October 5, 2018

"My hearing testimony was forceful and passionate. That is because I forcefully and passionately denied the allegation against me."

Writes Brett Kavanaugh in The Wall Street Journal (not blocked by a paywall):
At times, my testimony—both in my opening statement and in response to questions—reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused, without corroboration, of horrible conduct completely contrary to my record and character. My statement and answers also reflected my deep distress at the unfairness of how this allegation has been handled.

I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been. I might have been too emotional at times. I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said. I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my mind: my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters.

Going forward, you can count on me to be the same kind of judge and person I have been for my entire 28-year legal career: hardworking, even-keeled, open-minded, independent and dedicated to the Constitution and the public good....
A good effort at striking the right note. Not too conciliatory.  I'd like to know exactly what were the "few things I should not have said." I'm sure one was to Senator Klobuchar: "You're asking about blackout, I don't know, have you [ever had an alcohol-induced blackout]?" And — after she suggested that he's not had a blackout and "Is that your answer?" — he said "Yeah, and I'm curious if you have." He already apologized for that at the hearing: "Sorry I did that. This is a tough process. I'm sorry about that."

92 comments:

Matthew Sablan said...

Sorry not sorry.

wendybar said...

Confirm Judge Kavenaugh and stop the DC witch trial. So sick of the double standards of the left. Remember how they treated Paula Jones? James Carville said "Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find" Disgusting....but not one liberal woman was crying about this.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2018/10/05/flashback-paula-jones-was-dogpatch-madonna-who-pinched-men-red

gilbar said...

none of this would be happening without the bastard Trump!
the WSJ website has an article about foreign car makers moving production to the USA
and another article about how unemployment is lower than it's been since 1969 (1969!!!)
And the supreme court is tilting away from living constitution leftest ideals
I'm SO SICK of Winning!!! (well, not quite yet)

Curious George said...

"I'm sure one was to Senator Klobuchar: "You're asking about blackout, I don't know, have you [ever had an alcohol-induced blackout]?" And — after she suggested that he's not had a blackout and "Is that your answer?" — he said "Yeah, and I'm curious if you have."

That exchange was awesome. It ended with the dumbass Klobuchar declaring "I don't have a drinking problem" to which KB replied "Neither do I."

Game. Set. Match.

chickenlittle said...

Yes, let’s have the vote and move onto the impeachment phase. We need more Dem cauterwals for the election

traditionalguy said...

Humans are put into motion by their possessing e-motions. Anger is a normal human male emotion. And guess what, Mr Perfect is a normal man. The myth that a Judge is a black robbed docent sitting on a high place that rules like a Delphic Oracle is a delusion from hell.



wildswan said...

Has anyone else been warned to stock up in case Kavanaugh wins because there will be riots? Should I put up plywood? Or would it be enough to avoid Whole Foods and Outpost?

MadisonMan said...

Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park

I saw a Tweet the other day from some young thing admonishing -- was it Flake? Graham? -- about using that phrase. She apparently had never heard it in reference to Clinton!

I felt old.

Fernandistein said...

"The 26-page lawsuit — filed in Pittsburgh on the eve of Mean Girls Day — alleges that [teen boy] T.F. “was forced to endure multiple court appearances, detention in a juvenile facility, detention at home, the loss of his liberty and other damages until several of the girls reluctantly admitted that their accusations were false” this summer."

mccullough said...

Klobuchar called her dad a drunk on national tv. She is a fucking disgrace. Never take sides against the family in front of outsiders. Never.

And Kavanaugh knew the answer to the question. Of course Klobuchar is a lush. Blackout Amy.

This is DC. Everybody knows who is fucking who. Who has coke problems or booze problems.

Kavanaugh was right to strip away the veneer. “I don’t have a drinking problem” Klobuchar said. Bullshit, the people who don’t have defining problems don’t say that. It’s the drunks who say that. Like father like daughter.

EDH said...

"Forcefully and Passionate".

Sounds like a real "bodice-ripper".

Matthew Sablan said...

Hey, if people are going to be publicly apologizing about things, can we get Ford's team to apologize about threatening Leland through an FBI agent to change her story?

