The New York Times: "The battle has left the Senate and the country bruised, divided and raw, and the Supreme Court tarnished."
Bullshit. Most Americans don't care about these things. Most Americans probably never heard of Kavanaugh.
The Supreme Court tarnished?
The only people who were "tarnished" were the liberal crybabies who repeatedly cried like babies.
Showing posts with label Kavanaugh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kavanaugh. Show all posts
Sunday, October 7, 2018
Saturday, October 6, 2018
The same day Kavanaugh was nominated by the Senate for the Supreme Court he was sworn in.
 |
| Brett Kavanaugh, surrounded by his family, was administered the judicial oath by outgoing justice Anthony Kennedy |
A comment I wrote about liberal crybabies at the New York Times.
A comment I wrote about liberal crybabies at the New York Times:
"protesters repeatedly interrupted the proceedings, with the Capitol Police dragging screaming demonstrators out of the gallery"
This is one of the many reasons the Democrats lose elections.
••••••••••••••••••••••••
What someone else wrote at the New York Times:
A great day for fundamental fairness.
Commentators are all saying that the Democratic leadership will now focus on trying to tear things down -- impeach Trump, impeach Kavanaugh -- if they regain any type of majority. Is this the best they can offer? How about articulating positive initiatives that will move the country forward? Is this nothing but a party of the aggrieved? No wonder you lost the last election.
"protesters repeatedly interrupted the proceedings, with the Capitol Police dragging screaming demonstrators out of the gallery"
This is one of the many reasons the Democrats lose elections.
••••••••••••••••••••••••
What someone else wrote at the New York Times:
A great day for fundamental fairness.
Commentators are all saying that the Democratic leadership will now focus on trying to tear things down -- impeach Trump, impeach Kavanaugh -- if they regain any type of majority. Is this the best they can offer? How about articulating positive initiatives that will move the country forward? Is this nothing but a party of the aggrieved? No wonder you lost the last election.
Friday, October 5, 2018
Today's news: The terrible person who got drunk in high school and did inappropriate things with a 15 year old girl will get the Supreme Court job.
A comment I wrote at the New York Times:
Democrats can thank Mrs. Clinton for making this possible. She lost to a celebrity clown. That was quite a feat.
Democrats can thank Mrs. Clinton for making this possible. She lost to a celebrity clown. That was quite a feat.
Thursday, October 4, 2018
Senators Jeff Flake of Arizona and Susan Collins of Maine did not say that they will vote for Judge Kavanaugh, President Trump’s second Supreme Court nominee. But after a closed-door briefing in which Republicans were told that no witnesses corroborated the accounts of Judge Kavanaugh’s main accusers, both made positive remarks. A yes vote from both would secure Judge Kavanaugh’s seat on the highest court in the land.
New York Times - Two Key Republicans Signal Satisfaction With F.B.I.’s Kavanaugh Inquiry
"Two key undecided senators signaled Thursday that they are satisfied with the F.B.I.’s investigation into allegations of sexual assault against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Senate Republican leaders were increasingly confident that he would be confirmed to the Supreme Court."
•••••••••••••••••••••••••
A comment somebody wrote at the New York Times which I agree with. It was very well done.
Charles Becker
Sonoma State University
"The Democrats came into this with the flawed strategy of withholding very shaky but highly salacious information from the whole committee until the last moment. Here's where it went sideways for them: they first demanded an FBI investigation and now that it's in they're attacking it. A critical portion of persuadable Americans now see Democratic maneuvering as not just a petty tactic, but one that has very badly used the nominee, his accusers, and the dignity of the Senate."
•••••••••••••••••••••••••
A comment I wrote at the New York Times:
I voted for the Democrats in 2016 and I'm voting for the Democrats in 2018, but I agree with Senator McConnell.
