July 10, 2018

"In the weeks ahead, we’re going to spend a lot of time going over Brett Kavanaugh’s biography — where he’s from and what he’s written. But that’s not the most important way to understand the guy."

Right. Because Kavanaugh, on his own, is completely boring. A normal person hearing the announcement, got excited for 2 seconds before the name was said, then immediately lost interest and moved on. Kavanaugh is a name we'll see for years, merged with other dull names, in Supreme Court opinions that we won't have thought about all that much, because we'll know how they're going to come out. No surprise. No, gee, I wonder how Justice K thinks about these complexities. The new Justice K won't be someone you need to get to know so intimately.

So David Brooks is taking the right tack here:
Kavanaugh is the product of a community. He is the product of a conservative legal infrastructure that develops ideas, recruits talent, links rising stars, nurtures genius, molds and launches judicial nominees. It almost doesn’t matter which Republican is president. The conservative legal infrastructure is the entity driving the whole project. It almost doesn’t even matter if Kavanaugh is confirmed or shot down; there are dozens more who can fill the vacancy, just as smart and just as conservative. 
A judge should seem boring, right? He should seem like a humble servant discovering the meaning of the law and faithfully articulating it. The great accomplishment (described in detail at the link) was to make the conservative view of law feel so completely normal that a judge like Kavanaugh would bore us, instead of seeming like a monstrous outlier, as we were made to see Robert Bork.

I vividly remember this depiction (click to enlarge):

Bork should have been confirmed, of course, and would have been confirmed if there had been a structure around him to explain and defend conservative judges. Brooks explains how in the years since Bork's defeat that structure has been built. But if that had not been needed, Justice Kennedy — about whose swingable moderation liberals wring their hands today — would never have sat on the Court. All these years, Bork would have staked out the right end of the Court, and who knows how much that would have affected all the other Justices and Presidents? Everything would have been different. Perhaps the Federalist Society would not have grown the way it did. Perhaps Bork would not have died of heart disease in 2012, but if he did, would the President who replaced him have been Barack Obama?

242 comments:

1 – 200 of 242   Newer›   Newest»
Gahrie said...

In the best of all worlds..no one would really care who the nominee was.

rehajm said...

It almost doesn’t even matter if Kavanaugh is confirmed or shot down; there are dozens more who can fill the vacancy

Lefties have a legal infrastructure too. It was supposed to be the backstop that would allow them to neutralize the power of the legislature, or voting for that matter. Voting against Hillary really is supposed to be a crime.

rhhardin said...

In the same excitement genre, there's the Karnaugh map (better than venn diagrams), made interesting by Gray codes.

Shouting Thomas said...

I was hoping Trump would nominate somebody from outside the Yale/Harvard axis.

I worked for a hell of a lot of great, brilliant lawyers from NYU, Forham and even the University of Illinois.

And those guys made a ton of money and were incredibly influential in their communities.

traditionalguy said...

Reading tea leaves seems to be all the Court analysts have to offer. They are the boring ones.

All we really need to know about Establishment DC Justice K is how much loot from Soros and Clinton lined his pockets. He was the head Cover-Up guy on Vince Foster's inconvenient Arkencide, which could be the crime of impersonating an FBI Agent.

David Begley said...

You mean to tell me that there's no liberal infrastructure nurturing liberals? Kagan was Dean at Harvard Law. Breyer worked for Ted Kennedy. Ginsburg was general counsel for the ACLU.

Dems are the biggest crybaby losers in the world.

rhhardin said...

Kaganaugh, the compromise candidate.

rhhardin said...

The weeks ahead can be fixed by having hearings and vote next week.

Ralph L said...

I hope there are plenty of US Marshals when and if the landmarks get overturned.

Ryan said...

So.... the Bork situation turned out to be a good thing because it caused a conservative infrastructure to be built. And Bork (an unhealthy smoker) would have likely died during a Democrat presidency. So all I is well in the end.

h said...

I object to the term (used in this post and in the WaPo article about where the court is heading), "conservative" supreme court. The liberals on the court have taken the following approach: (1) decide what outcome is the best policy; (2) dress up the decision with words like "justice requires", and find a plausible rationale ("penumbras of rights") in which to ground the decision. The justices generally regarded as conservative take a different approach: decide what outcome is supported by laws and the constitution. So consider a question on which conservative and liberal politicians differ: should we raise taxes on the rich? (as for example, california just did). A "conservative" justice would not say, "That's a bad policy, so I need to figure out why it's unconstitutional." The "conservative" justice would say: "California is allowed to adopt what bad tax policy they want."

Shouting Thomas said...

What are the Democrats going to make of Kavanaugh's Jesuit education?

That bit makes me wonder.

The Jesuits are a strange order, the most missionary order within the clerisy and also the most liberal and social activist.

They have that social activist guilt to work off because of their history of playing the role of vanguard of the Conquistador's conquest of Latin America.

Ryan said...

I think some pretty great lawyers come out of UWisc Law, if I may say so myself...

Michael K said...

The battle over Bork was Fort Sumter in the cold civil war.

Ted "Manslaughter" Kennedy set the tone for the next 30 years.

Earnest Prole said...

Bork should have been confirmed, of course, and would have been confirmed if he hadn’t been a dead ringer for the Batman villain King Tut, played by Victor Buono.

mccullough said...

Bork lacked people skills. Scalia charmed the Senate in his confirmation hearings. Like Al Gore, Bork proved that his rejection was warranted. He was an unhinged douchebag.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

It almost doesn’t even matter if Kavanaugh is confirmed or shot down; there are dozens more who can fill the vacancy

This is what I don't understand about Schumer's statement that the miderste Dems need to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of blocking Trump's nominee.

If they vote against Trump and sacrifice themselves that just means they'll be more Republicans in the next Senate. Then Trump had a mandate and he can confirm an even more conservative judge .

What was the idea here? It seems stupid to me but these aren't stupid people. Anyone care to explain the idea or strategy?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Kavanaugh. Clerked for Kennedy. Was hired by Elena Kagan. The MONSTER!!!!

Married with two children. Volunteers to do charitable works. Feeds the homeless. OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM!!!

This guy looks like the most boring person in your neighborhood. Mr. Rogers' nicer younger brother. The guy who you wouldn't even recognize in the supermarket because he is bland and innocuous

Yet. The media is going to go after him tooth and nail to try to make him into Hitler or Bork. The media and Demos are going to look stupid. The constant hysteria really is tiresome. Someday the wolf will really show up and we will yawn because we have become inoculated to the hype.

wildswan said...

You never know what the left will think your rights are over a period of time. Thirty years ago the left was all about free speech and the right for our constitutional rights. Now the left is repressing speech and the right is still for our constitutional rights. Kavanaugh shows the strength of the constitutional tradition in outlasting and overcoming borking. This great appointment, another result of the Glorious Election of 2016, is hopeful for that reason as well as the rest.

rhhardin said...

The entire Armstrong and Getty staff is wearing robes this morning, as is the tradition for a new supreme court nominee. Jack's has lace like Judge Judy's.

DanTheMan said...

In the future, every Republican will be Hitler for 15 minutes.

rhhardin said...

Hey hey ho ho (xxx) has got to go.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The Bork Boomeranged.

rhhardin said...

Nominating somebody ethnically Thai would defeat the chant

Hey hey ho ho Wontiphontiphontipoom has got to go.

rhhardin said...

Who can forget Lada Engchawadechasilp.

Michael K said...

The funniest reaction

The Women's March sent out the shriek of pain before they got the name inserted.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Hey hey ho ho (xxx) has got to go.

#againstXX

FIDO said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
M Jordan said...

