as we have learned over the last few years, the presence of a noose, or a hangman's type knot, or, truth to tell, even a bit of rope in a loop, is a sure sign* of white supremacists.

*-for certain values of "sure"

[I Callahan]

And if you think they meant that literally, you really need to come out of your house now and then.

[Dick King]

You do realize that the "noose" was five feet high and was comically poorly constructed?

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/VTnbSXB1hTnhBj2GL7ZCMQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTcwNTtoPTEwNTguODMyMTk5NTQ2NDg1Mw--/https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/yqT_hzv__ovnUxzg7D5N5Q--~B/aD0zOTc0O3c9MjY0NjthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/https://media.zenfs.com/en/usa_today_news_641/1087b32b6317f927452bc8c04e89c99d

Kinda like the guillotine on Bezos' driveway.

-dk

[Life of Brian]

Or the guillotine just outside the White House, complete with Trump effigy?

All sorts of arrests/convictions over that one as I recall.

[Sarcastr0]

So that was just one of those protest chants like you do when breaking into a place where the person you're talking about hanging is supposedly stealing an election.

[Life of Brian]

like you do when breaking into a place where the person you're talking about hanging is supposedly stealing an election

One of the most significant problems you "worst insult to the Republic since the Civil War" folks have is there's not a "you" royal enough to support overwrought sentences like that.

[not guilty]

I didn't suggest they had the ability; I said they had the intent.

[Josh R]

The "intent to disrupt"! You made a funny.

[David Bremer]

"intent to disrupt" --> Nice euphemism for trying to disrupt the normal transition of power and install a leader who was not democratically elected.

[Lee Moore]

Josh : Are you equating the Jan 6 riot and this plot?

Good Lord, no. This plot might actually have changed the course of the United States' Ship of State. Nothing that happened on Jan 6 would have done so. We know that because whatever it was that the folk strolling through the Capitol, having been invited in by the cops, were intending to do, they actually went ahead and did it, and it meant squat. The Jan 6 "plot" was not interrupted, it played out and nothing in the nature of changing the direction of either government or law happened.

Though the Jan 6 "plot" was more serious in one respect. The cops did shoot an unarmed woman dead , and another unarmed woman died while "rioting" in a prone position while a cop beat her over the head. Happily no one was killed outside Kavanaugh's house.

[Josh R]

This plot was worse than Jan 6 even though Jan 6 was about invalidating the results of an election, a core feature of democracy? Amazing!

[Lee Moore]

Of course it's more serious.

As I mentioned, nothing the Jan 6 protesters did could possibly have "invalidated the results of an election." Only the members of Congress were in a position to reject Electoral Votes. The only thing the Jan 6 protesters could have done to change the results would have been to shoot enough members of Congress until there was a majority of pro-invaliding Congresscritturs. Which they didn't. Nor did they plan to. The clue is - none of them were armed. Who knows what the circus on Capitol Hill will claim, but so far there has been not a whisper of any suggestion that anyone came to the Capitol with a plan to shoot anyone.

So their plan to "invalidate the results of the election" was similar to my plan to radically reform the US public education system. Aspirational not actual.

Meanwhile, the guy who turned up outside Justice Kavanaugh's house with a Glock 17 pistol, a tactical knife, pepper spray, zip ties, a hammer, screwdriver, crowbar and duct tape, and a self confessed plan to ice said Justice did have a plan that had a very realistic chance of changing the result of a Supreme Court case (with attendant effects on the ruling legal precedent) about which a sizeable fraction of the population is very exercised. And he had carried his plan a long way towards execution.

No doubt there are plenty of 24 year old potential Dr Evils sitting in their mother's basement in their underwear, concocting plans as to how they are going to seize power in the United States, or perhaps the world, from which dizzy heights they will arrange for quite horrible executions of everyone who has dissed them in the last 24 years.

But it would odd to describe these aspirations as "serious" in the absence of either a realistic plan to bring them into effect, and some serious strides towards implementation. Folk like this are more suited to being fitted up by the FBI for a "plot" to kidnap and murder the Governor of Michigan.

[Josh R]

Protestors! You made a funny too!

Your comment also reminds me of this defense. So long as you had no chance of succeeding (a dubious conclusion in this case), who cares how serious the goal is in terms of damage. Amazing!

