In an ideal world, Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation ordeal would go down as one of the most shameful moments in the history of SCOTUS confirmation hearings. But we don’t live in an ideal world. More to the point, our media is so far removed from any semblance of ideal, and in fact, could not in good faith even be described as passably honest in their analyses of these matters.

Case in point, a recent editorial from the Washington Post in which they proclaimed that in contrast with what happened to Brett Kavanaugh, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has been treated “worse” during her hearings:

Republicans boast they have not pulled a Kavanaugh. In fact, they’ve treated Ketanji Brown Jackson worse, the Editorial Board writes https://t.co/HS2NOlmeFT

— Washington Post Opinions (@PostOpinions) March 24, 2022

Now, not even in an alternative reality would their assessment be true. Nevertheless, they give it their best shot, suggesting that questioning Jackson’s record on child sex predators, her work defending Gitmo detainees, and her associations with questionable organizations was much more shameful than being accused of being a serial rapist:

A woman credibly accused Mr. Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Democrats rightly asked the committee to investigate. After a superficial FBI review, Republicans pressed forward his nomination. In the end, it was Mr. Kavanaugh who behaved intemperately, personally attacking Democratic senators and revealing partisan instincts that raised questions about his commitment to impartiality.

By contrast, Republicans have smeared Judge Jackson based on obvious distortions of her record and the law. Mr. Graham and others painted her as a friend of child pornographers, despite the fact that her sentences in their cases reflect the judicial mainstream. Even conservative outlets had debunked these accusations before the hearings began. The more Judge Jackson argued for rationality in criminal sentencing — or attempted to, as Mr. Graham continually interrupted her — the more Mr. Graham ranted about the evils of child pornography, which Judge Jackson had already condemned repeatedly and her record plainly shows she takes seriously.

The discerning reader will recall that no, there were not, in fact, any “credible” accusations (not even one!) of rape against Kavanaugh beyond the fevered imaginations and deranged hopes of pro-abortion Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee and their hardcore faithful on the left and in the media.

Further, also of note is how the Washington Post apparently expects judicial nominees who are accused of being the ringleaders behind secret college gang rape cults that involved drugging women and lining up to rape their limp bodies to sit by quietly as a reputation they’ve worked decades to establish gets burned down by shamefully opportunistic political hacks for whom facts don’t matter.

You can best believe, however, that if Jackson had been accused of anything as remotely nefarious from her college years, if she had come out and defended herself in an aggressive manner similar to Kavanaugh’s, the WaPo would be “yaaas, qweening” her up one side and down the other.

The bottom line, or so the WaPo wants you to think, is that questioning from Republican Senators should be made “in good faith.” The problem, though, is that they never hold Democrats to this same standard. In fact, their ignoring of the abhorrent behavior displayed by Democrats during the Kavanaugh hearings (where, again, they falsely suggested the accusations were “credible”) pretty much proves the point.

It is not until we get to nearly the end of the editorial that the WaPo’s true motivations for writing what they did are confirmed:

Unfortunately, their colleagues’ antics distracted from their more productive questioning, and from what should have been the order of the day: recognizing the historic nomination of the first Black woman to sit on the Supreme Court and using the opportunity to probe thorny legal questions in good faith.

Two things: First, Judge Jackson is not on the Supreme Court yet. And two, notice what order the Washington Post put the “order of the day” items in. Priority One for them was the “historic” nature of Jackson’s nomination. Newsflash: that shouldn’t even factor into the equation. The fact that the paper included that as a rationale for conducting hearings in “good faith” just goes to show that pretty much everything they wrote in it about using them gauge Jackson’s judicial philosophy was hot garbage.

Lastly, their only acknowledgment that Democrats engage in partisan politics during confirmation hearings came at the very end of the piece, and it was a very tepid condemnation, with them giving the lion’s share of the blame to Republicans:

Neither side is blameless in the politicization of the confirmation process. But, particularly after they iced out then-Judge Merrick Garland in 2016, Republicans have done the most damage. The clownish performances by Mr. Graham and others continue them on that trajectory.

Oh, I think the late Robert Bork would take strong issue with that viewpoint, as would current Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Ironically, Bork’s nomination was viciously torpedoed by then-Sen. Joe Biden, who would eventually try to do the same thing with Thomas a few years later in what Thomas accurately described at the time as a “high-tech lynching.”

Conveniently, the WaPo has forgotten those disgraceful moments in America’s judicial confirmation history because they don’t line up with the bogus narratives about “clownish Republicans” they want you to swallow whole. And that, my dear readers, is just one more way “democracy dies in darkness.”

Related: Glenn Youngkin Gets Last Laugh After WaPo Issues ‘Clarification’ on Hit Piece That Fell Apart