David Hampton said...

Judge Kavanaugh; a class act dealing with frustrated voters who throw a temper tantrum when they don't get their way. Elections have consequences. If the Democrats can't accept defeat, they will spend the rest of their political lives groveling at the feet of the Schumer and Pelosi losers. They pimped Ford in a flawed attempt to bolster a doomed attack on an unproven/unprovable allegation of an event decades ago. Liberals did what they usually do, overplay their hand as they bow down to the Jaba The Hut monster left they created and are supplant to. Note to Schumer; take your glasses off your nose and put them properly on your nose to improve your vision.

LYNNDH said...

Could this be the "Have you no Shame" moment for the Dems? Just listened to Grassley. Awesome! Took them to the woodshed on the mob rule the Dems are ginning up.

Mr. Majestyk said...

Kavanaugh's record on the D.C. Circuit is clear: he has exemplary demeanor as a judge, sitting in judgment of cases in which he is not personally involved, even when those cases involve partisan issues. That he became emotional while giving testimony -- in effect serving a witness and advocate for himself against last-minute, vicious accusations -- is neither surprising nor disqualifying for serving as a judge in other people's cases.

James K said...

I hope he doesn't regret his exchange with Blumenthal: "You'd know more about that [lying]." Boom!

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

He's not allowed to defend himself against the fascist liar left. Off with his head.

Matthew Sablan said...

Honestly, I think that this pound of flesh was extracted from Kavanaugh to put the three or four Republican senators at ease so they could have a talking point against the "wrong temperament" canard.

mccullough said...

Da Nang Dick. Lying about serving in a war in which 58,000 soldiers got killed and another 300,000 were wounded. Another fucking disgrace.

chickenlittle said...

I think having been an accused defendant enhances his judicial experience. How many other Justices have been in his shoes? This has greatly enhanced his range of empathy experience. Thanks, Dems!

Michael K said...

Should I put up plywood? Or would it be enough to avoid Whole Foods and Outpost?

Yeah, I'm staying away from Whole Paycheck this weekend. No sushi for you !

can we get Ford's team to apologize about threatening Leland through an FBI agent to change her story?

Not any old FBI agent but the one who Ford coached about the polygraph and whose house is where she wrote her carefully worded letter. You know. The vague one that is libel suit proof.

jwl said...

David Hume - Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.

Mr. Majestyk said...

I hesitate to write this, because I don't want to give credence to the idea that Kavanaugh can't be impartial justice now. But even if that idea were true -- and it is not -- I would STILL say Kavanaugh should be confirmed. Why? Because the Democrats' outrageous conduct in this entire matter has to be punished. Otherwise, they will have accomplished their goal of keeping Kavanaugh off the Court, and they will do it to every future person nominated by a Republican. The future of the nominating process itself is at stake here.

wildswan said...

If I buy bacon and a few glazed donuts among other things at Sendik's will that be a tell that I support Kavanaugh? If I buy a bale of kale can I slip the chocolate bar past the cashier and the line without getting a beating? If they ask me I certainly will say I support Kavanaugh, pro-life and the presumption of innocence. And Trump. But I don't expect any of this. I think this civil war will be digital - people cut off Twitter, unfriended from Facebook, then lied about, then losing jobs. There'll be an American Stasi reporting to itself via Facebook and Twitter and an American samizdat working above ground.

And the oldest democracy in the world will not go under.

But remember, remember to vote in November

mccullough said...

Ginsburg popped off about Trump during the summer of 2016 going into the election. Her fans loved it. Now her fans say Kavanaugh is too political. And Ginsburg has still not moved to New Zealand. She’s worse than Alec Baldwin. Why don’t these people leave?

mccullough said...

Bush v Gore was the most political decision ever. And it was political on both sides. So of course the losers complain that it was a political decision.

Lucien said...

I think Judge Kavanaugh should have remained silent instead. Better than nothing is a high standard.

Matthew Sablan said...

Bush v Gore had a huge political impact, but I don't think the final decision was very political. One side ran out of statute-mandated time.

