Reason Roundup

Republican Senators to Plow Ahead With Kavanaugh Vote: Reason Roundup

Plus: Giving cops the finger is protected speech and Elon Musk is under fire from the SEC.

|

Polaris/Newscom

Republican senators say a judiciary committee vote on Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation will go forward Friday morning. This comes after a full day of Thursday hearings about Christine Blasey Ford's accusation that Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge attempted to sexually assault her in high school. In the wake of those hearings, Americans and their political mouthpieces are hardly showing any more solidarity on the matter.

Predictably, most prominent Republicans came away after watching the testimony with a professed unwavering faith in Kavanaugh's innocence and his suitability for a spot on the U.S. Supreme Court. But—in a politically sound but preposterous twist—Republican leadership and spokespeople are also professing to believe Ford's story about her assault, with one caveat: She must be misremembering the person(s) who did it.

By this morning, White House spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway was spouting this mistaken-identity mumbo-jumbo on CBS This Morning. The editors of National Review repeated some variation on it.

It's Kavanaugh's own testimony that probably did him the most damage. Alternately shouting, snarky, and crying, Kavanaugh frequently resorted to sounding off his high-school résumé when confronted with uncomfortable questions. Interestingly, the questions that appeared to make Kavanaugh most uncomfortable weren't about Ford or the alleged assault but his high-school friend (and alleged partner in sex crimes) Mark Judge, his high-school yearbook captions, and whether he consumed alcohol as a student at Georgetown Preparatory School and Yale University.

Even for folks who claim that Ford is a Democratic operative or that Kavanaugh's underage conduct is irrelevant to his current character, this poses a problem: Kavanaugh's current character seems to be that of someone who's lying about a lot of (often petty) things.

And then there was Kavanaugh accusing the Clintons—whose own sexual misconduct issues he helped litigate in the 1990s—of being linked to a conspiracy against him:

This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.

Kavanaugh has "all but abandoned the posture of impartiality demanded of a judge," suggests Jonathan Chait at New York, who writes that yesterday's hearings convinced him Kavanaugh is guilty.

"The 'Well, they both seemed credible' line requires a frankly heroic willing suspension of disbelief given Kavanaugh's frequent and rather brazen dissembling," tweeted Julian Sanchez of the Cato Institute. "If you thought he was credible, you have to be trying to convince yourself."

"The process itself was disgusting," comments Glenn Greenwald on Twitter. "Feinstein deserves all kinds of blame. Democrats' real motive was obviously delay past the election (just like GOP did with Garland). Due process matters. All that's true. But Kavanaugh clearly (& repeatedly) lied & Ford did not. That matters."

Now, senators grilling Supreme Court nominees about the definition of "devil's triangle" and "boofing," whether they ever whipped out their genitals during a dorm party, and the true meaning of "Beach Week Ralph Club"…let's just say it's not among America's proudest moments.

Yet Kavanaugh's demeanor during these lines of questioning—even if understandable should he really be innocent—was highly off-putting to a lot of nonpartisan or even supportive people. His alternately boastful and simpering rage might be how a lot of us would react. But perhaps from a legal decision maker on the highest court in the land, it's not too much to want and ask for better.

In any event, some former backers of Kavanaugh did change their tunes following the testimonies. The American Bar Association said Kavanaugh should not be confirmed until an FBI investigation is completed. And from the Jesuit magazine America:

Evaluating the credibility of these competing accounts is a question about which people of good will can and do disagree. The editors of this review have no special insight into who is telling the truth. If Dr. Blasey's allegation is true, the assault and Judge Kavanaugh's denial of it mean that he should not be seated on the U.S. Supreme Court. But even if the credibility of the allegation has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt and even if further investigation is warranted to determine its validity or clear Judge Kavanaugh's name, we recognize that this nomination is no longer in the best interests of the country. While we previously endorsed the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh on the basis of his legal credentials and his reputation as a committed textualist, it is now clear that the nomination should be withdrawn.

FREE MINDS

FREE MARKETS

QUICK HITS

  • Elon Musk is being sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission over an allegedly "false and misleading" tweet.
  • Columbus, Ohio, police are asking the FBI for help investigating the department's vice unit. "The arrest of adult-film actress Stormy Daniels in July by undercover vice officers and the August shooting of 23-year-old Donna Castleberry by undercover vice Officer Andrew Mitchell have put a spotlight on the 20-member unit," and operations have been suspended since early September, reports the Columbus Dispatch.
  • Happy 20th birthday, Google!

NEXT: Brickbat: Listen Up

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Republian senators say a judiciary committee vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation will go forward Friday morning.

    Let’s see whose mind yesterday changed!

    1. No minds were changed because his behavior confirmed their biases.

      To the people who already decided Mr K was guilty, his anger was an act.

      To the people who already decided Mr K was innocent, his anger was justified.

    2. Didn’t change legislators’ minds, but this sham has changed some libertarian minds.

      Kavanaugh’s 4th Amendment record pretty easily disqualifies him from a libertarian standpoint.

      Unfortunately, after this circus, to not confirm him would be to validate and encourage behavior that is highly destructive to sound legal institutions. I’m not talking about government legitimacy or diginity any of that hogwash that people talk about with respect to Trump. I’m talking about fundamental legal principles like presumption of innocence and the right to face and cross-examine an accuser (not to mention some probability theory) that humans have painstakingly acrued over thousands of years.

      I’m appalled by the Reason writers for not adequately acknowledging this obvious point.

      1. +1

      2. He wasn’t my first choice, but if this is going to be a political mud wrestle, I prefer him to whatever the hell the Dems will demand in January.

        1. Those are 2 bad choices. A third way is to vote him down, then nominate someone else and get him/her confirmed in the lame duck session.

          1. Rs don’t have the balls for it.

      3. I have deep reservations about his role in the Bush surveillance and torture programs. He is far from my preferred candidate, but the tactics engaged by the Left to destroy this man were despicable. I support his confirmation on that basis. He surpasses all the usual metrics by which POTUS and the Senate judge nominees. These baseless, unverifiable allegations on things that happened in fucking high school cannot be allowed top succeed.

        1. All of them are bad when it comes to the 4th Amendment, regardless of party. Kavanaugh is at least good on the 1st and 2nd Amendments. So, he is as good as you can realistically expect.

        2. All of them are bad when it comes to the 4th Amendment, regardless of party. Kavanaugh is at least good on the 1st and 2nd Amendments. So, he is as good as you can realistically expect.

      4. +2 I’m pretty liberal on most issues, but the left has lost their stinkin’ minds. To me, integrity is the only measure of a person. This charade proved to me that the Democrats are willing to sacrifice their integrity for power. Any person, that cannot infer the motive of this accusation and the circumstances surrounding it, is falling victim to their own bias. Remove Trump as the nominating President, and this circus does not happen. I am conviced that Trump hatred reduces g factor. The major difference between Merrick Garland and Brett Kavanaugh is that the Republicans had no intention of a bloody character assassination and did not intentionally choose to destroy the lives of others. Dr. Ford is as much a victim as Judge Kavanaugh. Feinstein should resign in shame alone. The fact that Republican’s have differing opinions within their own party demonstrates individual thought, character, and principles; while being a Democrat is extremely simple-minded…. just vote like you’re told to vote – no thought required. The damage is done, however. Sadly, no decent person will ever want to serve in politically appointed positions, which means that the DNA of our government will continue to erode. Of the liars, by the useful idiots, and for the politicians.

        1. ^ this, sadly

      5. He supposedly had a change of 4th Amendment heart, which I hope is true.

    3. Hello.

      1. Top of the morning, Rufus! How’s this stuff playing NOTB?

          1. americans gotta drink more, so they don’t have time to look for churchkeys

        1. I’m ignoring it. Life’s too short man.

  2. Jeff Flake is a Yes! May God help me, I think we actually might win!

    1. I think we actually might win!

      “we” lol

      1. You know, reasonable people who do not believe that baseless accusations should be allowed to ruin a man’s career or family.

        1. There’s nothing reasonable about mischaracterizing the accusations as baseless.

          1. Unless they’re baseless.

          2. No collaboration, only remembers in details that which cannot be disprove by empirical facts (where, when, etc.), every witness/attendee she named has denied it, her own family won’t defend her, she slurs her best friend when that friend denies Ford’s ‘recollection’.

            Pretty much meets the definition of baseless.

          3. “There’s nothing reasonable about mischaracterizing the accusations as baseless.”

            But it’s entirely Reasonable to mischaracterize them as credible.

        2. Yes, let’s cry a tear for a privileged insider that helped craft the Patriot Act and worships the Imperial Presidency. Do those who seek so climb the ladders of power over the lives of others deserve our sympathies?

          1. Oh god I love how much you hate losing on this you idiot leftist fuck.

          2. because destroying people with baseless allegations and smears are the true libertarian ways to live and govern? But sure, lets go with identity politics and personal destruction when you can’t get your preference.

          3. I hate them so any means are justified by the ends. How principled of you.

            1. You know, Skippy, it is an entirely consistent position to both (a) object to the character assassination, and also (b) not be sad if Kavanaugh is not confirmed, because he wasn’t a good pick in the first place.

              Not everyone here puts anti-progressivism as their top goal like you do.

              1. I’d like to see his confirmation brought to the Senate floor for a straight vote. It’d be nice if they made their decision based on his record and stances on different issues. Likewise, I thought that Garland should have been given a chance to be voted down. While I like the ends of the mess with Garland, I certainly do not support the means. Whether or not Kavanaugh ends up on the court (and I’d actually prefer that he isn’t) the means are horrible. If he is voted in then we will constantly hear “sexual predator” attached to his decisions. If he is voted down then this disgusting smear campaign will have proven effective and destroyed the man’s life and career.
                I don’t see a positive end to this whole fiasco. I find it highly unlikely that another Trump nominee wouldn’t get similar treatment even if Republicans retain the Senate. Likewise, any nominee from the Democrats would be unacceptable to me and the tactic of using unproven allegations to nerf their opposition will become a valid strategy.