[DaivdBehar]

Lee. Do you think I am over-reacting to the killing of 100 million people in the last 50 years by the lawyer profession?

[I Callahan]

If it were Sotomayor being threatened by some alt right loon, you wouldn’t have asked that question.

[Sarcastr0]

Hypothetical double standards are weak sauce.

[I Callahan]

No, they’re not. It’s exactly how progressives operate - via double standards.

[SimonP]

Yeah - the dude would never have been caught if he didn’t dial 911 himself and confess to what he had intended to do. Calling it an “assassination attempt” obfuscates what actually happened.

I don’t know how the media would have reported on it if Sotomayor was the target, but I do know that conservatives would be minimizing the “assassination attempt” as mere “thought crime.”

[y81]

The WSJ has the Kavanaugh story on the front page, number 2 in World-Wide News. Obviously judgments differ, but only martinned and Sarcastro would suggest that the judgments of the New York Times are absolutely impervious to political predisposition.

[Snorkle]

"Attempted assassination?"

My goodness but the vapors come easy to some.

[Lee Moore]

Well, he has been charged with attempted murder. So are the prosecutors having the vapors ?

[New signup]

The attempted murder himself repeatedly said he was there to attempt to murder. Who exactly are you to say he's incorrect?

[Martinned]

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/08/the-abandonment-defense-to-criminal-attempt-and-the-person-who-was-planning-to-kill-justice-kavanaugh/

[TwelveInchPianist]

Did you read it?

[Martinned]

Yes, and I was not at all surprised to discover that most American jurisdictions opted for the most draconian of the different approaches on offer. That does not, however, take away from the fact that someone who admits to attempting something may not actually be legally guilty of attempt.

[avb]

If he "crossed state lines" with a gun, it should be story number one.

[Martinned]

Don't worry. Without Tucker Carson in his corner, I'm sure this guy won't see daylight for quite some time.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Senator Schumer is far more culpable for this than the True President, Trump was for 1/6

[DaivdBehar]

The suicidal assassin was obeying the orders of Schumer.

[Lee Moore]

The BBC's story is No. 2 in its US and Canada section with the robust headline :

"US man charged with attempted murder of Justice Brett Kavanaugh"

and a pretty straight story.

It also makes it to number 6 in its World section, which seems fair enough.

The headline link, though, both on the World section and the US and Canada section says :

"US man charged over threatening top court justice"

which doesn't really grab the imagination. You can imagine 90% of readers skipping that one. The editor could probably imagine that too 🙂

[WPHDM]

Der Spiegel (Germany): "Brett Kavanaugh. Bewaffneter Mann vor Haus von Supreme-Court-Richter festgenommen." (Armed Man arrested in front of Supreme Court Justice's home), almost the same wording as Bloomberg and WSJ.

Dated: 08.06.2022, 18.13 Uhr local time, so around noon. Not bad.

[Josh R]

It was the second story on the NBC Nightly News.

[Randal]

And... it's on the front page of the New York Times!

Normally that's pretty impressive... I'm not sure I get the complaint here, especially since nothing actually happened. The guy decided on his own not to go through with it. I'm sure that happens 1000 times a day. Granted, most of those people don't make it all the way to a Supreme Court Justice's house armed, but still.

You think a nothing-actually-happened story should be not only on the front page but like, the top headline?

[William Cheswick]

This kind of story placement is precisely why I stopped subscribing to the NYT after reading it for decades.

[Randal]

And your anecdote explains the story placement.

Story placement, especially on a website, is always optimized to drive eyeballs and clicks. Usually it's algorithmic, and often it's realtime (articles move around based on the clicks they're getting). Many times it's even personalized, so your placement will be tailored to highlight what the site thinks you'd be most likely to click on.

So naturally, as conservatives abandon the NYT for more... emotionally stimulating news sources, its article placement will come to reflect the preferences of its remaining, progressive readership. There's nothing the NYT can even do about it, really. Promoting stories that your actual readers don't care about is just bad business.

[WPHDM]

RE: Individualized news feeds and ranking of stories.

Well, that's one of the problems with online news. Wasn't so with the paper version where the editorial news judgment determined what all readers got without any customization for readership segments, not to mention individually. It contributes to polarization and radicalization.

[Social Justice is neither]

So the NYT obfuscating bad news for Dems, driving away conservatives proves they were right all along? It is more proof Dems cannot reason and will resort to any lie or fallacy to be "right".

