October 3, 2018

The cruelest anti-Kavanaugh argument yet.

From "How This Brutal Confirmation Process Could Shape Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court Justice" (Time):
Even if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, he will carry scars from the brutal process to get him there.... [A]s he limps over the finish line... the question could soon shift from whether he will be confirmed to what kind of justice he will be.

Will Kavanaugh... dig in on the far right, radicalized by the experience? Will he swing the other way towards the middle, determined to improve his reputation among women? Or will he be able to move past it entirely?...

“What [Kavanaugh said at the hearing] was so explicitly partisan, so permanently political, so grudge-bearing, that I don’t see how somebody puts on a new robe, goes to a new court and forgets about that,” says John Q. Barrett, professor at St. John’s University School of Law. “The public will never forget about that. This guy, if he’s going to be confirmed, will now be heckled and protested and a pariah for the rest of his life for a segment of the country.”...

“It will raise questions about whether he could ever view any issue that touched on questions of sexual misconduct fairly, given what has happened,” says Melissa Murray, professor at New York University School of Law.
The linked article doesn't come out and make this argument, but it caused me to see it: Kavanaugh should be rejected because the confirmation experienced has ruined his mind. He's damaged now and can no longer think in the properly judicial way that was once within his capacity. A moderated version of that argument is that people will worry that he's now damaged and skewed and that's reason enough to keep him off the Court, to preserve the belief in the legitimacy of the institution.

I'm not making these arguments. I'm just seeing them and finding them horrendously perverse and cruel. Why not devise a confirmation process that is such an ordeal that it will drive out the very qualities we want in a judge? First, it would be torture, and second, you could never confirm a nominee. It's an inherently self-defeating process.

481 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 481   Newer›   Newest»
Yancey Ward said...

Qwinn,

Yeah, I see that, too. It is almost like Ford, to be "uncredible" had to have blurted out, "I'm lying," or have been caught on camera answering questions with one hand behind her back with fingers crossed. As I have pointed out a couple of times, people are confusing "creditable" with "credible". To be credible your accusation has to have some evidence other than your testimony. Ford's story has literally none of that, and every piece of evidence, cuts against her accusation.

hombre said...

Blogger Trumpit said...
“Mark Judge is not going to say anything about the attempted rape or assault because that would implicate himself in the crime. Clarence Thomas was and is a beast of a man with limited intellect; ....”

Mark Judge is protected by the statute of limitations. Clarence Thomas has never been accused of beastly behavior and many believe his intellect to be superior to several of his current and former colleagues.

Try to do some critical thinking. It will make you a more entertaining troll.

Lucien said...

How 'bout we say that no one who has ever been the victim of a violent crime can ever be a judge, because the experience is so traumatizing that they cannot fairly and impartially sit in judgment of anyone accused of such a crime. THen we can ban those who have ever been wrongly accused, too.

That ought to cull the herd nicely.

Oso Negro said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mikee said...

And Tom, at 10/3/18, 10:57 AM:

Hillary Clinton has been accused of many things, often with so much evidence that it takes a misbehaving FBI team and their bosses to prevent her going to jail for it. T reason she is called a bitch is much more substantiated than any smears against Kavanaugh. In short, she was a bitch before she was called one. Ask any of the bimbos whose eruptions she helped squash.

Yancey Ward said...

The Democrats on the committee are lucky that Kavanaugh didn't have a glass of ice water at his table Thursday. It could have been a real bloodbath of partisanship.

readering said...

Only if ice water

mikee said...

JPS, it is hard enough keeping track of who made which smear, when they start having the same last name it becomes even harder. Thanks for the correction.

Unknown said...

Thirdly it is complete and utter bullshit. Clarence Thomas went through the same lynching and he is the best justice we have. I certainly hope Kavanaugh follows in his footsteps.

walter said...

" The rest of us on the jury did not try to change her vote in large part because we had a small sense of how painful this matter was to her. The fact was, it didn't change the outcome of the case."

At least that case.

tim in vermont said...

Imagine if Hillary Clinton was accused of being a bitch? No one would stand for that, even if people have made accusations. She would be, rightfully, angry. #himtoo

Hillary Clinton has always enjoyed the protection of the press, her fixers in the FBI, etc, etc, from ever being called a “bitch” outside of the comment threads in places like this. Imagine the charges against her receiving a full airing in the Senate? Or even the press? With the presumption of guilt? Ha ha ha! THat’s an alternate universe.

mikee said...

Francisco D, thanks to you, too.

walter said...

Given that thinking, maybe she should have been excluded from the jury.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Want a great confirmation process? I've got one...

If Kavanaugh goes down in a Senate vote, nominate Amy Coney Barrett the next day. Mitch McConnell gives two days until a Senate vote, bypassing the Judiciary Committee entirely, as they have proved themselves incapable of genuine oversight. Barrett becomes a Supreme Court Justice, and we are able to move beyond this perverse political theater.

I am a second for no video or sound recording of any further Congressional proceedings. This grandstanding is best reserved for outside the walls of the Capitol building. Let them go find their microphones and cameras.

I used to think that transparency and openness (in the form of video cameras and sound recordings) were a good way to go with our political class, but it's made collegiality and compromise impossible, and turned 535 representatives into aspiring actors. Enough. Let's go back to transcripts and official documents.

Michael K said...

As Irish-Catholic glad to see bigotry of pre-Vatican 2 America largely vanished (although for sure Vatican not doing us any favors by handling of abuse scandals in clergy).

rendering has neglected to bone up on DiFi's interrogation of Barrett in the hearing on her appellate nomination.

Fabi said...

As the sign in the china shop reminds us -- you break it, you buy it. The left broke it. Cash, check or card?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Anyone remember that link Ann posted a while back to the video loop of Hillary accusing bill's accusers. There was a key-word and I cannot remember it.

Qwinn said...

I agree with the oft repeated notion that if Kavanaugh isn't confirmed, we'll get more of this. I just want to point out, though, that Kavanaugh was on track to be confirmed before this started. His just being confirmed does absolutely nothing to deter future bad behavior. The Dems still got to massively fundraise, to set it up where they can claim all his future decisions are illegitimate, etc. They have profited enormously so far and barring an electoral bloodbath that has yet to happen I am not seeing any negative consequences. Until negative consequences are applied that outweigh the massive profits they've made on this tactic, it will still continue. Kavanaugh being confirmed and no more is much worse than a draw for the conservative side.

Bay Area Guy said...

I am woman -- hear me roar! See my breasts? You can't ignore!

We must start ignoring crazy cat women, even if they have nice hooters.

Chuck said...

JPS said...
Mikee,

"Wasn't it Sid Blumenthal who dragged out the hoary "False in one thing, false in everything" doctrine to impugn Kavanaugh over high school yearbook idioms?"

No, it was Dick Blumenthal.

The Dems haven't reached quite the level of chutzpah needed to have Sid say that, but just wait awhile.


I think that what Sid Blumenthal said was, "How are we coming with the 'gang rape' thing? Our internal polling looks good on that one. Does she need some more funding? Because we can write her a check today..."

Phil D said...

"It's an inherently self-defeating process."

No, it isn't. The candidates the democrats will propose in the future wont be subjected to this kind of abuse. So it is a winning strategy for them, psychopaths, like the present day democrats have become.

tim in vermont said...

Republicans think they have the votes, so there’s that. This was a strategic blunder by the Democrats.

Rick said...

In the meantime we have learned that AA sadly (and I mean that sincerely) suffered from sexual abuse in her teens

When did "we" learn this?

Yancey Ward said...