      2. “Most likely less awful than the median generic pick that could be confirmed by a Democratic controlled Senate after the 2018 elections” isn’t what I would consider a “win” — unless you’re a Republican instead of a libertarian.

        1. You made the same mistake jeff made.

          1. You made the same mistake jeff made.

            It’s not a mistake to comment on a vague assertion that has multiple interpretations, and point out that one such interpretation isn’t particularly consistent with libertarianism.

            Now, if the statement had been specifically about the win being standing up for the principle of presumption of innocence, then I would have been fine with it.

            1. No, your mistake was in assuming you knew what he meant before you shot off.

              So, that’s twice now.

        2. “unless you’re a Republican instead of a libertarian.”

          Meh, I’m a libertarian leaning conservative. Not a Libertarian and not a Republican. I’m inclined to view this as a win, just because it’s such a clear political ploy.

          The accusations are vague & Feinstein sat on them for two months and revealed them at the last moment.

          It’s less because I support Kavanaugh or Republicans and more because letting this type of allegation and political ploy work is highly damaging to civil governance.

          1. Fair enough.

          2. It goes way beyond civil governance.

            Men now have to account for any time they could have potentially been in a situation where they could assault a woman.

            1. STEVE SMITH HAS ACCOUNT FOR ALL SITUATIONS.

              1. STEVE SMITH LOVINGLY REMEMBERS ALL DETAILS.

          3. “”and revealed them at the last moment.””

            Reveled after the assault on his abortion stance failed. To the dems, the woman was the nuclear option. If all else fails, present her to the circus.

      3. chemjeff, the pretentious moralizing windbag. Fuck off.

    2. I think we actually might win!

      Tribalist thinking at its best.

      1. You made the same mistake jeff and prolefeed made.

        And honestly, it’s sad that YOU are so entrenched in your thinking.

        1. I’d call it a reflex more than a mistake.

          Personally I thought he was riffing on the FBI agent from the last season of the Sopranos.

      2. Which tribe of mine might you be talking about (besides Americans, New Yorkers, or Puerto Ricans)?

        The Democrats, my political party?
        The people who would’ve voted No on Kavanaugh initially?

        Though I presume you disagree, I believe that Kavanaugh’s confirmation at this point is critical for fairness and for the future of our country’s social and political fabric. I am pulling for his confirmation–hard–as are many on this comment section whom I am addressing. I get excited about these things. I think my turn of phrase was a fairly clear and standard expression of that sort of sentiment. But I’m sorry I put words together in the wrong way for your liking. You got me.

        1. I believe that Kavanaugh’s confirmation at this point is critical for fairness and for the future of our country’s social and political fabric.

          you can’t possibly be serious. I call bullshit on the melodrama.

          The man is a judge, and not a particularly great one at that, not some Abe Lincoln figure.

          1. The man is a judge, and not a particularly great one at that, not some Abe Lincoln figure.

            Did you read my comment now? I said I wouldn’t even have voted Yes on him in the first place. I’d certainly concur that he’s not a particularly great judge.

            1. I said I wouldn’t even have voted Yes on him in the first place.

              And yet you are “pulling hard” for his nomination, and you believe his confirmation would be a “win”…

      3. Thankfully you maintain your principles:

        Yes, let’s cry a tear for a privileged insider that helped craft the Patriot Act and worships the Imperial Presidency.

        Of envy.

    3. Is that “we” as in the supporters of #VoteoutthathagFeinstein?

      1. #bagthehag

        It could work…

  3. She must be misremembering the person(s) who did it.

    Women. What can you do?

    1. Saudis are laughing at us, bro… laughing at us.

  4. Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100

    Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees by the end of this century.

    A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.

    https://goo.gl/uK417R

    1. I’m gonna believe that because previous predictions have been spot on. Oh, wait..

      1. In the article the Trumpistas say “We’re basically all fucked and will fry anyway so why do anything?”

        1. Really? That doesn’t seem plausible. I thought all Trumpistas were infidels who rejected the teaching of Owlgor, the last true prophet of Gaia. So why would they say we’re gonna fry if they are unbelievers?

        2. Well, we basically are fucked, but it’s not all our fault.

          While the U.S. reduced carbon emissions by 10% between 2005 and 2015, China doubled theirs, and now produces twice the emissions of the U.S. India also doubled their emissions in 10 years and should pass the U.S. soon. The other “developing” nations that got a pass in the Paris Accords are also increasing emissions.

          China talks a good game about solar and other renewables, but their emissions keep going up.

          Here’s the data.

          CDIAC Data

        3. At least Kavanaugh will get what he deserves. Boiled!

    2. “A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.”

      Get RIGHT with GOD! The reckoning is NEAR!

      1. The government will save us!

    3. Huge areas of the Dakotas and maybe lower Canada will be available for growing grain. Increased evaporation will change weather patterns, increasing rainfall in the Southwest US and parts of Mexico. Huge areas of Louisiana will become productive salt-water estuaries.

      1. Think of the GDP when we have to move Miama, NY City, and Boston inland!

        Now I know where Trump gets his fake GDP forecast.

        1. Currently parts of the globe are too cold/icy to support life. Now look along the equator. Hugely abundant life, and humans manage to survive there too. How can anyone think that “global warming” is not going to have some benefits.

          Ocean-proof Manhattan? Would cost less the continual cost overruns of the subway system, or at least until the Port Authority got its corrupt hands on the seawall.

          1. It is not so simple as that. Yes, some parts of the arctic may become warmer, but other parts of the earth may become less productive. For example, parts of the ocean may have reduced oxygen levels, productive low land areas may be flooded, etc. We simply cannot accurately predict the end result.

            1. “productive low land areas may be flooded”

              The Dutch think you’re an idiot.

            2. Spouting that shit again. Vietnam will be FLOODED! FLOODED!

            3. Clearly, our modeling is poor, as the temp changes are unable to be predicted. However, it stands to reason that moving agriculture north from Florida and California (itself a desert that had an inordinate number of rainy seasons) to Montana, the Dakotas, lower Canada would make sense. Even with elevated sea levels, those areas won’t flood.

        2. The projected sea level rise is around 1 meter. The coastal areas tend to rise 2 meters per km.

          So, yes, a lot people might have to move inland around 1,000 meters.

          1. I remember many years ago this movie by a guy named Al Gore, who invented the internet no less, came out and said we’d all be under water by this time. So far, for my entire lifetime, the Farmers Almanac is a more accurate predictor of the weather than all these climate “scientists.”

            1. Right… But I can tell you between the Almanac and the “Scientists” which one is making more money selling snake oil.

        3. Are you a fucking moron? Are you completely unaware that Amsterdam exists?

          1. I think it’s funny that the doomsday cultists suggest the reasonable solution is to redevelop the entire world’s energy sectors on the back of taxpayers and low/middle class energy bills, but suggesting we just make minor adjustments to flood control infrastructure is just massively impossible.

      2. Oh goodie. Yet more grain-fed Americans. Maybe we should stop focusing on average temperature rise over the next century and focus more on average weight gain. Will the average American tip the scales at a ton by 2100??

        1. Nothing says libertarian like worrying about other people’s collective dietary habits.

    4. By that logic, the Deep State trying to coup Trump is also The Trump Administration.

    5. Over/Under 7 degrees rise by 2100.

      I’ll take under. Hell, I’ll give under 6 just for laughs.

      I’m open for business, all day long.
      Will have to make the payoff payable to grandkids, but whatever.

      1. the interesting thing is that all previous predictions put it at 2 degrees. If you can’t get people scared to move on little predictions make them bigger and bolder scarier

    6. You’re a moron. That woild require something at least as dramatic as RCP8.5 (not going to happen with frac’ing) and an already discredited ECS of over 4C/doubling.

    7. You didn’t read the actual study either, did you. Here’s a direct link. The quote you’re looking for is on page S-15.

      For context, this is a draft report from the bureaucrats in one arm of one small agency of the Administration (the NHTSA) that uncritically uses the IPCC Reference Case emissions scenario and global climate models as the basis for their worst-case analysis.

      In fairness, worst-case analysis has a place in proper risk management. Where this document fails is in the consideration of the likelihood of that scenario actually occurring.

      The greater failure, however, is in the assertion that this one document counts as any kind of admission or statement on the part of the Trump Administration as a whole. It does not. The assumptions cited in the paper (and the exaggerations of even those assumptions in SPB’s snippet above) are outlier views.

  5. …White House spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway was spouting this mistaken-identity mumbo-jumbo on CBS This Morning.

    Let’s not pretend it doesn’t happen.

    1. The alternative is that she is making it up out of whole cloth.

  6. So many things have gone so wrong when the Senate is talking about beer, wine, and other drinks, when a prospective SCOTUS judge is talking about the age he lost his virginity, and more.

    It’s not even sweeps.

    1. Now, *this* is transparency!

    2. Indeed, “talking about beer, wine, and other drinks” is wrong. That’s not what they’re for.

      1. They should have given him rigorous tests of his beer-pong ability and the speed at which he can shotgun a Bud Lite.

  7. Republican Senators plough ahead with Kavanaugh vote

    Is that some shot at Grassley, the best damn farmer in the Senate?

    1. It’s a reference for what is needed to move a ton of Dem bullshit.

  8. “But?in a politically sound but preposterous twist?Republican leadership and spokespeople are also professing to believe Ford’s story about her assault, with one caveat: She must be misremembering the person(s) who did it.”

    Either that or be crucified by every person without a penis. The Dems started the tune and everyone knows the dance.

    If it were a male cross examiner, it would be considered sexist and inappropriate. Ironically, forcing it to be a female cross examiner is the definition of sexist.

