On Thursday night, MSNBC’s Hardball host Chris Matthews was in a more jubilant mood than he might have been earlier in the week on the issue of stopping Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh thanks to the “profile in courage” from Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp (ND) in opposing Kavanaugh. With Heitkamp opposing the Judge, Matthews expressed optimism that there was a “road to hope” paved by other Senators from both sides of aisle who might “protect its constitutional role” in not “bowing to the executive.”



WASHINGTON — If you have read enough pro-Kavanaugh articles, give this one a pass. You are not going to like it. Yet if you have not heard enough, you will probably like this one. I have nothing but congratulatory things to say about Judge Brett Kavanaugh. As with Justice Clarence Thomas, he is a fighter. He is a gifted defender of the truth. And he is worthy of serving on the highest court in the land. I would trust my case with him, and I would trust yours, too, whether you are with him now or against him. He believes in the rule of law.



How did we get here? The Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination circus didn't happen by accident. The emergence of incredible — and by “incredible,” I mean the literal Merriam-Webster definition of “too extraordinary and improbable to be believed” — accusers in the 11th hour was no mistake. It is my contention that this grand unearth-and-destroy spectacle was planned, coordinated and facilitated by Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats and their staffers.



The New York Times found the Senate torn apart by the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, and blamed the lack of decorum on -- the Republicans and Brett Kavanaugh, for daring to respond to unsubstantiated accusations of sexual assault and Democratic chicanery. Reporter Nicholas Fandos tut-tutted under the headline “Kavanaugh Hearing Shows Drift From Decorum.” Fandos bewailed the lost sense of senatorial civility, which conveniently coincided with Republicans and Supreme Court nominee fighting back against an unsubstantiated accusation of sexual assault.



As Cory Booker is making it harder and harder to take him seriously, what with all his bloated grandstanding during the Kavanaugh hearing, coupled with the growing weight of his hypocrisy as an admitted groper of women, the Democratic senator has set his sights on political fundraising in Hollywood.

 


On Saturday's CNN Newsroom, host Ana Cabrera did not bother to fact check former Senator Barbara Boxer when the far-left California Democrat wrongly claimed that President Donald Trump "wants to put women in jail" for having abortions.



On Sunday's AM Joy on MSNBC, NBC News columnist Kurt Bardella was again excoriating Republicans and injecting race into a political discussion as the panel covered the sexual assault accusations against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.



On New Day Saturday, liberal activist Linda Sarsour was given an unchallenged forum as a guest to rail against Brett Kavanaugh and the possibility of a conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court as CNN hosts Christi Paul and Victor Blackwell did not even bother to label her as a liberal activist.



On Friday's Real Time show, liberal HBO comedian Bill Maher made gay jokes about Senator Senator Lindsey Graham, including one in which he suggested that the South Carolina Republican needs his "dead boyfriend," John McCain, to make him stand up to President Donald Trump.



Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak was brazen in advancing a particularly audacious partisan argument -- that getting angry at being called a rapist by millions of people means you lack judicial temperament – on the front of Saturday’s New York Times: “Nominee’s Diatribe Poses Threat To Court’s Neutrality, Some Fear.” The online headline added an adjective: “A Bitter Nominee, Questions of Neutrality, and a Damaged Supreme Court.” Occasional columnist Roger Cohen advanced a similar phony argument in more virulent, racial terms.



The New York Times editorial page on Friday joined the paper's news pages in criticizing Brett Kavanaugh’s “angry” tone in defending himself against uncorroborated assault allegations during his Senate Judiciary Committee testimony on Thursday. And former executive editor Jill Abramson doesn't seem to know what “corroborating evidence" means.



The New York Times gave vastly different views of Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford regarding their extraordinary testimony, consistently chiding Kavanaugh as "angry" and "aggrieved" and calling his judicial temperament into question -- as if anger wouldn't be a perfectly reasonable response to false allegations of sexual assault. The paper was clearly disappointed with Sen. Lindsey Graham for his fierce attacks on Democrats.