Was the Sturmabteilung merely an impartial protector of local citizens? Views differ
By 
The Times has a puff piece on the Trump goon who just appointed himself head of the FDA so he could try to deny critical medication from American women in all 50 states. Look, I understand journalistic convention and if you want to throw in a pro forma quote from a Kacsmaryk defender in a story that makes what he’s about clear, fine. But this story gives us paragraph after paragraph of friends of theirs telling ridiculous lies and treating them as if they’re credible:
Judge Kacsmaryk did not respond to requests for comment for this article, but several longtime friends and former co-workers described an experienced courtroom litigator shaped by his religious upbringing and faith. They rejected the idea that the judge would let personal views influence a decision. [Perhaps we should try to resolve the, ah, tensions here. –ed.]
“He’s a real by-the-book stickler,” said Hiram Sasser, executive general counsel for First Liberty Institute.
Born in Florida in 1977, Judge Kacsmaryk moved to Texas when he was a child. His father worked in the defense industry, and he grew up dreaming of working for the C.I.A., said Ephraim Wernick, a law school friend.
In an email, Mr. Wernick said he felt news media coverage of Judge Kacsmaryk unfairly painted him as an ideologue.
“Matt understands the properly limited role of a judge in our constitutional system,” he said. “I am confident that any decisions he makes from the bench will be grounded in careful study of law, facts and precedent.”
[…]
Mr. Berry recalled a conversation with Judge Kacsmaryk about their shared opinion that great attorneys can separate personal emotions from their client’s best interest. The conversation then turned to judges.
“A good judge will sometimes reach decisions or conclusions that they don’t feel they personally would want but what the law requires,” Mr. Berry said. “We both believe that’s true.”
[…]
Ms. Statler agreed about Judge Kacsmaryk. “I just know he just has a real tender spot for caring for women,” she told The Times, “and particularly women who are pregnant.”
How anyone could type that last paragraph without destroying their laptop with a torrent of vomit is beyond me.
Does this story say anything about the content of the actual opinion — nakedly political and dominated by crackpot anti-abortion arguments and cites to noted biologists like Bobby George — Kacsmaryk just issued after work hours on a holiday Friday? I think you know the answer! The Cult of the Court is a hell of a drug.