They didn't except for Fox.
And Karl Rove got into a heated exchange with Juan Williams over it as well.
How the Sunday shows covered the attempted assassination of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh via TVEyes.
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) June 12, 2022
# of mentions of "Kavanaugh":
ABC's This Week: 0 mentions
NBC's Meet The Press: 0 mentions
CBS's Face The Nation: 0 mentions
CNN SOTU: 0 mentions
Fox News Sunday covered
And Karl Rove got into a heated exchange with Juan Williams over it as well.
Quote:
BAIER: I was struck, and I said this to Senator Coons, about the lack of talking about this threat to Justice Kavanaugh in the coverage of it as compared to if this had been a liberal justice with a Trump supporter gone wacko outside their house.
ROVE: Absolutely. I mean, this is -- look, this is sort of personal. I know Ashley and Brett Kavanaugh personally from our time together in the White House. And I -- it's amazing to me. The law is clear, you quoted it. It goes on to say "with the intent of influencing any judge." And I love it, the American Civil Liberties Union says, yes, this is the statue but we interpret it the following way. We point to a Supreme Court case that suggests that as long as they keep moving in front of the house -- if they are stationary, they should be arrested but if they are moving in front of the house they have a right to try and influence a Supreme Court justice. And that is ridiculous. And if it is true, I didn't see Senator Schumer moving very much behind that microphone in front of the U.S. Supreme Court where he had a clear intent of influencing a Supreme Court justice.
So we either ought to apply the law or we ought to just simply say it's open season judges, because that's what we're doing.
WILLIAMS: Well, I think you have a right to protest. I think you have...
ROVE: Yes, but not in front of their house.
WILLIAMS: Wait, you have a right to protest anywhere in America. Now clearly these people should not be violent and they should not threaten. But the idea that they are influencing -- I don't think it's about the influence. I think it's about a Supreme Court that has become radical and extremist and activist and is going to put out a decision that's going to, believe me, polarize this country...
ROVE: So because...
(CROSSTALK)
WILLIAMS: ... undo 50 years of law.
ROVE: So because you disagree with a prospective decision, you think they have -- people have a right to show up in front of a house and then try and intimidate a judge to change their opinion?
WILLIAMS: I -- no.
ROVE: And how about any case in America?
WILLIAMS: No.
ROVE: Would you defend everybody...
(CROSSTALK)
WILLIAMS: I didn't see the...
ROVE: ... in front of every judge and say, my God...
WILLIAMS: Karl...
ROVE: ... if you decide one way or the other...
WILLIAMS: Karl...
ROVE: ... you know, you deserve my -- me protesting in front of your house? Forget it, that's intimidation.
WILLIAMS: Karl, no, it's not.
ROVE: That's banana-style republic.
WILLIAMS: Karl, first of all, this guy was suicidal and is there is no excusing him. And he's...
ROVE: No, no, I'm not talking about him.
WILLIAMS: What we're talking about...
ROVE: I'm talking about those people who were up in front of...
(CROSSTALK)
WILLIAMS: No, Karl, wait a second.
ROVE: ... attempting to intimidate a judge.
WILLIAMS: Karl...
(CROSSTALK)
WILLIAMS: Karl, just a second. But I'm saying that we as Americans all have a right to express our upset with undoing 50 years of law with regard to abortion. It's an attack on rights. Rights.
BAIER: OK. But for the groups that published the addresses of the conservative justices...
WILLIAMS: That's unnecessary. And, you know what, I think everyone sitting at this table has had people demonstrate or come to their door and it's unsettling, nobody is defending it. But the right to protest is essential to America.
ROVE: Fine, but not in front of their house. Go have them protest in...
WILLIAMS: I'm just telling you in politics that's a reality.
ROVE: Yes, well, it's not a good reality.