“For goodness sake this is the United States of America,” Mr. McConnell declared on the Senate floor. “Nobody is supposed to be guilty until proven innocent in this country. The Senate should not set a fundamentally un-American precedent here. Judge Kavanaugh’s right to basic fairness does not disappear just because some disagree with his judicial philosophy.”
"Two key undecided senators signaled Thursday that they are satisfied with the F.B.I.’s investigation into allegations of sexual assault against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Senate Republican leaders were increasingly confident that he would be confirmed to the Supreme Court."
•••••••••••••••••••••••••
A comment somebody wrote at the New York Times which I agree with. It was very well done.
Charles Becker
Sonoma State University
"The Democrats came into this with the flawed strategy of withholding very shaky but highly salacious information from the whole committee until the last moment. Here's where it went sideways for them: they first demanded an FBI investigation and now that it's in they're attacking it. A critical portion of persuadable Americans now see Democratic maneuvering as not just a petty tactic, but one that has very badly used the nominee, his accusers, and the dignity of the Senate."
•••••••••••••••••••••••••
A comment I wrote at the New York Times:
I voted for the Democrats in 2016 and I'm voting for the Democrats in 2018, but I agree with Senator McConnell.
“For goodness sake this is the United States of America,” Mr. McConnell declared on the Senate floor. “Nobody is supposed to be guilty until proven innocent in this country. The Senate should not set a fundamentally un-American precedent here. Judge Kavanaugh’s right to basic fairness does not disappear just because some disagree with his judicial philosophy.”
There is an opinion columnist at the New York Times who isn't an idiot.
I comment I wrote at the New York Times:
"Will a full-bore investigation of adolescent behavior now become a standard part of the 'job interview' for all senior office holders? I’m for it — provided we can start with your adolescent behavior, as it relates to your next job."
Mr. Stephens, well done. Thanks for your common sense, something I don't see very often at the New York Times.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
For Once, I’m Grateful for Trump
In the president, one big bully stands up to others.
By Bret Stephens
Opinion Columnist
October 4, 2018
For the first time since Donald Trump entered the political fray, I find myself grateful that he’s in it. I’m reluctant to admit it and astonished to say it, especially since the president mocked Christine Blasey Ford in his ugly and gratuitous way at a rally on Tuesday. Perhaps it’s worth unpacking this admission for those who might be equally astonished to read it.
I’m grateful because Trump has not backed down in the face of the slipperiness, hypocrisy and dangerous standard-setting deployed by opponents of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. I’m grateful because ferocious and even crass obstinacy has its uses in life, and never more so than in the face of sly moral bullying. I’m grateful because he’s a big fat hammer fending off a razor-sharp dagger.
A few moments have crystallized my view over the past few days.
The first moment was a remark by a friend. “I’d rather be accused of murder,” he said, “than of sexual assault.” I feel the same way. One can think of excuses for killing a man; none for assaulting a woman. But if that’s true, so is this: Falsely accusing a person of sexual assault is nearly as despicable as sexual assault itself. It inflicts psychic, familial, reputational and professional harms that can last a lifetime. This is nothing to sneer at.
The second moment, connected to the first: “Boo hoo hoo. Brett Kavanaugh is not a victim.” That’s the title of a column in the Los Angeles Times, which suggests that the possibility of Kavanaugh’s innocence is “infinitesimal.” Yet false allegations of rape, while relatively rare, are at least five times as common as false accusations of other types of crime, according to academic literature.
Since when did the possibility of innocence become, for today’s liberals, something to wave off with an archly unfeeling “boo hoo”?
A third moment, connected to the second: Listening to Cory Booker explain on Tuesday that “ultimately” it doesn’t matter if Kavanaugh is “guilty or innocent,” because “enough questions” had been raised that it was time to “move on to another candidate.”
This is a rhetorical sleight of hand in three acts: Elide the one question that really matters; raise a secondary set of “questions” that are wholly the result of the question you’ve decided to ignore; call for “another candidate” because it will push confirmation hearings past the midterms, which was the Democratic objective long before most anyone had ever heard of Blasey’s allegation.