If the parties labels were all reversed here- President and majority/minority Senate- here is how the Democrats would have handled the process with Ford's story appearing in the WSJ the day before the committee vote:

(1) Committee votes anyway with no additional hearings;
(2) Senate confirms nominee next day or the day after.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Althouse trying to win back disaffected commenters by mischaracterizing these articles, reading something into them they don't say. After so many commenters mischaracterized her earlier Kavanaugh statements. Huh.”

What her real unfiltered opinion is, is still a mystery. I think if she came out and clearly stated her opinion on this matter her commenters would go even more bat shit crazy angry at her than they already have. She’s treading lightly here.

Be brave!

readering said...

Michael K you have been relentlessly touting Barrett as surest instrument to overturn Roe although she has not herself said that. But when non-Catholic defender of Roe tries to probe that possibility in confirmation hearing it's bigotry like the evangelical hatred of Romanism pre-1960? Hah.

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

Cornyn's comment yesterday suggests they have all but Flake. Cornyn is the majority whip, so he would be the one person who would most likely know where Collins and Murkowski are going to come down, and he did imply it would be a vote for confirmation, but then, again, Jeff Flake said the same thing explicitly about himself only to "change" his mind 3 hours later, and with Murkowski's support.

Yancey Ward said...

I personally think Flake has been bought by someone. It was hard to think any other way after watching him on stage at Global Citizen last weekend

furious_a said...

As Irish-Catholic glad to see bigotry of pre-Vatican 2 America

Oh, please, Blessed Martyr of The Six Counties. Just wondering why we can't broaden the pool of SCOTUS talent like why we can't broaden Presidential talent from the Bush and Clinton families (although Pres. Trump might have taken care of that).

tim in vermont said...

I think if she came out and clearly stated her opinion on this matter

I really don’t think that Althouse cares if her commenters are angry at her. This is just another way of calling her dishonest. She might be a little biased on certain issues we all know, but I don’t know why you would imply she is dishonest. You just think that since she is an intelligent woman, obviously she must agree with you on things.

Most people’s definition of “intelligent” boils down to “usually agrees with me.”

Brilliant: “Said something I believe vehemently as well!”

Genius: “Agrees with me on almost everything and writes better than I do.”

This standard internet usage. It’s also clearly errant nonsense.

tim in vermont said...

Judging by the comment counts, I don’t see the dissatisfaction, BTW.

Laslo Spatula said...

"Let's give her a break recognising that the sexual abuse she faced was probably sufficiently painful and confusing that "cruel neutrality" is out of the question"

I understand the sentimentality, but this would be much easier if Althouse had not posited that she was specifically approaching this with the aforementioned cruel neutrality:

"..And attacking me here when I'm analyzing things in what is, really, cruel neutrality is showing how unprepared you are. I don't want to have to laugh at your pain next week, so please shape up and get serious..." - 9/18/18, 10:11 AM

"...It's cruel neutrality, my friend. No one else is doing it, I don't think. It's a tough job, but if I don't do it, it won't be done. It's my calling I'm afraid. If you are here reading this, you must like it or benefit from it somehow. I'm not going to dilute my brand. I don't have something else I want to do or could do as effectively... --9/28/18, 10:55 AM


If she knew she had reason to be emotionally conflicted in analysis she could have simply left the 'cruel neutrality' branding out of it.

At this point I would love to know who's pain we should be laughing at.

I am Laslo.

traditionalguy said...

Where the rubber meets the road on Brett' s guts is in the SCOTUS majority that upholds the law described in Justice K's reply to Lindsay Graham about Military Tribunals that can carrying out death sentences for Treason. That should terrify hundreds of high ranking traitors who stole money , murdered Americans and took millions in Chinese and Saudi Bribes .

Jim at said...

Will Kavanaugh... dig in on the far right, radicalized by the experience?

Let's hope so. Because that's exactly what the left deserves after what they've done.

furious_a said...

I agree with the oft repeated notion that if Kavanaugh isn't confirmed, we'll get more of this.

(R)s will get more of this until the Majority treats the Minority with the same fairness with which the latter treats the former's nominees.

Because even flatworms learn to turn away from pain, right?

readering said...

Furious_a. I think it a product of fight over Roe that we see bench dominated by RC and Jews. Mainline Protestant Republicans voted Roe. Now folks consider Catholics most reliable to overturn and Jews most reliable to uphold.

Saint Croix said...

It basically means no other partisan person could ever sit on the court - no senator, no former president, no cabinet official, no governor - they've all made partisan remarks in their careers, particularly while campaigning - that they'd be disqualified under this standard.

Nice point. Hugo Black was the finest (imho) Supreme Court Justice we ever had. And he was very partisan as a Senator. But that experience--and his own confirmation battle--scarred him in a good way. He grounded himself in the text of the Constitution and never believed that the Supreme Court was the final word on every subject.

Original Mike said...

Blogger Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...”I used to think that transparency and openness (in the form of video cameras and sound recordings) were a good way to go with our political class, but it's made collegiality and compromise impossible, and turned 535 representatives into aspiring actors. Enough. Let's go back to transcripts and official documents.”

Yep. Similarly, I used to believe in transparency in campaign funding and donations, but the tatics of the left have turned me 180 on that one. People need privacy so that they can act freely without fear of coercion.

Michael K said...

(R)s will get more of this until the Majority treats the Minority with the same fairness with which the latter treats the former's nominees.

Are you crazy like trumpit ? Did you ever look up the confirmations of RBG or Sotomayor or Kagan?

Saint Croix said...

Unknown at 10:01, that was kinda brilliant.

JPS said...

Thanks for that, Chuck. That's about how I'd picture Sid in this.

mikee, I understand - easy mistake to make. Dick has been dishonest, and I don't like him, but to me he's just not in the same league of malice as Sid.

Anyway the Blumenthal confusion reminds me of a crack from Churchill. He couldn't stand John Foster Dulles. He'd lisp his name, and refer to Dull, Duller, Dullith.

Then someone mentioned to him CIA director Allen Dulles [John's brother]. Churchill turned to whoever was handy and asked with grim incredulity,

"They tell me there is another Dullith. Is this possible?"

gahrie said...

What her real unfiltered opinion is, is still a mystery.

No it isn't. She believes Ford. She's worried that Kavanagh is the potential fifth vote to overturn Roe. She thinks that Kavanagh's reputation is "too perfect". She appears to support the idea of "by any means necessary" even if this includes ignoring due process and rejecting logical analysis.

I think if she came out and clearly stated her opinion on this matter her commenters would go even more bat shit crazy angry at her than they already have.

Perhaps. I would have more respect for her though.

She’s treading lightly here.

She's trying to have it both ways...dispassionate law school professor and committed SJW.

Be brave!

Michael K said...

He grounded himself in the text of the Constitution and never believed that the Supreme Court was the final word on every subject.

Former Klansman Black gave us Lyndon Johnson by ignoring voting irregularities of amazing volume in the 1948 Texas Senate Race.

I suggest you read Robert Caro's biography of Johnson. Especially volume 2, "Means of Ascent."

Jim at said...

So if you're being vicously attacked by one side, fighting back "partisan"?

Well, of course. And certain, stupid idiots who comment on this blog think that alone is a sign of mental illness and worthy of disqualification.

Fuck them. War.

Yancey Ward said...

I had forgotten that September 18th comment- it came from Althouse in the post where she had began with this:

"Kavanaugh's accuser might never be able to provide a specific time and place for the alleged attack, and you may think Kavanaugh will do all right simply avowing that he has no memory of ever doing anything like that. That answer creates the occasion for any other woman to come forward and say he did something like that to me, and it will be relevant not just to his actions long ago, but his truthfulness in the present."