The fun thing I always like about it is that, if Gore had the recount done his way, he lost. If Bush had it done his way, he might have lost. Very be careful what you wish for.

tcrosse said...

They were ready to suspend the presumption of innocence for Kavanaugh, but are worried he won't be a fair judge?

Crazy Jane said...

Gee. You take a judge with a good reputation and a 100 percent ABA thumbs-up and then charge him with everything from high school groping to abject drunkenness to gang rape, and he doesn't like it. Who'da thunk it?


Yancey Ward said...

He said nothing that he should have apologized for- had I been in a similar situation, the mockery and derision I employed would have been epic. I don't think a single one of the Democrats on that panel believed Ford's story either, nor do I think Ms. Althouse really does. They have to pretend to believe it because it is the only way to peel off enough votes from the Republican side to defeat the nomination, which they may still do later tomorrow.

There is no good faith here, and should be no apology for laying into them for that lacking.

Mr. Majestyk said...

"Ginsburg popped off about Trump during the summer of 2016 going into the election. Her fans loved it. Now her fans say Kavanaugh is too political. And Ginsburg has still not moved to New Zealand. She’s worse than Alec Baldwin. Why don’t these people leave?"

And after popping off about Trump, she participate in the 2018 travel ban decision. In that case, she joined Sotomayor's dissent which argued that President Trump's order was "motivated by hostility and animus toward the Muslim faith." As far as I know, no one on the left criticized her decision to participate in that case.

Otto said...

His article is pure politics.
I want to ask Ann about her being molested when in grade school.
Are you 'traumatized" about that experience?
Have you had a sexual problems due to that experience?
Do you hate men because of that experience?
Do have trouble with relationships because of that experience?
Do you hate your parents because of their reaction to your experience?
Sorry but those questions are relevant since you put it out there.

Matthew Sablan said...

"As far as I know, no one on the left criticized her decision to participate in that case."

-- Well, of course not. Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer's votes are pretty much set in stone on almost any issue. You'll occasionally get one to sacrifice ideological purity to latch on to a majority decision to weaken it or narrow it in scope, but there's no doubt where they'd vote if they had a solid majority. The others (Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Roberts) are relatively predictable, but have much more variance than the others (or, in Gorsuch's case, we don't really know yet.)

mccullough said...

Bush v Gore was an easy case fucked up by political actors.

The day the electors meet is chosen by Congress. The electors are chosen by the the method determined by the state legislature. If Florida couldn’t get its votes in on time or had competing skates of electors, the House picks the president from the list of top three electoral vote getters.

The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination in voting based on race. The 19th Amendment prohibits discrimination in voting based on sex.

Florida didn’t discriminate in ballot counting on race or sex. So nothing for a federal court to get involved in. The Constitution assigns the responsibility to the state and the Congress. There’s actually a good argument that it’s the Congress that resolves in claims involving racial discrimination in presidential voting.

Case over. But 9 political actors stuck their noses in where they didn’t belong.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Kavanaugh strains credulity when he says Ford’s charges are completely contrary to his character, just as he did when he said that he never attended a party like the one Ford described. The charges are perfectly consistent with the heavy drinking he admittedly did during high school and college, and there is no doubt he drank beer at private homes during his high school years at many small get togethers with several teenagers present. But it’s easier to disparage Ford for having possibly mistaken memory fragments than to assert you don’t think her incident warrants denying Kavanaugh the Supreme Court seat. That would require political honesty.

As for the spurious accusations, if Kavanaugh gets confirmed he should send Avenatti a thank you note.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Kavanaugh strains credulity when he says Ford’s charges are completely contrary to his character, just as he did when he said that he never attended a party like the one Ford described."

-- Ford's charges ARE completely contrary to the character witnesses we received that say he's never sexually harassed anyone before. His statement that he never attended a party with Ford has been corroborated by *every other person Ford has claimed was at the party.* How dies this *strain credulity*? Kavanaugh never said "I never went to house parties and drank!" He said something more like: "I never assaulted Ford or was at the party she described."

Did you actually pay attention to this circus?

Matthew Sablan said...

"But it’s easier to disparage Ford for having possibly mistaken memory fragments than to assert you don’t think her incident warrants denying Kavanaugh the Supreme Court seat."

