Brett Kavanaugh

The ACLU Sponsors an Ad Comparing Brett Kavanaugh to Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein

Such nakedly political propaganda is beneath the civil liberties organization.


The American Civil Liberties Union is not merely opposing Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court. The group has also spent a million dollars to run attack ads in several states comparing Kavanaugh to convicted sexual predator Bill Cosby.

"We've seen this before: denials from powerful men," says the ad's narrator. We then see images of #MeToo villains: former President Bill Clinton, former talk show hosts Matt Lauer and Charlie Rose, former studio executive, Harvey Weinstein, Cosby, and finally Kavanaugh. The implication is clear: Kavanaugh is just like them.

The ad is running in Nebraska, Colorado, West Virginia, and Alaska, and it is aimed at persuading fence-sitting senators to vote no on Kavanaugh.

The ACLU's decision to formally oppose Kavanaugh was an unusual move for the organization, which almost never takes a position on judicial nominees. The decision to actively fight Kavanaugh by linking the uncorroborated allegations against him to the much more definitive, actually proven misbehavior committed by Cosby and others is something else: nakedly partisan.

It's one thing to say that Kavanaugh is not the best choice for the Supreme Court. It's quite another to prematurely lump him in with Clinton, Cosby, and Weinstein. I would have thought such tactics were beneath the ACLU. This is a shameful moment for a once-great organization.

NEXT: State Department Demands Spouses of Gay Diplomats, U.N. Staff Get Legally Married to Visit—Even if They Can't

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I would actually have no huge problem with the ACLU opposing in these ads by focusing on his judicial philosophy and danger to the fourth amendment.

    This, however, is downright sinister and dangerous. It is unfathomably wrong for such an organization. Even IF he was lying about his drinking, there is not one single person or story that says anything bad about him after the age of 18. Does that mean he shouldn’t be on the court? Perhaps.

    However, accusing him of being a serial rapist, pedophile, and dangerously violent man is infuriatingly slanderous. Has there been even a rumor of him doing anything bad to anybody after the age of 18? I wasn’t thrilled with his nomination, but fuck all of these evil, sinister, dishonest assholes. They are worse than Trump.

    1. They are worse than Trump.

      Oh bullshit. The Con Man hired Bill Clinton’s accusers to sit in the front row of a debate with Hillary.

      1. Now there are some accusers that we don’t have to lend credence to, right?

        1. SPB makes a salient point here. The Senate Democrats are really no better than Trump.

          1. When did Trump ever accuse someone of rape? Seriously. What has Trump ever done that is the equivilent of this?

            And yes, I understand you are not one of those people and you are really really smart and like all really really smart people hate Trump. So, now that we have that out of the way, tell me where Trump ever falsely accused someone of rape like this.

            1. I didn’t say Trump accused someone of rape. I was pointing to the grandstanding of having Bill Clinton’s accusers of at the debate.

              Also, my post was a tongue-in-cheek shot at SPB and Senate Democrats. You of all people should understand that.

              1. To me that was appropriate considering that HornDawg Bill’s lesbo wife was the main goon that threatened these women accusers & made their lives hell, lest anything derail his path to the Oval Office!!!…She is such a great advocate for women!

                In 2008 when Da Witch was running against Obummy for the DEM nod, comedian Jackie Mason was asked if she was qualified to be president & he said, “Of course not! Her only job has been a defense attorney for a serial sexual abuser & rapist!”

            2. This Kavanaugh thing really has you set on edge John. Hopefully you’re taking care of yourself and not getting too emotionally involved.

              1. John seems fine to me.

                Your care trolling has gotten worse.

            3. No one accused Kavanaugh of rape either. What’s your point?

              1. Including the lady accosting Senator Flake on the elevator? I seem to think I have seen many accusations, of the ill informed commenters, calling what he did, ” rape”. Although you are right.

                It is just said that what he possibly did, as a teen, disqualifies him after years of being a respected judge. They have screwed this up so much we cannot tell if it is a trial, or a “job interview”!

                1. The circus does not resemble a trial or job interview I have read about. Hmmm. Spanish Inquisition? Medieval Trial by Combat?

