September 25, 2018

The NYT lobs a confusing new issue into the Kavanaugh controversy: the phrase "Renate Alumni" in the yearbook at Kavanaugh's high school.

It's really hard to summarize "Kavanaugh’s Yearbook Page Is ‘Horrible, Hurtful’ to a Woman It Named." My first question is: Who wrote the words in the yearbook? If not Brett Kavanaugh, why must I understand this? And why is the NYT choosing to dilute the carefully built up allegation made by Christine Blasey Ford? Is that allegation fading somehow? Is the NYT trying to get hits after it passed up the Deborah Ramirez story that had us all reading The New Yorker last Sunday?

I don't want to quote too much of the article, but I can't paraphrase what I can't understand, so forgive me:
The word “Renate” appears at least 14 times in Georgetown Preparatory School’s 1983 yearbook, on individuals’ pages and in a group photo of nine football players, including Judge Kavanaugh, who were described as the “Renate Alumni.” It is a reference to Renate Schroeder, then a student at a nearby Catholic girls’ school.

Two of Judge Kavanaugh’s classmates say the mentions of Renate were part of the football players’ unsubstantiated boasting about their conquests. “They were very disrespectful, at least verbally, with Renate,” said Sean Hagan, a Georgetown Prep student at the time, referring to Judge Kavanaugh and his teammates. “I can’t express how disgusted I am with them, then and now.”
So Sean Hagan seems to have brought this tale to the NYT and we're handed his characterizations of what it all means. Who is he? The material seems too minimal to matter, so you have to tell us why it matters, and Sean Hagan is quoted. That's it! Well, who's he? What are his interests? And, again, did Kavanaugh write the yearbook text?!
This month, Renate Schroeder Dolphin joined 64 other women who..., signed a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which...  stated that “he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect.”
So suddenly Schroeder is Dolphin. I'll just guess that's her married name. This article is carelessly written.
“I learned about these yearbook pages only a few days ago,” Ms. Dolphin said in a statement to The New York Times. “I don’t know what ‘Renate Alumnus’ actually means. I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way. I will have no further comment.”
What was said to her that made her react like that. She can't understand it, but she's also horrified by it, and she won't talk about it anymore. Was she given the Sean Hagan interpretation and shocked and that's how the NYT got her quote? And now we the NYT readers are supposed to feel her shock, because look at what she said? And she's not saying anything more.
Alexandra Walsh, a lawyer for Judge Kavanaugh, said in a statement: “Judge Kavanaugh was friends with Renate Dolphin in high school. He admired her very much then, and he admires her to this day. “Judge Kavanaugh and Ms. Dolphin attended one high school event together and shared a brief kiss good night following that event,” the statement continued. “They had no other such encounter. The language from Judge Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook refers to the fact that he and Ms. Dolphin attended that one high school event together and nothing else.”

Ms. Dolphin said she had never kissed Judge Kavanaugh. “I think Brett must have me confused with someone else, because I never kissed him,” she said through her lawyer.
Well, there's a factual discrepancy. Kavanaugh (if his lawyer has it right) believes he kissed a girl who believes he did not. It seems someone at the yearbook collected all the names of boys who said they'd kissed the same girl and made a joke out of it. But was Kavanaugh involved in the yearbook making? And does this really matter now? Dolphin had good enough memories to have signed the letter. Now, she's mad about the yearbook, and we're supposed to hold that against him?
Four of the men who were pictured with Judge Kavanaugh in a photo captioned “Renate Alumni” said it was simply a reference to their dating or going to dances with Ms. Dolphin.... Some of Judge Kavanaugh’s high school peers said there was a widespread culture at the time of objectifying women....