    1. I will be terribly amused when Mr. Trump nominates Diane Sykes instead, or an even more conservative judge that the dems cannot attack because she is female/colored/non-hetero. It won’t stop them from attacking her anyway, but, since they set up the game, they will lose by the same rules.

    2. Course they could have asked questions themselves and been exposed for what they actually are – 11 pricks without a nutsack.

      1. Cry more CMB.

  9. “Book burning is benign when compared to what Facebook has silently done to restrict and eliminate diversity of thought,”

    someone needs to watch silicon valley so they know what “burn rate” means

    1. Bring back Erlich!

    2. Everyone who has ever sued me has settled….PUSSIES!

  10. Lizzie the Lezzie sounds especially butthurt this morning, just like her butt-buddy Soave did yesterday.

    Either it’s THAT time of the month once again, or she strongly suspects that her fellow democrats have failed in their mission to destroy him.

    1. Look, dude, we know it hurts. We’ve all been through rejection at one time or another. Even me, who was at one point the sexiest (and gayest) sexy gay man in Oklahoma. But being bitter at the one who rejected you doesn’t help at all. It just makes you look like a turd. So dude, stop turding. Negging isn’t going to bring her into your arms. She’s married. She’s happy. How about you take some time, get over it, and try to find a little happiness yourself?

  11. …let’s just say it’s not among America’s proudest moments.

    Some magazine did a video a while ago showing America hasn’t gotten any more embarrassing.

  12. “frequently resorted to sounding off his high-school r?sum? when confronted with uncomfortable questions”

    Questions about…what he did in high school.

    1. 35 years ago… Why don’t we just drown him to make sure he’s not a witch!!??!

      1. He turned me into a newt!

    2. Yea, how dare he defend himself in the context of the accusations. Fucking sexist pig. Obviously one can surmise he’s part of a gang rape club, by the anger he showed in response to being accused to gang rape and receiving death threats.

  13. Giving Cops The Finger Is Protected Speech, Says Another Federal Court

    but dont you dare be rude to judges

  14. Plough ahead? What is this, the London Times?

    “Mr. Kavanaugh if you did plow that woman, how exactly would you spell the word?”

    1. Didn’t we kick those crazy Englishmen out a couple of hundred years ago? Fucking tea drinking, crown lickers!

    2. Kavanaugh seems like the kind of guy that would correct your spelling while he is plowing you.

    3. Somebody changed the spelling in the headline so this thread no longer makes sense.

      1. Those tricky traitors know we’re on to them!

      2. I’ve finally had an impact on the libertarian movement.

  15. Republican Senators to Plough Ahead With Kavanaugh Vote:

    Why not?

    Ford is a liar. She has zero evidence except her testimony. Her friend she says was there refuted her claims. Judge refutes her claims. Kavanaugh refutes her claims. Ford thinks polygraphs detect lies or the truth.

    Her claim is that somewhere and some time and with some people, she was almost murdered if it had not been for that magic one-piece bathing suit.

    1. LovesTrumpsTinyMushroomDick1789 is our resident idiot.

      1. If you had just trolled harder maybe the Democrats would have won. You really let them down

      2. I’m convinced he’s a parody account.

          1. It’s OBL’s best line. He’s only played it a couple of times, always on 1789, but it works.

            1. You lightweights cannot get Buttplugger’s rage level up like I can.

        1. OBL, you should know better. “Parody” comes from the Greek “paroidia,” which means “burlesque poem.” Now, we know that burlesque shows usually objectify and degrade women and that no woman would choose to perform in a burlesque show of her own free will if she were not influenced or subconsciously forced into it by the patriarchy. So we should not legitimize such practices by using words that are derived from such things.

        2. …oh my lord that’s a burn.

        3. Threadwinner.

      3. “LovesTrumpsTinyMushroomDick1789 is our resident idiot.”

        Turdd is opne of our resident lefty losers.
        She and you lost, loser. Grow up.

    2. Poor Lefties and their stupid plans that dont work.

    3. She was “almost murdered” and “almost raped.” Literally, no evidence of either. NONE… ZERO. No bruises, nothing… No witnesses. No dates. No times.

      35 YEARS AGO!!!!!

      35 FUCKING YEARS AGO!!!

      Why is anyone wasting time or energy on this!?!!? If the Dems want to die on this hill, go right ahead.

      1. Its fun to taunt them with another failed ploy of theirs.

        Lefties could have been successful at going after Trump’s actual faults. Not bringing troops home, etc.

        Lefties chose to suborn perjury, go violent, lie, force the Senate to be more of a circus than it normally is, etc.

        Lefties are literally helping the GOP more than RINOs are at this point.

        1. Lefties are literally helping the GOP more than RINOs are at this point.

          Has this ever not been true?

  16. But even if the credibility of the allegation has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt and even if further investigation is warranted to determine its validity or clear Judge Kavanaugh’s name, we recognize that this nomination is no longer in the best interests of the country.

    The possibility of incentivizing false accusations is?

    1. Seeing as how Ford is likely to gain massive amounts of money from doing this and faces zero consequences for her actions, I’d say our system is pretty fucked up.

      1. Conservatives wont fall for it next time?

  17. It’s Kavanaugh’s own testimony that probably did him the most damage.

    “Did *you* ever spout off self-damaging testimony?!”

    1. Crusty often spouts self-damaging, sticky testimony.

  18. So many things have gone so wrong when the Senate is talking about beer, wine, and other drinks, when a prospective SCOTUS judge is talking about the age he lost his virginity, and more.

    again, i’ll say, a GOP that had any anchoring to the idea that the government does not know better about your life than you would be much better equipped to handle a scene like this.

  19. Giving Cops The Finger Is Protected Speech, Says Another Federal Court https://t.co/O7F7XQE4Gj
    ? techdirt (@techdirt) September 28, 2018

    Just don’t let that bird come up in a furtive movement.

    1. “Officer, I’m going to slowly give you the finger.”

      1. Is the thumb considered a finger in this ruling?

        1. It’s all that we homo sapians have.

  20. Democrats are in for some serious trouble come election 2018.

    Women were discussing Ford’s testimony and how Democrats treated Kavanaugh yesterday. They went against Ford and against bullshit unsupported claims of sex crimes.

    1. “Women” didn’t do shit, you moron.

      “Women” did not support Ford or Kavanaugh. This is why you are an idiot. You only see extremes – no complexity. Groups all do the same thing to you.

      LovesTrumpsTinyMushroomDick1789 is our resident idiot.

      1. I am going to laugh so hard at your dumb loser ass when he gets confirmed on Monday or Tuesday, Dipshit Dave. Better get ready!

      2. You’d better calm down, Trump gets to appoint at least 1 more SCJ. You’re going to be rocking in a dark alleyway in a puddle of piss if you keep going at this rate.

        1. He’s not already covered in piss?

          The Lefties are freaking out this morning.

          They blew much of their remaining political capital on Feinstein’s little last minute gamble that didnt work.

        2. You think I care?

          I am a white straight Southern middle aged male. I will benefit from the far right decisions coming down the pike.

          1. You don’t care? What’s with all the Sturm und Drang?

            And again, Racism is never far below the surface.

          2. “You think I care?”

            no, it’s pretty obvious that we know you care.

        3. Poor Buttplugger has given up the fight.

      3. You don’t sound like someone who is feeling confident.

    2. “Women were discussing”

      LC has the pulse on what women in this country think. He heard two of them talking while he was hiding in one of the stalls.

      Hopefully you can see that this whole thing is kabuki theater on both sides to rile up their bases. I think everyone but the most hardened partisans aren’t really paying any serious attention to this matter. This Kavanaugh/Ford thing will change nothing at the end of the day, except maybe make a few at risk Senators have to rethink their votes.

      1. Like I say below Leo, if this were anything but a political disaster for the Demcorats, the media would be telling us all about it this morning. The fact that they are not saying a word about that and are instead clutching their pearls over a “forever broken system” is pretty strong evidence that this has not played out well for the Democrats with the electorate. Reading the major media is like reading the old Pravda; it is what they don’t tell you that is the most important.

        1. Kavanaugh fought back and did well in defending himself. As good as could be expected.

          The smell of greasy desperation on Democrats is stifling.

        2. As I like to do during partisan controversies, I was flipping back and forth between Fox and MSNBC yesterday. Each side had a completely different take on what happened yesterday. Confirmation bias is a powerful drug.

          Watching the outrage from all parties involved is entertaining. That Lindsay Graham moment. That moment when Feinstein had to answer whether her staff leaked this. Priceless momemts in American idiocy.

          1. They all try and spin it for their side. But it is not hard to tell the truth if you understand the media and pay attention. One of the ironclad rules of reading the Democratic partisan media is that whenever they talk about the American system of government or democracy is “broken”, it means the Democrats are losing politically.

            1. +1

            2. Of course.

              They are not going to claim it’s broken when they are in charge. Then it’s the best government ever.

              They understand that some people out there want government to be the solution. So fake a problem, claim you’re the solution.

              Politics 101

          2. “Each side had a completely different take on what happened yesterday. ”

            Agreed. I wouldn’t trust any analysis of this. It’s far better to give it a few months and see how it shakes out. Will Kavanaugh be confirmed? If so, will anyone really care that he’s on the Court (other than the partisan diehards) by Christmas?

            1. He’ll be confirmed, and nobody will care after the election.

              Both sides will applaud his decision on some upcoming 4A case to expand government surveillance powers to protect us from whatever bogeyman exists at the time (terrorists, MS-13, drug dealers, sex traffickers, or Crusty).

              1. Pretty much that.

              2. If Crusty doesn’t want to be jailed like a thug then he shouldn’t leave his sex doll on the side of the road like a thug

                1. He didn’t leave his sex doll, his sex doll left him.

        3. “The system is broken” is Lefty code for “We’re not getting what we want.”