I hope, pray, that Dems go full borkmode on Kavanaugh. It will rally the R’s around Coach K, cost Dems 2-5 Senate seats, and best of all expose Dems for what they have become: a party of hate.

Michael K said...

Someday the wolf will really show up and we will yawn because we have become inoculated to the hype.

The scenario, as I see it, will be the Dims lose five seats in the Senate because they die on this hill. The next nomination will be Barrett to replace RBG and there will be no Collins/Murkowsky leverage.

More of that Trump "luck."

rhhardin said...

"Remember, the constitution is to protect us from minorities." Slip of the tongue on Armstrong and Getty.

Big Mike said...

In the future, every Republican will be Hitler for 15 minutes.

If I grow a little schnurrbart mustache can I be Hitler for twenty minutes?

M Jordan said...

I think we all can agree on one thing: Harry Reid was a real hairy reed when to Dems when he chucked the filibuster. It’s one of the most glorious things that asshole ever did.

M Jordan said...

And one last point: it’s time for R’s to give Mitch M his due. He resisted the pressure to put Garland up for vote and he invoked the simple majority for confirmation. The turtle moves slowly, has a hard shell, and a crafty brain at his reptilian core.

Biotrekker said...

Agree with 'h'

Liberal/Prog/leftist justices, because they are more Prog/Leftist (rather than classically "Liberal"), believe that they already know what "The Good" is and seek to support "the Good" by deciding what the result of a court case "should" be and retrofit the legal justification to support it regardless of what the Constitution says. They consider the Constitution either a tool to get what they want, or an impediment to what they want. This contrasts with "conservative" judges who view the Constitution as the basis for our legal and political system and as an asset to refer to in order to judge court cases.

hawkeyedjb said...

Bork's rejection came at the moment when the Democratic party had decided that the only civil right worth protecting is abortion; that belief continues today. There is literally no other right that Democrats will fight so hard to protect. It is they who have made appointments to the Supreme Court so important, and so contentious. Democrats don't even seem to realize that overturning Roe v Wade would not make abortion illegal - it would allow states to do so. I oppose criminalizing abortion, and when push comes to shove, most legislatures would agree. Perhaps a small handful of states would try to enact strict regulation of abortion, but almost the entire nation would live under the same rules that apply today. Democrats have made Court appointments into an awful circus in order to keep abortion legal in Utah.

Ann Althouse said...

"You mean to tell me that there's no liberal infrastructure nurturing liberals?"

The liberals had everything. When I went to law school, there was no Federalist Society. It began the year after I graduated. The liberal approach was all there was. The idea that the intent of the Framers mattered was scoffed at.

The vulnerability was that it was too diffuse and purported to be everything, already agreed on by everyone. That gave something for The Federalist Society to oppose, and it was easy to oppose, because it was so flabby and smug.

Now, how does that preexisting ramshackle "structure" reconstitute itself into fighting form? It's been impossible!

Big Mike said...

Well, there’s a complaint about Kavanaugh already. According to a book written by David Brock, Kavanaugh once mouthed the b-word at an TV image of Hillary Clinton. Not that I’d convict a dog of harassing a cat based on the unsupported testimony of David Brock.

Sebastian said...

"A normal person hearing the announcement, got excited for 2 seconds before the name was said, then immediately lost interest"

As a cynical conservative, I confess I am not a normal person, but I got excited for about a minute, thinking this might be the guy who will challenge the administrative state most effectively, even if he will drive us crazy with Kennedy-style social-issue rulings.

"Kavanaugh is the product of a community. He is the product of a conservative legal infrastructure"

Which is even more exciting than the appointment itself: one of the few things national conservatives have done right in the past generation. Good on Trump to use this infrastructure.

"The great accomplishment (described in detail at the link) was to make the conservative view of law feel so completely normal that a judge like Kavanaugh would bore us"

The "conservative" view of law--you mean, applying the law as written, based on the public meaning of the actual text when adopted? That crazy notion? Like, not inventing "substantive" due process, then fictitiously deriving a right to SSM from it, and then imposing it on the states that had, somehow unconstitutionally for over two centuries, defined the law of marriage?

We will see if Justice K is actually a "normal" conservative, or whether, based on his own idea of law and the meaning of the universe, he will evolve in the way he uses his liberty as a justice.

Bob Boyd said...

"Kavanaugh once mouthed the b-word at an TV image of Hillary Clinton"

Who hasn't?

tim in vermont said...

According to a book written by David Brock, Kavanaugh once mouthed the b-word at an TV image of Hillary Clinton.

It’s good to know Kavanaugh is human, anyways.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Should Bork have been confirmed? He blew his confirmation hearings and didn’t even get all the Republicans in the Senate to vote for him.

Big Mike said...

@M. Jordan, Harry Reid shouldn’t have taken his cues by books written by Ruy Teixeira.

tim in vermont said...

The vulnerability was that it was too diffuse and purported to be everything, already agreed on by everyone.

The school of “If I like what he’s doing, or him personally, it’ constitutional, and if I don’t like him or it, it’s not.” The Sotomeyer school of jurisprudence. You can see this clearly in the most recent “immigration” case. The Geneva Conventions are the same way. If you don’t like something, it’s against them.

Robert Cook is an honored scholar in this school. Anybody he doesn’t like is a “war criminal” if they ever had the responsibility for the security of a nation.

Sebastian said...

@wildswan: "You never know what the left will think your rights are over a period of time."

And what they aren't.

The key point in current prog jurisprudence is that you don't have the right to vote on abortion or same-sex marriage. (To quibble slightly, you definitely know that the left will never return that right to you.)

Women's need to think about the morality of killing a foetus outweighs your right to vote. So does "substantive" due process.

It also explains part of why the left is freaking out, aside from the fact that freaking out is all they do now. Since their transvaluation of values and policies depended most on antidemocratic judicial overlordship, they also fear that tactic backfiring most.

tim in vermont said...

and didn’t even get all the Republicans in the Senate to vote for him.


That was back when Republicans were still under the delusion that if they made an effort to placate Democrats, that they would somehow be accepted into polite society. Now we know, post Red Hen, that the left treats every battle as if it is for all of the marbles, and they take no prisoners, even if those prisoners politely surrendered.

It’s sort of bracing to know that we are this deeply hated, though.

narciso said...

One of the leading legal minds of that generation was defamed by a plagiarist, a fraud, a fool (well I call biden a knave, ymmv,) podesta apprenticed in that arena, before he moved into lobbying for Russia, and embezzling the monies in really terrible apart, before that he was part of soros's Wurlitzer, before that he was a minion of the Clintons,

tim in vermont said...

You never know what the left will think your rights are over a period of time.”

Oh yes you do, you have no rights. The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper.” Of course, when they claimed that Bush said that, they were talking about “The Constitution” as they conceive it, a giant inchoate blob of what passed for good intentions in the liberal world. They were right about that “Constitution,” Republicans have no more respect for it than Democrats have for the Constitution as written, after all, it’s just a piece of paper.

Earnest Prole said...

The liberal approach was all there was. The idea that the intent of the Framers mattered was scoffed at.

“I think Justice Scalia is an incredibly important figure in the Court in many ways. You wake up in a hundred years, most people are not going to know most of our names. But I think that is really not the case with Justice Scalia, who I think is going to go down as one of the most important and most historic figures in the Court. I think the primary reason for that is that Justice Scalia has taught everybody how to do statutory interpretation differently. You know there's the classic phrase, 'we're all realists now'? Well, I think we're all textualists now, in a way that just was not remotely true when Justice Scalia joined the bench."

-- Justice Elana Kagan, 2015 Scalia Lecture

Caligula said...

"Democrats don't even seem to realize that overturning Roe v Wade would not make abortion illegal - it would allow states to do so."