I hadn't carefully read that the first time, I think, because I would have written a comment addressing it specifically since it was such a strawman. I don't think I have seen a single Kavanaugh supporter- not even one who thought Kavanaugh would and should defend himself by claiming he couldn't remember ever doing that. That would, indeed be a ridiculous defense- a firm denial of the charge itself- "I never did that" full stop was always the only defense if he knew she was lying or mistaken. I have to now go back and reread some her posts on this.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"lawyapalooza said...
The guy was sanctioned for dishonesty and poor temperament well before the hearings. He is not fit."
Gosh, you would think tht it would have been mentioned during the hearing, then. Or maybe it was double-secret probation?

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“I really don’t think that Althouse cares if her commenters are angry at her. This is just another way of calling her dishonest. She might be a little biased on certain issues we all know, but I don’t know why you would imply she is dishonest. You just think that since she is an intelligent woman, obviously she must agree with you on things.”

That’s nice, but everyone is a bit dishonest at times, especially if it’s for self preservation. This blog IS Althouse. I think she is intelligent enough to temper her true opinions based on the reaction of her mostly conservative commentariat. Having said that, I’ve given her credit for saying as much as she already has, that was brave considering that 80% of her male commentariat come across as misogynistic. I have no opinion on Althouse’s opinions except to observe and note them. I am under no disillusionment in thinking she agrees with me on anything. We are all entitled to our opinions.

wildswan said...

Professional lady said...
What about the counter argument that his experience would give him a deeper appreciation of the due process rights afforded by the Constitution?
Blogger Kevin said...
No presumption of innocence for charges of rape was a bridge too far for most Americans.

There are plenty of people who would not have been the least bit surprised by all that has happened and who would have presented a hard surface from Day One. But Kavanaugh is more like Everyman suddenly ambushed: surprised, startled, emotional, angry, striving for balance, striving to forgive. That Everyman quality, that lack of the rhinocerous skin of a politician, makes it easy for everyone else to imagine themselves threatened by the possibility of such an attack. That's something permanent coming out of the hearings, no matter what. The left will never again be as believable nationwide as they were the day the hearing started.

I don't think Kavanaugh is "damaged goods"; he's just a man who has experienced what the hard left will do to people. As it did in the Soviet Union to dissidents, so it still does, to anyone it targets. So Kavanaugh's presence makes the court more diverse, putting it in vital touch with the young men being denied due process in the universities and elsewhere and with everyone losing rights to the regulatory state. Moreover Kavanaugh can be a role model, showing these disinherited from Constitutional rights how to handle the devastation that the hard left is now bringing into ordinary lives, showing the disinherited that it isn't all over, showing them that half country now realizes that an innocent man can be accused falsely and smeared for ideological reasons.

Saint Croix said...

The guy was sanctioned for dishonesty and poor temperament well before the hearings. He is not fit.

On the appellate court he was sanctioned for dishonesty and poor temperament?

Link?

tim in vermont said...

No it isn't. She believes Ford. I think she believes that something happened to Ford, and I think she toyed with believing that Kavanaugh was lying, but I don’t think so.

She’s worried that Kavanagh is the potential fifth vote to overturn Roe. Well, yeah.

She thinks that Kavanagh’s reputation is “too perfect”. This is just an observation about style and politics.

She appears to support the idea of “by any means necessary” I don’t see that.

even if this includes ignoring due process and rejecting logical analysis. Them are the actual rules as defined in the constitution. They could reject him for a wrinkle in his tie.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Agreed. Unknown's 10:01 comment is spot on.

tim in vermont said...

Link?

I Googled for it and found nothing. Not even the DailyKOS.

Michael K said...

The next question is Flake has been in on this caper all along.

Flake, who is not seeking re-election this November, spent some time in Zimbabwe serving as an election observer. This is all well and good (democracy FTW!) except that Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) cancelled the Senate’s August recess in an effort to push through Donald Trump’s judiciary nominees, and Flake sits on the key Senate Judiciary Committee. Well, he would, if he were in town.

Why was he out of town when McConnell was trying to get judicial nominees confirmed ?

Despite multiple attempts to get an answer from his Washington D.C. office about his latest in-office foreign tour, no one on Flake’s staff has updated this reporter on the senator’s whereabouts or when he plans to get back to work. They’ve yet to explain why the Arizona senator has told reporters conflicting information about his date of return, and there is yet no word on whether the lame-duck Flake will give up his coveted committee position to someone who will show up and actually vote.

That was from August.

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

NTTAWWI, but isn't SCOTUS now 7-2 Catholic/Jewish and all Ivy? A little, um, concentrated, couldn't one say?

"Three Jews, Four Catholics, and one Episcopalian go into a bar…"

traditionalguy said...

As for revenge on The Professor for believing the Ford performance, so did most people including the sensitive guy Trump. After Kavanaugh opened fire on his counter attack, the honest witness with the real emotions switched. Brett did it. All by himself with his Army of 30 year friends and women that vouched for his character. Suddenly the score changed from 1 to Nothing in favor of the girl 1 to 60 in favor of Brett and 59 strong women backing him up.

That's how a wicked slander is defeated. So make many good friends and keep them.

Yancey Ward said...

Wildswan at 1:13- last paragraph...

That says exactly what I think, too.

tim in vermont said...

”Three Jews, Four Catholics, and one Episcopalian enter the bar…”

FIFY

Michael K said...

that was brave considering that 80% of her male commentariat come across as misogynistic.

How about the female commenters, Inga? They seem not to believe this bullshit either, except of course you.

readering said...

And Gorsuch raised RC (and Garland Jewish) and Thomas gone back and forth RC and Episcopalian.

readering said...

i think males make up over 95 per cent of commenter here.

readering said...

That's why folks should treat the few Ingas like Faberge eggs.

You mean like POTUS last night?

Nevermind.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“How about the female commenters, Inga? They seem not to believe this bullshit either, except of course you.”

Conservative female commenters. I’m not one of them, obviously. How many liberal female commenters comment here? Maybe a handful and none consistently. I also question the honesty of these female conservatives here, I’d hate to think they were squelching their own opinions in favor of the male perspective. I’ve observed this phenomenon before in female conservatives here. I recall one even saying she would be in favor of taking away the woman’s vote. (Mockturtle). So I do not entirely trust ALL female conservatives’ opinions regarding this matter.

Yancey Ward said...

I wrote in the other thread this morning, but a cruelly neutral observer would have written at least one post analyzing the inconsistencies and outright proven lies by Ford in this episode. The most she did do was post about Mitchell's brief analysis, and then waved it away by writing that you couldn't know what was influencing Mitchell to write what she did.

I can say this with 100% certainty, I would have written the exact same analyses I have written on Ford if the nominee were Larry Tribe. Accusations without evidence, and, in this case exculpatory evidence, should have zero influence on whether or not to confirm. I don't care if you find a dozen of such unsubstantiated accusations in a case like this. Talk is always cheap and easy, that is why Ford's accusation should have no weight. We knew within the first couple of days that none of her claimed witnesses supported her account, and at least three denied them in whole, though she later changed her story enough to turn one of the denials into a non-corroboration one (Smyth's). The hearing itself made Fords account even less believable. That polygraph statement she wrote is as close to proof she is lying about Kavanaugh as you are likely to get short of her confession.

Francisco D said...

I am trying to be empathic of Althouse's statements about her perceived lack of privilege in childhood and willingness to believe a totally non-credible sexual assault accuser.

As to the former, it's silly that a successful law professor would occupy her mind with that. It's not anywhere near as important to me as it is to Althouse. So I can let it be.