Bill Barbot, who was a freshman at Georgetown Prep when Judge Kavanaugh was a senior, said Judge Kavanaugh and his clique were part of the school’s “fratty” culture.
Oh! We're going to listen to the freshman's ideas about the seniors! And why are we hearing from Bill Barbot? Who is he? How did the NYT find him? And why him and not one of 100 other possibilities among all the boys in all the years when Kavanaugh went to high school?
“There was a lot of talk and presumably a lot of action about sexual conquest with girls,” Mr. Barbot said.
Presumably!!! Such extreme dilution. A freshman remembers how seniors, in general, looked to him 35 years ago.
Ms. Dolphin was a subject of that braggadocio, according to Mr. Hagan and another classmate, who requested anonymity because he fears retribution. 
Again, who is Hagan? But, look, he's bolstered by some anonymous person. And the subject is that Dolphin was a girl boys bragged about. Not Kavanaugh, specifically, but, you know, it was the sort of thing that happened. Such a weak dilution of a hint of wrongness.
“She should be offended,” Mr. Hagan said of Ms. Dolphin. “I was completely astounded when I saw she signed that letter” on Judge Kavanaugh’s behalf.
Hagan Hagan Hagan. Who the hell is he and why is the NYT running with this? It's such a weak effort at piling on the attacks that it makes the earlier attacks seem weaker.

The NYT offers this effort at defending Kavanaugh:
“These guys weren’t any different than other boys high schools across the country,” said Suzanne Matan, a friend of Judge Kavanaugh’s from their high school days. “And I chose to hang out with those boys and many other girls did, too, because they were fun, and they were safe, and they were respectful.”
I assume many readers will interpret that first sentence to mean "boys will be boys" — a damning excuse — despite the various kind — somewhat kind — words.

Finally, an answer to my question:
The Georgetown Prep yearbook’s personal pages were designed and written by the individual students, according to alumni. A faculty adviser reviewed the pages.
If that's true, it's important. Why is this crucial fact buried in the article? I'm writing about it as I go along, so I don't know what I'd have written if that had appeared in the beginning. I note that Kavanaugh's page says "Renate Alumnius." That's a typo/misspelling isn't it, "alumnius"? Isn't that evidence that he did not write it? When I was in high school, you filled out a form offering info to the  students who made the yearbook and they used that to write what they, in the end, chose.

There's more to the article — things written on other boys' pages, a caption on a photo of the football team (including Kavanaugh), a statement by 4 boys in that photo (saying "Renate" referred to "innocent dates or dance partners" and criticizing the NYT for its "twisted and forced... shabby journalism"), etc. — and that's it for this new puff of smoke.

276 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 276 of 276
roesch/voltaire said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rick said...

Hemingway is awesome. I wish she wrote more but I think I like her so much in part because she only writes when she has something original to say.

The 2 key points:

1. Dolphin's comment which can be interpreted as her believing the yearbook comments reference sex are based on the "reporter's" characterization of the yearbook comments as referencing claims of sex. This is like push-polling and therefore meaningless.

2. The NYT supposedly granted immunity to the anonymous source assuring us the comments were sexual because he feared retaliation. This isn't remotely plausible unless the source is an administration official so identifying him not only as outside the administration but also as having intentionally made public comments openly designed to offend Trump proves this is crazy. Instead the NYT granted immunity because doing so misled their readers into thinking the source might be trustworthy.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

My HS yearbook was printed with false information about me. It wasn't malicious or defamatory; it was simply written by someone who didn't know me well, and was mistaken.

roesch/voltaire said...

More folks are come forward including his freshman roommate, James Roche, at Yale who claims Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker who became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk;they seem to be painting a different picture that the one described on Fox. I think we need an impartial investigation from the FBI on this one to be fair to all parties.

Jaq said...

Althouse’s position is that a lifetime supreme court appointment is too much power to give to a man.

Yeah, it’s unconstitutional, just like the Electoral College, against the Geneva Conventions to boot!

chuck said...

None of this is "important".

Jaq said...

I think we need an impartial investigation from the FBI on this one to be fair to all parties.

Sorry! Andy McCabe is gone. You aren’t going to spin up a political witch hunt just because the Democrats need one there now.

Doug said...

You want more Trump?
Because THIS is how you get more Trump!

Jaq said...

Impartial and FBI in the same sentence though, props for the humor.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

readering said...