              2. If you are saying CNN and MSNBC are no one, I would agree with that.

          2. I will even give you a free one Leo. The thing with Cruz’s father being pictured with Lee Harvey Oswald. But, in that case Trump at least backed off when people called him on it. The Democrats are most certainly not doing that. So, I still can’t think of anything.

      2. That is just great trolling. You, of all people, should at least have a begrudgingly respect for it

        1. -ly, stupid autocorrect

      3. Yeah, but you expect that kind of thing from Trump.

      4. The Con Man hired Bill Clinton’s accusers to sit in the front row of a debate with Hillary.

        So, you don’t believe ALL women, eh?

        What does Broaddrick get for lying? She actually discussed this quite soon after her claims. She didn’t, you know, wait 36 years. Then lie about some basic shit (“I needed two doors due to paranoia and NOT due to renovations to make a room rentable — which I actually did, mind you.”).

        1. Proof that you are a partisan hack.

          I have defended Weinstein and Kavanaugh here on this site. Proof that I am NOT partisan. In this thread I defend the ACLU.

          1. You have never defended Kavanaugh on this site. Show me a link to where you have you lying sack of shit.

            1. Yes I did. I wrote that the incident from 35 years ago should be dismissed and that Senate Dems were pursuing it for purely political reasons.

              1. Show me a link you miserable piece of shit. If you did, there is a link to it. Without a link you are just lying.

                1. Sarah Palin’s Buttplug|9.27.18 @ 10:43AM|#

                  Kavanaugh is not on trial.

                  This is a job interview.

                  And I am on record saying I would overlook this incident from 35 years ago (which is consistent with all my statements)

                  reply to this report spam
                  NotAnotherSkippy|9.27.18 @ 10:47AM|#

                  So if this is just a “job interview” (it’s not) and you’re willing to overlook an incident for which there is no evidence, kavanaugh’s defenders (those actually willing to live by a set of principles that are the foundation of our republic) are unreasonable winguts because…?

                  reply to this report spam
                  Sarah Palin’s Buttplug|9.27.18 @ 10:53AM|#

                  Kavanaugh’s defenders are political hacks just as much as the Senate Democrats who will shortly be grandstanding when “questioning” her.

                  You partisan hack – there it is

                  1. You are just sayign “I think he did it but I would over look it”. You no more believe that than anything. You just want to slander Kavanaugh. You are such a piece of human garbare. You really are. You constitutionally incapble of having a consistent or rational opinion. Everything you say is some form of a lie. If one were to believe in that sort of thing, they would say you are demonic.

                    1. You assign guilt or innocence based on political affiliation, John. That makes you the true human garbage.

                      I am the very model of consistency as you can see from the link you said I couldn’t produce and never wrote.

                    2. “You assign guilt or innocence based on political affiliation, John.”


                    3. That’s… Not a defense you spittle flecked moron.

                    4. I’d say that was a defense of Kavanaugh and if it is an accurate citation you owe Sarah Palin’s Buttplug an apology!

                  2. Do you understand the english language?

                    Cause you didn’t defend him you retarded fucking monkey, you simply said you would overlook this incident. You then went on to say that anyone that IS defending him (and by extension due process and being against bullshit smear campaigns) is a partisan political hack.

                    Jesus Christ, you just got owned by your own post.

          2. Proof that you are a partisan hack.

            1. Fuck this site

            2. I would love to see you point to a single time I said she was accurate or that it was true.

              I’ll wait.

              I’m just pointing out that it seems exceptionally odd that Democrats are accused by liars so consistently while Republican accusers MUST BE BELIEVED ABOVE ALL!

          3. butt — when have I ever said I believed her?

            I am just holding her to the same standard you’re holding Ford to.

            Feel free to cite me saying Broadrick was raped.

      5. Believe (some) women.

        the women that accuse conservatives.

        The women that accuse liberals?


    2. I think the “best” they’ve found actual evidence of so far is that at some point in college he was part of a bar argument that including him tossing his beer/ice at someone.

      1. Him having ice in his beer is grounds for a ‘no’ vote.

        1. Gotta be honest – I’ve been wondering about that – I’ve seen a version of the story that said he threw ice, and another that said he threw his beer. Its odd.