[William Cheswick]

I was reading the dead tree version at the time, so no special placement for me.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Does The New York Times talk about how bad (an academic embarrassment for South Texas and Georgetown) Today In Supreme Court History and Prof. Blackman's contributions to this blog in general are?

[Krayt]

Is it under all the news that is fit to print?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Not a fan of one of America's great newspapers -- much as you dislike modern America, clinger?

[William Cheswick]

I love modern America. I just don’t cling to news organizations that no longer practice good-faith journalism.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Could you identify some modern American news organizations you consider admirable, noble, and/or acceptable?

Thank you.

[William Cheswick]

WSJ’s news sections get it close.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You sound like a disaffected clinger.

Nothing replacement won't solve.

[Ben_]

Perhaps we should consider using the amendment process to change the constitution from now on. Then judges can go back to playing referee instead of trying to score (or prevent) goals and making themselves a target.

[CindyF]

Agreed. The Courts should never have deemed that abortion was a right set out in the constitution. If the people wanted an Amendment to set out such a right, they should have petitioned their representatives to ask for an Amendment doing so.

[Krayt]

That's not how the concept of rights works. The Constitution lists some, then observes (not declares) there are others not listed.

And the government only has powers granted to it.

Who in their right mind would grant the government power over sexuality?

[AmosArch]

A federal mandate for abortion clinics is neither explicitly or implicitly granted in the Constitution. If you rode around America in the 1700s asking Ben Franklin and Paul Revere and Co whether the Constitution grants a right to abortion clinics in every state you'd be thrown in the loony bin.

[Martinned]

So would asking whether the Constitution grants a right to divorce, or to women owning property. Or mentioning the internet, for that matter. I'm not sure why the opinion of a bunch of people who rebelled against the English because they wanted to pay less tax and steal more native American land should really count for anything.

[y81]

Umm, because they established the Constitution under which the Supreme Court sits? Unless your theory is that any nine people who manage to seize the building are entitled to render judgments binding upon the whole country?

[Joe_dallas]

Krayt
June.8.2022 at 7:49 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
That's not how the concept of rights works. The Constitution lists some, then observes (not declares) there are others not listed.

And the government only has powers granted to it.

Who in their right mind would grant the government power over sexuality?"

Who in their right mind would believe there is an unenumerated right to kill the unborn

[y81]

"Who in their right mind would grant the government power over sexuality?"--You're saying you want Harvey Weinstein released?

[Social Justice is neither]

Have you been paying attention to the abortion arguments for the last 40 years? You are correct that is not how it is supposed to be but that is how it is put forth in arguments.

[ThePublius]

That's funny, because what Kavanaugh, et.al., are doing here is reversing previous justices who "scored a goal" that lasted 50 years. Ha, ha, ha! And the decision says change the law!

[Ben_]

Correcting extreme excesses of bad courts is unfortunately necessary.

[Caphon]

"sort of crazy" that not treated as a bigger national news story. Just kinda. Assassination attempt makes it all the way to the residence of US Supreme Court justice, meh. Bring me something more meaty, like a story about a story about dinosaurs.

[Trollificus]

Atty Gen Garland: "Attempt on Justice Kavanaugh Shows Extent of White Supremacist Violence".

[y81]

Bring me Kardashians!

[CindyF]

Oh, the investigation is now in the hands of the FBI. It will be memory-holed or deemed the fault of "white supremacists", the perp will receive court-ordered counseling which will consist of two hours of meetings with some medical intern, and that will be that.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

The right wing echo chamber will blame this on Democrats just like they blame the Bush Republican plotted coup attempt of Trump on Democrats. The fact Roberts opposes overturning Roe means it is more likely that a Republican leaked this because apparently the Chief Justice is twisting arms to get a Republican justice to join him. So the leaker wants the Republicans to stand firm and overturn Roe/Casey.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are you concerned that a Democratic FBI director will act in a partisan manner in this regard, CindyF?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The FBI are the most rotten of the Federal Class.

I swear if I saw an FBI agent drowning in a ditch, I would probably point and chuckle.

[Krayt]

I'd help her. It's nice to have people owe you if push comes to shove.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Attracting jerks like this is the best today's right-wing legal academics can muster?

Better Americans seem to have entered the "coast to comprehensive victory" phase of the American culture war.