Okay, let's wait Thursday, if it ever happens. (Sounding doubtful.)

I'll bet good money Thursday happens. Probably about halfway between Wednesday and Friday. On the off chance that I lose this bet, I kinda doubt anyone will be around to collect.

Etienne said...

I just found a maidenhair in my soup...

gahrie said...

We need more strong, non-woke women, to courageously speak up and resist this leftwing pogrom.

I'm thinking Senators Ernst, Murkowski, Fischer, Capito, Collins and a few Governors like Falin and Martinez to get up there, express their support for women in general, express their support for due process in general, and hammer these particular charges as specious and likely fraudulent.


I wish Althouse would do this.

sparrow said...

"I wish Althouse would do this."

Me too

FIDO said...

Oh my God! Once I said that a girl stuffed her bra when I was 15. Does that warrant summary execution?

Is there any sin, so small, that does not warrant the ouster of Kavanaugh in your book, Ms. Althouse?

Do you wonder why even the centrists are agog at the transparency here?

'They made fun of a girl!'

Jesus wept!

The only groping that we have witnesses for is for any story, slur or insinuation which will derail Kavanaugh and change minds.

So far you've done a bang up job at half that goal...of changing people's minds at how objective you are.

gahrie said...

I'm still waiting for someone to point out the flaws and imperfections of Kagan, Sotomayor and RBG.

They seems suspiciously squeaky clean to me.

Yancey Ward said...

I am beginning to think this ends when it dawns on one of the endangered Democratic senators that he/she can seal his reelection by taking not only a courageous stand against this, but accidentally the right one. Which one is most likely? McCaskill has already eliminated herself from the possible list, but the others are definitely possible. I think Heitkamp is the most likely, followed by Manchin. If just one of them stood up and said after Thursday that they were supporting Kavanaugh because the charges were slanderous and unsupported, it would end this like nothing else could.

Howard said...

Kavanaugh must be approved by the Senate. If not, Trump will go defcon five rogue on GOPe

Howard said...

K won't get one dem vote

Howard said...

Blogger tcrosse said...

I think many professional Republican politicians really don't want to see Roe overturned: they'd rather have it as a campaign issue.

Likewise it's in the Democrats' interest to have Roe constantly under threat, as it has been since 1973, to keep the pro-choice voters in line.


Correct. Second amendment is the other bookend

bagoh20 said...

". Some of Judge Kavanaugh’s high school peers said there was a widespread culture at the time of objectifying women...."

Now we have evolved way past that. Now we treat women like infants - not responsible for their choices or what they say. The can't be expected to defend their claims, or be challenged, no matter how outrageous or defamatory. They might get upset, feel threatened, and never recover from the slightest uncomfortable experience. Then after coddling them like babies, we claim they are equal, and actually heroes, if not flat out superior beings incapable of deception. You've come a long way, baby. And I mean literally "baby".

FullMoon said...

NY Times removes key language helpful to Kavanaugh from article about Yale accuser Ramirez


“Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the episode and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.” Why is this sentence now gone from this @nytimes story? https://nyti.ms/2xR05gk

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I'm thinking Senators Ernst, Murkowski, Fischer, Capito, Collins and a few Governors like Falin and Martinez to get up there, express their support for women in general, express their support for due process in general, and hammer these particular charges as specious and likely fraudulent.

What the Democrats are doing to "support" women, rape and abuse survivors is NOT being supportive or helpful.

REAL victims of rape and abuse are being diminished and harmed by all of these obviously fake accusations from decades ago. The #metoo movement is beginning to look like the Boy who Cried Wolf. Eventually no one will be believable. Not even real victims.

In their zeal to harm Trump, destroy any of his political appointees, they are destroying what is left of feminism. Much of that (feminism) has already been destroyed by the man hating harpies who have taken over and who have kicked out anyone who doesn't go along with their radical and insane views.

Yancey Ward said...