        2. holy shit. now this seriously changes the calculus. I would absolutely not vote for a person who puts ice in his beer. Fucking savage.

        3. Him having ice in his beer is grounds for a ‘no’ vote.

          It’s entirely plausible that ice was in proximity of kegs or bottles. It could be even worse and he was drinking a mixed drink from a beer mug or solo cup. But we’ll probably never know the truth and should reject him for the mere potential iced beer/cocktail mug habits just to be safe.

          1. Or he was the designated driver, and was just drinking club soda with ice in it.

            Hey, it’s as plausible as anything else about this mess.

        4. Better ice in his beer than ice in his whisky

    3. I would actually have no huge problem with the ACLU opposing in these ads by focusing on his judicial philosophy and danger to the fourth amendment.

      ^ This. That would show an actual concern for civil liberties.

      Participating in a national smear campaign involving uncorroborated allegations of criminal behavior . . . doesn’t show that much actual concern for civil liberties.

      1. Not only do they manage not to care about Kavanaugh’s positions on actual civil rights, they also manage to endorse slandering an innocent man for the sake of politics. Pretty remarkable when you think about it.

      2. What the ACLU is doing is really no better than what politicians do during campaigns.

        I oppose my opponent’s views on X, Y, and Z. Don’t vote for him because he eats babies for breakfast!

    4. The Left doesn’t give a fuck about the 4th Amendment.

      1. Now analyze the Right’s position on the 4th Amendment.

        1. I will: the Right doesn’t care about it either. To them, it’s just a stumbling block that prevents the cops from giving scumbags like drug dealers and terrorists what they deserve.

          The one thing that has been glaringly obvious to me during this entire fiasco is that NOBODY cares enough about the 4th Amendment to even mention it during it all this.

          Prepare for it to go away, just as the 1A, 2A, and 5A are on their way to the memory hole.

      2. The Left does not give a fuck about the Constitution, except that is prevents them from putting all dissenters in camps.

        1. . . . except that it currently prevents . . . .

    5. The only thing wrong here, is that anyone thinks the ACLU hasn’t been taken over by Democrats and no longer supports civil liberties, except when it benefits Democrats.

  2. The ACLU is there to protect privacy rights and the 4th in general (among the rest of the BOR). They SHOULD take a position against Kavanaugh just as the Federalist Society does in favor of the nominee.

    1. But they are not opposing him based on his judicial history. That is what makes the ACLU partisan hacks on this issue.

      The ACLU is gives no shits about individual rights any more.

  3. No it’s not. The ACLU is a progressive front organization now. They basically admitted in that internal memo they don’t give a damn about free speech anymore

    1. No you idiot. The ACLU (rightly) opposed the progressives on Citizens United. Free speech has no better friend.

      1. “”Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed,” wrote ACLU staffers in a confidential memo obtained by former board member Wendy Kaminer.”…..cle_inline

        1. That statement is innocuous.

          The ACLU I donate to defended the Klan’s right to assemble and march. Let me know if they actually favor SJ over free speech in case law.

          1. That statment isn’t innocuous at all. It says they don’t care about free speech if the speech conflicts with any other progressive values. Stop lying you piece garbage.

            1. You illiterate moron – it says their defense of speech (present tense) MAY have a greater/lesser impact on a secondary goal.

              GREATER implies that free speech defense is the primary goal.

              And you’re a fucking legal aid? You are not qualified.

              1. No it doens’t. It says in so many words it is not the primary goal. It is the secondary goal as soon as it conflicts with any other goal. Just because you have a 45 IQ doesn’t mean the rest of us do.

                1. And you’re a legal aid?

                  Pity for your clients.

              2. “aide” — legal “aide”. Legal “aid” means “legal help”. A legal “aide” is one who provides legal help. You obviously are not qualified either.

          2. That statement is innocuous

            Considering they assign an actual range of harm metric to their previous free speech defense efforts, I’d say you’re full of shit on this one.

        2. Daniel, this is not an ACLU policy statement, and in any event the quote is out of context. How do you explain:

          ACLU represent Milo Yiannopoulos in a suit against the Washington, DC Metro system for suppressing ads for his book.

          ACLU defended a student group in San Diego that was penalized for publishing a satire of “safe spaces” that some students and faculty deem offensive.