[DaivdBehar]

Hi, Rev. Do you support the assassination of a Justice and his Replacement by one of his superiors, a diverse?

[Sarcastr0]

The super-liberal FBI may be one of the wilder right-wing tropes out there.

[I Callahan]

True to your name as usual, but also as usual, all sizzle, no steak. His point is valid, and any cursory look at the history of the FBI should make you conclude that the FBI is corrupt to its core, and always has been.

[Joe41 2]

Here's a thought, if this guy was successful in "rebalancing the supreme Court" through violence, would Biden be able to avoid giving him what he wanted and not appoint a new Justice before the elections?

I'm not so sure...

The thought keeps occurring to me that control of the supreme Court, Congress, and the White House wouldn't be so high stakes if the federal government was still weak like originally intended.

A weak federal government allows Utah to do its own thing and California to do its own thing, which allows them to live together peacefully in the same country. A strong federal government allows whoever controls it to impose their will on a state highly dissimilar to their own. This is where the conflict arises.

It's almost getting to a point where the red States and the blue states are so dissimilar that they can't tolerate living under the same roof because they have to share the same bed, instead of living on separate floors like intended.

[Jerry B.]

Just a crazy guy. Nothing to do with the Democrat’s media blitz about the end of democracy when SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade and we become a Handmaid’s Tale theocracy.

[Trollificus]

Really. I mean, it's not like the wholly owned-and-operated arm of the DNC that is the mainstream media told the guy something criminally inciteful, like, to peacefully go home. amirite?

[Longtobefree]

Well, if I were writing a book about an attempted assassination, I would never have the villain carrying his gun inside a suitcase.

[Longtobefree]

There is more here - - - - - - - -

[mydisplayname]

I was alive when the Pentagon Papers were published and I was alive when many of the events those Papers documented took place. The dearth of public information during the [Lyndon] Johnson Administration was the result of cover-up by the government: the dearth of public information during the Biden Administration is largely the result of cover-up by major legacy media outlets. It is one thing for information to be unavailable and another for truthful information to be ignored.

At present, British, Indian, and Chinese media outlets often report US matters more quickly and more accurately than do US legacy media outlets such as New York Times and Washington Post.

[John F. Carr]

I have been getting a lot of my news from France 24 and Al Jazeera (except the opinion pieces, which are clearly labeled as such so I know to avoid them).

And some from UATV, but with full knowledge that it's Ukrainian propaganda.

[WPHDM]

RE: Assassination Attempt of [sic] Justice Kavanaugh - Huh?

Shoudn't that have been "on" the Justice to avoid accusing the Honorable of something felonious and committing defamation per se in the process?

Turning to substance, what do we make of the would-be assassin's candid profession of mens rea? Was he expecting to receive a presidential pardon perhaps for the wicked deed, or at least go down in history as patron saint of all abortionists of the world united? Urbi (Beltway) et orbi (wokedom at large).

[bacchys]

Nothing happened. He was stopped and arrested without anyone getting hurt.

You can let go of those pearls.

[Jerry B.]

And the Proud Boys didn’t overthrow the government, but they’re still being prosecuted for sedition.

[Josh R]

And this guy is still being prosecuted.

[I Callahan]

He is. But according to Bacchys, that shouldn’t be the case.

[Leo Marvin]

"Stop pearl clutching" means "don't prosecute?"

[damikesc]

Dramatically less pearl clutching over this assassination attempt than the mostly peaceful trespassing on 1/6.

[I Callahan]

“Nothing happened”. His first 2 words. I’d say that’s a bit more than “stop clutching your pearls”.

[Joe41 2]

No congressman died on Jan 6, we should totally minimize that too...

[Trollificus]

Look, just because the event has a sad, or even tragic outcome like "no congressmen died", doesn't make it automatically illegal.

And surely, those MAGA yahoos might have stumbled onto the room in which the fabled "Levers of Power" we hear so much about are kept, and then...well, I guess somehow we'd have been taken over and democracy murdered. Not sure how the Libs figure that would work.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Oh Jesus....

Meanwhile, Pelosi STILL hasn't taken up the Senate bill to provide additional police protection to the families of the SCOTUS Justices.

What's she waiting for? Someone to die?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

She should insist on a big concession from the clingers before she does anything.