As to the latter, I have thought about the childhood physical abuse I suffered (and watched) from an evil stepfather. I have some physical scars and attribute my issues with insomnia to the emotional scars. Nonetheless, I moved on a long time ago. Therapy helped, but (as with therapy) the most important thing in emotional well being is to gain a sense of personal agency. Obviously I am a fan of Albert Bandura and Tim Beck.

That said, if I were asked to judge a man accused of domestic violence against women and children, I could not be impartial. I would have to recuse myself. That might have been a smart path, Ann. Yet, I cannot blame your for your human weaknesses.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

And there is no such thing as true neutrality.

Yancey Ward said...

Trump last night treated Ford the same way he would treat a male accuser in a similar circumstance. If that isn't gender blindness, I don't know what is. You've not come a long way, Baby!

Laslo Spatula said...

"And there is no such thing as true neutrality."

THAT is my problem with fucking Switzerland!

I am Laslo.

gahrie said...

I also question the honesty of these female conservatives here, I’d hate to think they were squelching their own opinions in favor of the male perspective.

There are male and female perspectives??? How?? Male and female are just social constructs....are you insinuating that there are real differences between men and women?

J'accuse!!!!

Chuck said...

Yancey Ward said...
Trump last night treated Ford the same way he would treat a male accuser in a similar circumstance. If that isn't gender blindness, I don't know what is. You've not come a long way, Baby!


But we are living in a p.c. environment where those aren't the ground rules. And this is not about Trump making a point, or making himself look better, or galvanizing his base.

The imperative is to get Kavanaugh confirmed.

Trump is trashtalking before the game is played. He's supplying bulletin board material for the opponents' locker room.

Qwinn said...

readering: "Probing" whether Barrett's views on Roe are affected by her religious affiliation may or may not be bigotry but it is expressly unconstitutional. "No religious test", remember?

Chuck said...

Yancey Ward said...
I wrote in the other thread this morning, but a cruelly neutral observer would have written at least one post analyzing the inconsistencies and outright proven lies by Ford in this episode...


That, I agree with!

But rather than telling Althouse what to blog, can we find examples of what you are talking about and post links to them for others here to read?

readering said...

She was hamfisted but what is one to do when judicial nominees won't talk about the law? She does not need to ask questions for her own vote. She is trying to elucidate for those whose vote will be influenced by future of Roe.

Rick said...

But we are living in a p.c. environment where those aren't the ground rules.

This is false. The left enforces rules only in institutions they control. People who recognize the Emperor has no clothes can be punished. But the left cannot enforce this universally as long as most Americans reject it - which they do.

Michael K said...

I also question the honesty of these female conservatives here,

There you have it. Conservative females are dishonest.

My wife is more angry about the treatment of Kavanaugh than I am. Inga is in the leftist bubble in Wisconsin.

i think males make up over 95 per cent of commenter here.

I will leave it to you to take the poll. Ritmo and Inga tie at about 100 comments each on controversial posts.

For the rest, it seems pretty balanced but then I am not trying to spread propaganda.

readering said...

Fact is RC hierarchy made political decisions on abortion grounds for excommunication and more recent efforts to walk that back are leading to predictions of schism.

gahrie said...

Trump is trashtalking before the game is played. He's supplying bulletin board material for the opponents' locker room.

Yeah because everyone knows that every single Democratic senator has not already announced that they're going to vote against Kavanagh already. Why Trump's rhetoric might spur the Democrats into acting irrationally and unfairly!

Chuckles...it's not the opponents in the other locker room we're worried about...it's the opponents in the Republican locker room who are pretending to be teammates we are worried about. You know..your buddies in the GOP Establishment.

readering said...

Mike K you practically accuse many posters including self of taking dictation from DNC. That's propaganda.

Michael K said...

She is trying to elucidate for those whose vote will be influenced by future of Roe.

That's why we would be better off without Roe poisoning politics in the Supreme Court.

That's why it was a terrible decision and may lead to civil war, just like Dredd Scott.

That war may not be as violent but the book, "America 3.0" has some suggestions about how this might occur.

To get from here to there is the problem.

Inga...Allie Oop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Conservative females are dishonest.”

Some are. Some are because they defer to males. Some are not. You are lumping them together, not me. Re-read what I said and try to respond honestly or shut up, if you can, which I doubt. Or continue to be a misogynist, which I don’t doubt.

Michael K said...



NO, not many but some are pressing identical points. I suspect they are getting e-mails.

Of course, your side is infested with group think. Many of you don't need e-mails.

Do you really think those two woman who accosted Flake were spontaneous ?

Or the demonstrations with preprinted signs ?

Michael K said...

Or continue to be a misogynist, which I don’t doubt.

Always the personal attacks without evidence.

Inga...Allie Oop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Always the personal attacks without evidence.”

Such a hypocrite. Well at least you haven’t referred to me as the “Bedpan Commando” yet today. That’s an improvement!

Inga...Allie Oop said...

Inga is in the leftist bubble in Wisconsin.”

I live in the most conservative Republican voting county in Wisconsin. LOL. I comment here, not a leftist bubble.

Original Mike said...

”Some are because they defer to males.”

Hillary, is that you?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

BREAKING: Fox’s @johnrobertsFox obtains letter from Ford ex-boyfriend alleging: dated for 6 yrs, never told of sex assault, Ford coached friend on taking polygraph, flew frequently w/o expressing any fear of flying/tight spaces/limited exits. Doesn’t want to b/c “involved”.

Blasey Ford has all sorts of credibility issues. But we better not focus on them - because she's a female and a democrat.

CNN is vile

narciso said...

Oh the social wars of first century Rome, like Duncan provides an interesting perspective.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Some are because they defer to males.”

“Hillary, is that you?”

If you think only Hillary said and thought that, you’d be wrong. Many liberal women who were Bernie supporters also say this. I’ve heard it and saw it countless times.

Chuck said...

gahrie said...
"Trump is trashtalking before the game is played. He's supplying bulletin board material for the opponents' locker room."

Yeah because everyone knows that every single Democratic senator has not already announced that they're going to vote against Kavanagh already. Why Trump's rhetoric might spur the Democrats into acting irrationally and unfairly!

Chuckles...it's not the opponents in the other locker room we're worried about...it's the opponents in the Republican locker room who are pretending to be teammates we are worried about. You know..your buddies in the GOP Establishment.


Of course all but 2 or 3 Dems are GUARANTEED to vote against Kavanaugh. The additional time/FBI background investigation won't change any of their minds and was a charade in that regard.

Trump needs to deal, such as it may be, with Flake, Collins and Murkowski. None of whom are up for election. None of them are facing any sort of Trumpist primary challenge. None of them have to deal with any Trumpist voter base.

So how does Trump's extra-divisive trashtalking help us close the deal with Flake, Collins and Murkowski?

Chuck said...

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
BREAKING: Fox’s @johnrobertsFox obtains letter from Ford ex-boyfriend alleging: dated for 6 yrs, never told of sex assault, Ford coached friend on taking polygraph, flew frequently w/o expressing any fear of flying/tight spaces/limited exits. Doesn’t want to b/c “involved”.

Blasey Ford has all sorts of credibility issues. But we better not focus on them - because she's a female and a democrat.


I'd LOVE to see more things like this get more exposure. I think the way to do it is with competent messaging people, and not with Trump. Certainly not with Trump doing it without a script.

PM said...

The B-side of the Democratic carpet-bombing:

"He just sat there and politely disputed these accusations. Has he not the courage to defend himself? His reputation? His family? Where's his backbone; his sense of honor? Is this how he will he defend our Constitution? Not on my watch. This is the wrong man."

Confirm him. The rest is bullshit.



traditionalguy said...