          ACLU represented a white supremacist denied a permit by the city of Charlottesville,

          At a time when civic principles are in short supply, it is beneath contempt to slander the ACLU.

          1. “it is beneath contempt to slander the ACLU”

            The value of your opinion is precisely 0

      2. No better friend than who? Certainly not the ACLU.

      3. The ACLU, in it’s “support” of Citizens United, advocates for government to take peoples’ money to be used for political speech by “qualified candidates”.

        That’s advocating government take peoples’ money to protect them from speech. That’s no defense of individual or civil liberty. If it was civil, it wouldn’t involve using government force against law abiding individuals, which is uncivil.

    2. This should be below the ACLU, but it’s actually not even close to being beneath the ACLU

    3. Yup. The ACLU is a Constitution hating front for Lefty political activism.

      Another group that I have never given money to and never will.

    4. “The ACLU is a progressive front organization now.”

      Just like Reason!

      1. Well, yes.

  4. This ain’t going to go the way ACLU is thinking . Joe Manchin just shit his pants. How come these nimrods did not show the Rolling Stone Writer and her story front page.Or the Duke Lacrosse team ?
    So the ACLU supports McCarthy tactics ? Got it .

  5. Hey Robby, here’s what you could have written last week

    It’s one thing to say that Kavanaugh is not the best choice for the Supreme Court. It’s quite another to prematurely lump him in with RAPISTS (Clinton, Cosby, and Weinstein). I would have thought such tactics were beneath ANY RESPECTABLE HUMAN (the ACLU). This is a shameful moment for MY FRIENDS ON THE BELTWAY (a once-great organization).

    1. (Clinton, Cosby, and Weinstein)

      Only Cosby has been convicted so Kavanaugh does belong in the same group as the other two.

      1. To my understanding, Weinstein is guilty of sexual harassment and being very sleazy, but might not technically be a rapist, right? He’s almost certainly going to be convicted of sexual assault, while claims of rape mostly rise to the level of quid pro quo-trading his influence for sexual favors, and aren’t as solidly backed up.

        It’s still a hell of a lot more substanial than Kavanaugh, who had a sterling record up until CBF’s accusation, whereas people have been telling Weinstein stories for 20 years.

        1. Weistein is under indictment for rape. Maybe his is innocnet. But he has been indicted for rape not just harrasment.

          1. I think it’s a case where our definition of rape has expanded over the past 20 years, though I’ll admit I’m not really following the case. My ultimate point is that the weight of allegations is such that he’s almost certainly guilty of something, even if he may not be a rapist in the sense of forceful penetration.

            1. No. The woman says he attacked her and forced her to have sex. It isn’t “fuck me or I am going to ensure you never work again.” That still isn’t rape. Weinstein is accused of getting a woman in a hotel room and raping her in the conventional sense. And there are tons of allegations about him exposing himself and forcing himself on women. He is a real scumbag.

              1. Fair enough. As I said, I haven’t followed all of the allegations against him.

        2. “…whereas the very same people raging at Kavanaugh laughed and told stories about Weinstein’s “casting couch antics” for 20 years. These were his fellow producers, directors, and other Hollywood contributors to the “womens’ organizations” that overlooked Weinsteins’ funny shenanigans for that entire period of time but who now, driven by principle, call claims based on memory of no date, place or really anything except the nominees name, “credible accusations”.”

          I remember it being very difficult to come to terms with how vile and sleazy adult behavior could be, back when I was a kid. I came out bitter and cynical. I don’t think I’d have survived this level of ugliness.

      2. Sarah Palin’s Buttplug raped me… time and place TBD

        There, now you’re technically in the same group too

        1. As unpleasant as that sounds, can a buttplug, which is an inanimate object, do anything to anyone?

          Just like a gun or an axe, someone has to wield it. Unless it’s an act of god, I suppose?like the wind taking down a tree branch and having it fall on you.

          Maybe Sarah Pailin leaves her sex toys exposed on rooftops, and a gust of wind happened to blow one off the roof and it happened to land just right as you happened to be walking by naked…but that doesn’t seem exactly “credible” to me.