      2. Leo has his pulse on what Americans think, He heard two of them talking while he was hiding in the Walmart trash can.

        1. Or maybe the Senate bathroom?

          No…. Congress definitely does NOT have a grasp of what America thinks.

        2. Leo has his pulse on what Americans think

          I like to literally put my wrist up against the heads of random Americans so that they can feel my pulse.

      3. From the poll I saw – nonpartisan men aren’t paying attention and their midterm vote (partisan or not) isn’t affected at all. Women were – regardless of partisanship or which way they think the decision should go. One would think this would result in a big shift by women voters – one way or another.

        If I were to guess – it won’t matter at all – because most midterm Senate races are structured so that no protest vote by gender is really possible. Flake will be replaced by a woman regardless – and Hatch will be replaced by Romney (more a name-recognition and totally R state). The only real impact could be Dean Heller getting beat by Jacky Rosen in Nevada.

        IOW – for Senate at least, the elections have been mostly structured so that women incumbents face women challengers and men face men. Statistically, it’s way outside coin-flip norms. Odd – I always knew the House elections were rigged along those lines where there is no possible independent voter voice along non-DeRp lines. I never really realized the DeRps seem to have rigged the Senate the same way.

        1. You can’t even click a link properly, keep your bloviating, shitty analysis

          1. You been eating your own dingleberries again?

    3. Kavanaugh ! KAVANAUGH! Kavanaugh!

      I built extra tear barrels for election 2018 and will use some of them for collection of your tears when Kavanaugh is confirmed.

  21. You can tell this whole Kavanaugh thing has gone south like Sherman for the Democrats. Whenever things go badly for Republicans, the media is all about the political horse race and the impending doom for the Republicans. A few days ago when the media thought this was working, all the media could talk about is how this was destroying the Republcians with the all important surburban women vote and the gender gap. Aren’t reading too much about this morning are you? Since the Demcorats are being routed, the talking points today are how the system is broken. Whenever Demcorats lose it is because the system is broken.

    No, the systerm worked as it should here. The President appointed a qualified candidate with broad support in the Senate, the Democrats tried a last minute gambit to slander the guy as a rapist, the Sentate listened to the accusation and rightly decided it was bullshit, and are now going to confirm the guy. That is how the system should work.,

    Nick Gillespie and others don’t want a healthy system. They want a broken system where whenever the Demcorats throw a big enough fit about something, the Republicans role over and give them what they want in the name of everyone getting along and things not getting ugly; truth, reason and the interests or wants of the country be damned Nick wants a return to the bipartisan fusion party running everything.

    1. Nick Gillespie and others don’t want a healthy system.

      Unfair to include Gillespie on this one. His overriding theme for a while now has been how focusing on Trump has let so many other aspects of government off the hook that are not acting in good faith and no longer care about doing their jobs leading to a very unhealthy system that no one trusts.

      1. Gillespie is all over Twitter this morning repeating the talking points about how broken the system is because of all this. This is one case where the system worked. And it worked I would argue in no small part because Trump showed in 2016 you can stand up to this nonsense. Had Trump not won the GOP nomination and some conventional Republican been elected President and all of this had happened, I am not at all convinced the Republicans would not have folded like they always have in the past. We will never know and maybe they wouldn’t have. But given their past performance, it is a reasonable guess they would have. If anything, this affair is a sign of the system starting to heal itself. I doubt the Democrats will try this again for a while.

        1. Agree. Democrats will be even more desperate when Trump replaces RBG and Breyer, but I doubt they will use this failed tactic.

          Plus, I think Trump had a few women as #2 and # contenders except Kennedy wanted Kavanaugh to replace him.

          A non-white woman as SCOTUS candidate would be hilarious to watch Democrats bumble to attack.

          1. I’m surprised Kennedy hasn’t chimed in on this. I could swear that he was only willing to retire on the condition that he could name his successor.

        2. You said Gillespie doesnt want a healthy system but yet you have him on Twitter complaining about a broken system. Sounds like you just disagree on the state of the system, not that Gillespie wants an unhealthy system.

          1. He doesn’t want a healthy system because what he calls a “broken system” is actually a healthy system. He wants a broken system and just pretends or has convinced himself that such a system is really healthy and the way it ought to be. Read my first post again because you clearly didn’t understand my point.

            1. Ha, wow.

          2. Nicky’s damascene conversion that tearing it all down is a bad thing comes conveniently late.

      2. “Unfair to include Gillespie on this one.”

        Gotta strongly disagree with that take. Gillespie is up to his ears in this one.

  22. This gigantic, wasteful, pathetic spending bill passed the House and Senate. @POTUS @realDonaldTrump said, “I will never sign another bill like this again,” about the last bill like this, the omnibus. He’ll now be put to the test. https://t.co/x3FpgmRemD
    ? Justin Amash (@justinamash) September 27, 2018

    What does any of that have to do with Kavanaugh and Ford?

    1. NEXT TIME THE GOP WILL REALLY CUT SPENDING! JUST GIVE THEM ANOTHER CHANCE!

      (dumbass Tea-bagger circa 2009-10.

      1. Gave up on Juggernaut I see.

      2. Sir, may I remind you that there are 49 Democratic Senators in the Senate. There are 100 Senators total? meaning that Democrats control 51% of the Senate and are thus responsible for 51% of what happens. Where’s your outrage about the majority Democrat’s stranglehold on the budget? I for one am looking for the day when Republicans totally control Congress and the Executive Branch so we can reduce the debt to zero on Day 1.

        #BothsidesAreEquallyBad

        1. #PayYourMortgage

  23. Happy 20th birthday, Google!

    Typical millennial that you are.

    1. Maybe by Google’s 21st birthday they will move out of Mao’s basement.

    2. I can’t imagine what the search results will be like next year when they can finally drink legally!

      1. Google has been drinking the Kool-Aid for years.

        1. They moved onto pouring it for everyone else over a decade ago.

          1. I will Google that to find out, if its true.

        2. Bing has the market cornered on cherry Kool-Aid.

  24. and the true meaning of “Beach Week Ralph Club”…let’s just say it’s not among America’s proudest moments

    finding pride or embarrassment with people you just happen to share a national border with remains the bigger problem here.

  25. I had been inclined to withhold judgment, but apparently K was just plain lying about his yearbook. Although many of the cute slang terms therein were unknown to me, my friends who actually study things like eighties slang tell me (on a dialect listserv I subscribe to) that, for example, Devil’s Triangle actually refers to threesomes, not whatever K claimed it meant (you can look that one up on Urban Dictionary). And ‘bouf’ is slang for ‘butt-fuck’, not ‘barf’. So K is clearly making shit up, under oath. Dumb. Just like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar (and no, that’s not slang for anything).

    1. If you were an actual linguist you would know regional slang has huge variation.

      1. Cunning linguist more like it.

        1. CunninLynguists are a fantastic underground hip hop group.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CunninLynguists

    2. If you look up “bouf” on Urban Dictionary, your definition isn’t listed at all.

      Your logical fallacy is cherry-picking here.

    3. high school boys likes to talk about sex and slip dirty slang into yearbooks.

      film at eleven.

      I did not have sex with that woman!

    4. Nonsense.

      Urban Dictionary is a recent invention. Slang has huge variations by time period, region and by socioeconomic class within a region.

      In the UK and former British territories, the word “fag” is commonly used to refer to a cigarette, without any homosexual connotation.

      1. Example: ” ‘ello guv, mind if I pinch a fag? “

        1. And if you ask for a ‘Black and Tan’ in London you’ll be given a pint of ale.

          Ask for the same thing in Dublin and you’ll be lucky if all you get is a punch in the nose.

  26. Kavanaugh! Kavanaugh! Kavanaugh!

  27. Kavanaugh has “all but abandoned the posture of impartiality demanded of a judge,” suggests Jonathan Chait

    Unlike, say, the rest of SCOTUS, who would NEVER issue blatantly partisan 5-4 decisions not based on the wording of the constitution.

    /sarc

    1. What’s the appropriate way for a judge to feel after his wife or children have been subjected to violent threats?

      1. There is no way that Kavanaugh can be an impartial judge after this event.

        Therefore he is unfit!

      2. There’s no one appropriate response.

        You could be zen about it, discount them as baseless threats.

        You could get upset about it.

        People handle stuff like this in different ways based on their personality.

  28. OMG, look at those Glenn Greenwald tweets! Many people suspect he’s on Putin’s payroll because of the way he downplays #TrumpRussia and actually blames Hillary Clinton for losing to Drumpf, when all fair observers know it wasn’t her fault at all.

    And even a suspected Kremlin asset cannot defend Orange Hitler’s Supreme Court pick. That should tell you a lot.

    #CancelKavanaugh
    #SaveRoe
    #SUPER-PRECEDENT

  29. “Kavanaugh’s current character seems to be that of someone who’s lying about a lot of (often petty) things.”

    Even if you believe that the way people feel while they testify should for some reason matter, this is pure horseshit. Kavanaugh acquitted himself nicely.

    Meanwhile, let’s talk about the facts. The problem with Ford’s story was always that it was uncorroborated. That’s no longer the issue. Of the four people Ford says were present at the party in question, precisely all of them have now sworn under oath that they were never there. The girl Ford says was there swore that she’s neither met nor seen Kavanaugh in person to the best of her knowledge.

    Ford’s allegations are no longer uncorroborated–they’re contradicted under oath and under penalty of perjury by the four people Ford herself named as witnesses. Anyone who thinks that Kavanaugh shouldn’t be confirmed because of allegations that have not only not been corroborated by testimony or evidence but also contradicted by four different witnesses is so far gone, they have no business even pretending to be reasonable on the topic anymore.

    Meanwhile, Kavanaugh’s demeanor during his testimony was entirely appropriate to his circumstances.