No free swings.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I'm sorry RAK, what?

She should insist on "concessions" before having increased police protection for the families of SCOTUS justices? In the wake of an attempted assassination of one of the SCOTUS justices?

Is that REALLY your view?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Republicans make Democrats grovel for straightforward government maintenance votes (money for transactions Congress —including Republicans — have already approved, for example). Democrats should respond in kind. Universal background checks might be an apt negotiating point in this context.

No free swings, especially not for bigoted clingers.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Wow..... And when a justice's family is killed? Then what?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

And when another classroom full of teachers and elementary school children is sacrificed at the altar of antisocial gun nuts . . . Then what?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Here's the difference RAK. We know about the threat ahead of time. And you choose to do nothing.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There is no distinction. We know about both threats.

One threat is being addressed more than the other . . . and it isn't the one that has you aflutter.

[not me]

You know which classroom full of teachers and elementary school children is going to be attacked next by antisocial gun nuts? Or even one of the next nine targets?
As you so often ask of others: Have you reported this to the authorities?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

And if you believe what you are saying about importance and urgency, you would negotiate with the background checks most Americans support.

Maybe we should insist on registration, though.

[Bored Lawyer]

Ah yes, the brown shirt surfaces again.

[Voize of Reazon]

We just had an incident where a malefactor saw the posted security detail and not only abandoned his plan but turned himself in to the authorities, demonstrating that the existing security is adequate and effective. I had thought you would be opposed to spending to solve nonexistent problems.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Jesus....we had a lucky coincidence. The security detail was there because the Justice was in the house. The protection detail doesn't extend to the Justice's family. If Kav wasn't in the house, the security detail wouldn't have been there.

The bill is meant to protect the Justices' families. There is a clear and present danger. Do you want to put the Justice's families at risk of death?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Quit whining, drama queen.

[Voize of Reazon]

The security detail was there because the Justice was in the house.

Where did you hear this?

AG Garland authorized the Marshals to provide 24/7 security around the homes of the Justices a month ago, in addition to the personal security already provided.

The Senate bill you are interested in would allow the Marshal of the Supreme Court to issue regulations also authorizing personal security for the immediate families of the Justices and officers of the Supreme Court. A valuable step so we don't have to rely on the AG stepping in to make these kinds of security decisions, but since he has stepped in I don't see the "clear and present danger" you do.

[damikesc]

Well, Pelosi also turned down Trump's suggestion for 10,000 Guardsmen for 1/6...so she's consistent.

[Stephen Lathrop]

How many Uvalde school shooting threads for this blog so far? How many for the Kavanaugh incident? How comparable do they seem?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Wait until tomorrow, when young Blackman excoriates Fox News for refraining from broadcasting the insurrection hearing. You’ll regret accusing this white, male blog of hypocritical, polemical partisanship then!

Carry on, clingers.

[Bill Falcon]

Hmmmmm...well this is the bolshevik NYT. Great history of downplaying genocides (Ukraine starvation via their hero Troytsky), largest lynching on American soil (Italians..an ethnic group the bolshies despise).

[TwelveInchPianist]

Hey, relax, it was a mostly peaceful assassination attempt.

[not guilty]

Isn't it peculiar that there is more concern on this blog about SCOTUS Justices than there is about victims of the carnage at Buffalo and Uvalde?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Your attempted diversion from political assassinations is noted.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Your pathetic gun nuttery will be stomped by your betters. People who value guns more than children deserve everything their betters are going to impose in them..

Carry on, clingers. So far as better Americans permit. No further..

[the questing vole]

And we proud clingers with guns will happily face down epicene nancy-boys like Ms. Kirkland when the need comes.

[Martinned]

And when do you think that might be?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

All-talk right-wing bigots, muttering bitterly and blustering impotently after getting stomped into political and cultural decline by their betters, are among my favorite culture war casualties.

You have been complying with your betters' preferences like a good little clinger throughout your deplorable, obsolete life, and nothing is likely to change that trajectory. This is why you are desperate, disaffected, likely delusional, and defeated.

(Well, that and conservatives' general bigotry, superstition, economic inadequacy, concentration in can't-keep-up backwaters, stale thinking, and lack of education. If you come to the marketplace of ideas with the conservative platform, expect and prepare to be routed by better ideas and better people.)

Thank you for your continuing compliance, loser.