Fourth moment: Watching Julie Swetnick, the woman who accused Kavanaugh of attending parties decades earlier where women were gang raped, change key details of her story in an interview with NBC News.
Swetnick’s claims border on the preposterous. They are wholly uncorroborated. But that didn’t keep Kavanaugh’s opponents, in politics and the press, from seizing them as evidence of corroboration with Blasey’s allegation, which is not preposterous but is also largely uncorroborated, and with the allegation of Kavanaugh’s Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez — uncorroborated again.
Uncorroborated plus uncorroborated plus largely uncorroborated is not the accumulation of questions, much less of evidence. It is the duplication of hearsay.
Fifth moment: Reading about a 1985 bar fight at Yale — a story that involved Kavanaugh throwing ice, resulted in no charges against him, and should never have been reported. Or reading a 1983 handwritten letter by Kavanaugh, in which he says of his gang of friends that “we’re loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us” — adolescent boasting now being treated as if it is a crucial piece of incriminating evidence. Or hearing from Yale classmates who claim to have seen Kavanaugh drunk, which somehow is supposed to show that he’s a demonstrable perjurer and possible sex offender.
Will a full-bore investigation of adolescent behavior now become a standard part of the “job interview” for all senior office holders? I’m for it — provided we can start with your adolescent behavior, as it relates to your next job.
Sixth moment: Listening to Richard Blumenthal lecture Kavanaugh on the legal concept of falsus in omnibus — false in one thing, false in everything — when the senator from Connecticut lied shamelessly for years about his military service. And then feeling grateful to Trump for having the simple nerve to point out the naked hypocrisy.
Seventh moment: Listening to Dianne Feinstein denounce Kavanaughfor failing to reflect an “impartial temperament or the fairness and even-handedness one would see in a judge.” This lecture would have gone down more easily if Feinstein hadn’t gamed the process for her own partisan purposes, and at huge personal cost to Kavanaugh and Blasey alike.
Eighth moment: Being quizzed in recent days about my teenage years at a New England boarding school — the subtext being that I must know something about elite prep schools and the mentality of the boys who attend them.
I do. It was at boarding school where I first formed lasting friendships with kids of different races and economic backgrounds, and where liberal-leaning teachers showed us how to think critically, keep an open mind, and value tolerance and respect. I have no idea if Georgetown Prep was anything like that, but the facile stereotype of “white privilege” that keeps cropping up in discussions of Kavanaugh’s background is yet another ugly tactic in the battle to defeat him.
We will learn soon enough what, if anything, the F.B.I. has gleaned from its investigation of Kavanaugh. If the Bureau finds persuasive evidence of Blasey’s charge, the judge will have to step down and answer for it. Until then, I’ll admit to feeling grateful that, in Trump, at least one big bully was willing to stand up to others.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), join the Facebook political discussion group, Voting While Female, and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
Bret L. Stephens has been an Opinion columnist with The Times since April 2017. He won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary at The Wall Street Journal in 2013 and was previously editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post. @BretStephensNYT • Facebook
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
UPDATE, OCTOBER 4, 2018:
"Two key undecided senators signaled Thursday that they are satisfied with the F.B.I.’s investigation into allegations of sexual assault against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Senate Republican leaders were increasingly confident that he would be confirmed to the Supreme Court."
A comment somebody wrote at the New York Times which I agree with:
"The Democrats came into this with the flawed strategy of withholding very shaky but highly salacious information from the whole committee until the last moment. Here's where it went sideways for them: they first demanded an FBI investigation and now that it's in they're attacking it. A critical portion of persuadable Americans now see Democratic maneuvering as not just a petty tactic, but one that has very badly used the nominee, his accusers, and the dignity of the Senate."