And some probably would. Or at least would pass very restrictive laws regulating when it may be performed.

Roe v. Wade is, in a way, becoming the Original Sin of SCOTUS. For both right-to-lifers and pro-choicers recognize that Roe was and remains illegitimate jurisprudence, a decision so unmoored from the U.S. Constitution that it has all but defined judicial activism.

And thus the Devil's Bargain: Roe created and maintains a right that activists dearly want, yet in creating it in this way SCOTUS took a mighty step toward erasing the legitimacy of the Court itself.

The Cracker Emcee Rampant said...

Gotta love the anti-Semitic, Nazi-era quality of the illustration of Bork. Leftists never change. All their opponents are untermensch.

Bob Boyd said...

"Hopefully Kavanaugh will restore some balance to the Supreme Court's current dangerous 5-3 Harvard-Yale tilt." - David Burge

rhhardin said...

Some invited speaker at a Harvard commencement, and now I have the best of both worlds, a Yale education and a Harvard degree.

Francisco D said...

"In the weeks ahead, we are going to spend a lot of time ..."

... ignoring DNC talking points about Hitler appointing Mussolini to the SCOTUS.

Let the hysteria begin.

Mark said...

For one of the few times, I find myself agreeing with David French - "The president blinked. . . . There was, for the first time in Trump’s judicial wars, a palpable sense of an opportunity lost."

Personally, I feel more than a bit put upon in being expected to support him, the same way I was put upon and expected to support McCain and Romney by so many who insisted how conservative they were.

I predict he will cause more than a little indigestion, consternation and finger-crossing leading up to opinion days in major cases.

Francisco D said...

I heard through unreliable internet sources that Kavanaugh was a big proponent of stare decisis.

Will that calm the "women will resort to coat hangers" crowd?

Quayle said...

“Now, how does that preexisting ramshackle "structure" reconstitute itself into fighting form? ”

Turn the dial up on social pressure. Ostracism. Excommunication. Public shaming. Because the core of the structure is really about the fight, more than it is about substance.

Bay Area Guy said...

Nobody cares about David Brock or David Brooks. They have reached peak irrelevance. At least, David Brooks is a nice guy, though.

Let the Restoration of the great Republic continue!

Mark said...

Stare decisis on stare decisis itself is rather arbitrary, with the Court all too eager to chuck long-standing principles of law whenever it suits them, all while claiming to respect stare decisis.

walter said...

rhhardin said...Hey hey ho ho (xxx) has got to go.
--
"what's his name" works nicely within that chant.

The big question here is whether the pick of Kavanaugh will make things easier for Brooks at cocktail parties. If the robe goes on, no more evaluation of pants crease.

Fwiw, I think some of K's self-delivered bio seemed a bit preening.

Chuck said...

Ann Althouse said...
"You mean to tell me that there's no liberal infrastructure nurturing liberals?"

The liberals had everything. When I went to law school, there was no Federalist Society. It began the year after I graduated. The liberal approach was all there was. The idea that the intent of the Framers mattered was scoffed at.

The vulnerability was that it was too diffuse and purported to be everything, already agreed on by everyone. That gave something for The Federalist Society to oppose, and it was easy to oppose, because it was so flabby and smug.

Now, how does that preexisting ramshackle "structure" reconstitute itself into fighting form? It's been impossible!


I can't find one word of this comment, and not a word of this post, with which to disagree.

Althouse knows this, but some of her readers might not; liberals have been struck by how effective the Federalist Society has become, and so they created their own liberal version which they call the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS). The ACS doesn't get the attention that the Federalist Society gets, for the very reasons that Althouse alludes to; there are already so many progressivist legal organizations it seems like overlap. There's the ACLU, the American Bar Association, and the American Association of Law Schools, which made an infamous cameo in Scalia's legendary Lawrence dissent:

Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct. See Romer, supra, at 653.

Ann Althouse said...

"Kavanaugh once mouthed the b-word"

Mouthed "bitch." This is unbelievable for several reasons, but I just can't picture successful lip-reading of that word... unless the person were doing a very exaggerated, intentionally communicative form of mouthing.

Michael K said...

Democrats have made Court appointments into an awful circus in order to keep abortion legal in Utah.

Well said. It was legal in California in 1969.

What Roe did eventually, was to make any restriction impermissible.

Not that the decision did that but the interpretation did. Plus, of course, the "activist judges."

Mike said...

The vulnerability was that it was too diffuse and purported to be everything, already agreed on by everyone. That gave something for The Federalist Society to oppose, and it was easy to oppose, because it was so flabby and smug.

Now, how does that preexisting ramshackle "structure" reconstitute itself into fighting form? It's been impossible!


This is an illustration of the need for simple, well-articulated goals. The tendency of government over the last twenty years to "Omnibus" everything. New laws became monsters of text (ACA, every "budget" in the last ten years) that purported to address all manner of things instead of focused, easy to comprehend (and enforce) laws like we used to get. Was the Patriot Act a symptom or one of the origins of this trend?

Bob Boyd said...

Maybe Kavanaugh was even thinking of Hillary.
He could easily have been calling David Brock a bitch.

Bob Boyd said...

wasn't

Bay Area Guy said...

David Brock is the alleged 2nd hand ource for this heresy of mouthing the word "bitch" at a tv screen with sainted and beloved Hillary on said screen.

The horror.

Have you seen David Brock lately? He is one creepy weirdo.

MountainMan said...

“The media and Demos are going to look stupid.”

They are stupid. Watching all the reaction on Facebook and Twitter last night ir is hard for me to understand how any sane person could vote for these people. Schumer, Warren, Booker, Harris, Kaine, Durbin - simply the dumbest group of politicians I have ever seen. God help us if these people are ever in control of the Senate again.

readering said...

Merrick Garland was the perfect product of the liberal legal community. A lot of liberal activists were disappointed in his selection because he was a bland, boring choice, not one to rally around. Like Kavanaugh in that respect.

Kevin said...

This is unbelievable for several reasons, but I just can't picture successful lip-reading of that word...

Clearly you are hearing-abled and will be surprised to learn that deaf people can always read lips perfectly.

They will be coming on CNN's next segment to tell you not only what he mouthed, but what he meant when he mouthed it.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

It's illegal to mouth the word "Bitch" when referring to Hillary Clinton.

All criticism of Hillary Clinton is illegal. Citizens Untied.

tim in vermont said...

This is unbelievable

Oh, it’s all too believable. The greater calumny would have been to suggest that he had not done it.

Bob Boyd said...

When people see a kitten they say, "Ohhh..."
When they see fireworks they say, "Oooo....ahhhh"
When they see Hillary they say, "Bitch."
It's just natural.

tim in vermont said...

I wonder if he was “in private” when he mouthed that word? The new Mullah class wants to know!

Bay Area Guy said...

I wrote "ource" up there, it should be "source." I will go flog myself as penance and punishment.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Hillary-Strozk 2020!

narayanan said...

my comment on a previous thread ...

I have seen 10A brought up often, but never 9A. Has any Senate hearing brought it up?

What is Federalist Society position on it .... is it Borkian?
Are we living to see Borks revenge.

Comanche Voter said...

Dick Durbin is not the sharpest tool in the box--but then I'm only stating the obvious. The problem with his asking his red state Democrat Senators to die on the Kavanaugh nomination hill is that Trump has a list. There were 25 people on the list, and if the Kavanaugh nomination fails, there's more where he came from. And if Trump has a second term (an issue which is still in doubt) there will be one or two more names taken from that list and put on the Court. Durbin should consult his fellow Chicago friend Obama who said, "Elections have consequences".