(You get to continue to whimper as much as you like. But you will toe that line, clinger.)

[Da5id]

Totally bizarre that a legal blog is really interested in an attempted murder (or so he is charged) of a sitting supreme court justice with contentious cases about to drop. Really hard to bend one's head around that.

And tbh, focusing on topic selection rather than the issue at hand is deflection. Bloggers blog about what interests them. On your blog you could blog to your hearts content about what interests you. And, additionally, clearly this issue interests you enough that you read the article and are posting in the thread so, um, what are we talking about again?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why is group of white, male, conservative bloggers so interested in repeated publication of a vile racial slur?

(If you don't try to answer I will understand.)

Here's another John Lyon-Steven Van Zandt collaboration.

[Trollificus]

This is you, using a gas light to find your straw man.

Kinda sad, really, but carry on.

[santamonica811]

One of the rare times I agree with Josh. It's an odd editorial decision, and it's worth pointing out.
(I'll also note that both MSNBC and CNN spent a HUGE amount of time on the story earlier today.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

santamonica811 — Seems to me like a quintessential NYT-style approach to the news. Remember first that the NYT is a primary news gatherer, not an aggregator.

On first impression, the story has complications. If you want to write the news accurately, you have to disregard what other folks are telling you, and find out for yourself, by use of news gathering, exactly what happened.

Is this instance a determined assassination attempt forcibly stopped in progress? Is it a case of a mentally disturbed would-be assassin who gave up and surrendered even before security people recognized him as a threat? Did anything which happened actually put Kavanaugh and his family in deadly jeopardy?

How much do those nuances matter legally? How much do they matter for allocating further reportorial effort? How much do they matter for writing a report right now, amidst a boiling public controversy among parties who are assuming without knowledge various answers to those questions and others?

Those questions probably have answers, and and as of this morning's NYT, the editors did not know from their own sources what those answers were. But in this case, there was a breaking story which could not go unmentioned. So they mentioned it. They gave it less exposure because they judged their own knowledge short of the standard. Of course they did that without trying to get to conclusory stuff which other people are willing to assume, and which the NYT usually tries to discipline itself not to guess about.

A great deal of right-wing grievance about so-called, "mainstream media," seems to me to be rooted in a misunderstanding about what standards are at play, and how long it can sometimes take to satisfy them. To right wingers, that may look like systematic attempts to bury big stories, but only because the aggrieved right wingers have no idea themselves what proof of their allegations would look like, and how hard it might be to get that proof in some cases. Frankly, right wingers do not typically care as much about finding proof for shocking allegations as the NYT does.

[Stephen Lathrop]

To continue a thought from my comment above, if you were around for Watergate, you may remember that for months during the news-breaking part of that story, the NYT trailed the Washington Post by several days in its reporting. That happened because Woodward and Bernstein were typically reporting less information than they already had facts to prove. That kept the Post ahead on breaking the news, while also keeping the Post safe from major mistakes. A person skilled at news reading could quite often infer what missing information the Post must already have, and thus guess successfully about future stories which would shortly follow.

I do not think the Post did that for competitive advantage, although it worked out that way. It made it very hard for the NYT and others to just pick up the Post's stories and run with them, on faith that they were accurate. So the Post stayed days ahead of other papers until the focus of the Watergate story shifted to formal investigatory coverage.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Let's be clear here.

It is IMPERATIVE that the POTUS and both chambers of Congress condemn this in the strongest possible terms. Furthermore, the following must happen.

1. Pelosi must immediately pass the protection bill for the families of the SCOTUS judges that near unanimously passed in the Senate nearly a month ago (if not more). It is disturbing in the extreme that she has not done so.

2. A joint statement must be made by the POTUS and Congress that if a politically oriented assassination of a SCOTUS occurs, that Justice will immediately be replaced by someone of a similar judicial orientation. That means that if a "conservative" justice is assassinated, the GOP will be allowed to pick and confirm the successor.

As for point 2...here's why. If targeted assassination becomes a "means" to change SCOTUS judges and the resulting interpretation of laws of the country....it won't stop here. It inevitably won't stop. If assassination HAS NO EFFECT on the laws, then people won't pursue it. But if it is demonstrated to have a desired affect....logically, it will happen again.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Speaker Pelosi should delay another week or so simply to scorn your impotence and impertinence.