-- If what she said were true, I'd agree Kavanaugh shouldn't be seated. Unfortunately, we have no evidence beyond her shifting testimony that has had multiple holes punched in it, including having all of her named witnesses denying it happened. She's also been found to have been less than candid about multiple other things, and to not be able to remember things that happened in the last few months. She's not a reliable witness; there is no logical reason to believe her over multiple witnesses and Kavanaugh's denial.

Yes, we should believe women who come forward. But, we also need a standard for when we decide to NOT believe someone. Every witness denying it happened and a story that is inconsistent seems like a pretty strong reason to move a statement from the true to false bin.

Yancey Ward said...

This right here is what no good faith looks like:

"Kavanaugh strains credulity when he says Ford’s charges are completely contrary to his character, just as he did when he said that he never attended a party like the one Ford described."

How do those "strain credulity"? It only strains credulity if you already believe Kavanaugh is lying about assaulting Ford or any other woman. Question begging is usually a sign of dishonesty.

Sacto_Dave said...

I thought Kavanaugh showed yuge restraint. When Blumenthal asked him about "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus", I'd have said "you mean like your service in Vietnam?".

Matthew Sablan said...

Yancey: I think it is either misunderstanding Kavanaugh's denials, or bad faith. A lot of Democrats I've seen have said Kavanaugh has claimed to be a choir boy who did nothing wrong, when that's not what he said. That was the image we had of him before people went digging through his high school years. He has been frank and open. He likes beer. Sometimes he drank a lot and went home to sleep it off. Sometimes he did stupid things he isn't proud of.

He has never been blackout drunk according to him (and there's no real way to prove that one way or the other, especially 30 years later.) But, instead of that, most low-information voters simply get the "Kavanaugh is not a Boy Scout Like He Claimed" headlines drilled into them and never bother to listen to where he admits that, and only makes specific denials about specific claims.

I charitably offer the possibility of simply being misled by media accounts or not careful reading instead of bad faith. But, Occam's Razor says it is bad faith.

traditionalguy said...

The Q world thinks the confirmation of Kavanaugh was being delayed by Dems primarily to delay the President's showdown with Rosenstein and his cabal that includes Mueller. That needs the dreaded Declassification of evidence exposing the coup d'etat treason against the USA that was assisted by the British government. Only then will see mass arrests start under the 50K sealed indictments which Sessions has ready.

The fear is that the famous people being arrested could lead to a final armed showdown between Trump's USMC andNational Guard against the CIA's secret military forces. Stay tuned.

Matthew Sablan said...

Man. Whenever I see "Q" I think "Star Trek The Next Generation," and then you go and disappoint me with conspiracy BS.

Yancey Ward said...

Matthew, no!

"Yes, we should believe women who come forward."

You should always treat the stories with true cruel neutrality. Once you take that initial position, it becomes harder to apply the standard you advocated for later in the comment. This idea that the story validates itself is so very dangerous to due process.

Better to say that we shouldn't disbelieve women who come forward. The position should be, ok that is your story, lets see what evidence we can come up with that supports the story, and what evidence undercuts it.

Matthew Sablan said...

Maybe. I always proceed as, "If this is true, then this." Now, I try not to get distracted by things like why didn't you come forward X years ago, etc. There's lots of reasons for that. That's just noise. It helps to have contemporary accounts, etc., but that is just more of "If this is true, then this."

I suppose the better way to say it is that I'm willing to treat a claim as a hypothesis. If it is true, then certain things should be true. For example, if Ford's statement is true, one of the witnesses should at least remember a party where Kavanaugh and Ford were together. But... there's not. If her statement is true, we should see in her therapist notes corroborating details, but she won't let us see that.

Maybe "believe" is the wrong word. It is easier to prove or disprove an assertion, and so that's the approach I'd use.

Yancey Ward said...

Matthew, it is getting increasingly difficult to support the notion that this is all misunderstanding. The words and context are pretty established facts, and yet Charles still twisted the denials to make it into something he could try to convince anyone was a lie. At some point, you have to call it out. Do you think he will acknowledge your comment was the correct reading?