"Will a full-bore investigation of adolescent behavior now become a standard part of the 'job interview' for all senior office holders? I’m for it — provided we can start with your adolescent behavior, as it relates to your next job."
Mr. Stephens, well done. Thanks for your common sense, something I don't see very often at the New York Times.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
For Once, I’m Grateful for Trump
In the president, one big bully stands up to others.
By Bret Stephens
Opinion Columnist
October 4, 2018
For the first time since Donald Trump entered the political fray, I find myself grateful that he’s in it. I’m reluctant to admit it and astonished to say it, especially since the president mocked Christine Blasey Ford in his ugly and gratuitous way at a rally on Tuesday. Perhaps it’s worth unpacking this admission for those who might be equally astonished to read it.
I’m grateful because Trump has not backed down in the face of the slipperiness, hypocrisy and dangerous standard-setting deployed by opponents of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. I’m grateful because ferocious and even crass obstinacy has its uses in life, and never more so than in the face of sly moral bullying. I’m grateful because he’s a big fat hammer fending off a razor-sharp dagger.
A few moments have crystallized my view over the past few days.
The first moment was a remark by a friend. “I’d rather be accused of murder,” he said, “than of sexual assault.” I feel the same way. One can think of excuses for killing a man; none for assaulting a woman. But if that’s true, so is this: Falsely accusing a person of sexual assault is nearly as despicable as sexual assault itself. It inflicts psychic, familial, reputational and professional harms that can last a lifetime. This is nothing to sneer at.
The second moment, connected to the first: “Boo hoo hoo. Brett Kavanaugh is not a victim.” That’s the title of a column in the Los Angeles Times, which suggests that the possibility of Kavanaugh’s innocence is “infinitesimal.” Yet false allegations of rape, while relatively rare, are at least five times as common as false accusations of other types of crime, according to academic literature.
Since when did the possibility of innocence become, for today’s liberals, something to wave off with an archly unfeeling “boo hoo”?
A third moment, connected to the second: Listening to Cory Booker explain on Tuesday that “ultimately” it doesn’t matter if Kavanaugh is “guilty or innocent,” because “enough questions” had been raised that it was time to “move on to another candidate.”
This is a rhetorical sleight of hand in three acts: Elide the one question that really matters; raise a secondary set of “questions” that are wholly the result of the question you’ve decided to ignore; call for “another candidate” because it will push confirmation hearings past the midterms, which was the Democratic objective long before most anyone had ever heard of Blasey’s allegation.
Fourth moment: Watching Julie Swetnick, the woman who accused Kavanaugh of attending parties decades earlier where women were gang raped, change key details of her story in an interview with NBC News.
Swetnick’s claims border on the preposterous. They are wholly uncorroborated. But that didn’t keep Kavanaugh’s opponents, in politics and the press, from seizing them as evidence of corroboration with Blasey’s allegation, which is not preposterous but is also largely uncorroborated, and with the allegation of Kavanaugh’s Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez — uncorroborated again.
Uncorroborated plus uncorroborated plus largely uncorroborated is not the accumulation of questions, much less of evidence. It is the duplication of hearsay.
Fifth moment: Reading about a 1985 bar fight at Yale — a story that involved Kavanaugh throwing ice, resulted in no charges against him, and should never have been reported. Or reading a 1983 handwritten letter by Kavanaugh, in which he says of his gang of friends that “we’re loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us” — adolescent boasting now being treated as if it is a crucial piece of incriminating evidence. Or hearing from Yale classmates who claim to have seen Kavanaugh drunk, which somehow is supposed to show that he’s a demonstrable perjurer and possible sex offender.
Will a full-bore investigation of adolescent behavior now become a standard part of the “job interview” for all senior office holders? I’m for it — provided we can start with your adolescent behavior, as it relates to your next job.
Sixth moment: Listening to Richard Blumenthal lecture Kavanaugh on the legal concept of falsus in omnibus — false in one thing, false in everything — when the senator from Connecticut lied shamelessly for years about his military service. And then feeling grateful to Trump for having the simple nerve to point out the naked hypocrisy.