Fullmoon,

Yep, it was removed- I remember the sentence specifically because it was the one place that stated Ms. Ramirez's own doubt- a doubt that wasn't clarified by her own contacts. As for why it was removed, it was removed because it was the one part of the NYTimes story highlighted, though unintentially, the absurdity of Ms. Ramirez's "efforts", with her lawyers per The New Yorker, to firm up her memory. Seriously, if the people you contact don't help you firm up those memories, how it is consulting lawyers does?

Etienne said...

Howard said...Kavanaugh must be approved by the Senate. If not, Trump will go defcon five rogue on GOP

At DEFCON 5, the US forces are at the lowest state of readiness.

Now you know...

Jaq said...

K won’t get one dem vot

Good, we don’t need the vote, we need those red state seats more.

bagoh20 said...

"claims Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker who became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk;they seem to be painting a different picture that the one described on Fox."

A lot of people painted a picture of Hillary as President, and Trump as a fool for thinking he could be. Paint is cheap, and anyone can be an artist if they stick to abstract art.

Justice and due process is not art.

bagoh20 said...

DEFCON negative 11!

bagoh20 said...

Shark jumping is all the rage now on the left, but Althouse just sees more "Happy Days".

Michael K said...

Correct. Second amendment is the other bookend

True in one way but the Democrats keep raising the issue with their supporters like abortion.

iowan2 said...

roesch/voltaire said...
More folks are come forward including his freshman roommate, James Roche, at Yale who claims Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker who became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk;they seem to be painting a different picture that the one described on Fox. I think we need an impartial investigation from the FBI on this one to be fair to all parties.


GENIUS! I'll bet the farm, that not a single FBI special agent, working background checks for the last 20 years of their career, ever thought to question the collage roommate about Kananaugh's drinking and drugging habits. Never occurred to them, Never in six separate background investigation did a single FBI agent think to ask that one question.

Mike Sylwester said...

roesch/voltaire at 11:49 AM
... we need an impartial investigation from the FBI

The FBI is the Headquarters of the Resistance to President Trump.

Every FBI meeting begins with a group prayer to Almighty God that He grant a Congressional majority to the Democrats in the midterm elections.

readering said...

IiB good thing I rarely wear ties anymore in the vicinity of Times Square.

Francisco D said...

r/v said ... "More folks are come forward including his freshman roommate, James Roche, at Yale who claims Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker who became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk;they seem to be painting a different picture that the one described on Fox. I think we need an impartial investigation from the FBI on this one to be fair to all parties."

In case you were unaware, Judge Kavanaugh has had six in depth investigations by the FBI. These investigations are extremely thorough data collecting missions that go back to age 18. Neighbors, classmates and friends are interviewed for any potential dirt.

What probable cause do you have to add a seventh investigation?

Michael K said...

including his freshman roommate, James Roche, at Yale

Yeah. I'd like to know more about Roche. What protected group does he belong to ?

DanTheMan said...

>> I think we need an impartial investigation from the FBI on this one to be fair to all parties.

R/V, that's pretty darn funny satire right there. Thanks for the laugh!

Yancey Ward said...

It is a good thing I am not up for a SCOTUS seat- my freshman year roommate hated me, and I him. I don't think we said more than 10 words to each other after the first week.

n.n said...

a group prayer to Almighty God that He grant a Congressional majority to the Democrats

God, no. In Stork they trust.

Etienne said...

"impartial investigation from the FBI"

The FBI is part of the Executive Branch. That's not impartial in the Legislative Branch.

Mike Sylwester said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Sylwester said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Sylwester said...

roesch/voltaire at 11:49 AM
... we need an impartial investigation from the FBI

The FBI would secretly record all of Kavanaugh's communications.

The FBI is good at that.

Gary said...

Football players do not brag about getting to first base with a girl.
This is one of the most clueless Althouse posts.

MB said...