Matthew Sablan said...

No, but I'm naive.

Yancey Ward said...

"Man. Whenever I see "Q" I think "Star Trek The Next Generation," and then you go and disappoint me with conspiracy BS."

I do the same thing! Thinking about it, Q from TNG was truly cruelly neutral.

mccullough said...

Ford forgets everything that could be disproven. If she picks a date, Kavanaugh could disprove it by showing he was somewhere else. If she picks a place, Kavanaugh could disprove it by showing the house doesn’t fit her description or that he was never there or that he wa there at a party with 50 people.

Kavanaugh has a calendar accounting for his whereabouts in the summer of ‘82. Ford has four shifting versions of a story that no one can corroborate.

This is a joke. Ford is full of shit.

gilbar said...

MadisonMan said...
Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park
I saw a Tweet the other day from some young thing admonishing -- was it Flake? Graham? -- about using that phrase.

Graham was being interviewed ( i heard a soundclip) when he said it; and the crowd erupted in groans and derisive jeers. Then the interviewer 'helped out' by saying:
"That was a quote of something someone once said"
No mention of who (or which side) said it, no mention of who (or when) it was about; just 'something someone once said' Any snowflake hearing these helpful words (hell, ANYONE hearing them) would assume that it was an evil rethuglican that said it Recently.
It's SO MUCH EASIER for people to adhere to the democrat platform if they are clueless

Mr. Majestyk said...

"How do those 'strain credulity'? It only strains credulity if you already believe Kavanaugh is lying about assaulting Ford or any other woman. Question begging is usually a sign of dishonesty."

The whole "I Believe Survivors" meme is a giant exercise in question begging. How do we know that someone who claims to be a survivor IS a survivor, unless we first examine the all the relevant evidence critically?

Sydney said...

The amazing thing to me about the accusations was how willing the media was to publish them with so little evidence. All the other #MeToo stories were careful to say, "so-and-so confirmed that the person was upset after the encounter," or "so-and-so confirmed the person told him/her about the incident soon after the encounter." They must have been more worried about being sued out the ass by Hollywood and fellow media types than they are by a judge/lawyer. Does he have a case against them? A case against Ford? A case against Avanetti? Against Ramirez?

victoria said...

I would have admired him more if he had stepped out of his comfort zone, (Wall Street Journal) and published his op-ed in a less supportive publication. But, that is the way the Republicans work, they go to their safe places and complain about anyone who is against them. The Cheeto does it all the time, so now they do. Shameful


Vicki from Pasadena

Matthew Sablan said...

"I would have admired him more if he had stepped out of his comfort zone, (Wall Street Journal) and published his op-ed in a less supportive publication."

-- What other publication could legitimately publish anything he gave them when they've openly declared him a potential rapist and liar? They couldn't ethically run his op-ed because their public position is he is a liar who can't be trusted.

Rick said...

But, that is the way the Republicans work, they go to their safe places and complain about anyone who is against them.

Must have learned it from Obama after his refusal to go on Fox. It's interesting left wingers only recognize these actions are problems when a Republican does them. Revealingly they're still unable to apply the new standard to their own team.

I would have admired him more

Plus the lies get tiresome.

Comanche Voter said...

If you engage in bear baiting, you should not be surprised if (A) the bear gets aggravated; and (B) complains about the process.

To then say that the bear's resistance makes him unfit--is sheer hypocrisy.

Yancey Ward said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gahrie said...

But, that is the way the Republicans work, they go to their safe places and complain about anyone who is against them

Someone remind who created the idea of 'safe spaces". Is there anyone who doesn't "complain about anyone who is against them?"...you know like Vicki is in her post.

Yancey Ward said...