Seventh moment: Listening to Dianne Feinstein denounce Kavanaughfor failing to reflect an “impartial temperament or the fairness and even-handedness one would see in a judge.” This lecture would have gone down more easily if Feinstein hadn’t gamed the process for her own partisan purposes, and at huge personal cost to Kavanaugh and Blasey alike.
Eighth moment: Being quizzed in recent days about my teenage years at a New England boarding school — the subtext being that I must know something about elite prep schools and the mentality of the boys who attend them.
I do. It was at boarding school where I first formed lasting friendships with kids of different races and economic backgrounds, and where liberal-leaning teachers showed us how to think critically, keep an open mind, and value tolerance and respect. I have no idea if Georgetown Prep was anything like that, but the facile stereotype of “white privilege” that keeps cropping up in discussions of Kavanaugh’s background is yet another ugly tactic in the battle to defeat him.
We will learn soon enough what, if anything, the F.B.I. has gleaned from its investigation of Kavanaugh. If the Bureau finds persuasive evidence of Blasey’s charge, the judge will have to step down and answer for it. Until then, I’ll admit to feeling grateful that, in Trump, at least one big bully was willing to stand up to others.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), join the Facebook political discussion group, Voting While Female, and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
Bret L. Stephens has been an Opinion columnist with The Times since April 2017. He won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary at The Wall Street Journal in 2013 and was previously editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post. @BretStephensNYT • Facebook
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
UPDATE, OCTOBER 4, 2018:
"Two key undecided senators signaled Thursday that they are satisfied with the F.B.I.’s investigation into allegations of sexual assault against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Senate Republican leaders were increasingly confident that he would be confirmed to the Supreme Court."
A comment somebody wrote at the New York Times which I agree with:
"The Democrats came into this with the flawed strategy of withholding very shaky but highly salacious information from the whole committee until the last moment. Here's where it went sideways for them: they first demanded an FBI investigation and now that it's in they're attacking it. A critical portion of persuadable Americans now see Democratic maneuvering as not just a petty tactic, but one that has very badly used the nominee, his accusers, and the dignity of the Senate."
Monday, September 17, 2018
I wrote something for the liberal crybabies at the New York Times.
New York Times:
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, and the woman who has accused him of sexual assault said on Monday they are willing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the accusations, setting up a potentially explosive public showdown just weeks before the midterm elections.
A comment I wrote at the New York Times which will probably not be published:
If Kavanaugh really did these things back when he was a dumb teenager who got drunk then I'm concerned he might do something inappropriate with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
One more thing:
After reading the New York Times article and the comments it looks like Kavanaugh really did something very wrong. He is denying the whole thing. Not good. He should have admitted his mistake and apologized for it.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
UPDATE:
This is from the September 20, 2018 New York Times. It's about Republican assholes:
“As you are aware, she has been receiving death threats, which have been reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and she and her family have been forced out of their home,” the email said. “She wishes to testify, provided that we can agree on terms that are fair and which ensure her safety.”
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, and the woman who has accused him of sexual assault said on Monday they are willing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the accusations, setting up a potentially explosive public showdown just weeks before the midterm elections.
A comment I wrote at the New York Times which will probably not be published:
If Kavanaugh really did these things back when he was a dumb teenager who got drunk then I'm concerned he might do something inappropriate with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
One more thing:
After reading the New York Times article and the comments it looks like Kavanaugh really did something very wrong. He is denying the whole thing. Not good. He should have admitted his mistake and apologized for it.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
UPDATE:
This is from the September 20, 2018 New York Times. It's about Republican assholes:
“As you are aware, she has been receiving death threats, which have been reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and she and her family have been forced out of their home,” the email said. “She wishes to testify, provided that we can agree on terms that are fair and which ensure her safety.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)