The feisty commenters here are not trained as lawyers. The lawyer knows he/she is a hired gun for one side's arguments no matter how weak they may seem to be. Once you have taken a case, you cannot just ay forget it, I don't like your hiding things and your weird personality anymore. You just argue the hell out of it and win the respect of lawyers everywhere.

Original Mike said...

”If you think only Hillary said and thought that, you’d be wrong. Many liberal women who were Bernie supporters also say this. I’ve heard it and saw it countless times.”

No, freaking kidding. But what it translates to is not, “she’s deferring to males” but rather “she doesn’t agree with me.”

Francisco D said...

Trump is trashtalking before the game is played. He's supplying bulletin board material for the opponents' locker room.

I agree, but I am not convinced it is a bad thing.

Most people have a vague awareness of what is going on in the world. By publicizing CBFs blatantly false testimony, he gets people to think about it. The people who faint at his "mocking" are going to find something to faint about anyway.

TWW said...

:The public will never forget about that..." Is this the same public that can't name a single Supreme Court Justice?

Michael K said...

So how does Trump's extra-divisive trashtalking help us close the deal with Flake, Collins and Murkowski?

How about 90,000 people at his Tennessee rally ?

Flake is lost. Murkowski has serious issues in Alaska like oil drilling that Trump holds over her.

Michael K said...

Many liberal women who were Bernie supporters also say this. I’ve heard it and saw it countless times.

How many are married?

narciso said...


I may have drawn too sharp a parallel, perhaps on the amnesty question:

http://thehistoryofrome.com/episodes/32/

Yancey Ward said...

Chuck,

Trump is only putting the pressure on the fence sitters in the Republican Party in my observation. I think his calculation is that calling out the accusers is the best way to do that. Sure, being more circumspect might make it easier to get a yes vote from Manchin or Heitkamp, but I think it likely they only vote for confirmation if the Republican's don't need their vote.

buwaya said...

"I'd LOVE to see more things like this get more exposure. I think the way to do it is with competent messaging people"

Without Trump you have no messaging. Or vastly less.

You do have a controlled MSM that will not permit this sort of thing into the public mind, or will severely restrict its distribution. You are fighting a de-facto authoritarian government, entirely outside your constitutional system.

What most of you don't have is experience in this situation. Samizdata sounds like a fine romantic approach but it is not effective on its own. Some people in the know will read it, and rumors will deal with more, but it alone is not going to get you a preference cascade. You need at least one great trumpet to direct peoples attention to alternative media, or to force a complete break with the official media.

Been there, done that. In our case the great trumpet was Catholic radio. In your case it is Trump's trumpet.

steve uhr said...

He showed his true colors with his left-wing conspiracy gibberish and his "what comes around goes around". Any fair minded observer would have serious doubt about his ability to fairly decide cases with a political element. He is the poster child for bad judicial temperament.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Chuck - WE simply cannot attack Blasey's credibility - because she did a good job acting with dry tears and baby talk at the hearing. Plus female. and... feminism.
and Hillary voter.

gahrie said...

So how does Trump's extra-divisive trashtalking help us close the deal with Flake, Collins and Murkowski?

What would?

Original Mike said...

“He showed his true colors with his left-wing conspiracy gibberish and his "what comes around goes around".”

It is left-wing conspiracy gibberish and democrats are poisoning the well.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Karma and schadenfreude. The left can deny it all they want.

langford peel said...

You have to understand that Althouse identifies with Professor Blowsy Ford. She is another peroxide blond affirmative action hire with dubious academic credentials looking to make a name for herself by trashing normals and traditional values. Peas in a pod.

Plus Judge Kavanaugh will stop the murder of babies and the rape of the 1st and 2nd amendments. You can't have that.

This confirmation process is the Reichstag fire for the Femi-nazi party.

gahrie said...

Some are because they defer to males.”

“Hillary, is that you?”

If you think only Hillary said and thought that, you’d be wrong. Many liberal women who were Bernie supporters also say this. I’ve heard it and saw it countless times.


Someone needs to come up with a pithy term for this like Uncle Tom.

Yancey Ward said...

If one were only interested in the November political effects, best for the Republicans might be for a Kavanaugh defeat that requires every Democrat to vote no. For a Republican Senator, the first order effect of a no vote would be a general election defeat as the base stays home or goes third party for punishment, but none of the possible no votes are running in November as Republicans- if Murkowski or Collins were running in November, we wouldn't even be talking about how they were going to vote- it would be yes without question.

I now assume Flake is a no and has been since early September- everything he has done to this point is just an act. So, Murkowski and Collins voting no would allow at least 1 Democrat to cast a yest vote.

buwaya said...

And, again and again, what you have here is not an argument about anything of substance ("judicial temperament"), but an open communal war, so far with no guns.

This is a power struggle, open, naked. Nobody with a mind, who is paying attention, can possibly have a doubt here. Any old-fashioned quibble according to tradition and ancient virtue is almost comically deluded, an absurdity, a figure out of some obsolete past, with tricorn hats and knee-breeches asserting some antique idea of military courtesy in a trench on the Somme.

gerry said...

Michael K you have been relentlessly touting Barrett as surest instrument to overturn Roe although she has not herself said that. But when non-Catholic defender of Roe tries to probe that possibility in confirmation hearing it's bigotry like the evangelical hatred of Romanism pre-1960? Hah.

We conservatives have learned well the imitation of the Democrat identity politics hate-hive. Hah.

gahrie said...

Chuck - WE simply cannot attack Blasey's credibility - because she did a good job acting with dry tears and baby talk at the hearing. Plus female. and... feminism.
and Hillary voter.


No woman must be made to feel bad about, or responsible for, anything, ever.

sinz52 said...

Melissa Murray hated Kavanaugh long before this. She made that clear on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/profmmurray?lang=en

You can't expect anyone who rants endlessly about "the patriarchy" to be willing to be fair to anyone with a Y chromosome.

Especially not someone affiliated with NARAL.

https://twitter.com/naral/status/1038079418470686723?lang=en

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

So how does Trump's extra-divisive trashtalking help us close the deal with Flake, Collins and Murkowski?



***Trash-talking only allowed out of the leftwing collective.

narciso said...

Yes I gave you flakes motive before, maybe it was his Namibian connection maybe he ended up like senator Geary, in that las Vegas brothel with the Castro bros holding the marker.

Original Mike said...

”Someone needs to come up with a pithy term for this like Uncle Tom.”

We could call it Auntie Inga.

buwaya said...

Indeed the whole category of gender politics is just a tactic in a greater struggle.

So are every sort of emotional appeal, no matter what, and no matter from which side.

Nothing of this sort is real, in war. All is deception, all is a maneuver. Its substance is irrelevant.

Professional lady said...

I'm more conservative than my husband - no deference to his political opinions in our house. We do manage to have civil discussions about politics though.

bagoh20 said...

A smart person uses adversity to gain wisdom. I think Kavanaugh is much wiser now on this subject, and maybe we all are. Perhaps we have even risen to the level of a wise Latina - the pinnacle of legal wisdom.

steve uhr said...

Mike -- he can believe in whatever conspiracies he wants. But when he says so in public there is an appearance of a conflict that can only remedied if he recuses himself from all political cases, which he won't. Judges have to pretend they are above politics even if they aren't. Respect for that branch of government depends on such a fiction.

narciso said...


They've had his number for a long time:


https://babalublog.com/2018/10/02/jeff-flake-totally-trusts-the-claims-of-kgb-trained-communist-spies-and-secret-police-who-claim-total-innocence-of-any-sonic-attacks-against-u-s-diplomats-in-cuba-but-scoffs-at-brett-kavanaugh/

bagoh20 said...

Funny that lying about the man in such a vicious fashion is no big deal, but telling the truth about how those lies might affect any normal person is "cruel". Stop digging.