After the Trump experience, bitter, bigoted, un-American clingers are in no position to dictate anything to their betters.

What concessions are Republicans prepared to offer in exchange for Democratic cooperation In this context? Some of you clingers seem to think this is important, so you need to offer something big.

[Armchair Lawyer]

The safety and stability of America is important RAK, not to mention the lives of the Justice's families if they are directly threatened (as they are).

Holding them as proverbial hostages is shameful in the extreme. The center cannot hold if extremists like you have their way.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you forget the debt ceiling brinksmanship?

Cry some more, then let us know when you are serious about negotiations..

No free swings, wingnuts.

[the questing vole]

Well, the first thing Pelosi has to do is to get her husband out of the drunk tank. The party of Ms. Kirkland (i.e. the deadbeats, perverts, criminals, termagants, and baby-killers) will continue to try to take our guns, and decent Americans will continue to say 'cold, dead hands' to these pansies.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

One of the best parts of winning the culture war is enjoying the powerless, feckless, worthless whimpering of its doomed, deplorable conservative casualties.

Now be nicer, the questing vole, or your betters may stop being so gracious in victory.

[the questing vole]

So Ms. Kirkland, our 'betters' consist of a senile gerontocracy, a potpouri of semi-literate minority groups with the lowest collective educational achievments and the highest rate of violence in the Western world, an odd assortment of Brownshirt terrorists, and almost everyone who lives off sucking the government's teat (my guess is that Ms. Kirkland is either a mid-level bureaucrat at the DMV, a groomer/elementary school teacher, or most likely, a Professor of Education.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Your betters are the Americans who prefer reason to superstition, tolerance to bigotry, science to dogma, education to ignorance, progress to backwardness, modernity to insularity.

Our strongest research and teaching institutions to backwater religious schooling and fourth-tier (or worse) conservative-controlled campuses.

Our educated, accomplished, productive, modern communities to desolate, half-educated, bigoted, can't-keep-up backwaters.

The people whose preferences generate the rules with which clingers like you have been complying throughout your deplorable, bigoted, gullible, downscale lives.

I eagerly await your replacement, clinger. You get to whimper and bluster about it as much as you like, of course.

[the questing vole]

There is no whimpering here. The emasculated and most certainly epilated Ms. Kirkland is the simpering gimp. Of course, this pedophile cannot answer my description of her/its allies in the destruction of Western civilization because she/it is an illiterate moron. It is, however, nice to have you your here spewing your irrationalist nonsense so that there is no doubt about who the enemy is.

[Martinned]

You forgot

3. Congress and the President must urgently do something about any random nutcase being able to buy a machine gun, or any other lethal weapon for that matter.

[Armchair Lawyer]

We already did #3. It effectively impossible for a "random nutcase" to buy a "machine gun" in the United States.

[Brett Bellmore]

LOL!

No, it's effectively impossible for a random nutcase to legally buy a machine gun in the US.

It's also illegal for them to buy meth, too.

[damikesc]

"Lethal weapons" would include fists, you realize.

[SimonP]

A joint statement must be made by the POTUS and Congress that if a politically oriented assassination of a SCOTUS occurs, that Justice will immediately be replaced by someone of a similar judicial orientation.

Gosh, it sure would be easier to take this seriously as a proposed solution if McConnell hadn't blockaded Garland's nomination for nearly a year, in order to "save" the seat for Trump, and then rushed through Barrett, in order to "grab" Ginsburg's seat. To say nothing of what's to come if the GOP regains the Senate in 2022.

Republicans would abandon this solemn vow in a moment. Just another call by conservatives that liberals unilaterally "disarm."

[fafalone]

So you're mad NYT pulled a Fox News?

[I Callahan]

They did? How?

[Leo Marvin]

Fox News isn't covering tomorrow's 1/6 Committee public hearings.

[Trollificus]

Sooo...you win a point because you can accuse Fox of doing future things that are worse than the actual things other media outlets have actually done?

Are you sure you have a good grasp on this whole "argumentation" thing?

[Leo Marvin]

I wasn't arguing. I was answering a question. Jeez. Take a pill.

[damikesc]

"Fox News isn't covering tomorrow's 1/6 Committee public hearings."

Not covering a DNC campaign ad is bad? How, exactly?