There's no honor among thieves---or Senators, and when their six year terms are up and it's election time, it's every boy or girl for themselves. Some of those red state Democrats are going to vote to confirm Trump nominees---maybe not this one, but maybe the next one. Durbin and Schumer's nightmare won't be over until Trump leaves office.

narciso said...

well brooks called the huntress, and later trump, a 'cancer' so he's at best a fool, at worst a knave,

PackerBronco said...

As pleased as I am that Trump is picking the judges now, I would much rather have the situation where I didn't care too much about it. The fact that the selection of one person makes such a difference to the country and our freedoms is the surest indication that the system is broken.

PackerBronco said...

Blogger narciso said...
well brooks called the huntress, and later trump, a 'cancer' so he's at best a fool, at worst a knave


"Our Miss Brooks" has never been the sharpest tool in the box. He's quite frankly a well-connected and well-credentialed moron.

Bay Area Guy said...

It's great fun to watch Dems squirm and yelp and protest and whine.

Here's their new meme: Well, once we win back the House, and then win back the Senate, and then win back the White House, we will smash the Senate filibuster once and for all, and pass a law adding 17 more seats to the Supreme Court, and then we will have our President [Fill in blank] appoint 17 new SCOTUS judges, which the Senate will confirm!

BWAHAAHAAHAAHAH!

narayanan said...

"If they vote against Trump and sacrifice themselves that just means they'll be more Republicans in the next Senate. Then Trump had a mandate and he can confirm an even more conservative judge "

What is to stop him from renominating Kavanaugh? that would be Trumpianest of all things

TheDopeFromHope said...

Since abortion is health care, the more abortions women have the healthier they must be. Chelsea Handler, et al. must be as heathy as a horse.

PackerBronco said...


When they see Hillary they say, "Bitch."


I don't know whether to praise Kavanaugh for his perceptivity or his eloquence.

narayanan said...

@ PackerBronco ..

embrace the power of 'and'

Kevin said...

NYT Editor: Why didn't you bring any legal briefs, something more advanced? Don't you have, uh... precedents? Show me a piece of future legal technology.

Anna Navarro: [watching from a monitor, chuckling] Precedents?

David Brooks: You go naked. Something about the field generated by a living organism. Nothing dead will go.

NYT Editor: Why?

David Brooks: I didn't build the fucking thing!

NYT Editor: Okay, okay. But this Federalist Society Replicant, if it's metal...

David Brooks: Surrounded by living tissue!

NYT Editor: Oh, right, right.

NYT Editor: [shuts off the screen on which Justice Ginsburg and Chuck Schumer have been watching the interview] This is great stuff. I could sell a lot of digital subscriptions out of this guy! You see how clever his part is? How it doesn't require a shred of proof? Most liberal conspiracy theories are intricate, but this is brilliant!

NYT Editor: Why were the other two Justices replaced?

David Brooks: Most of the records were lost in the Bork nomination. The Federalist Society knew almost nothing about Ginsburg. Her full name, where she lived. They just knew the law school she attended. The Replicants were just being systematic.

NYT Editor: Uh-huh. Well, let's go back to what I was...

David Brooks: [interrupts] Look! You have heard enough! I have answered your questions! Now, I have to see Justice Ginsburg!

NYT Editor: I'm afraid that's not up to me.

David Brooks: Then why am I talking to you? Who is in authority here?

NYT Editor: Please, I...

David Brooks: [interrupts again] Shut up!

[He glares into the camera]

David Brooks: You still don't get it, do you? They'll replace her! That's what they do! That's ALL they do! You can't stop them! They’ll wade through her, reach down her throat and pull out the Constitution!

mockturtle said...

Well, I think Bob Dylan is boring, so...

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...Bork should have been confirmed, of course, and would have been confirmed if there had been a structure around him to explain and defend conservative judges.

Did you believe this at the time, Professor? Did you argue that position at the time or do anything publicly to profess that belief then? I am genuinely curious at what the legal community (academics mainly, I guess) did then, especially vs what they think now about how things played out.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Leftwing celebrities understand. America is over.

William said...

The bland leading the blind. Kavanaugh is hiding a lot of evil behind that dull exterior. The more perceptive members of our community can see right through him. The Dems shouldn't get discouraged. They should consider this a teachable moment. Maybe they can organize some seminars to publicize the depths of this man's depravity. I'd like to see Chelsea Clinton, who functions so well as both a journalist and as a feminist, host a round table discussion on the threats this man poses to the women of America. It goes without saying that Lena Dunham and Ocasio should be on the panel. I would also recommend Chelsea Manning to be on the discussion panel. Most people think national security is Manning's forte, but she's also a committed feminist. I think she would have many trenchant observations to make about the threat Kavanaugh poses to abortion rights. Such a panel and discussion would expose how out of step Kavanaugh is with ordinary Americans,

PackerBronco said...

Blogger DanTheMan said...
In the future, every Republican will be Hitler for 15 minutes.


In the future, every Republican will be investigated by Robert Mueller for 15 months ...

exiledonmainstreet said...


Brett Kavanaugh @_brettkavanaugh 11 minutes ago

"I try to stay out of politics, but an hour ago my daughter, who was jogging in the nearby park, got confronted by a bunch of political party workers. She is upset. Can we all be engaged & committed to national causes without resorting to personal attacks?"

What a silly question, Judge. If you honestly thought the vicious, insane Left would leave your family alone, I question your acumen.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Lol

Bernie Sanders dusts off tired "Corporations and Billionaires" routine

*Noted old Bernie dropped "Millionaires" because he is one.*


Mac McConnell said...

Bay Area Guy said...
"It's great fun to watch Dems squirm and yelp and protest and whine.

Here's their new meme: Well, once we win back the House, and then win back the Senate, and then win back the White House, we will smash the Senate filibuster once and for all, and pass a law adding 17 more seats to the Supreme Court, and then we will have our President [Fill in blank] appoint 17 new SCOTUS judges, which the Senate will confirm!"

If the Republicans gain seats in the Senate and maintain control of the House in the midterms, President Trump should announce a 9:00 PM televised address. President trump should state that after studying the great intellectual minds of VOX, Huffington and liberal Ivy League law school lecturers, he has decided to ask the legislative bodies to expand the number of SCOTUS judges to some prime number greater than eleven, but smaller than twenty. The president should reassure the country not to fret, he has a list of candidates.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...Mouthed "bitch." This is unbelievable for several reasons, but I just can't picture successful lip-reading of that word... unless the person were doing a very exaggerated, intentionally communicative form of mouthing.

Key & Peele: I said biiiitch!

mockturtle said...

What a silly question, Judge. If you honestly thought the vicious, insane Left would leave your family alone, I question your acumen.

I agree but I think the question was rhetorical.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

"David Brooks is a nice guy, though."

Nonense. David Brooks is no ones friend. If he was an ice cream flavor, he'd be pralines and dick.

h said...

Re Kavanaugh's daughter. If true this is horrible. But The @_brettkavanaugh account has been suspended. I think there is a chance that the posting was a scam by Kavanaugh supporters looking to cause trouble. If it is true it will be confirmed by noon.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Kevin - very well done!


The Bork series had rubber skin - we spotted them easy, but these are new. They look human--sweat, bad breath, cute families, everything.

The Gorsuch is an infiltration unit; half man, half originalist machine. Underneath it's a hyperalloy textualist Constitution combat chasis, Federalist-controlled. Fully armored, very tough.


[Kavanaugh to Kennedy, flat affect] "Get out."

syd B. said...

The best endorsement I can think of for Kavanaugh is that "Hillary would not have picked him". Good enough for me.

Chuck said...

exiledonmainstreet said...