Seeing Red said...

First, it would be torture, and second, you could never confirm a nominee.

Correction, the correct nominees will sail thru.

Original Mike said...

”Respect for that branch of government depends on such a fiction.”

You speak of respect? Did you watch this circus? That ship has sailed.

And with that, I need to go save some trees from the axe man. Back later.

buwaya said...

"Respect for that branch of government depends on such a fiction."

There is no longer such as concept as "respect".
This is just more of that inability to comprehend the present.

A Roman patrician in his litter, confronting Attila's patrols on the Appian way, is not an ounce less absurd.

Qwinn said...

Yeah, I'm not worried about Trump's "trash talk" affecting the RINO vote. Are we supposed to pretend that if he were being all congenial that it would help get their vote? Please. The trash talk at least has a chance of working, the alternative does not.

Greg P said...

The Democrats have spent the entire Kavanaugh hearings establishing that they are the Party of bad faith, character assassination, and an unbridled lust for power

Getting hit by about 80% of this made Clarence Thomas one of the best Justices on the Supreme Court

Here's hoping the attacks on Kavanaugh refine him even more

The Democrats took a high risk, high reward, strategy

There's no "head Democrats win, tails GOP loses" law in effect.

Perhaps when RBG has a heart attack after the GOP picks up 5 Senate seats in November, the Democrats will remember the costs, to them, of their character assassination attacks against Kavanaugh, and not do the same to Amy Barrett.

It's unlike, but experiments have shown that even worms can learn

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

buwaya:

"This is just more of that inability to comprehend the present.

A Roman patrician in his litter, confronting Attila's patrols on the Appian way, is not an ounce less absurd."


Please re-post this in every thread.

Qwinn said...

Steve uhr: So you support RBG recusing herself pretty much permanently based on her comments about Trump, right? Right? And we should vacate any decisions where she cast the deciding vote since she should have recused herself by your standard? Or is this another rule that only applies to Republicans?

Browndog said...

"The Honorable Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.”


Matt Ferner
‏Verified account @matthewferner
3h3 hours ago

This letter from law professors condemning Kavanaugh's lack of judicial temperament now has over 900 signatures from over 150 different law schools around the nation

walter said...

Blogger Inga...Allie Oop said...
if she came out and clearly stated her opinion on this matter her commenters would go even more bat shit crazy angry at her than they already have.
--
Might call her a stupid bitch and pretend to leave the blog.

William Chadwick said...

Hillary Clinton says that the net effect of Kavanaugh being confirmed would be to discount women's survivor stories. Juanita Broaddrick could not be reached for comment.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I disagree. It's the most perverse anti-Kavanaugh argument, certainly. It blames Kav for reacting to something not in his control (vicious smears) and is also entirely indefensible (if he doesn't react angrily that'd be evidence of his guilt, if he reacts angrily then his reaction proves he's guilty of intemperance and unfit for the job).

To be the cruelest, though, it'd have to target the thing about which he cares the most. I didn't get the sense that he most highly values his reputation for calm fair-mindedness. I'm sure he cares about that but I didn't sense that it's what he cares about most.

I'd say he most cares about his experience and reputation as a father, coach, and well-regarded member of his community. The argument that because of unsubstantiated smears he should be considered a danger to his daughters & their friends, should be assumed guilty of horrible sexual assaults and gang rapes, and should therefore lose his standing as a pillar of his community and be treated as an example of danger for young women is the cruelest anti-Kavanaugh argument. The worst form of that is something like "he can't definitively disprove all these claims and while there's any suspicion of his guilt he shouldn't be allowed to coach girl's basketball." That's the cruelest, I think.

Jim at said...

He is the poster child for bad judicial temperament.

He's been a judge for how long now? And we heard nothing about his 'bad judicial temperament' until you leftists thugs starting throwing your shit at him and his family.

Quite frankly, if he hadn't told you assholes to pound sand, I'd question his temperament.

William Chadwick said...

"This letter from law professors condemning Kavanaugh's lack of judicial temperament now has over 900 signatures from over 150 different law schools around the nation."

And I'm guessing the signees represent all sides of the political spectrum, from the "liberal" to the total State-fucker.

Jim at said...

So, Murkowski and Collins voting no would allow at least 1 Democrat to cast a yes vote.

No Democrat is going to give that 50th vote. Just won't happen.
Once they get to 50, a few of them will confirm and get him to 54 or 55.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Some are because they defer to males.”

“Hillary, is that you?”

“If you think only Hillary said and thought that, you’d be wrong. Many liberal women who were Bernie supporters also say this. I’ve heard it and saw it countless times.”

“Someone needs to come up with a pithy term for this like Uncle Tom.”

Are you seriously calling me an Uncle Tom, because I don’t agree with the Conservative Sisterhood here? Newsflash, women are capeable of independent thought, even conservative women if they don’t fall prey to Patriarchy. And yes the Patriarchy may be limping, but it still reveals itself all too often, anyone reading this blog’s comments section should be able to see this.

William Chadwick said...

Jim, don't you know how to translate from Hivespeak? "Bad judicial temperment" means "takes the Constitution seriously."

Big Mike said...

Senator Orrin Hatch has an excellent response to this article published in The Wall Street Journal. It’s behind a pay wall, but you can get around it by linking through RealClearPolitics.com.

Orrin Hatch has been a senator for over forty years, and he loves the United States Senate with all his heart. His anguish and his anger come through. Hatch routinely voted to confirm judge appointments made by Democrats provided only that the judge in question was qualified, and irregardless of ideological issues. How he must despise Diane Feinstein and longtime acquaintance Pat Leahy right now.

Seeing Red said...

Newsflash, women are capeable of independent thought, even conservative women if they don’t fall prey to Patriarchy.

What a crock.

Mr. Majestyk said...

Listing the holes in Ford's testimony is not "trashing" her.

Seeing Red said...

Hillary Clinton says that the net effect of Kavanaugh being confirmed would be to discount women's survivor stories. Juanita Broaddrick could not be reached for comment.

Or Paula Jones.

I know and she’s NEVER called on her bullshit.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Hillary Clinton says that the net effect of Kavanaugh being confirmed would be to discount women's survivor stories. Juanita Broaddrick could not be reached for comment.”

I believe Hillary is wrong here. He harmed himself most by his behavior at the last hearing, that proved his temperament to be unsuitable for the highest court in the land, not any accusations against him. Until and if they are proven and maybe not even then if he would be honest and apologize for what he did as a young man. People could forgive him.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Newsflash, women are capeable of independent thought, even conservative women if they don’t fall prey to Patriarchy.”

“What a crock.”

Aren’t you a woman Seeing Red? Are you saying women are not capeable of independent thought? Or is “madAsHell” a woman, I always get you two mixed up. You sound so much alike.

(Just teasing you here)

Mr. Majestyk said...

Despite being the subject of a vicious 11th hour smear campaign, Judge Kavanaugh apologized to Senator Klobuchar, on national television, for getting snippy with her. That shows class, in my view.

tommyesq said...

Fortunately, sexual misconduct cases rarely rise to the United States Supreme Court.

Six String Aficionado said...

The Democratic Party has set a terrible new precedence in Washington DC.

William Chadwick said...

"He harmed himself most by his behavior at the last hearing, that proved his temperament to be unsuitable for the highest court in the land, not any accusations against him. Until and if they are proven and maybe not even then if he would be honest and apologize for what he did as a young man. People could forgive him."


Inga, you being a paid-up member of the "liberal" Hive (and by "liberal" I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping government humper and State-shtupper"), maybe you can translate: is the stuff about Kavanaugh's temperament this year's Hive codeword for "threatens the Hive"? I haven't heard or read any of us on the pro-freedom side worry about this temperament. I worry about the temperament of statists and their sado-masochistic willingness to bend 'em and spread'em for Der Staat,

William Chadwick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Qwinn said...