[Leo Marvin]

I never said it's bad, though I do happen to think it's not great. But I doubt it would be productive to explain why to someone who considers the hearings a DNC campaign ad.

[A. Friend]

Focusing on the assassination attempt would undermine their coverage of the congressional hearings by showing that democrats too can be violent and riotous

[AtR]

Nothing to see ... just another rando trying to assassinate a supreme court justice.

[Jimmy the Dane]

If you were wondering if a sizable number of Leftists wish this murder attempt actually worked, just go to Twitter and check out what verified "blue check" users are saying openly, uncensored, for all to see. It is some disgusting stuff.

[DWB]

Democrats have been killing their opponents going back to Lincoln ... DA FUCK??????

Cold civil wars get hot REAL quick over stuff like this.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There is no war left to influence, DWB. the culture war is not quite over, but it has been settled.

Keep blustering, though, if it makes you feel better as you move toward replacement by your betters. It won't change anything, but it might help you cope.

[F.D. Wolf]

It is troubling. We all know that if this had been an armed individual outside the home of a liberal justice, the coverage would be quite different, an incessant fever pitch of hysteria, condemning Donald Trump, Republican rhetoric, and the ubiquitous scourge of right-wing domestic terrorism, etc. Republican leaders would be falling over each other to see who could condemn this as quickly and vociferously as possible.

Has anyone in American history ever been charged with trying to kill a Supreme Court justice? (Honest question. I honestly don't know, but I don't think so). Seems like kinda a big deal.

[Martinned]

Yes, and meanwhile Blackman and Fox News would accuse everyone of overreacting. Everybody's a hypocrite, what else is new?

[F.D. Wolf]

No, they wouldn't. You're projecting. Leftists wish harm on their political opponents, so they believe conservatives do too. As the saying goes, the thief thinks everybody steals.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Leftists wish harm on their political opponents, "

That's a dumb statement, even for a gullible, disaffected, bigoted clinger.

[not me]

Well, there is at least ONE leftist who wishes harm on his political opponents, anyway.

[Da5id]

So... much... gaslighting in this thread.

[SimonP]

Personally, I've spent so many months listening to conservatives wave off the January 6 insurrection as just a bunch of "tourists," describe prosecutions of Proud Boys and other insurrections as "political witch hunts," and claim that the Second Amendment is primarily about arming the people in the event that the government turns tyrannical, that I'm desensitized to what turned out to be a fairly underwhelming "assassination attempt" on a justice sitting on a Supreme Court that is insulated from any kind of political accountability and whose membership is wildly out of sync with the population of this country.

Isn't this, exactly this, what you want to happen, when the government over-reaches? So why are you all crying bloody murder when someone takes you up on the offer? There are people bitching about Pelosi sitting on a bill to further empower the federal government to protect judges and justices, like more government is what is needed here. And this post is bitching about... placement of a story that is covered in full?

Conservative nutters, what makes your violent fantasies of popular revolution acceptable, but not this guy's? Why is violence okay when you are fighting for your freedom, but not this guy fighting for his?

[SimonP]

Not even a week ago, a retired NYPD officer was arrested outside the U.S. Capitol. He presented himself (with a fake badge) as an investigator with INTERPOL, and was armed with ballistic vests, high-capacity magazines, and what was described in reports as a "BB gun." The story saw zero coverage in the mainstream newspapers I follow, and has been treated as primarily a local NYC story (despite the fact that this 50-some-year-old pensioner now lives in Michigan). Never mind the lack of coverage here.

In case you wanted to compare how this attempted "assassination" is being treated to how a similar terroristic "attempt" by the right-wing is being treated.

[M L]

You gotta laugh at the leftists here getting up off their fainting couch over Jan 6 -- an event which looked like a church picnic compared to the murder and mayhem of BLM and Antifa that year, which they ignored -- just to say, geez Blackman, overreact much?

Moving on....

[blue heron]

Did you get your panties in a similar wad when George Tiller was murdered or Alice Hawthorne was killed by Eric Rudolph? Of course not. How about murders committed by James Kopp , Paul Jennings Hill , Scott Roeder , Michael F. Griffin, or Peter James Knight . Anti abortion violence goes on with regularity and its crickets with you but a justice gets threatened and the sky is suddenly falling. At least eleven anti abortion murders occurred in the United States since 1990, as well as 41 bombings and 173 arsons at clinics since 1977.