    1. I did not watch the circus so I could be wrong about this. But didn’t it come to light that Ford was dishonest about her fear of flying?

      1. I heard something about that–at least that she seemed to overcome that fear when it suited her to do so. Theoretically, someone could bullshit about a fear of flying and still be telling the truth about a sexual assault.

        She listed four witnesses, each of whom swore under oath that the events in question never happened, and if that isn’t given equal weight to her testimony that the events did happen, I need to understand why.

        If you don’t believe Kavanaugh, well, okay.

        You don’t believe the four witnesses who swore under penalty of perjury that it never happened either?

        At some point, the credibility of the people who believe these claims comes into question. What would it take for them to not question the validity of Ford’s allegations?

        1. She lied about her fear of flying in order to affect the timing of the hearing.

          That seems relevant.

          1. Also consider that if Kavanagh gave the wrong order in which he cut his toenails, the dems would have jumped on that as evidence of his lying.

        2. “”someone could bullshit about a fear of flying and still be telling the truth about a sexual assault.”‘

          True. But in a he said she said scenario, we are looking to judge credibility. If you lie about anything, no matter how trivial, you are shown to be a liar and you lose the credibility game.

          I believe it was pointed out that she flew quite a bit. But in her testimony she claimed she had to have support from friends and get the courage to fly to DC. She included a group of people to support a lie. So lying about something and using other people to support the lie is not beyond her.

          I don’t need to believe Kavanagh to make a judgment about her honesty. To make a judgment about her claim, I need to believe her. I can’t believe her if she’s going to be dishonest about something as trivial as a fear of flying.

          1. “But in a he said she said scenario, we are looking to judge credibility.”

            It isn’t a he said/she said scenario.

            The Four witnesses Ford named have all gone on the record under penalty of perjury saying that the party never happened.

            That’s speaks to directly to the credibility of the charges.

      2. She admitted that she flies routinely and in fact flew to DC.

        1. When you’re talking to your friends and family about whether Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her, they might not understand why you’re talking about her fear of flying.

          They’ll understand when you point out that the four witnesses she says were at the party all say that the party never happened. The woman Ford claims was at the party swore under penalty of perjury that she’s never seen Kavanaugh in person.

          I repeat: The four witnesses Ford cited to verify that the incident took place have all testified that the party never happened. The fear of flying may have something to do with political motives, whatever, but the fact that all the witnesses say it never happened speaks directly to the charges themselves.

          There was no party. According to Ford’s witnesses, it never happened.

          1. Admittedly, I’ve avoided reading much about the Kavanaugh nonsense, but when I see someone start going off about “She’s afraid of flying but she flies places” I can only shake my head. WTF does that have to do with anything? Do people not do things that scare them?

            On the other hand, you’re point that the 4 witnesses she named have testified under oath that the event didn’t occur… that’s very damning.

            1. “” “She’s afraid of flying but she flies places””‘

              Did she need family and friend support to get on the plane for all the other trips? She’s lying about the fear.

  30. “The arrest of adult-film actress Stormy Daniels in July by undercover vice officers and the August shooting of 23-year-old Donna Castleberry by undercover vice Officer Andrew Mitchell have put a spotlight on the 20-member unit,” and operations have been suspended since early September…

    “Please clear us so we can go back to the titty bars on the taxpayer dime.”

  31. “Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono’s re-election campaign on Thursday apologized for sending a fundraising email regarding the assault…”

    I assume the apology email also had a donation request attached.

    1. They also apologized for her being a retarded cunt.

  32. Megan McArdle was on Twitter this morning saying the Republicans can’t confirm Kavanaugh because it wil cause so many hard feelings. In Megan’s view Kavanaugh should see his retutation destroyed and be denied the ultimate achievement of his career spending the rest of his life known as the guy who was denied a seat on the Court because he was a rapist, even though he is almost certainly innocent, all in the name of everyone getting along. I give McArdle a lot of slack because I honestly don’t think she is very bright and has lived such a sheltered life in the media and academic bubble that she can’t be expected to know much even if she is bright, but she really is just not a very good person. The harm of refusing to confirm Kavanaugh would do to an innocent man’s life and reputation doesn’t even occur to her let alone cause her any concern.

    1. Here’s an idea. Why doesn’t the Senate confirm Kavanaugh and all the slime ooze back into the septic tank that they came from? Very soon, the Supreme Court will go back to being practically invisible and the slime can waste time inventing some new reason to pants-shit. Meanwhile, sane human beings will go about their lives exactly as before, because this entire circus is 100% bullshit. Even the slime don’t believe it, they just “use” it until it stops having utility.

      1. That about covers it. Confirm him and tell these people to fuck off.

    2. McArdle is a smart woman but is always inclined to believe the worst about Republicans and conservatives.

      1. I don’t know about that. She, like a lot of conservative-leaning pundits, are a stark minority in the mass media complex, and their livelihoods–the syndicated articles, the morning yak shows appearances–and their social lives are dependent on being able to get along with their far more numerous, left-wing colleagues. So you inevitably see a great deal of throat-clearing about collegiality instead of a forceful defense of their supposed principles against left-wing attacks. Even Jonah Goldberg, the pundit who practically made whataboutism a cottage industry, pointedly refuses to make the logical connection between what he writes about in “Liberal Fascism” and the left today. “Oh, my colleagues aren’t like THOSE people,” he reasons, “They’re nice to me, we just disagree on things!”

        The irony of the Reagan-worship that most of them exhibit is that Reagan had no problem talking shit about his political opponents and trolling them mercilessly (and he was a lot more eloquent about it than Trump), and came to power largely on the strength of his message of unapologetic American nationalism, along with his pointed denouncements of New Deal progressivism and New Left communist pussyfooting.

        1. The way Goldberg in particular distorts Reagan’s actual record drives me nuts. Reagan was an unpologetic nationalist. He absolutely believed in American exceptionalism and saw America as the city on the hill of democracy and enlightment for the rest of the world. He was also not much of an internationalist. He opposed Communism because he saw it as a mortal threat to civilization as a whole and the US in particular not because he had some Wilsonian new world order vision for things. For all of his talk, he rarely used the military. And when he did, it was, with the loan exception of sending Marines to Lebenon, done to protect US interrests. He invaded Grenada because a Cuban takeover was a threat to the US sphere of influence in the Carribean. He bombed Libya in retaltiation for terror attacks on US servicemen in Europe. He sent advisers to Central America to protect US interests there. The one time he allowed himself to get drug into inernationalist peace keeping work in Lebenon, he was smart enough not to send good mony after bad and pulled out instead of seeking revenge and trying to remake Lebenon in the American image.

        2. Reagan was also just as much or more of a protectionist and isolationist as Trump. He slapped huge tarriffs on auto imports and Japanese electronics. He was hardly some “meh principles” conservative. He was a practical politician who worked with Congress and made deals that got things he thought was important at the expense of other goals. Despite his reputation, he didn’t shrink the size or the scope of government. The regulatory state stayed about the same under Reagen. And of course the budget deficit went up. The reason for that was he say the defense buildup and winning the cold war as the biggest priority. So, he let the Demcoratic Congress get a lot of what it wanted on domestic spending in return for him getting what he wanted on defense spending and taxes. And even on taxes, he agreed to reverse a significant portion of his famous tax reform after the Democrats made big gains in the 82 midterms. You can debate the wisdom of his doing that, but there is no way he can call him some ideologically pure conservative willing to die on every hill for their principles as lying halfwits like Goldberg try to do.

          The more time goes on, the less I respect and more I frankly despise Goldberg. He is just a third rate hack.

        3. McArdle is not conservative leaning, it’s just that her lack of total economic ignorance makes her seem that way. Especially so in comparison to everyone around her.

  33. A “body spotted on the side of the road” near Cincinnati turned out to be an abandoned sex doll.

    Women. Can’t live with them, can’t toss them out the passenger side window.

    1. I thought you were supposed to give your old stuff to the poor and homeless. Don’t they need sex dolls too?

    2. What was Crusty doing in Cincinnati?

      1. Looking for his sex doll he left on the side of the road appearantly.

        1. How he could not find it by following the trail of seamen is beyond me.

  34. Why should Kavanaugh be held to a higher standard than the politicians who nominate/confirm him?

    Is it out-of-bounds to level defamatory accusations against politicians? No? Then why is it out-of-bounds to level them against Kavanaugh?

    1. I believe it’s wrong to level defamatory accusations against anyone, and Kavanaugh probably shouldn’t be held to a higher standard than the politicians, but I guess the obvious answer would be that it’s a lifetime appointment which it’s next to impossible to be involuntarily removed from, other than death.

      Though personally, I don’t believe it should be a lifetime appointment. That was a mistake on the part of the Founders, albeit an understandable one that was rooted in idealism.

      1. I believe it’s wrong to level defamatory accusations against anyone

        this is bullshit coming from you.

    2. This post got me wondering if any SCOTUS justices have ever been impeached. So I did some searching and found that….

      The left is already talking impeachment for Kavanaugh! You can bet that this is going to be their rallying cry for why they need the Senate in 2018 and 2020.

      Is this the new norm in politics? People were calling for Trump’s impeachment before he even took office! Now people are calling for impeachment of Kavanaugh (prior to confirmation), requiring 2/3 of the same body that would have to confirm him by a simple majority for it to even matter. How dumb can this get?

      1. Also, Samuel Chase is the only SCOTUS justice to ever get impeached. Articles of impeachment were for political bias in his rulings. But he wasn’t removed by the Senate.

        Could you imagine how many judges could be impeached for political bias today, if that was the standard to go by?

      2. This is another signal that the Ford plan failed.

        Even Lefties know that Kavanaugh will be confirmed.

      3. Samuel Chase was impeached by the Jeffersonians but not removed from office. The only other time it came close was Abe Fortas who resigned under bipartisan pressure following the exposure of a ton of financial corruption.