The question begging from our leftie residents has reached truly epic proportions. It must be nice that they don't even attempt to justify their claims that Kavanaugh is guilty, they just state it as if he was already convicted in a court of law. And then they have the chutzpah to claim that BK had insufficient grounds to be angry and his "temperament" is in question. Again - if he hadn't been angry, I guara-f'in-tee that Inga would be here arguing that his pack of anger proves his guilt.

Qwinn said...

Er, lack of anger. Sigh.

William Chadwick said...

Women are capable of independent thought, Inga. (Not you, obviously, but women in general.) If the Gender Gap is valid--and from my observation it is--today's women are more than willing to become lockstep, mindless and docile Eloi for the State.

buwaya said...

" People could forgive him."

There are no "people".
This is not personal.
What nearly everyone thinks is determined by the organized multi-level media focus.

There are only sides in a conflict and it is these sides (or one side, vastly more than the other, as it has greater resources) that determine what people think. The concept of independent thinking on matters of at best indirect personal relevance is mistaken. Very few people are truly independent thinkers.

buwaya said...

Almost everyone has a hive.

Those truly without one are rare. And they tend to have other problems.

Francisco D said...

It must be nice that they don't even attempt to justify their claims that Kavanaugh is guilty, they just state it as if he was already convicted in a court of law.

Of course, he is guilty ... guilty of being a moderate Republican who tries to cautiously interpret the Constitution as it is written. As the Left has screamed, "People will die if he is confirmed!"

People will die one way or another. If Republicans were smart, they would adopt my slogan:

Vote "Yes" on Kavanaugh. People are going to die if he is not confirmed!"

Inga...Allie Oop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Almost everyone has a hive.

Those truly without one are rare. And they tend to have other problems.”

I couldn’t agree with you more. Humans are social amimals, isn’t it about time for you conservatives to admit that your vaunted “rugged individualism” is nonsense. When it comes down to it, no man or woman is an island, if they’re well adjusted.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...

Of course all but 2 or 3 Dems are GUARANTEED to vote against Kavanaugh. The additional time/FBI background investigation won't change any of their minds and was a charade in that regard.

More like 10.

Trump needs to deal, such as it may be, with Flake, Collins and Murkowski. None of whom are up for election. None of them are facing any sort of Trumpist primary challenge. None of them have to deal with any Trumpist voter base.

So how does Trump's extra-divisive trashtalking help us close the deal with Flake, Collins and Murkowski?



Trump isn't pandering to the traitorous sellouts.

He is giving the democrats ample opportunity to commit political suicide.

And boy are they taking the bait.

The vote will be held shortly. Flake has already been cast out because GOP voters are tired of his bullshit.

Any republican that votes no on Kavanaugh should go register as a democrat. They will never win election as a republican again.

buwaya said...

"rugged individualism" is not really a conservative concept.
It is a rather romantic American concept, a bit of political rhetoric from long after the founding, and not used by anyone serious; otherwise its a (non-political) fictional archetype from, perhaps, Fenimore Cooper, and copied ever after. You will find the type all over Jack London's stuff, and he was a socialist.

Its not surprising that no liberals know much about conservatism.
They are remarkably incurious.

Really, in order to begin to comment with some insight, read Russell Kirk, "The Conservative Mind"

It is incomplete and Kirk, of course, failed to find a solid principle in it - because the idea of ideological principles is something of a fantasy as well.

Achilles said...

Inga...Allie Oop said...
“Almost everyone has a hive.

Those truly without one are rare. And they tend to have other problems.”

I couldn’t agree with you more. Humans are social amimals, isn’t it about time for you conservatives to admit that your vaunted “rugged individualism” is nonsense. When it comes down to it, no man or woman is an island, if they’re well adjusted.

You are stupid so this message is for those above you.

The conditions necessary for individual freedom are shared by conservatives/libertarians/republican voters.

Due Process and presumption of innocence.

Freedom of speech and association.

Right to self defense.

Enforcement of contracts.

Rule of laws not people.

First principles.

Everything else is just discussion between 2 reasonable people.

Democrats are assaulting these unalienable institutions with their amoral insect politics. Liberals are deserting the democrat party in droves as we speak. #walkaway has had a massive surge in activity.

It will be interesting to see what happens when Ford is charged with perjury.

readering said...

"Despite being the subject of a vicious 11th hour smear campaign, Judge Kavanaugh apologized to Senator Klobuchar, on national television, for getting snippy with her. That shows class, in my view."

After a break. That shows coaching in my view.

Rabel said...

As to the FBI report, if and when it is released, I have no reason to believe one word of it that is not backed up by verifiable documentation.

The Bureau is corrupt. Its leadership conspired to overthrow the government of the United States. The lower level agents offered no resistance. No one in the FBI deserves my trust.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Proving our media are complete hacks(D) - Hillary Clinton as a go-to for a comment on sexual harassment.

William Chadwick said...

Is Inga just playing dumb (admittedly not much of stretch for her) and pretending to miss what the expression "The Hive" is all about? The reason Joseph Sobran chose the term to describe "liberals" and other statists in the aggregate is not only because the concept of a beehive has always been a collectivist ideal, given their antipathy to individualism ("rugged" or otherwise) but how they consistently manifest a Hive Mind. (Good example, how every "liberal" and his sister overnight got on the bandwagon about Kavanaugh's "temperament.")

Bad Lieutenant said...

That's why I come back to this blog. Let's give her a break recognising that the sexual abuse she faced was probably sufficiently painful and confusing that "cruel neutrality" is out of the question.

10/3/18, 12:22 PM


You don't know what happened to her, if it was Major or what one of us would consider a nothing. If what happened to her was what was said to have happened to Ford, one would tell her to shut up and get over it.

William Chadwick said...

By the way, those interested in exploring further the origin of the term "The Hive" in its current political manifestation, should do an Internet search on "Sobran Hive." I think Sobran came out with those essay over twenty years ago, but they get more relevant every year.

Achilles said...

William Chadwick said...

The reason Joseph Sobran chose the term to describe "liberals" and other statists in the aggregate is not only because the concept of a beehive has always been a collectivist ideal, given their antipathy to individualism ("rugged" or otherwise) but how they consistently manifest a Hive Mind. (Good example, how every "liberal" and his sister overnight got on the bandwagon about Kavanaugh's "temperament.")

This misses a key distinction.

There are liberals and progressives.

Liberals are good with freedom. Progressives are not.

The democrats are going to get annihilated in the midterms because liberals are leaving their party.

Rick said...

isn’t it about time for you conservatives to admit that your vaunted “rugged individualism” is nonsense. When it comes down to it, no man or woman is an island, if they’re well adjusted.

Individualism doesn't mean an island. Isn't it about time left wingers started dealing with reality instead of their idiotic strawmen?

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Inga, you being a paid-up member of the "liberal" Hive (and by "liberal" I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping government humper and State-shtupper"), maybe you can translate: is the stuff about Kavanaugh's temperament this year's Hive codeword for "threatens the Hive"? I haven't heard or read any of us on the pro-freedom side worry about this temperament. I worry about the temperament of statists and their sado-masochistic willingness to bend 'em and spread'em for Der Staat.”

Sheesh, unimaginative dimwitted Chadwick, can’t you at least try to form your own insults towards liberals? I’ve heard these same exact words from the gaping yaws of the likes of Mark Levin or Michael Savage. Speaking of hive mind...lol.

Theranter said...