Brett Kavanaugh @_brettkavanaugh 11 minutes ago

"I try to stay out of politics, but an hour ago my daughter, who was jogging in the nearby park, got confronted by a bunch of political party workers. She is upset. Can we all be engaged & committed to national causes without resorting to personal attacks?"

What a silly question, Judge. If you honestly thought the vicious, insane Left would leave your family alone, I question your acumen.


Is this true? Or is it fake news? Fake in a particularly reckless and manufactured way. What I see is that that Twitter account is suspended.

And, putting on my Althouse cap here; what US Circuit Court of Appeals Judge even HAS a Twitter account?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Listen, and understand! The Federalist Society is out there! They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop... ever, until liberal judicial activism is dead!

iowan2 said...

I have a serious question that never gets asked to Democrat politicians.

A a citizen, how do I go about protecting life? What steps, in our representative republic, do I as a citizen take, to go about making changes to laws I live by?

If it is not working to elect the politicians that agree with my views, politicians that will use their constitutional powers to appoint judges that use the constitution as written, exactly what am I supposed to do?

I keep hearing Democrat political leaders tell me that President Trumps judicial picks are outside mainstream political views. But no one ever asks them how that conclusion can be true when Democrats, since the election of Obama, have lost the House, lost the Senate, lost the White House, lost state congressional offices, Governor mansions, and 1000's of state and local elected offices. Elections tell me, Democrats are the fringe ideology.

rhhardin said...

I would never say bitch. Nag if I mean nag, piece of shit if I mean piece of shit, woman (disparaging register) if I mean woman (disparaging register).

walter said...


Chuck Schumer
‏Verified account @SenSchumer
1h1 hour ago

The Senate should have the ability & time to review Judge Kavanaugh’s written history, where the best clues to his jurisprudence may lie. It is no less than the standard my GOP colleagues demanded of Justice Kagan during her confirmation process. #WhatsAtStake #StopKavanaugh
163 replies 188 retweets 537 likes



Chuck Schumer
‏Verified account @SenSchumer
15h15 hours ago

I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have, and I hope a bipartisan majority will do the same. The stakes are simply too high for anything less.

Drago said...

Comanche Voter: "Dick Durbin is not the sharpest tool in the box--but then I'm only stating the obvious."

Whoa!

Careful amigo.

Li'l Dickie Durbin has greatly impressed LLR Chuck and any criticism of this latest in a long line of strongly defended dems by LLR Chuck is sure to garner some unwanted LLR Chuck attention to your posts.

I urge you to proceed cautiously....

Howard said...

Will it be a fender-bender, a multi-car pileup or a chemical tankercar trainwreck in the senate? What do you think CableNews wants #ratingsbonanza

Chuck said...

exiledonmainstreet said...

Brett Kavanaugh @_brettkavanaugh 11 minutes ago

"I try to stay out of politics, but an hour ago my daughter, who was jogging in the nearby park, got confronted by a bunch of political party workers. She is upset. Can we all be engaged & committed to national causes without resorting to personal attacks?"

What a silly question, Judge. If you honestly thought the vicious, insane Left would leave your family alone, I question your acumen.


I am still waiting for the story on this.

I now presume that it was a completely fake story, posted on a Twitter account that wasn't Judge Kavanaugh's at all.

I am curious how Mr. exiledonmainstreet found it. How long had that account been in existence? How many tweets had emanated from that source before this one? What made it believable enough to presume that "the vicious Left" was behind it? What is the theory now, if we can agree that it was a complete fake? And if it was a fake, what does it say about the power/danger of Twitter?

Drago said...

Self-proclaimed Smear Merchant Chuck: "I now presume that it was a completely fake story, posted on a Twitter account that wasn't Judge Kavanaugh's at all."

Our Smear-Meister wants actual evidence!

LOL

Ponder the hypocrisy....and then give some thought as to the perfect LLR Chuck/lefty smearing parallels.

Almost as if they were on the same team.........

walter said...

"What made it believable enough to presume that "the vicious Left" was behind it?"
Rhetorical at this point.

Chuck said...

Drago said...
Comanche Voter: "Dick Durbin is not the sharpest tool in the box--but then I'm only stating the obvious."

Whoa!

Careful amigo.

Li'l Dickie Durbin has greatly impressed LLR Chuck and any criticism of this latest in a long line of strongly defended dems by LLR Chuck is sure to garner some unwanted LLR Chuck attention to your posts.

I urge you to proceed cautiously....


Aww, you're just afraid that Judge Kavanaugh is going to be asked what he thinks of President Trump's calling U.S. District Judge Curiel "a Mexican judge." And about Trump's Tweet complaining of rulings on the first (later abandoned) "travel ban" order, calling them "so-called judges."

I really hope that Kavanaugh IS asked about that, because if the reporting is true, Justice Gorsuch's answer to that question drove Trump apeshit.

buwaya said...

There wouldn't have been a problem with Bork had it not been for the triumph of the "long march" in the first place. Any reaction to this is ersatz and external to official institutions. The Federalist society is a guerrilla operation.

Drago said...

"Rhetorical at this point"

Indeed.

The left is now completely beyond parody and caricature.

But only completely.

Perhaps it's the global warming that is effecting them so......

Drago said...

#StrongDemDefender Chuck: "Aww, you're just afraid that Judge Kavanaugh is going to be asked what he thinks of President Trump's calling U.S. District Judge Curiel "a Mexican judge.""

Why would anyone fear that?

LOL

Really struggling now, aren't you?

Too funny.

Matthew Sablan said...

If there wasn't a blue checkmark, I assume it is fake.

Matthew Sablan said...

If he gets asked about the whole "Mexican judge" thing, I hope his answer is: "Political arguments and fights between other adults don't concern me, next question."

We really need people in government to try de-escalating instead of escalating.

Mac McConnell said...

I'm so happy I dug out my Federalist Society neck tie today. It's very tasty sort of a Grenadier Guards Regimental stripe with Madison's head in gold on the navy ground.

A historical note, it has a very tiny gravy stain on the tip I never had dry cleaned off, from a breakfast I attended with President Ronald Reagan.

Drago said...

I like Scott Johnson's article about the synthetic quality of the lefties complaints about Kavanaugh.

Precisely the same synthetic quality to LLR Chuck's continuous smearing of Trump as well as the left's smearing of same.

Unexpectedly.

Reasonable people should feel comfortable making obvious conclusions.

Matthew Sablan said...

I have no doubt there was a roll-out planned to attack any of the four big names, as well as a generic plan for "in case Trump pulls out some random person." I kind of hope never to have to hear about this guy again until his hearing.

Drago said...

I do give LLR Chuck a bit of credit on this. Li'l Dickie Durbin, a LLR Chuck "fave", has stepped in it so much over the past couple of days that even LLR Chuck is reluctant to move to his standard Dem-Auto-Reflexive-Defense mode.

I consider that a small victory.

LOL

walter said...

Matthew Sablan said...
If he gets asked about the whole "Mexican judge" thing..
--
1st amendment..or recusal.
The only reason to ask him would be to sustain Chuck's anti-Trump priapism.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

I love the sneer quotes around vicious left. Nothing days pure conservative than supporting violent leftist.

hawkeyedjb said...

"America is over" Yeah, guess so, bummer. Oh well, back to work.

Robin Eatmon said...

I am waiting for Kagan to be called Hitler for having hired Kavanaugh to teach at Harvard. She was also great friends with Scalia. Two strikes!

Drago said...

Just wait until you see the list of questions relating to Trump's adolescent lemonade stand for which LLR Chuck will demand answers!

LOL

Nope, LLR Chuck is totally not making a fool of himself over this.

Totally not.

Just like the lefties.