These stories may seem trivial to us, but aren't trivial for the people involved. Each is a personal drama and is putting a lot of stress on their relationships.
What's happening is this: by putting so much pressure on each former acquaintance of Kavanaugh, especially the women, the media are trying to get a statement from one of them that Kavanaugh is at least a misogynist and an abuser, preferably a serial rapist. Then the statement will be played in a loop on all TV channels for the next 48 hours and eventually make it into the history books.
The consequences of not speaking out are being depicted as a rapist, an easy woman, or a child rape enabler. Whoever gives in first will be made into a hero with a front-page article and a flattering picture in each newspaper in the country.
When a suspect is investigated, nobody cares if his confession is given after a couple of punches, sleepless nights, and countless investigators' mind games (like constant warnings that his accomplices have already turned him in and he's the lone holdout). Once he confesses, that's it. He can deny the deed 99 times, but if he confesses once then he's done for. Yes, even with so-called "legal protections". And here obviously the accused is not given any.
So it doesn't matter exactly how the statement is obtained, as long as it is obtained.
With a few months' perspective, this will seem incredibly petty and trivial even to the targets themselves. Also, the media will have moved on by then (though Internet is "forever"). But the Democrats are ramping up the pressure right now, hoping something will give.

Qwinn said...

I still want to know, if the accusations are judged to be false and politically motivated, what consequences there will be for the accusers.

And don't say "Democrats will lose votes". With the state of the media and it's total incapacity to report anything but fake news favoring the Left, that's simply not a reliable deterrent against Democrats doing this again with every nomination. Regardless of whether Kavanaugh is confirmed.

iowan2 said...

The Dems have painted themselves into a corner. If the Kavanaugh vote fails to confirm, the Dems are forced to impeach him from his current Judgeship. While leftist can hide behind some undefinable 2 tiered standard of presumed innocent. In an impeachment charge, hard evidence is going to rule the day. Dem's know that is impossible, since no evidence exists. How are the Dems going to explain how they are allowing a rapist to remain on the federal bench?

Michael K said...

what consequences there will be for the accusers.

Why do you think she is refusing to testify under oath ?

iowan2 said...

I still want to know, if the accusations are judged to be false and politically motivated, what consequences there will be for the accusers.

My daily reminder. No woman has lodged a complaint against Kavanaugh. The letter that made its way to Feinstien, through sever hands, has never been stated unequivocally to have authored by Ford, and does not carry her signature.

So far no accusations have been submitted to any govt entity with a power to hold the accusers to any legal standards.

This is exactly why Ford will never set foot in the capital. She has never intended to follow through with an under oath statement. Her lawyers have been very cautious about the protrayal of the events in question, and to my knowledge Ford has NEVER made a statement of any sort. All this has been though 3rd parties. Ditto for Rameriz

Jim at said...

I am so sick of this shit.

Quoted for truth.

tcrosse said...

We are where we are because the Democrats managed to lose control of the Senate and the White House. To lose one may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness, as Oscar Wilde might say.

Not Sure said...

When it turns out that Chrissie can't make it to DC by Thursday bc of her fear of flying, the Dems will blame Republicans for not having funded a transcontinental bullet train.

buwaya said...

"How are the Dems going to explain how they are allowing a rapist to remain on the federal bench?"

Simple, they will just stop talking about it.

James K said...

“I think many professional Republican politicians really don't want to see Roe overturned: they'd rather have it as a campaign issue. If it were overturned, some pro-lifers would no longer be as motivated to vote by the issue, while the opposite would happen among pro-choicers.”

Project much? This is completely backasswards. Democrats and so-called women’s organizations have made $billions off Roe, and off its impact of making abortion a national rather than state campaign issue. Opponents of Roe genuinely think its had a corrosive effect for exactly that reason, even those who are not so anti-abortion.

But if you really think that, go ahead and call our bluff. Push for repeal.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

MB said...These stories may seem trivial to us, but aren't trivial for the people involved. Each is a personal drama and is putting a lot of stress on their relationships.

And that might matter to nice centrist people under normal circumstances but you're forgetting the stakes. A person who could make a ruling that could affect women's bodily autonomy is involved here so small-minded considerations or empathy for invididuals--even quite a few individuals--who might be treated badly simply does not come into it. There is no room for such things when the stakes are this high!