  35. I watched the entire hearing. I started with no preconceptions. I reject the view that an accusation (or any person) is entitled to be believed absent evidence. By the end, it was clear Kavanaugh was evasive or outright lying about multiple matters, while Ford lied about none.
    ? Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) September 28, 2018

    Greenwald might be the only one who could credibly make that opening statement.

    1. i feel betrayed that Glem actually came out against something us Trump voters hold dear. Shame on him. Have Snowden and Asante chimed in yet on the Deep State plot against Trump and The People yet. Let’s hope Obama’s agents haven’t got to them

      #NoMoreLaserBeamsinMyHead
      #AnarchistsForTrump

    2. it was clear Kavanaugh was evasive or outright lying about multiple matters, while Ford lied about none.

      *** scratches head ***

      It’s also clear that Greenwald is distorting or outright making stuff up.

      1. That’s where he lost me, unless there’s something I missed.

  36. A “body spotted on the side of the road” near Cincinnati turned out to be an abandoned sex doll.

    How do you know it was abandoned? Maybe the owner was just waiting for traffic to diminish before resuming.

    1. #SexTrafficking

      1. #TrafficSex

  37. But perhaps from a legal decision maker on the highest court in the land, it’s not too much to want and ask for better.

    Are you kidding, ENB, with the solid vote of brave Republicans we’ve stopped the war against men and now will have two men on the SC that know how to handle that dying bitch, RBG.

    #WouldYouLikeSomePubesWithYourCoke?
    #Preserverance

    1. #WouldYouLikeSomeDudesInYourThroat

      No seriously, I’m RANDY.

      #WouldYouLikeADudeInYourThroat

  38. Kavanaugh! Kavanaugh! Kavanaugh!

  39. The Democrats played this exactly like they wanted, and will get away with it because of their sycophants in the press.

    1. Kavanaugh is going to end up on the court and a whole bunch of people who felt they had no reason to show and vote to keep the GOP in control of the Congress now have a reason to do so. I really don’t see how this played out well for the Democrats at all.

      1. I went from straight party libertarian to voting for Cruz.

        Well, Beato’s hatred of the bill of rights might have something to do with it.

    2. This was a huge backfire for Democrats. Makes sense since they rushed their desperation move.

      They didnt expect Kavanaugh to fight back. The Lefties didnt expect GOP Senators to not cave, even the RINOs. They didn’t expect Kavanaugh to have a calendar/diary since age 9. They thought an actual non-liar accuser would appear and never did. They thought public opinion would fall with Ford and it seems to be the opposite.

      The Lefties failed to see that old unsupported allegations of sex crimes would rally support against them.

  40. I have much more to be angry about than Kavanaugh. But if I walked into court and acted like he did, I would be judged unfit. Even if the charges are wrong, and I don’t believe that they are in his case, Kavanaugh showed a complete lack of judgment and character.
    The Supreme Court would never recover from appointing Kavanaugh at this point. I would bet Roberts, who cares about the Court, is doing everything he can to prevent this catastrophe.

    1. Like calling the appointment a tax?

    2. Oh come on you’re not even trying with this sock.

    3. Where’s Stalin?

      1. Personally, I’m worried about Pol Pot.

    4. I would bet Roberts, who cares about the Court

      SCOTUS judge “The NSA Has Some Nasty Shite On Me So Penaltax Bullshit IIllogic To Weasel Out” Roberts?

      That Roberts?

    5. “I have much more to be angry about than Kavanaugh.”

      It’s not too late to get some book learnin’.

  41. Jennifer Rubin, one of the few conservative writers maintaining intellectual honesty in the age of Drumpf, had an amazing insight yesterday: with him screaming and interrupting senators I could imagine him putting his hand over someone’s mouth.

    She’s absolutely right.

    1. I thought he came across positively presidential and look forward to his cool, dispassionate temperament on the court.

      #preserverance
      #ConfirmKavanaugh

    2. Rubin should leave her personal sex fantasies out of her Twitter feed.

  42. “Alternately shouting, snarky, and crying, Kavanaugh frequently resorted to sounding off his high-school r?sum? when confronted with uncomfortable questions”

    In an alternate universe Kavanaugh was completely unemotional and everyone is shrieking about how that proves he is a cold, psychotic rapey mastermind

    1. Absolutely. They call the guy a violent drunk and a serial rapist and he is supposed to agree with them I guess. Do the people who say things things just not realize how transparently phony they sound?

      1. No, they don’t. Not at all. The people on the left saw his anger as proof of guilt, and I’m sure they would say that you’re transparently phony for calling his anger righteous indignation. Everyone saw his anger as a confirmation of their biases.

        1. I don’t think his anger means anything one way or another. I have said on multiple occasions you do not judge these things strictly by the testimony on both sides.

        2. He wasnt just angry. He was chocked up about talking about his family and women friends.

      2. They dont care. They are propaganda pushers and some of them realize that the unbiased news jig was up.

        I dont even see the MSM trying to hide it. They suppress all info that is against their narrative and push the info that supports their narrative.

      3. Also, this assessment is coming from social justice types who A. Are the most emotional people in politics and B. Are supposed to be above gender norms. But now, all of a sudden, men need to go back to the 1950s and suppress all of their feelings?

        1. It is a bit ironic for the angriest, most emotional group of people on earth suddently find being emotional and angry a damning quality.

          1. It is a bit ironic for the angriest, most emotional group of people on earth suddently find being emotional and angry a damning quality

            Damn, that was funny.

  43. Am I the only one that wants to see Dana Carney do a Ford impression?

    1. Totally.

      Especially the eye roll and facial expressions when her lawyers turned off the mic and told her what to say about who paid for the polygraph.

    2. Probably. Was Dana Carney at that party?

      1. She was looking in a mirror on the bed.

  44. *Carvey ( Garth )

  45. Cry more ENB, your hit job failed, and you lost.

    Now go make me a sandwich.

    1. A sammich would have more mustard and meat.

    2. Seriously, you make yourself look quite bad making these kinds of comments.

      She may have bias and she may be wrong on certain takes but there’s no call for that kind of crap. It’s just childish and pathetic.

  46. The lead story on every network should be about the fact that all four of Ford’s witnesses swore that they were never there.

    This is not he said/she said. This is she said–but all four of her witnesses say they weren’t there.

    How do you ignore that?

    1. Propaganda outlets dont call it “ignoring it”. You will have to ask ENB what they call it.

    2. “LALALALALAAA!!”

    3. By saying the Russians sabotaged it. (I’m joking but at the same time wouldn’t be shocked if the left somehow works the Russians into this story.)

      1. easy:

        The compound behind Quaaludes was first synthesized in India in 50ies, and it was the time of hindi rusi bhai bhai.

      2. I think the media picked up and ran with this to pull the attnetion of the giant NOTHING burger of a dead horse they’ve been beating called “Russia.”

        No… we haven’t been wrong about Russia for going on 2 years… Nope… Oh look, RAPE!

    4. “How do you ignore that?”

      The same way they ignore the fact that the people demanding more time to investigate this are the very same people who sat on it for over two months.

      And that includes Blasey Ford herself. Because if she didn’t like the pace of events she was certainly free to tell others at any time.

      Yeah, I’d like to hear ENB, Soave, and Gillespie try to explain both of those things away.

      But they are too busy pointing at squirrels.

      1. The bitch could have reported it in 1982.

  47. I’m still waiting for a coherent explanation of what the FBI could actually do to credibly investigate Ford’s claims, and how they’ll find the “smoking gun” that Ford’s attorneys can’t. Because you know damn well Ford’s attorneys would have found something if it was out there. Plus, just about every major news outlet is desperately hunting for “proof” as well.

    But hey, if you want it go for it. And just hope they don’t find anything damaging about Ford.

    1. Plan A: Get Kavanaugh to withdraw (failed)
      Plan B: To delay (failed)

    2. “I’m still waiting for a coherent explanation of what the FBI could actually do to credibly investigate Ford’s claims”

      1. Break into Kavanaugh’s home and office at 3am seizing everything including wife and kids.
      2. Scour the “1 million ways to be a criminal” handbook and find something to pin on Kavanaugh and/or his wife and/or his kids.
      3. Offer freedom for backing out of the nomination.

      This is how it’s done.
      I wonder why more people don’t insist the FBI investigate them.

      1. You forgot the part about if they get anything wrong, they’re immune from their actions.

      2. There was this movie, Deja Vu, with Denzel Washington about going back in time to carefully observe events. Perhaps the Democrats’ hopes are based on this machine.

    3. “you know damn well Ford’s attorneys would have found something if it was out there”

      Don’t forget the WaPo had this the whole time as well. I doubt they were doing nothing with it the whole time.

  48. Wow, Reason’s coverage of the confirmation hearings has just been awful. Have y’all even looked at the comments section?

    Here’s a prediction: your annual webathon will not be a great success.

    1. It gets worse and worse for Reason.

      They pushed out solid fans and are now replaced with new trolls and interns running various sockpuppets.

      1. >>>interns running various sockpuppets

        gotta be soul-draining … what do you do? … I try to maintain a website by adding to comments … for money? … not yet

    2. Webathon? Whatever. As long as Reason keeps producing the best open borders advocacy on the Internet, it’ll keep getting money from the Koch Brothers. A few canceled donations of $20 from phony “libertarians” won’t matter.

      1. “”Webathon?”‘

        Americathon

        1. Fuck yeah (athon).

    3. I figured they’d probably forego a donations drive this Christmas.

      I wonder what the over/under is this year.

    4. Ding ding ding!!

      Since ENB took over, the editorial bend is way left.

      Before Reason seemed fixated on small battles that, in the grand picture, were petty, but ultimately spread the message of libertarianism for the most part.

      Now it’s about how we can be liberal, yet still somehow cover it up with occasional nods towards libertarianism.