          1. But you cannot prove it did not happen, can you?

          2. I frequent Alaska for naked handstands

            1. Thanks to both of you. Needed a laugh this afternoon.

  6. Such nakedly political propaganda is beneath the civil liberties organization.

    Apparently not. I think it’s cute that Robbie still thinks the ACLU gives 2 shits about civil liberties.


  8. You’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty and this is a legal/law organization. And he’s not even that bad, he’s essentially right of center. ACLU has been taken over by the far left.

  9. And some people think there’s no witch hunt. It’s not the sinning that gets you, it’s the refusal to confess the sin. Insisting you are innocent is the worst sin of all.

    1. Insisting on your innocence is proof that you are guilty. The facts should speak for themselves.

  10. What did you think you’d been cheering on, Robby? Reasoned debate?

    1. I wonder how sticky Robby’s keyboard is after he watched that ACLU video 15 times.

    2. The magic word is ‘credible.’

  11. “We’ve seen this before: denials from powerful men,”

    If a powerful man denies something, he’s guilty. -ACLU

  12. But not a ‘to be sure’ to be found. That’s good, right?

    After Gillespies’ embarrassing Kathy Newman-ing of Jordan Peterson, the goalposts for improvement are real close and very wide.

  13. Innocence Project, Rape archive

    ‘What a FRAUD’! Dianne Feinstein’s take on FBI’s Kavanaugh report suggests the Dems’ jig is officially UP
    .@SenFeinstein indicates that the FBI report on Kavanaugh should NOT be made public: “It would seem to me that if people are going to be identified this ought to be held very close and not.”

    “I think the investigation ought to be closely held,” she reiterated.

    ? Elizabeth Landers (@ElizLanders) October 2, 2018

    1. McConnell stated he wants the report to be for Senators and not the public, too, so this means basically nothing.
      Other than that both of them hate transparency and honesty with the public, which isn’t even news.

      1. Meh, Senator Spartacus will get a copy released.

    2. Because it contains evidence that Ford is lying. See how easy that was.

    3. Of all the people involved in this mummer’s fraud Feinstein is the worst. She sat on this “story” until half past the eleventh hour and then compelled Ford, who had not wanted to come forward, to do exactly that all so Feinstein could do the only thing she does even remotely well: indulge in grandstanding. She is a disgrace and an excrescence that could only come from California. May she spend eternity rotting in the seventh circle of hell.

  14. The implication is clear: Kavanaugh is just like them.

    Boy, that’s some high-grade logic there. It’s right up there with “Kavanaugh is a poopy-head!”

    1. Actually, that’s the logic being used by Harvard students, according to the other recent article on Reason.

  15. Basically every organization is partisan in today’s world.
    Unless your name is “American Red Cross”, or your mission has absolutely nothing to do with politics,
    you are a partisan organization. It’s true of the ACLU, it’s true of the NRA, and it is true of many others.

    People should know that by now. Not to say that it is ideal,
    but the ACLU has not ever been neutral, and it is rather ridiculous to expect them to act like they are.

  16. I’ve sometimes had disagreements with the ACLU in the past, but their hearts were generally in the right place: protecting individuals’ civil liberties against the almighty government.

    WTF happened? Now any credible (to use the word of the week) accusation is the same as a conviction?

    Do they realize this will further encourage police to go all Judge Dredd on people? (E.g., “we’ve had a credible report that guy robbed a store and was armed, so we shot him dead.”)

    Somebody better call Black Lives Matter and let them know the ACLU now believes in guilt by innuendo.

    1. BLM gets a pass for having bona fide victim status. You do not. Welcome to the future.

    2. Well Reason used to be libertarian too.

    3. I fail to see a single credible accusation against Kavanaugh, so the ACLU can’t hide behind a credibility claim.

  17. Not even pretending anymore then, at least there’s some honesty in that position.

    1. You mean Bobby, right?

  18. safe to assume Lantern didn’t produce the ads?

  19. If, my fondest dreams, if there is a political repercussion to these Democrat antics in November and the Republicans maintain control over both houses, they still learn nothing. It will be ascribed to any white deplorables forcing their wives to vote their way. And racism, sexism, pick your favorite ism.

