The New York Times buried the horrible news of a confessed would-be assassin prowling outside Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home, intending to murder him for his opinions on gun control and abortion. It was on the bottom of page 20 inThursday’s edition: “Man With Pistol, Crowbar And Zip Ties Is Arrested Near Kavanaugh’s Home.” (Yes, the anti-gun nut was armed with a gun.)
If the Times truly treated both political parties the same, it would have criticized Sen. Chuck Schumer’s 2020 threat to Republican-appointed justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh as possibly instigating the would-be-killer’s actions, in the same manner in which it disgustingly portrayed Sarah Palin as possibly responsible for a schizophrenic’s murder of six people and attempted assassination of Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ).
The paper pointed to a Palin campaign map from March 2010 with crosshair targets over some Democratic-held congressional districts, though there was no evidence the assassin had even seen the map or was any kind of Palin fan.
The difference being that Palin’s rhetoric had absolutely no connection to the killer in Arizona, while Schumer did say in a speech, “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” And Schumer wasn’t talking about “paying the price” in an election either, since justices are appointed.
In a story about Democrats delaying a bill to bolster security for Supreme Court justices -- also buried on A-23 on Friday -- Jonathan Weisman at least noted Schumer’s inflammatory comment, but without offering up the whole quote. Weisman also didn’t offer up the comparison itself, but let it come from the mouth of a Republican, while telegraphing for its readership that it was a cynical Republican response, not to be wholly trusted:
Republican leaders accused Democrats on Thursday of worrying only about political violence when it was directed at them, sitting for a month on a bill that could pass the House unanimously. And hours before a prime-time hearing on the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by supporters of former President Donald J. Trump, they seemed to attempt to equate the Republican incitement on Jan. 6 with Democratic incitement against Supreme Court justices.
The Times wasn’t too mad about Schumer's March 2020 rant at the time, thinking it could help Democrats:
Democratic officials and their progressive allies said that while Mr. Schumer might have gone too far with his inflammatory words, they were not all that unhappy that the episode put new attention both on the Louisiana case at hand and the Republican push on the courts over all.