Matthew, ok, fair enough- it just sets me off when I see anyone make a statement like "we should believe the women who come forward"- it is just as wrong as "we should believe the men who deny the charges". In the case at hand, I don't "believe" either one of them, I just look at the lack of witnesses supporting the accusation itself, and decided that without that support, Ford's story wouldn't change my vote to no from yes- I would treat it as if she hadn't come forth in the first place. I agree with you- all the blather about "if she were telling the truth, she wouldn't have waited 36 years" isn't relevant. There are a lot of irrelevant arguments going around on both sides. I wasn't even persuaded by the mannerisms during the testimony- I don't trust my ability to detect liars that way. Someone at the hearing was lying, though, is my judgment by this point- I can't accept the false memory theory, nor can I accept that Kavanaugh wouldn't remember this if he did do it- but the evidence has to support Ford, or I have to dismiss her account because Kavanaugh does deserve the innocent label until you can prove his guilt. I wouldn't convict him of a crime on this evidence, and I wouldn't even find for Ford if this were a civil trial- no honest, rational person would- she has no evidentiary support- every bit of it cuts in Kavanaugh's favor- the "witnesses" either refute the accusation, or they say they can't remember the event at all.

Now, one can argue in good faith that the accusation itself is enough to bar Kavanaugh from the court- saying, for example, that a 5% or whatever likelihood that Ford is telling the truth is sufficient, but that is a personal judgment. I pick 5%, because that is about where I stand myself, but then my standard would be at the 50% level for this particular accusation, and I would only vote against Kavanaugh in that case because I would then think it probable he was lying. Had he confessed right from the start that he did do what Ford claimed, then I would have kept my vote at a "yes" since I don't think the behavior alleged against a 16-17 year old boy was disqualifying in the first place.

glenn said...

Never complain, never explain.

Mr. Majestyk said...

"I would have admired him more if he had stepped out of his comfort zone, (Wall Street Journal) and published his op-ed in a less supportive publication."

I don't understand why it matters where he publishes his op-ed. Would the substance of his op-ed be different if he published it in the NYT (assuming he could get it published there)?

Ralph L said...

misled by media accounts or not careful reading instead of bad faith.

Considering how often the media misstates what Trump says, it's their bad faith that's all too many people hear and don't know they're being lied to. The original source materials are now available, but most people don't go there.

About 2000, the SCOTUS had to intervene after the FL Supremes went off the law twice.

anti-de Sitter space said...

"...few things I should not have said."



Gotta keep the truth re being a raging R party hack unsaid. Odd job interview where you can't say anything re the reason you've been selected for the job.

Yancey Ward said...

"I would have been more likely to believe Ford's initial story if she had sold it to The Wall Street Journal instead of The Washington Post"

Would you think that rational, Vicki?

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

Vicki: I would have admired him more if he had stepped out of his comfort zone, (Wall Street Journal) and published his op-ed in a less supportive publication. But, that is the way the Republicans work, they go to their safe places and complain about anyone who is against them. The Cheeto does it all the time, so now they do. Shameful

For some reason this comment made me think of that lady asking about polygraphs in the clip of Graham responding "Why don't we dunk him in water, see if he floats?".

rcocean said...

Why should he have apologized to Senator Kochcore (or whatever the fuck her name is)?

He had every right to be sarcastic and toss it right back at her.

What he should have said is: I will not discuss my private drinking habits while at Yale - 30 years ago. And I will not discuss my private Sex life while at Yale.

rcocean said...

If this destroys the respect people have for the Judiciary. That's great.

As proven by their rulings on immigration and Gay Marriage, they're just politicians in black robes.

The left sees this, and acts accordingly. Everyone on the Right, is still pretending that they're basing their rulings on Law and the Constitution - which they're NOT.

rcocean said...

The Liberal justices vote as a bloc, and you can predict their rulings based on reading the case. They vote the "Liberal" side - 90% of the time.

The idea that Ruth ACLU Ginsberg or the wise Latina rule based on "THE CONSTITUTION" is absurd. BTW, Breyer is still going around saying "We" need to use international law in "our" Rulings.

Michael K said...


Blogger victoria said...
I would have admired him more if he had stepped out of his comfort zone, (Wall Street Journal) and published his op-ed in a less supportive publication.


Why lie ? We know that there is no way you would have "admired him" no matter what he did.

You swoop in here once in a while and post a leftist comment.

Deep Runner said...