#WhatsSoBadAboutAlwaysSidingWithDemocratsLLRChuckSaidRepeatedly

walter said...

I love Schumer's twitter trail stating he will do everything possible to #stopkavanaugh!, then pleading for time to review docs because fairness.

exiledonmainstreet said...

I apologize Chuck. That was a fake tweet. I should have checked it out before posting it here.

It would be nice if you did the same when you post unsubstantiated smears.

Chuck said...

Bill, Republic of Texas said...
I love the sneer quotes around vicious left. Nothing days pure conservative than supporting violent leftist.


It wasn't a sneer quote, or a scare quote. It was a real quote. Actually -- my bad on this -- it wasn't quite an accurate quote. I should have written "the vicious, insane Left..." or alternatively "the vicious... Left."

Here is Mr. exiledonmainstreet's full comment:

exiledonmainstreet said...

Brett Kavanaugh @_brettkavanaugh 11 minutes ago

"I try to stay out of politics, but an hour ago my daughter, who was jogging in the nearby park, got confronted by a bunch of political party workers. She is upset. Can we all be engaged & committed to national causes without resorting to personal attacks?"

What a silly question, Judge. If you honestly thought the vicious, insane Left would leave your family alone, I question your acumen.

(Emphasis added, obviously.)

So it wasn't a case of my minimizing the actual existence of a vicious, insane Left by employing scare quotes in a sarcastic manner. I was, uh, quoting somebody.

AND NOW, I STILL WANT TO KNOW WHICH POLITICAL FEVER SWAMP PRODUCED THAT PHONY TWEET ABOUT JUDGE KAVANAUGH'S DAUGHTER BEING HARASSED IN A PARK? And who believed it?

walter said...

On the plus side, any time there is a larger protest to attend, fewer stalker/harassers to go around.
Go ahead and scream at the sky..just let people eat.

Drago said...

LLR Chuck: "So it wasn't a case of my minimizing the actual existence of a vicious, insane Left...."

LOL

Chuck said...

exiledonmainstreet said...
I apologize Chuck. That was a fake tweet. I should have checked it out before posting it here.

It would be nice if you did the same when you post unsubstantiated smears.


Name one. Name an "unsubstantiated smear."

And actually, I don't think you owe me an apology at all. You didn't harm me in any way. I am far more interested in how it came to your attention. That is what interested me, and still interests me, notwithstanding however fake the story may have been. I want to know how it got out and got around on the 'net.

walter said...

It was THE RUSSIANS!
Snoop Dog Mueller is ON IT!

Drago said...

The lefties and their LLR allies are panicking because it will be very difficult to effectively paint Kavanaugh as a nazi.

Even with LLR Chuck's pals, Super Duper Effective and Competent Dickie Durbin and Stolen Valor Blumenthal, on the job!

Gahrie said...

AND NOW, I STILL WANT TO KNOW WHICH POLITICAL FEVER SWAMP PRODUCED THAT PHONY TWEET ABOUT JUDGE KAVANAUGH'S DAUGHTER BEING HARASSED IN A PARK? And who believed it?

Yeah because given recent history, the very idea that a Leftwing loony would harass someone tied to Trump in anyway is completely wacky.

Ralph L said...

His daughter is too young to jog on her own.

Drago said...

And speaking of lefty/LLR fake news, the NBC reporter who pushed the lie of a transactional "deal" between Trump and Kennedy has now deleted her story........

....naturally after the initial lefty/LLR approved lie traveled around the world over and over again and becomes another unchallengeable part of the Lefty/LLR Canon of Fake News "facts".

walter said...


Kamala Harris
‏Verified account @KamalaHarris
Jul 8

Americans deserve to have someone on the Supreme Court that will respect the Constitution and understand that our system is supposed to be about equality for all, and justice and fairness.

Yancey Ward said...

On the fake tweet- the only real clue that it was fake was that it claimed to be Kavanaugh himself posting it- I found it unlikely that he even has a Twitter account and would even use it in such a manner if he did. The rest of the content, though, is completely within the behavior the Left would use today.

Yancey Ward said...

Also, letting the daughter jog by herself would be very reckless of any parent in Kavanaugh's position.

Bad Lieutenant said...


Earnest Prole said...
Bork should have been confirmed, of course, and would have been confirmed if he hadn’t been a dead ringer for the Batman villain King Tut, played by Victor Buono.

7/10/18, 7:43 AM


You know, Earnie, you are a fuck, but when you're right, you're right.

Michael said...

People who write in all caps have a screw loose. Every time. The perfect tell.

Chuck said...

Gahrie said...
"AND NOW, I STILL WANT TO KNOW WHICH POLITICAL FEVER SWAMP PRODUCED THAT PHONY TWEET ABOUT JUDGE KAVANAUGH'S DAUGHTER BEING HARASSED IN A PARK? And who believed it?"

Yeah because given recent history, the very idea that a Leftwing loony would harass someone tied to Trump in anyway is completely wacky.


Of course it was that vague whiff of believability that probably prompted its creation in the first place. That, and a fired-up base of 67 year-old white male consumers of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, willing to re-broadcast such news.

Balanced against the almost-obviously fake notion that a sitting U.S. Circuit Court Judge would ever be tossing out private concerns on Twitter, as if he were a Kardashian, or a Trump.

Bay Area Guy said...

Senator Kamala Harris writes:

''our system is supposed to be about equality for all, and justice and fairness."

Nope. You meant "... liberty and justice for all."

Liberty and equality are often at odds:

"Nature smiles at the union of freedom and equality in our utopias.
For freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, and
when one prevails the other dies. Leave men free, and their natural
inequalities will multiply almost geometrically, as in England and
America in the nineteenth century under laissez-faire.
To check the growth of inequality, liberty must be sacrificed,
as in Russia after 1917. Even when repressed, inequality grows; only
the man who is below the average in economic ability desires equality;
those who are conscious of superior ability desire freedom,
and in the end superior ability has its way."

-- Will Durant

Gahrie said...

our system is supposed to be about equality for all, and justice and fairness.

Absolutely fucking wrong. There is nothing in our founding documents or credo about 'fairness'. The quest for "fairness' is much of what has fucked up our politics and government since the first time the fucking Progressives showed up.

walter said...

Everyone brace yourself for the feminist backlash for not nominating the woman:
#amygotscrewed

walter said...

It depends on what supposed to be is supposed to be.

Big Mike said...

What Yancey wrote. I find myself at least mildly surprised that an alleged Republican would be unaware of the actions of the Democrats since Trump’s inauguration. Didn’t Ashley Judd tell us that Democrat women were about to be NASTY? Didn’t anyone listen?

Gahrie said...

Of course it was that vague whiff of believability that probably prompted its creation in the first place. That, and a fired-up base of 67 year-old white male consumers of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, willing to re-broadcast such news.

Yeah those guys are almost as bad as the gentil cocktail hour pals of George Will and Max Boot. "We have to destroy the Republican Party (and the republic) in order to save it!"

Seriously...you're accused of being sell outs and traitors for the Democratic Party and you best move is to tell people to vote for Democrats?

Michael K said...

our system is supposed to be about equality for all, and justice and fairness.

She got that from her man Willy. At one time, Willy proposed legislation that the U of C had to graduate all students "of color" that enrolled. Equality, you see.

Drago said...

Big Mike: "What Yancey wrote. I find myself at least mildly surprised that an alleged Republican would be unaware of the actions of the Democrats since Trump’s inauguration"

If you pay close attention I think you will find that as a matter of policy, LLR Chuck remains blissfully unaware of any untoward actions by the left/dems.

Further, he will not brook significant and effective attacks on the left's tactics.

#"TrueConservative"

Original Mike said...