    1. Angry white deplorables.

      1. Angry white heterosexual deplorables.

        1. That is dregosexual to you, homey.

    2. In my wildest dreams, reliable dem voting blocks swarm to Libertarian and Republican candidates to teach the Democrats a lesson and strangle the narrative in its crib.

    3. There are women who can imagine their sons being treated like Kavanaugh — guilt assumed because accused.
      I don’t think they are all Republican women either.

      The worst criticism I have read of Amber Heard and Asia Argento have been from women who know better than to believe other women unquestionably any more than they would believe men unquestionably.

  20. “Such nakedly political propaganda is beneath the civil liberties organization.” Clearly that cannot be right. Perhaps the writer meant, “Such nakedly political propaganda is now not beneath what once was a civil liberties organization,” or something like that?

  21. They’re doing this because a Supreme Court full of originalists is their worst nightmare.

    1. Except that Kavanaugh is not even close to being an originalist. They should be jumping for joy that they got this nominee instead of some others that would have been actually originalists.

      1. “Except that Kavanaugh is not even close to being an originalist.”
        If Kavanaugh had been appointed by any other than Trump (and I mean ANYONE; Putin, for example), he’s have been in weeks ago.

        1. No, it’s who he’s replacing that matters. While the Democrats tried to kill Gorsuch’s nomination, they just did it procedurally. And when that didn’t work, they just passively aggressively whine about it being a “stolen seat”.

          This is using every dirty trick in the book.

  22. So here are the principles that the ACLU now endorses:

    1. If you “partied hardy” in high school or college, that is conclusive proof that you are the “type of person” who would commit monstrous crimes, to the point that if you are accused of a monstrous crime, the burden of proof is reversed and it is up to you to prove innocence, not up to your accuser to prove guilt.

    2. If you ever in your life, even once, had experienced an inability to remember something due to excessive drinking, you are forever barred from credibly denying any allegation against you, because it is possible that committed your monstrous crime while being too intoxicated to remember what you were doing.

    3. If you deny ever losing your memory due to drinking, you can not merely be refuted, but be deemed to have committed perjury, if anyone else from 37 or so years earlier appears and claims that you appeared to be so intoxicated that you “must have been” experiencing memory loss.

    What a fair system of law and justice this is!

    1. Its another tactic to attack conservatives who now admit they drink but still cling to “personal responsibility”.

      Lefties butt fuck each other and the USA and put strap ons on to do the same and get the Golden Clinton Pass.

  23. They are just another SPLC.

    Red state Ds that think that voting no is OK are toast. Possibly all of them.

  24. Just another organization that may have done something good in the past but now is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party.

    1. Spot-on, drisco.

  25. So the ACLU now considers Bill Clinton to be a sexual predator? Well y’all, you’re twenty damn years too late!

    1. Bill Clinton still went down as one of the worst presidents ever. Him and Andrew Johnson.

  26. Such nakedly political propaganda is beneath the civil liberties organization.

    Since when?

  27. “Such nakedly political propaganda is beneath the civil liberties organization.”
    No it isn’t.
    Nothing is beneath the American Criminal Liberties Union.

  28. Well, I just saw the ad, and the entire “argument” is juxtaposing the denials of Judge Kavanaugh with the denials of Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby – “denials by powerful men.”

    The ACLU hasn’t even managed to jump the shark. They’re chum.

  29. It is not beneath them anymore.

  30. “The decision to actively fight Kavanaugh by linking the uncorroborated allegations against him to the much more definitive, actually proven misbehavior committed by Cosby and others is something else: nakedly partisan.”
    So credible and eminently plausible have morphed into uncorroborated. Robby, you and have been parties to this slander from day one but you’re now an ethics expert? Seems to me you got what you wanted. Pot meet fucking kettle.

  31. “Such nakedly political propaganda is beneath the civil liberties organization.”

    Nope. TDS is a serious illness and many, many lefty imbeciles are victims.

  32. I don’t think they were lumping him in with them. It was using them to frame the general problem and show why it is important not to put a person of suspect character on the Supreme Court. At the very least, I think Kavanaugh should correct or clarify his testimony re: blackouts, “devil’s triangle”, “boofing”, “Ralf Club”, and “Renate alumnus”. Republicans must clarify why they did not defer to Ms. Mitchell for questioning of Kavanaugh, in fact failed to question him at all.

