Short Take: Rationalizing Kavanaugh’s Assassination

Did you know that a mentally ill man from California traveled to the Maryland neighborhood of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to kill him? By now, you probably do, or at least  you’ve heard passing mention of it. It’s not as if he succeeded and a justice was assassinated.

Simi Valley resident Nicholas Roske, 26, called  911 to say he was suicidal and planned to kill Kavanaugh. He had a Glock 17 pistol, ammunition, a knife, zip ties, pepper spray, duct tape. He made clear his purpose and his reasoning.

Roske told police he was upset by a leaked draft opinion suggesting the Supreme Court is about to overrule Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion case. He also said he was upset over the school massacre in Uvalde, Texas, and believed Kavanaugh would vote to loosen gun control laws, the affidavit said.

As Nate Silver made clear, it wasn’t a story worthy of being above the fold. It wasn’t even worthy of page one. It was a story. Just not a big story.

At VC, Josh Blackman explained, the problem wasn’t that the New York Times lacked space to put it up top, but that a choice was made about what was fit to print.

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.

Perhaps some of you will see the choice of using page one for more important stories. Ukraine remains a big story, and the January 6 Committee will be putting on a play on TV tonight. Any story relating to Trump is huge at the Times. It’s made a fortune off him, luring readers with the sordid tales of his momentary malfeasance, and then beating it to death until the next outrage, minutes later.

Isn’t the attempted assassination of a Supreme Court justice for his anticipated ruling contrary to the way in which some want the court to rule a big deal? Isn’t it bigger than, say Kelly Clarkson or, as one finds in the upper right corner of the NYT website, the huge story of the scarcity of lifeguards?

I shared Nate Silver’s concern in a twit, and I learned something. No, it seems, it’s not a big deal to many of you. In fact, not only is it not a big deal, but Kavanaugh asked for it. Kavanaugh deserves it. Kavanaugh can just get some guards and live with the threat of  being assassinated for what he’s done.

What he’s done? The “explanation” is that his siding with the anticipated majority in Dobbs makes him “responsible” for destroying the lives of millions of women. That he came to the Court demonized on the left as a “rapist” didn’t help, and made him particularly unworthy of the slightest concern, but now he’s part of the conservative majority bent on reversing the  social progress made in the past 50 years. Maybe it’s not quite that he deserves to die for it, but a great many won’t shed a tear if it happened. Boo hoo, Bretty. Sucks to be you.

Criticizing judges for ruling contrary to the way you passionately desire them to rule is not merely an American tradition, but our right. Assassinating them for it is sick. Shrugging off the idea that a Supreme Court justice might be assassinated for ruling the “wrong way” may not be quite as sick as actually going to Maryland with a gun to do it, but it is still deeply, horribly sick. And burying the story on page 5, below the fold, isn’t much better.

19 thoughts on “Short Take: Rationalizing Kavanaugh’s Assassination

  1. Hunting Guy

    H. L. Mencken.

    “ A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier.”

  2. DaveL

    Kavanaugh can just get some guards and live with the threat of being assassinated for what he’s done.

    Well, Kavanaugh can, he’s a Supreme Court justice. The rest of us are left to our own devices when somebody incites the crazies against us.

    1. SHG Post author

      Is this the point DaveL, or the sort of thing a blithering idiot would say? If he can get guards, does that make it all good that people can’t get too worked up about people wanting to assassinate him? Are you really good with assassination as long as the guy can get some guards, Dave?

      Or in other words, what the fuck is wrong with you?

      1. DaveL

        Of course I’m not okay with assassination. I’m pointing out, perhaps too subtly, that the ones who *are* okay with it are the same who are incensed that the common man might retain the means to resist.

  3. Chairman of the Bored

    There is a simple litmus test for whether you continue to support the NYT. Do you buy the paper?

  4. Michael Shapiro

    Rates of mental illness are remarkably uniform across countries and cultures. What makes the USA exceptional is guns. As we have seen repeatedly, a crazy person with a gun can and does create mayhem and horror. And almost exclusively in the good old USA. That is the essence of the Roske story – another crazy with a gun. Thankfully, Roske had sufficient self-awareness of his mental problems that he turned himself in before he fulfilled his mission. And yes, the story belonged on page 1.

    1. SHG Post author

      One nutjob does not represent civic involvement from one side. Still, the broader lack of concern is deeply disturbing.

      Had this been Sonia or Ketanji, perhaps the NYT would have found room on the front page.

  5. Hunting Guy

    Vince Coglianese.

    “Holy crap. An *SPLC* poll finds that nearly half of young male Democrats approve of “assassinating a politician who is harming our country or democracy.”

    No link per rules.

    Me.

    “Holy crap indeed. What the hell is wrong with the younger generation?”

  6. Drew Conlin

    Here’s my attempt to articulate succinctly; In order for our society/ civilization to maintain order we should be shocked and appalled at this incident. We should react the same no matter who is targeted.
    Influential media ( nyt) seem to not care that downplaying an incident against one they don’t favor makes it ok for others to downplay incidents of those they do favor.

  7. phv3773

    It’s hard to know exactly why, but the story as reported was very thin. More “crazy man stops in time” and less “Supreme Court Justice seconds from death.” The importance was in the potential, not in the actual event.

  8. Hal

    I just read that an abortion rights group, “Ruth Sent Us”, has urged targeting justice Coney Barrett’s children. No link, per the rules, but the story was in the Nat’l Review.

    Despicable? Reprehensible? Abhorrent? I can’t find term to adequately express my revulsion.

Comments are closed.