      1. Kinder Gentler Statism

  49. Leaving aside all of the rest, Kavanaugh would be the most anti-libertarian member of the Court. There would be no limit to police power, surveillance, warrant-less searches, seizure, etc.

    1. Precisely. My top pick for President in 2020, Kamala Harris, reminded us what’s at stake yesterday: Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court is a direct threat to Roe v. Wade and protecting a woman’s right to choose. The American people deserve better than this. Sign our petition if you agree.

      Although I wish she wouldn’t say “a woman’s right to choose” since transmen and nonbinary people can also access abortion care, her larger point is correct. Roe v. Wade, the best Supreme Court decision of the past half century and a legitimate SUPER-PRECEDENT, is in danger like never before.

      #LibertariansForHarris

      1. Because she disagrees with a nominee’s views on Roe v. Wade is a perfectly legitimate reason for a senator to oppose a nominee.

        When even Kamala Harris is more reasonable that you are on Kavanaugh, you know you’ve drifted out into left field somewhere. Are you listening ENB?

      2. You need to be very careful that you don’t actually become one of them.

        Saying things can have powerful effects on actual beliefs.

      3. #LibertariansForHarris

        Still doing the hashtag LibertariansForStatistSlaverFucks, I see.

        A Venn diagram of libertarians and people who cheerlead for Harris has zero intersection.

        1. Dude. It’s a parody account.

          1. Poe’s Law

    2. There would be no limit to police power, surveillance, warrant-less searches, seizure, etc.

      I must have missed something. What is the limit today?

      1. This is an opportunity for there to be a vote for limited police powers on the Court. Instead we have a reliable vote for unlimited executive and police power.

        1. Limited government powers? How naive of you.

          Also the irony of you of all people wanting to limit government power.

            1. You should paint “??” on a balloon and float it over your head.

              1. That’s a horrible idea. Just think of all of the people who’d stop him and ask for quests.

    3. And he should have been pursued on those grounds. But let’s not forget that most of the people sitting on that bench during the hearings are just fine with that sort of government overreach, as long as their party’s the one controlling it.

      Trying to slander Kavanaugh as a rape monster was the only gambit they really had to derail his nomination, because the current #metoo hysteria is the only thing that gets their base excited these days.

    4. “Leaving aside all of the rest, Kavanaugh would be the most anti-libertarian member of the Court. There would be no limit to police power, surveillance, warrant-less searches, seizure, etc.”

      ^^This exactly. He’s a libertarian disaster.

      1. So a guy who supports the 1st and 2nd Amendments is more anti libertarian than the 4 liberal justices who want to read those rights out of the Constitution? Good to know your priorities there Jeff.

        1. He’s only good on the 2nd. The problem is that the 2nd is on strong footing already, possibly doing the best of all the important amendments. He’s terrible on the rest. I was hoping for another Gorsuch and instead we’re getting a Roberts.

          1. He is not terrible on the 1st Amendment. He is fine on religious freedom and political expression which are the main issues these days. And the 2nd Amendment is on anything but a solid footing. Heller and McDonald wer 5-4 decisions which the circuit courts are limiting to their facts with the Supreme Court refusing to step in and stop them.

            All of them are bad on the 4th Amendment left and right. You want to claim Kavanaugh is somehow worse than the others, fine. But you need to be honest and admit you think that because you really don’t consider the 1st and 2nd Amendments to be a priority.

            1. I guarantee you I am more expansive on first amendment interpretations than you are.

              1. If you were, you would explain how and not just claim it.

  50. Kavanaugh! Kavanaugh! Kavanaugh!

  51. This would be a great time to remember “‘My Lie”: Why I Falsely Accused my Father”.

    “Maran recounts the 1980s feminist-inspired campaign to expose molestation, which hit feverish levels in 1988 with the book ‘The Courage to Heal.” As an early reporter on the story, Maran observed family therapy sessions, interviewed molesters and steeped herself in cases where abuse clearly took place. Meanwhile, she divorced her husband and fell in love with a woman who was also an incest survivor. Maran began having nightmares about her own molestation and soon what had been a contentious relationship with her father turned into accusations of unspeakable crimes. Eventually, she came to realize the truth. She was the person who had done wrong.

    —-Salon

    http://www.salon.com/2010/09/2…..interview/

    That article at Salon (No, it wasn’t always such a shit show) contains an interview with the author about how and why she came to falsely accuse her father of such a horrible thing. Long story short, she really believed the allegations at the time. It’s definitely worth a read.

    1. Do Dad’s even let their daughters sit in their laps anymore.

      Not every male is a rapist.
      Not every father is a molester.

    2. Salon definitely wasn’t always a shit show.

      Greenwald’s earlier work, particularly about President Drone-A-Lot and his droning of American citizens sans due process, was great stuff. Much of it very critical of Obama.

  52. There really is no choice but to confirm him. If the senate does not, not only will they not gain any votes from the angry womynz, who were never going to vote for them anyway, their base would not show up to vote for them, handing the dems an even bigger win in the midterms. I heard last week on NPR that Susan Collins had been targeted with death threats by some feminazi group if she votes for Kavanaugh- I hope she does and tells this group and others to go fuck themselves.

    1. That’s silly. The Republican base will show up to vote for them no matter their actions, or policies, or economic disaster they are foisting on the country.
      The problem for the Republicans isn’t the base, its the millions of people who despite their political beliefs 1) don’t want a rapist on the Court, and 2) don’t want a spoiled, entitled rich juvenile brat on the Court.
      If the Republicans really believed that this guy wasn’t a total slimeball, they would have no problem letting the mid-terms decide.
      Wouldn’t the Kavanaugh vote after the election bring out all the pro-Kavanaugh voters to make sure he was voted in?
      The republicans know it is a losing issue in the election, and a losing issue for the country.
      That they don’t care about that, because they know they will have a 100% reliable Republican vote on the Supreme Court, shows that they prefer to rule by force, rather than consensus.
      That is what should trouble libertarians.

      1. Go troll somewhere else.

        1. It’s not even a very good troll.

      2. If the Republicans really believed that this guy wasn’t a total slimeball, they would have no problem letting the mid-terms decide.

        If the Democrats really believed Kavanaugh committed the crimes they’re accusing him of, they wouldn’t have sat on these accusations for two months and would have confronted him about it at the first hearing. “Letting the mid-terms decide” is basically code for, “delay this long enough to hopefully avenge Merrick Garland.” Try that circular reasoning somewhere else.

        1. They let someone they thought was a rapist walk free.

      3. its the millions of people who despite their political beliefs 1) don’t want a rapist on the Court, and 2) don’t want a spoiled, entitled rich juvenile brat on the Court.

        Well I guess that eliminates anyone named Kennedy or Clinton.

  53. You’d think writers for a libertarian magazine would support due process.

    1. They do. Take the time to investigate and let heads cool before making a decision of such disastrous magnitude.

      1. They did. You lost.

      2. Maybe Avenatti can use Stormy’s hooker money to fund a private investigation after the confirmation.

      3. But first you must sit on the accusation for weeks. Only then can you demand proceedings grind to a halt.

        Uh huh.

  54. Flake just went on the record saying he will vote to confirm Kavanaugh.

  55. The Democrats have played stupid games, now they have won stupid prizes. It could not have happened to a nicer group of people.

    1. “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes” immediately popped in to my head when I read that they’re holding a vote.

      This entire process has been a sham. Perhaps he and Thomas might find an alliance for a time, given both were slandered for sexual allegations prior to SCOTUS confirmation.

  56. Some people are saying that Kavanaugh is lying about his embarrassing underage drinking behavior, and therefore he must be lying about the assault allegations.

    That’s bad logic.

    If you’re falsely accused of something, there’s a temptation to deny circumstantial evidence that might lead people to think the allegations are likely to be true.

    1. Some people are also confusing the fictionalized accounts of his his old high school buddy Mark Judge with the truth.

      Because we all know “No shit, let me tell you what happened back in high school…” is totes how it happened.

  57. ‘You’d think Liberal writers for a libertarian magazine would support due process’.

    Fixed that for ya!

  58. Under totalitarianism, feelings win over logic.

    If the totalitarian feels you’re guilty then you are..No so called ‘evidence’ is needed as the feelings are the evidence.

    So there.

    Rosie O’Donnell feels ‘Kav’ is guilty so there.

    So does Madonna and HuffNPuffToast.

    So there

  59. My bleeding heart fiancee was going off on Kavanaugh’s team getting something like 70 testimonies in her favor from women who knew him in high school. This was bad because premeditated damage control or something.

    Me: “It’s bad that Kavanaugh got endorsements from women? Would the left be OK if no women endorsed him, or would that then be evidence that women hate him?”

    If you haven’t heard the talking points in advance, it can seem surreal to people who don’t listen to the talking heads.

    1. Your fiancee must be good-looking.

      1. She’s certainly not very smart.

  60. Plow ahead”

    are doing phrasing again

  61. Plow ahead?

    More accurately: After failing to provide any corroborating evidence supporting the accusations against Kavanaugh, to include all named witnesses by the accuser providing sworn statements of no knowledge of any such assault, the Senate moves forward with the confirmation vote in spite of continued efforts to delay by Senate Democrats.

  62. Honest question to many of the posters here: What does libertarian mean to you?

    1. It certainly doesn’t mean letting your ideological enemies use hearsay accusations to ruin your life, if the collection of Title IX star court articles on this site hadn’t made that clear.

    2. Diligently plotting to take over the world and then leave people alone.

      1. I have this on a shirt. It’s one of my favorites.

    3. “Honest question to many of the posters here:”

      Oh stop lying.

    4. Honest answer: radically reducing the size of the government so that individuals and private institutions can play a greater role in our society which will very likely mean less coercion and a return to a functional normative order.

    5. To me, “libertarian” means supporting unlimited immigration into the US, and calling anyone who opposes it an alt-right white nationalist.