    1. And ford should correct or clarify her testimony on fear of flying, the number of individuals at the party, the timing and reason for adding the second front door to one of their houses, as well as release both sets of therapists’ notes.

      Democrats must clarify why they did not disclose the allegation earlier, why they arranged for an attorney to represent a supposed victim, and precisely when and who leaked the letter to the press.


    2. Kavanaugh has said enough, one way or the other. The cards have been dealt, the bets are in. It’s past time for him to sit down and shut up. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by “clarifying” anything further.

    3. Boof.
      1970s and 1980s.
      An error or mistake
      A white water kayaking maneuver jumping a rapids and hitting the water with a hollow impact; the sound made (boof) and the maneuver itself (boofing)
      The sound of a blow or collision
      A sound effect like wham or bang
      2000 onward: anal sex (slang emerging then falling out of favor )
      smuggling contraband concealed in the rectum
      taking drugs via enema

      What did boof mean to Maryland prep schoolers in the early 1980s? It does not matter. Urban Dictionary returns the definition of anal sex or taking drugs via enema. Could never possibly ever have been used for farting, because hate preppies and dislike Kavanaugh’s judicial positions. :rolleyes:

  33. I don’t think they were lumping him in with them. It was using them to frame the general problem and show why it is important not to put a person of suspect character on the Supreme Court. At the very least, I think Kavanaugh should correct or clarify his testimony re: blackouts, “devil’s triangle”, “boofing”, “Ralf Club”, and “Renate alumnus”. Republicans must clarify why they did not defer to Ms. Mitchell for questioning of Kavanaugh, in fact failed to question him at all.

  34. I’ve never voted Republican before and am a liberal college professor, but the degrading Kavanaugh spectacle and the apparent abandonment by the left and the Dems of core liberal values means I plan to vote a straight Republican ticket in November. I don’t know many there are like me, but we are there.

    And Gran Torino was a damn fine movie.

  35. The ACLU wants to fuck Joe Stalin up his communist ass.

    1. No the ACLU wants Stalin to stick it up their ass without so much as a reach around.

  36. The ACLU has been a leftist organization for a long time. No surprise here – Soros’ money buys a lot of influence.

  37. Robby, when would you “have thought such tactics were beneath them”? Yesterday? Months ago, when they decided to not protect speech they don’t like?

    If this is how they spend contributions, I’m looking forward to the next time they ask me for money.

  38. The legal profession, as well as the media and academia, has grievously wounded itself. All the facade and pretense just evaporated, leaving a bunch of wannabe’s exposed.

  39. Hey Rico, why don’t you write a book on the history of the A.C.L.U. You just might learn something about them.

  40. WOW. It is really crazy how so many organizations that were obviously slanted left have just completely pulled their masks off in the last few years. The media, ACLU, academia… They used to all try to put up a pretense of being neutral, but no longer. This single thing alone might do the world a metric fuck ton of good.

    1. Trump has exposed all of them just by being Trump and beating the dimwitted, corrupt drone the Democrats idiotically ran for President.

  41. The ACLU abandoned their integrity back around 1980 when they weighed in on the side of the commies against Walter Polovchak and tried to send him to the gulag. If you care about civil liberties, support the Institute for Justice.


  42. I thought Reason would know by now that nothing is beneath the ACLU

  43. Plot twist: the ACLU is setting Kavanaugh up for recusal motions every time it has a case go up to SCOTUS.

  44. FUCK the ACLU with the business end of a pickax handle wrapped with rusty barbed wire.

    That is all.

  45. In a way, they’re right to compare those three men — all three did no wrong, and are only targets because feminazis are trying to retroactively outlaw masculinity.

  46. Wow, the ACLU doing something illegal and stupid! What did anyone expect, a legal, decent response from the ACLU, a.k.a., American Criminal Liars Union? Telling companies WHO they must hire is illegal and unethical. Companies should be and are free to hire whomever they wish absent governmental and liberal attack groups (ACLU) interference. If it could be shown, which is impossible, that men were hired instead of women just because they were men, that would be illegal, but that is OBVIOUSLY NOT WHAT IS HAPPENING. Dear ACLU: GTFU!!!!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.