Blogger Bill, Republic of Texas said...”What was the idea here? It seems stupid to me but these aren't stupid people. Anyone care to explain the idea or strategy?”

I’d suggest examing your premise.

Bay Area Guy said...

I wonder what Stormy Daniels thinks of Kavanaugh's general jurisprudence. She is a valued voice in the Democratic Party. I'm sure she is feverishly reviewing his 300+ opinions from the DC Circuit, Court of Appeal, and will be briefing us shortly on her findings.

She is keeping abreast of the nomination process.

Kevin said...

The Bork series had rubber skin - we spotted them easy, but these are new. They look human--sweat, bad breath, cute families, everything.

Perfect.

Yancey Ward said...

BAG,

Are there any strip joints near the US Senate Building?

walter said...

Kamala Harris
‏Verified account @KamalaHarris
Jul 9
Trump was clear during the campaign about his list of potential SCOTUS nominees: ALL want to take away a woman’s constitutional right to make her own health care decisions. We cannot go back to the days before Roe v. Wade.
--
So far, not seeing many pols using the #OneInFour
But thanks for mentioning the campaign's SCOTUS list, Kammie.

walter said...

Stormy is furious: "This is going to be tit for tat!"

walter said...

Washington, D.C.—U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) made the following statement on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court:

“Judge Kavanaugh has impressive credentials and extensive experience, having served more than a decade on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“I will conduct a careful, thorough vetting of the President’s nominee to the Supreme Court, as I have done with the five previous Supreme Court Justices whom I have considered. I look forward to Judge Kavanaugh’s public hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee and to questioning him in a meeting in my office.”

Bob Boyd said...

How long until an Anita Hill shows up and says #metoo about Kavanaugh?

Big Mike said...

@Drago, I am a mathematician. When it come to Chuck (uppercase ‘C’), it doesn’t matter whether you do 2 + 2, 2 x 2, or 2 squared, it’s still the same number. And I have had the number on Chuck (uppercase ‘C’) for quite some time.

Joshua Barker said...

I have a bad feeling about Kavanaugh... Something just doesn't sit right... I actually hope he's meant to be the sacrifice candidate, the one the left will blow their wad on, and then once he's withdrawn, the next candidate will be the true one (hopefully Amy Barrett)

Yancey Ward said...

"How long until an Anita Hill shows up and says #metoo about Kavanaugh?"

The optimal time would be the day the hearings open.

Yancey Ward said...

I put the odds at about 95%.

walter said...

If he can stay civil while Collins questions him, that will be something for the bio.

Michael K said...

"She is keeping abreast on the nomination process."

FIFY

Matthew Sablan said...

"I actually hope he's meant to be the sacrifice candidate, the one the left will blow their wad on, and then once he's withdrawn, the next candidate will be the true one (hopefully Amy Barrett)"

-- That sacrifice plan is a terrible one, because you may not get your second choice, especially if the election doesn't give you a bigger majority. There's no 8-dimension chess. Trump wants this guy, and... I don't see anything super objectionable here. But again, I haven't done a lot of research into him.

Bay Area Guy said...

Stormy Daniel's DC Debut is Overshadowed by Kavanaugh nomination.

I am in sync with the Daily Mail.

Chuck said...

walter said...
Kamala Harris
‏Verified account @KamalaHarris
Jul 9
Trump was clear during the campaign about his list of potential SCOTUS nominees: ALL want to take away a woman’s constitutional right to make her own health care decisions. We cannot go back to the days before Roe v. Wade.
...


As you see, Senator Harris has got very little to go on, in opposing Kavanaugh, from Kavanaugh's own words. She has to go to Trump's clumsy campaigning, for the best ammo against Kavanaugh.

The good news is that before last night's announcement, Trump's team got together and somehow made it clear to Trump that he has to back the fuck off that old campaign rhetoric. So they wrote for Trump a much, much better statement of what a president should be saying when talking about and when talking to a SCOTUS nominee:

In keeping with President Reagan’s legacy, I do not ask about a nominee’s personal opinions. What matters is not a judge’s political views but whether they can set aside those views to do what the law and the Constitution require.

So no; Trump couldn't pre-determine that Kavanaugh opposes abortion rights and will overturn Roe v. Wade, "automatically," as Trump said in a presidential debate. Just one more Trump promise that couldn't be kept and never should have been made.

Drago said...

LLR Chuck: "As you see, Senator Harris has got very little to go on, in opposing Kavanaugh, from Kavanaugh's own words. She has to go to Trump's clumsy campaigning, for the best ammo against Kavanaugh."

LOL

There is no "ammo" against Kavanaugh, from any quarter, other than your beloved lefty/dems standard, everyday, completely routine, lefty talking point lies.

But you go be you Chuckie and give them cover! Your comments and theirs and your pals in the lefty MSM have no power or persuasion potential.

Zero.

Deal with it.

Bob Boyd said...

Maybe a parade of people saying they heard Kavanaugh call this or that woman a bitch.

"A picture of Mother Theresa came on the TV and Kavanaugh mouthed the word bitch! I'll never forget it. Very disturbing to see that kind of animosity towards women. He's got a problem, this guy."

"When they unveiled the new statue of Mary, I saw him mouth bitch! I was shocked! He must hate all women. There's something wrong with him."

Gahrie said...

So no; Trump couldn't pre-determine that Kavanaugh opposes abortion rights and will overturn Roe v. Wade, "automatically," as Trump said in a presidential debate. Just one more Trump promise that couldn't be kept and never should have been made.

OK, Chuckles has finally convinced me. We need to impeach now. I mean seriously we simply cannot allow a president to get away with not keeping every single one of his campaign promises...what sort of precedent would that set? The next thing you know someone would be promising free healthcare and education to everybody.

walter said...

Drago,
Though it probably helped him get elected (see evangelicals vote for playboy), Trump putting that out there does undermine his current "not going to ask them" etc stance.

Unknown said...

MSM flunky: President Trump is making an announcement tonight.

MSM Producer: Cue Rage Boy!

* thinking, thinking*

MSM Producer: What's the subject of the announcement?

Jim at said...

I've been looking all morning for links to conservative temper tantrums, screaming and stomping in the streets when Obama made his appointments.

readering said...

There were lots of temper tantrums on this site

Michael K said...

The latest slander is that Kennedy and Trump agreed on Kavenaugh as a deal for Kennedy to retire.

NBC anonymous source, of course

Michael K said...

"There were lots of temper tantrums on this site"

Links ?

Sydney said...

I believe some of you lawyers mentioned he was a clerk for Kennedy. What are the chances he was responsible for that awful definition of liberty?

Bob Boyd said...

"The latest slander is that Kennedy and Trump agreed on Kavenaugh as a deal for Kennedy to retire."

What would be wrong with that?

Ralph L said...

Irish collusion.

tcrosse said...

Maybe they can come up with some new, even more anodyne euphemisms for Abortion, something to make it sound like brushing your teeth.

Chuck said...

Sydney said...
I believe some of you lawyers mentioned he was a clerk for Kennedy. What are the chances he was responsible for that awful definition of liberty?

Kavanaugh was a clerk for Kennedy for just one term. The October '93 term. You could look at all of Kennedy's opinions during that term (look into the spring of '94 in particular); I haven't done that. Gorsuch was a clerk for Kennedy at the same time, I think.

But Supreme Court clerks don't write opinions for folks like Kennedy, or Scalia, or Roberts, or Alito. And in the cases of majority opinions, they are circulated through all chambers. Kennedy's "liberty interest" notions went all through his many years on the court. There is a zero-point-zero chance that Kavanaugh invented any of that shit for Kennedy.