Never mind that this exact "reasoning" has been used historically to justify any number of horrors and injustices committed against inconvenient individuals . THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT!

BUMBLE BEE said...

DHS and NSA cover domestic and foreign flights. Hey the NYT was on the mark with the financial meltdown, they were full tilt behind smart diplomacy, dug deep into the Bengazi thing, had Hillary as next Prez and whatisname as VP. Been a long time since NYT been the paper of accuracy (cough record), but 60s people are often stuck back there. Like ascribing deep meaning to Dylan who "just wanted to write songs". NYT and New Yorker neck and neck at this point. Vying for that prime position beneath whale shit.

MB said...

The nice centrist people will feel completely justified after the fact, once some incriminating statement or piece of evidence comes to light. Such tactics are fine if the opponents really are monsters. In practice (and in spite of decades of relentless civil-rights campaigns), normal people don't actually care about how a confession was obtained, only that it was obtained. This is why show trials work.

Even if, somehow, Kavanaugh's accusers had bruises visible through makeup and were making hand signs that they were acting under duress, nobody would care unless the media explicitly pointed it out. It's hard to get people to reason and be even a little skeptical when it runs counter to their self-interest.

If despite all these efforts no awfully compromising revelations become known, reasonable centrist people will shrug and move on to the next story. A smaller minority will cling to conspiracy theories. Nobody will admit to being wrong.

The only thing that matters (here) is whether Kavanaugh is confirmed. If he is not confirmed, then media will turn it into an explicit determination of guilt, beyond any shadow of doubt. If he is confirmed, then his reputation will still be forever tarnished, because the media and professional historians will make sure of it, but most people will just tune out the accusations after a while and move on to the next media outrage.

Francisco D said...

"I think many professional Republican politicians really don't want to see Roe overturned: they'd rather have it as a campaign issue."

Yes. I agree with your position, but with a twist. They prefer Roe v. Wade as a national campaign issue, but they do not want to deal with abortion at the state level.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, the issue would go to the state level. Many of us who deplore Roe v. Wade are pro-choice. State Republicans running explicitly against choice (a minority of Republicans) would have a difficult time.

Howard said...

Blogger Etienne said...

Howard said...Kavanaugh must be approved by the Senate. If not, Trump will go defcon five rogue on GOP

At DEFCON 5, the US forces are at the lowest state of readiness.

Now you know...


Gottcha You sound like one of those high-water pants ham radio freaks explaining transistors. You really need to quit not drinking

Howard said...

Blogger bagoh20 said...

DEFCON negative 11!


Bag-O Knows how to troll a troll. Touche

bbear said...

When did we start hyphenating a woman's maiden name with her married name, e.g., Blasey-Ford, after her first mention in a news story, as though it were a typically British hyphenate surname, e.g., brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg, or Evelyn Waugh character Margot Beste-Chetwynde?

Jaq said...

Wasn’t RBG appointed by a forcible rapist? Maybe she should be impeached?

Night Owl said...

So we're dragging out the yearbooks again. Gee I wonder what quote kavanaugh used? I bet it was rapey.

Just like the russia russia russia nonsense, there's a limit to how much stupid I can take. Your average non soap-opera people are largely tuning this shit out, but we get the important overarching message: Democrats are scum and should never be trusted with power.

Night Owl said...

It's better to trust the Republicans with power because they squander it, so they're much less dangerous.

Jeff said...

Democrats and so-called women’s organizations have made $billions off Roe, and off its impact of making abortion a national rather than state campaign issue. Opponents of Roe genuinely think its had a corrosive effect for exactly that reason, even those who are not so anti-abortion.

Then explain why it is that of the nine Supreme Court appointments made by Republican presidents since Roe v Wade was decided, four are explicitly pro-choice, and at least two others (Roberts and Alito) declined to sign on to the dissent in Gonzales v Carhart. Do you really think the Presidents who appointed them swung and missed on the majority of their appointments?