      It means supporting legal abortion, for any reason at all, right up until the moment of birth, which is when scientists say a clump of cells becomes a real person. And it means making sure Planned Parenthood receives adequate government funding.

      It means allowing people to use the bathroom, and play on the sports team, that matches their gender identity, even in the case of transwomen who still have full beards.

      It means respecting nonbinary pronouns (I use they / them) and creating a legal framework under which people can sue for civil rights violations when they are misgendered.

      But most of all, libertarianism is about being on the right side of history by voting Democrat.

      1. Ten am, and I already want to start drinking.

        Thanks a lot.

    6. It means being subjected to tedious lectures on what “libertarian” really means, delivered by hardcore statists who reject and utterly despise libertarian principles.

  63. Democrats must really be proud of how they have treated women:

    Keith Ellison
    Corey Booker
    John Edwards
    Bill Clinton
    Ted Kennedy

  64. To me it means not being asked honest questions about what it means to be a libertarian. jk

    1. Ha! 🙂

  65. >>>Happy 20th birthday, Google!

    no. no. no.

  66. we recognize that this nomination is no longer in the best interests of the country

    Those damn Republicans being divisive by refusing to go along with what the Democrats want to do. Why can’t they be more like St. John McCain, reach across the aisle to work with the Democrats in the name of bi-partisanship? Yet those bastards went ahead and elected Trump even knowing how much it would fracture civil discourse and intensify social friction. Why can’t we just go back to the good old days when Democrats were Democrats and Republicans were Democrat-lite? So much more civil all around back then.

    Or maybe this shit isn’t causing things to get ugly, maybe this shit is a result of things getting ugly. Maybe calling spineless RINO shitweasels like McCain right-wing extremist evil racist Nazi bastards gave some people the idea that the Democrats were the ones unwilling to give an inch in their lust for power and maybe it was way past time to Resist! Maybe Trump isn’t causing a political fracture, maybe Trump is the result of a political fracture.

    There’s a cancer in the body politic, putting a Band-Aid on it ain’t gonna fix it, you need something aggressive that has a good chance of killing the patient. But at this point there’s a lot of people willing to take the risk because this shit just cannot continue to continue. Burning it all down gets real ugly real fast, but sometimes that’s what’s required. Fuck your civility, we tried being civil. It didn’t work.

    1. Anybody else think that the Jesuit magazine America may be distancing themselves simply because of their own institutions failings?

      1. If any group in America has something to fear from decades-old sordid allegations of abuse surfacing in the media, it would be the Jesuits.

  67. “Kavanaugh’s current character seems to be that of someone who’s lying about a lot of (often petty) things.”

    A man with an exemplary adult record refuses to be defined by his teenage antics. Maybe the pundits who think this is a problem need to sit down and write every petty, mean, and criminal thing they ever did as a child and think about if that is how they want their legacy reported.

    Shaming adults for teenage antics is what is really petty.

    1. One of the worst things about this whole affair is the shared assumption among all of the media that if it were true Kavanaugh had drunkenly groped a girl in high school, it would outweigh everything else he has done in his life and make him unfit for the Court.

      1. This has been the most disgusting aspect of Reason’s Kavanaugh Hate.

        How many articles have we read on H&R about the arbitrary, cruel, injustice of sex offender registries labeling persons as “predators” for things they did as drunk teenagers decades earlier?

        Yet when a prominent Republican who MAY have committed a sex crime in his juvenile years shows up, Reason turns into Chief Inquisitor and is prepared to declare him unfit based on mere allegations.

        As I mentioned in another comment, they had a chance to stand for their stated principles, and they blew it.

        1. They blew it badly.

        2. No investigation. Proves fear of truth. Full stop,

          1. Shut up Hihn, you crazy bastard.

          2. The chance to start an investigation passed decades ago.

        3. “they had a chance to stand for their stated principles, and they blew it.”

          Yep. And this fact goes beyond their chosen vanguard of Soave, ENB, and Gillespie.

          Every other author here had the opportunity to stand up. They chose silence instead.

          That needs to be remembered.

  68. Democrats are far, far outdoing the Republicans with impassioned speeches right now. They look much better. Flake looks physically ill. Hope he doesn’t have some sort of “principled” surprise up his sleeve. I don’t think Kavanaugh loses without his defection.

    1. Flake is hostage to his own ambition. He lusts after the presidency, but like his mentor John McCain his first love is the Media.

      He is caught in a dilemma: If he votes against Kavanaugh, then he can kiss his presidential ambitions goodbye. There’s no way the Republicans would ever forgive him, and the Dems would never nominate a White Male Mormon.

      But if he votes for Kavanaugh, then he will forever be the Enemy to the Washington Media. No talk shows, no consultant gigs, no guest host spots on any network other than maybe Fox.

      It’s going to be a tough choice for him.

      1. Holy dog shit, he might have to actually get a job! How horrible!

  69. Donnelly is a No! It will all come down to Manchin it looks like.

    1. All of the Republicans are going to vote yes. So it won’t matter. Also, even if Flake votes no, that just gets them a tie, which Pence will break.

      I think you will probably see a few of the Red State Dems vote to confirm. Once it is clear the Republicans can confirm him without any Democratic support, Schummer will tell the Red State Dems to cast a meaningless vote for confirmation.

      1. Rumors were that the “swing” Republicans were to vote together. But Collins–and Murkowski, supposedly actually less predictable actually–have not said anything. Both defect, and we need Manchin.

        Also, Donnelly already said No.

        Flake is huge because if he holds a SINGLE Dem defector can save Kavanaugh. That means it will be pinned on all of them; and Manchin WILL lose his seat; WV will be furious.

        1. …which means an optimist might actually say Donnelly’s announcement is GOOD news. Perhaps he has heard Flake and Collins or Murkowski are Yeses. If there is just one defection the red Dems can vote No with some amount of safety. A Manchin (Donnelly, etc.) might survive a No vote if it made no difference; if he could singlehandedly have saved him, not so much.

        2. “we”… sigh.

          Who’s “we”?

          1. “We” is the people who are pulling for Kavanaugh’s confirmation. I get excited. What the fuck is with people getting so hot and bothered about this?

            1. Because it sounds awfully similar to the nonsense I hear from fans of sports teams when they use “we.”

              You’ve got nothing to do with any of it.

              1. I am a resident and citizen of the United States of America, so I do think it affects me yes.

                the nonsense I hear from fans of sports teams when they use “we.”

                Ah, it all makes sense now. Unsolicited advice: Don’t be that guy. Nobody likes that guy.

                1. Whatever man. You do what you want, I’m not the speech police. I just think it’s more collectivist bullshit.

                  1. Yes and that is exactly my point. Your radar is oversensitive–just as it is with the sports fans.

                    Either you are just completely misreading us, and taking inappropriately literally a commonly used and understood term of phrase that’s nothing more than a reflection of people’s enthusiasm. Of course I know I do not play for the Knicks–and indeed in that case am not in my life affected by their success in the slightest.

                    Or…you find our very enthusiasm itself a bit silly and beneath those exhibiting a certain sophisticated detachment, a bit akin to those folks who use the term “sportsball.”

                    Either way you’re basically taking casual nothingburger shit way too seriously. Hey, if so I of all people can certainly relate!

              2. “Because it sounds awfully similar to the nonsense I hear from fans of sports teams when they use “we.””

                Only because you are clearly on the other side of that ‘we.’

  70. Goodness ENB is quite snippy this morning. Hell hath no fury like a closet liberal scorned.

    The Kavanaugh Witch Hunt provided a useful Rorschach test for the Reason staff to see if they really do believe all their high-falutin’ rhetoric about Due Process and Innocent Until Proven Guilty, and they failed miserably.

    As everyone here has seen over these past few weeks, deep down inside most of Reason’s writers are proud members of Team Blue, their professions of non-partisanship notwithstanding. If Suderman is so worried about America being drawn into a partisan quagmire perhaps he should look at his own staff.

  71. ENB’s reporting about Kavanaugh has been very disappointing. By that, I mean that she’s normally level-headed and intelligent, but on this, she’s a blathering fool. Makes me think she’s got a dog in the fight…

    1. she’s normally level-headed and intelligent

      Apparently ENB doesn’t stand for Elizabeth Nolan Brown.

      1. Apparently not.

        Also makes me thing SoT’s got a dog in the fight…

  72. Kavanaugh himself said there should be an investigation. He was asked, twice, if he was Mark Strange’s classmate, who had puked into a car and passed out, a classmate named “Bart O’Kavanaugh” (wink wink)

    He refused both tines. Because he was under oath? The first, he closed his mouth and refused to say anything . The second, he said/, “You have to ask Mark Strange.”

    Uhh, when?

    Mark Stanghe’s “risk of perjury” does not exist if he’s never questioned. NOBODY risked perjury, for that same reason.

    A Kangaroo Court, the most shameful day for Republicans since they buried Reagan’s massive spending cuts. and when they looted (now 23% of the entire) income tax to pay for Medicare Prescriptions,

    82% of Republicans support President Trump – but only 50% trust him. That says all we need to know about today’s tribal partisan politics

    1. You wanted him to testify as to the events as they appeared in a work of fiction?

  73. Funny that the Jesuits are giving advice. I would think that their time would be consumed with reports of bishops using seminaries as their own private stud farms and priests using the altar server system as their own man-boy assault harems.

  74. Good.

    The allegations were but bullshit.

  75. Hit & Run blog seems appropriate particularly for this piece. The assertion that the allegations against Kavanaugh are credible are based on an unproven presupposition that an accuser should be believed simply because they claim to be a victim. The argument that Kavanaugh cannot serve as an impartial judge because he mounted an impassioned defense of his character is a corrupt assertion that flies in the face of a presumption of innocence. This article is based on anything but “reason”.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.