Meade said, "Who's that, Captain Queeg?"
Yeah, it's Patrick Leahy. Meade was right.
To understand the Leahy = Queeg reference, see my "Observations from the Kavanaugh hearings" (Sept. 5) — point #9 on my 15-point list of observations.
I find the Democrats' fight against Kavanaugh so irksome. Have you seen Ruth Bader Ginsburg's denouncement of the "highly partisan show"?
I saw that first at Facebook, where my son John posted it. Ginsburg, in that clip, asked to compare the Kavanaugh hearings to her own, says "The way it was was right. The way it is is wrong." (I like the "is is/was was" locution.) At Facebook, I say:
The way it was in the past was how it should be, and it's become "a highly partisan show." She talks about how Justice Scalia was treated in 1986. But she never mentions Bork and Thomas! Wasn't that a highly partisan show, back in the good old days? And the reason there wasn't much pressure on the Scalia nomination was that at the same time there was the elevation of Rehnquist to Chief Justice, and there was what was arguably "a highly partisan show" about that.
I'm sure she remembers what happened to those other nominees, and maybe the questioner follows up about them. The follow-up question should also ask her whether her approach to answering questions (which everyone since her has used) was devised after examining the problems that had already been encountered. This good-old-days presentation is okay for a start, but if there's no follow-up, this should be seen as ridiculous.
Posts
207 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 207 of 207Who the hell is Leahy to be sitting in judgment on anyone? His career is littered with illegal leaks and cruel personal attacks and . . . nothing else. Dick Cheney had his number and spoke for many people when he told Leahy to go fuck himself after Leahy pulled one of his usual stunts. THat is the correct response. Every time Leahy lobs his McCarthyite crap, the response should be to tell him to go fuck himself. No respect should ever be shown that charlatan
@Crack, you're the one who brought up Tom Harkin as an example of a leading politician pushing homeopathic medicines. If you want to disavow what you wrote, you need to delete your comment posted at 12:24.
Why the gloves on RBG's hands? Are her fingers so twisted by arthritis that it would be evident that she cannot write or type and that she isn't writing her opinions? Being old can mean so many things. It isn't an automatic disqualifier for anything but not acknowledging that you can't do the things you can't do - like sit up and hold a book to read it or write an opinion - that is a disqualifier. She should have retired under Obama and now she's stuck, pretending she can do the highest kind of law. And we know why. She herself has pointed out that the selection process has become political and so she thinks can't retire till the politics are right. Well, go ahead, stay there and disgrace yourself and the Democrats.
@Crack - thanks for showing up. I can't tell you how many dull white people want to interact with you.
Poor Chuck, Inga, and Ritmo have been superseded.
rcocean said...
"@Crack - thanks for showing up. I can't tell you how many dull white people want to interact with you."
They're not dull. As someone here said about RBG, they're just rubbed to the nub.
Big Mike said...
"@Crack, you're the one who brought up Tom Harkin as an example of a leading politician pushing homeopathic medicines. If you want to disavow what you wrote, you need to delete your comment posted at 12:24."
I cannot wrap my head around how you guys "think":
So I "brought up Tom Harkin as an example of a leading politician pushing homeopathic medicines" - and we agree he's crazy - so why, after a crazy man got a multi-million dollar program off the ground, does that mean I must disavow what I wrote, or need to delete my comment posted at 12:24"? I'll tell you why:
You're crazy.
There's no other logical explanation I can think of.
The partisanship certainly didn't begin with the Democrats.
Post a Comment