FACT CHECKED: NYT, WaPo, PolitiFact Debunk Dem Claims on Kavanaugh
WASHINGTON – Fact
checkers have been busy doling out Pinocchios, context and corrections on
Democratic attacks since President Donald Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh
to serve on the Supreme Court. Democratic leaders’ claims on Kavanaugh’s
nomination and his record on precedent, health care, the rule of law and
presidential power are being debunked faster than they can be invented.
With
many Democratic senators announcing their blanket opposition to any potential
nominee before Kavanaugh was even nominated, it’s no wonder Democratic leaders
are scrambling
to come
up with reasons to oppose him and are forced to resort to unsubstantiated
fiction.
Take
a look at what independent, third-party fact checkers are saying about
Democratic claims on Kavanaugh.
‘Very Wrong,’
‘Disingenuous,’ ‘Extreme Distortion,’ ‘Exaggerated,’ ‘No Evidence to Justify
These Theories’
Washington
Post:“For the record: Supreme Court nominees considered in ‘election years’”
“Bottom line: it’s pretty clear the
debate in 2016 revolved around nominations made in a presidential election
year. Democrats are simply spinning a false narrative.”
PolitiFact: “Bernie
Sanders’ claim that Brett Kavanaugh defies Supreme Court precedent a stretch”
Sanders
is “very wrong when he suggests Kavanaugh’s opinion is at odds with 200 years
of Supreme Court precedent.”
“We
rate this statement Mostly False.”
New
York Times:
“Democrats Overstate Kavanaugh’s Writings on the Affordable Care Act”
“As
they try to block his nomination to the Supreme Court, Senate Democrats have
exaggerated Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s hostility to the Affordable Care Act in
his public statements and writings.”
“Nicholas
Bagley, a professor of health law and administrative law at the University of
Michigan, disagreed with the Democrats’ framing of Judge Kavanaugh’s writings.”
Washington
Post:
“To say Kavanaugh is Trump’s ‘get-out-of-jail free card’ is an extreme
distortion of what he’s written”
“Kavanaugh’s
position in this article is different from saying the president can’t be indicted
under existing law.”
On
Kavanaugh’s opinion: “That’s a mainstream view.”
PolitiFact: “Many
Democrats have latched onto Kavanaugh’s statement about investigations into
presidents. But we found that Democrats aren’t telling the full story about
what Kavanaugh said."
“Schumer
is plucking one part of what Kavanaugh wrote in a 2009 Minnesota law review
paper without recapping his comments in full.”
Washington
Post:
“The thinly sourced theories about Trump’s loans and Justice Kennedy’s son”
“Scratching
below the surface, there’s no evidence to justify these theories.”
The
claims “are incendiary and worthy of Four Pinocchios.”