Drago said...

walter: "Drago, Though it probably helped him get elected (see evangelicals vote for playboy), Trump putting that out there does undermine his current "not going to ask them" etc stance"

Nonsense.

It is an objective fact whether or not Trump specifically asked nominees specific questions regarding how they would vote in certain cases.

Trump didn't.

Period.

No different than every single one of LLR Chuck's dem allies saying that only those who would vote to uphold Roe should be on the court.

One set of rules for everybody.

Just one.

And I don't care if LLR Chuck likes it or not that Trump is giving the dems everything they've given us for 80 years while delivering conservative results across the board.

Nonapod said...

Here's his dissent in USTA v. FCC (Net Neutrality).

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc:

The FCC’s 2015 net neutrality rule is one of the most consequential regulations ever issued by any executive or independent agency in the history of the United States. The rule transforms the Internet by imposing common-carrier obligations on Internet service providers and thereby prohibiting Internet service providers from exercising editorial control over the content they transmit to consumers.

The net neutrality rule is unlawful and must be vacated, however, for two alternative and independent reasons. First, Congress did not clearly authorize the FCC to issue the net neutrality rule... Second and in the alternative, the net neutrality rule violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Drago said...

How many hours of therapy is this latest action by Trump going to result in for the Never Trumpers, lunatic lefties, dems and LLR's?

The mind boggles....

Michael K said...


Blogger Bob Boyd said...
"The latest slander is that Kennedy and Trump agreed on Kavenaugh as a deal for Kennedy to retire."

What would be wrong with that?


Ask the hyperventilating leftists.

Unknown said...

People wonder why the Democrats are going to such extremes over this. The theory is that the vulnerable, Red State, senators will flip to Republican ensuring the next nominee will sail through.

Here's my take. The far left side of the D party as made it abundantly clear that ANY loss of faith in the Resistance will be crushed. Schummer and Durbin know this. They also know they are very unlikely to take control of the senate no matter the vote on the SCOTUS.

So they are doing all they can to maintain their positions at the head of the Democrats in the Senate, other members be damned.

If I was one of the vulnerable D's I'd call Durbin and say, "Put it in writing that YOU will resign YOUR seat if I vote against the nominee and subsequently lose my election. You must also enclose a picture of you, naked, with a goat, or something similar so that you can not weasel out".

M Jordan said...

I said it above but I must say it again, Thank God for Hairy Reed. He made Gorsuch and Kavanaugh possible.

walter said...

It may not amount to anything in the end, Drago. But calling it nonsense is a bit flippant. It's a little different if you're of the party that claims to favor originalist interpretation.
Dems don't really make such claim...it's all outcome oriented full stop.
I'm glad Trump dropped it. But still likely to be used against him.

Jim at said...

There were lots of temper tantrums on this site - Readering

I see. So, some people making comments on a political blog = protesting in the streets, Republican elected officials screaming and pounding podiums, public marches and demonstrations claiming our very Nation is under attack?

Good to know.

Qwinn said...

Jim at: Don't forget how Democrat officials everywhere were accosted and screamed at at the supermarket, movies etc. due to the Kagan pick. Good times.

Qwinn said...

Unknown: do you really think a naked picture with a goat would lose any votes at all among current Democrat constituencies? I dont think it'd accomplish anything except getting a #goatfuckersarepeopletoo hashtag created.

Drago said...

walter: "It's a little different if you're of the party that claims to favor originalist interpretation."

What year do you actually think this is?

The dems are in full scale revolt mode looking to trade out our population for a more lefty compliant one and are destroying everything all around us, and you want to argue Marquis of Queensbury rules.

Well, harrumph.

Jay Elink said...

Joshua Barker said...
I have a bad feeling about Kavanaugh... Something just doesn't sit right... I actually hope he's meant to be the sacrifice candidate, the one the left will blow their wad on, and then once he's withdrawn, the next candidate will be the true one (hopefully Amy Barrett)

**************************

Now, why would Kavanaugh volunteer to have his family trashed and his stellar reputation ruined?

You're essentially making an equivalent to Dickless Durbin's "suggestion" that Dem Senators running for re-election in states that voted for Trump fall on their swords for the good of the party, by voting Kavanaugh down.

Why would any rational being commit political seppuku for such a strategy? When has it ever been successfully done in America before?

OTOH if you;'re suggesting that Trump is "playing" Kavanaugh, cue up the "Twilight Zone" theme...

Michael K said...

I don't think Trump is "playing Kavenaugh" but he has chosen the least controversial of his list of nominees.

If the Democrats go nuts, go for the bait in other words, he can use this reaction to ask for GOP Senators with a pretty good argument.

I don't think the really crazy Democrats are more than 15 to 20% of the country. Ad they are concentrated in well known asylums.

Like San Francisco and New York City.

I think he is doing this correctly with the long view. When RBG croaks or retires, Amy Barrett will have a bigger GOP Senate majority.

Biff said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...
"This guy looks like the most boring person in your neighborhood. Mr. Rogers' nicer younger brother. The guy who you wouldn't even recognize in the supermarket because he is bland and innocuous"

Perhaps a more apt description than you imagine.

I didn't realize it until after the announcement, but it turns out that I played intramural softball and football in college with the guy, and I knew him from when we both were tutors at a New Haven middle school. I can't say that he made much of an impression on me besides being just another earnest Yale student who was in a bunch of extracurricular clubs. The name didn't ring a bell until I saw his picture and said, "Oh -- he's that Brett!"

langford peel said...

I will be interesting to see how Chuck will twist himself in order to be against the nomination. You should have no doubt. Chuck will ultimately come out against the confirmation.

Like most of the Never Trumpers he will take a diametrically opposed view to his previous pronouncements because it is a Trump pick.

Unexpectedly.

langford peel said...

Here is a great post by the Ace of Spades that qoutes the wonderful Mollie Hemmingway who explains that 90% of Republicans support the President but the tiny percentage of Never Trumpers dominate the cable news panels.

It is amusing that these bitter enders dominate the discussion on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC and even on certain parts of FOX News. They will continue to make a lucrative living as whores for the fake news. Luckily they will soon be driven out of the party and into the arms of their fellow travelers.

Chuck said...

langford peel said...
I will be interesting to see how Chuck will twist himself in order to be against the nomination. You should have no doubt. Chuck will ultimately come out against the confirmation.

Like most of the Never Trumpers he will take a diametrically opposed view to his previous pronouncements because it is a Trump pick.

Unexpectedly.


Before the Kavanaugh nomination was announced, I said that he was my top choice.

I said that all four of the reputed finalists were great. Historically great.

I didn't make any predictions, because I didn't know.

But now I'll make a prediction; Kavanaugh will be confirmed. The Dems would have loved to have derailed Kavanaugh when he was nominated for the DC Circuit. The Judiciary Committee vote on Kavanaugh was a pure party line vote of 10-8. He later got confirmed with just 57 Yes votes. If they had anything on Kavanaugh it would already have been known. He's been a DC Circuit judge for a dozen years. There won't be anything new that they can use against him. He'll be confirmed, by the narrowest of majorities. He should be confirmed. I'll be delighted when he is confirmed.

langford peel said...

All of the speculation that the God Emperor would be petty and foolish and not pick this man because he is in picture walking with Karl Rove and that the Bush is strong in him has turned out to be foolish nonsense. The speculation that he would pick the woman to energize the base and that he would base his picks on her look has also been proven to be bullshit.

As is most of the commentary from people like Chuck, Allahpundit, Pattricio, Karl Rove, Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, Max Boot, George Will and all the rest of the last Japanese soldiers hiding in the jungle. It's over losers. I have one suggestion for you:

Seppuku.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 242   Newer› Newest»