Sure, the Democrats use the abortion issue to raise money. So do Republicans. But I remember when the Moral Majority was actually a force in the GOP, and how the GOPe led them on for years. Trump's Presidential campaign was the first Republican one since Reagan that didn't make a lot of hay out of abortion. And what do you know? Trump, who didn't campaign much on pro-life, may turn out to be the President who finally gets Roe overturned! It's not that he feels so strongly about it. It's that he's the first Republican Presidential nominee in a long time who is actually keeping his campaign promises when it comes to judicial nominations.

I'd like to see Roe overturned because abortion should be a matter of state law. The idea that there was this constitutional right just sitting there waiting to be recognized in 1974 that had somehow escaped notice for the preceding 186 years is ridiculous. If Roe is overturned, the majority of states with the vast majority of the population will not outlaw abortion. That horse has left the barn. But our national politics will become a bit more honest.

Michael K said...

Many of us who deplore Roe v. Wade are pro-choice. State Republicans running explicitly against choice (a minority of Republicans) would have a difficult time.

Yes. The Supreme Court will never return to a sane role in US life until Roe v Wade is reversed.

Like Dredd Scott, if it is not reversed, it will bring civil war.

RMc said...

“Renate Alumnus” is a secret code phrase meaning, "I will strike Roe v. Wade down so hard, its kids are gonna feel it".

mikee said...

Statutes of privacy and repose. What a wonderful phrase that is.
Leave me alone, you don't have authority to bother me. Privacy.
Forget that, you let that sit around too long to bring it up as an issue. Repose.

The Democrats need to have the concept of "statutes of repose" brought up to them regarding the allegations against Kavanaugh. The hearings were over, the vote was due. Throwing wrenches into the machinery of politics is not just unseemly, it is unwise.

Derve Swanson said...

Poor Renate.
She just realized... she is the one who had the train pulled on her.

Poor Ann.
She doesn't know what it means to be running a train...
Good thing ann had sons, not daughters.

I can't wait to see Brett's calendar entry the night of his date with Renate. It wasn't about a goodnight kiss, as Renate is telling you...

Why not listen to her?

mikee said...

Also, what are the chances Ford will arrive in DC after a drive across the country that can only end with her perjuring herself? She could instead be a martyr to the cause of feminism, Dem power, and Dem power, and Dem power, instead. I think she'd better damn well be in an anonymous military airplane, secretly provided by the Repub members of the committee, rather than on the streets of the country, where Antifa can get to her. At this point, she is worth more dead than alive to the Dems.

Her testimony can only destroy Dem hopes of reclaiming power.

stan said...

What kind of dumbass thinks a high school yearbook has anything to do with a Supreme Court nomination? This stupid, insane crap has jumped the shark every day for weeks.

Bunkypotatohead said...

Surely he pulled some girl's ponytail in 1st grade.
We can't allow a misogynist on the court!

Gretchen said...

They have completely become unhinged. This entire episode is despicable.

Derve Swanson said...

Bunkypotatohead said...

Surely he pulled some girl's ponytail in 1st grade.
--------------

Is that what they call "boofing" in your parts?
;-)

Derve Swanson said...

Amy Coney Barrett for the Trump midterm win!

Drain the Swamp of these George W. Bush players.

Derve Swanson said...

(Trump knows the stakes and and the likely endgame. He cannot afford to ignore his supporters. Kavanaugh is weak, he will not deliver for the conservatives if he were on the Court. Trump feels terribly for Kavanaugh. He feels that way because he knows what is coming.)

Lewis Wetzel said...


Michael Avenatti denied rumors that he had been tricked by 4Chan users into representing a fictional woman with allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Avenatti locked his Twitter account earlier on Tuesday, making it impossible to retweet any of his tweets.

I love circuses!
Let's have 4chan testify before the senate!
This doesn't do much for Avenatti's credibility, does it? Duped by bunch of ninth grade hampsters & Russian trolls.

Gahrie said...

Wasn’t RBG appointed by a forcible rapist? Maybe she should be impeached?

She seems a little too squeaky clean for my taste. I don't trust her, she's too perfect....

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 276 of 276   Newer› Newest»