Just a couple more days, and it will be on to the next outrage for illiberal libs. K did the right thing in writing that op-ed. To those who think he should have done it in some other paper, don't worry. The lib vultures have been circling in the comments section of the WSJ piece.

readering said...

"post a leftist comment"

We can't have a that here on the old white male trumpist hang-out.

readering said...

Michael K patrolling the comments for signs of infection by opposing viewpoints.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

You swoop in here once in a while and post a leftist comment.

10/5/18, 11:09 AM

In the meantime, there has been an outbreak of typhus in LA.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-typhus-20181004-story.html

Typhus in LA, shit and needles all over the streets of San Francisco - congrats, Vickie, you're getting exactly what you voted for. As your cities descend into third-world shitholes, you can at least take comfort in the fact that you're free from the terrible scrounge of - plastic straws.

Tregonsee said...

If Judge Kavanaugh had been coolly dispassionate, ie. Judge Spock, we would be hearing about how he was a cold, calculating psychopath. With the Left, you can't win.

readering said...

I guess you have not met many coolly dispassionate judges.

Michael K said...

Blogger readering said...
Michael K patrolling the comments for signs of infection by opposing viewpoints.


My comment was on the irony of her assertion tat she would admire him more if....

I would be as likely to expect you to post something about the anti-Trump hysteria.

Masscon said...

I hate the fact that he apologized...has the man learned nothing from Trump?

Apologizing is exactly what Bush would have done, believing he was taking the high road and that he would be admired for it...not bloody likely with this group of jackals in the press and Senate.

readering said...

He didn't apologize for the Senate. He apologized because he has been scolded by his peers in the legal community and he wants to have a better working relationship with them than Thomas had for the first 2 decades on the Court. (After that things have mellowed even witety him)n Man does not live by the Federalist Socialone.

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

He apologized because he has been scolded by his peers in the legal community and he wants to have a better working relationship with them than Thomas had for the first 2 decades on the Court.

You mean the 1700 lefty female and beta male "professors?" They are not his peers. The "apology" was pro forma.

n.n said...

Klobuchar was hoping to justify her vote with a process crime, and without any corroborating evidence, must have been dismayed when the warlock did not confess.

readering said...

The law professor signature list was up to over 2400 and many I am sure he had hobnobbed with. He was also no doubt stunned by the ABA announcing it was revisiting his rating in light of his testimony and Stevens speaking out against him on the same basis. Not pro forma.

Rick said...

readering said...
The law professor signature list was up to over 2400 and many I am sure he had hobnobbed with. He was also no doubt stunned by the ABA


Doubtful. All non-leftists understand leftists hate them.

readering said...

You don't know the elite legal community.

narciso said...

like the ones who signed the duke 88 letter, the ones who endorsed Obamacare?

tcrosse said...

You don't know the elite legal community.

How elite are those who join the lynch mob?

readering said...

whataboutism the most tiresome form argument

President Pee-Pee Tape said...

He already apologized for that at the hearing: "Sorry I did that. This is a tough process. I'm sorry about that."

Did he apologized to the family of the employee killed by Sea World for just making up a liability waiver from OSHA on the basis of being in the entertainment industry?

I guess making up that false reasoning whole cloth was a "tough process."

This fucker is a joke. Blackout Brett has already secured his place as the worst successfully nominated SCOTUS justice in history.

Retrofit the bench with a beer cup holder under the table and a "boofing" device sticking up from his chair.

Bottom of the Barrel Blackout Brett. Nominated specifically to absolve Trump of any responsibility to obey the law while in office.

Republicronies are an embarrassment.

Michael K said...

Don't tell me that failed molecular biology student Ritmo is blathering here, too.

Michael K said...


Blogger readering said...
You don't know the elite legal community.


Thank God.

readering said...

He never gets enough praise.

President Pee-Pee Tape said...

Get a grip on yourself, Michael K. Before your nursemaid does.

Saying that I "failed" is a pretty, transparently hilarious way for you to put out of your mind the fact that you said Craig Venter "discovered the human genome." But those of us who didn't fail actually know that you fucked that one up as badly as you do everything else.

You embarrass yourself when you make up shit about someone like me, just for pointing out what an ignorant, arrogant twat you are.