Reposting this great comment:

Blogger PackerBronco said...
Having experience first hand how unfettered power can be wielded by those in power, I think this process will reinforce for Kavanaugh the wisdom of the Constitution in limiting the power of government to manage and ultimately destroy lives.

10/3/18, 10:16 AM

buwaya said...

" I’ve heard these same exact words from the gaping yaws of the likes of Mark Levin or Michael Savage. "

Try Kirk.

Doug said...

1.Evil, 2. Retarded 3. Senile
Pick one and stake your claim, Althouse. You are officially non compis mentis.

Mr. Majestyk said...

@readering

Even if your evidence-free speculation that Kavanaugh was coached to apologize to Klobuchar is accurate, Kavanaugh had the class to actually do it. In front of a national audience. Don't you think that counts for something?

tim in vermont said...

no man or woman is an island, if they’re well adjusted.

Yes, NO TRUE HUMAN!

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“It will be interesting to see what happens when Ford is charged with perjury.”

What happened to all those Democrats that were “going to jail” by the “end of August”?

tim in vermont said...

This letter from law professors condemning Kavanaugh’s lack of judicial temperament now has over 900 signatures from over 150 different law schools around the nation

We all know that partisan Democrat law professors are scarce on the ground too, making this letter all the more powerful!

readering said...

Mr. Majestyk: Evidence? I have represented and examined many witnesses, so I recognize coaching when I see it.

Not Sure said...

Michael Hayden draws on the Unquestionable Moral Authority of a spy to advise BK to withdraw his name from nomination.

That keen judgment explains a lot about the shitty track record of our intel community.

tim in vermont said...

I have represented and examined many witnesses, so I recognize coaching when I see it.

Yeah, but do you recognize motivated reasoning and cognitive biases due to partisan goals?

mockturtle said...

Inga claims: I’ve observed this phenomenon before in female conservatives here. I recall one even saying she would be in favor of taking away the woman’s vote. (Mockturtle). So I do not entirely trust ALL female conservatives’ opinions regarding this matter.

Actually, what I said was that I wouldn't mind if women lost the right to vote. My observation over my lifetime is that our country has not been enhanced by women having the vote. While I wasn't advocating women's disenfranchisement, it wouldn't bother me, as I have more confidence in the men to make sound decisions than I do in women, including myself.

tim in vermont said...

If he withdraws his name, that would be Schumer’s wet dream. I don’t see it at this point. Why should he? He has nowhere to go. If he withdraws his name, that will look like an admission of guilt, He will be forced to resign or be impeached. it will let all of the red state Democrats off the hook, better he should lose an up or down vote that puts Manchin on record, for example. Fuck these guys and the best way to do it is to force them to vote.

JAORE said...

"... if he would be honest and apologize for what he did as a young man. People could forgive him."

How big is the crock you use to hold this crap.

Sure, sure, tell the left you are guilty, but it was a youthful indiscretion. All will be forgiven.

Holy hell this is beyond delusional/BS/fabrication/wishful thinking.

narciso said...

like when hayden didn't pass up ramzi bin al shibh's go order to the two open al queda operatives, al midhar and al hamzi, back in 2001,

tcrosse said...

I have represented and examined many witnesses, so I recognize coaching when I see it.

And I recognize a torch-beareer in a lynch-mob when I see one.

OldManRick said...

Can we start referring to Dr Christine Blasey Ford as suspected perjurer Christine Blasey Ford?

The reasons to suspect her are the fear of flying lie (told to the committee by her lawyers in response to one of committee requests and not corrected by CBF until under oath - I believe lying to the committee like this is actionable), the second door escape lie contradicted by well documented facts about both of her homes, and now the under oath testimony of a former boyfriend. One might say it is another he said - she said but I find it interesting that he was able to name the person who CBF allegedly coached and it will be easy to determine if that person had a polygraph with the FBI around then. He provided more detail than CBF did against Kavanaugh. It's also probable that if we looked into Rachel Mitchell's report, we could find could find another potential perjury.

tim in vermont said...

Stop me if you’ve heard this one, but I got it off of Howie Carr’s show

"Kavanaugh will be the first alter boy accused of molesting a priest.”

tim in vermont said...

And I recognize a torch-beareer in a lynch-mob when I see one.

He claims an elite education, yet he doesn’t really seem to be able to string together more than one thought at a time, and that thought is never supported by anything other than an assertion that he “knows.” Kind of like R/V who belongs to the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Book Club spending all of this time reading philosophy, yet he can’t seem to string together a coherent argument.

narciso said...


this might have been posted earlier:

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/03/654015874/poll-amid-kavanaugh-confirmation-battle-democratic-enthusiasm-edge-evaporates?platform=hootsuite

now this could be the claxon summoning the eloi, into the bunker,

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Inga claims: I’ve observed this phenomenon before in female conservatives here. I recall one even saying she would be in favor of taking away the woman’s vote. (Mockturtle). So I do not entirely trust ALL female conservatives’ opinions regarding this matter.

Actually, what I said was that I wouldn't mind if women lost the right to vote. My observation over my lifetime is that our country has not been enhanced by women having the vote. While I wasn't advocating women's disenfranchisement, it wouldn't bother me, as I have more confidence in the men to make sound decisions than I do in women, including myself.”

Mockturtle, you are better, smarter and more independent to say something so foolish, aren’t you. What gives? You basically proved what I just said about some conservative women and deferring to males and lack of independent thinking. Wow.

tim in vermont said...

ow this could be the claxon summoning the eloi, into the bunker,

The weirdest thing you should post this, I was just driving home listening to Howie Carr and I realized I felt like I did in 1994. Energized, I can’t be the only one.

Gahrie said...

Are you seriously calling me an Uncle Tom, because I don’t agree with the Conservative Sisterhood here?

No...I'm saying that you are calling Conservative women Uncle Toms because they don't agree with you.

Gahrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gahrie said...

You basically proved what I just said about some conservative women and deferring to males and lack of independent thinking. Wow.

Not agreeing with me and the rest of the Leftwing wacko women and insisting on having your own opinion is a clear sign of a lack of independent thinking.

William Chadwick said...

Gee, and I thought my insults were sui generis! Although I know who they are, Inga, I’ve never heard Levin or Savage; but if they’re as pro-freedom as I am, I could see why they would identify someone as much a handmaiden of the State as you are as a State-shtupper.

Not Sure said...

Inga said: You basically proved what I just said about some conservative women and deferring to males and lack of independent thinking.

The proposition is that women have diverse views, and that mockturtle's views are more closely correlated with the average views of men than of women. Therefore, her views would be better represented in the aggregate by men alone than by the conjunction of men and women.

Really not that difficult to follow, unless you can't comprehend how it could be that women's views are not monolithic.

tim in vermont said...

Just over a month away from critical elections across the country, the wide Democratic enthusiasm advantage that has defined the 2018 campaign up to this point has disappeared, according to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll. N P Fucking R

You think that the Democrats might have overdone the cruelty thing? I mean look what they did to an obviously disturbed Ford. They could have done all of this on the QT and got it right and not dragged her on TV, but they overplayed their hand.

tim in vermont said...

What they wanted was a knockout blow with no chance to respond, but there is a saying about striking at the king.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“No...I'm saying that you are calling Conservative women Uncle Toms because they don't agree with you.”

No I’m not. First I said some, not all conservative women do this, plus I would not want even the most male deferential woman to feel as an outsider to other women. Ive even seen a few liberal women (but very few) do the same thing. I don’t think these women are deferring to men and squelching their own opinions to harm other women and make things better for themselves, I think they do it because they were taught to do so sometime in childhood and haven’t yet discovered that they have a good mind, maybe better than the males they defer to.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 481   Newer› Newest»