The Official Trump U.S Supreme Court Justice Nomination Thread
- Thread starter EagleSmack
- Start date
Yep, the whole charade could probably be correctly characterized as "A comedy of errors". You'd think after all the women in the Jian Ghomeshi case were made to look so stupid by both the lawyer and the judge, Dr. would have taken care to get her facts straight before she ever went to Washington. Smart people learn from other's mistakes.
If she had had her facts straight, she would not, nor would NEVER have gone to, or have been in washingmachington re this issue at all.
I understand one of ford's friends who testified ford was NOT telling the truth, is now saying she was pressured to change testimony she made under oath.
I understand one of ford's friends who testified ford was NOT telling the truth, is now saying she was pressured to change testimony she made under oath.
No one, except for all your friends, are as full of crap as you are cliffy, and unlike the reputations of kavanaugh's accusers, which have all been somewhat purjurious, that's supported by the evidence of your own posts.
Finally, definitive proof that Obama’s a guy you’d want to get a beer with
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nt-to-get-a-beer-with/?utm_term=.4d76f063e387
Oh look - the WAPO.
You suck buddy...and I am not talking about beer bottles.
Another moronic off-topic post. What has Obama drinking beer got to do with an accused rapist being nominated for the supreme court?
Fortunately the anti-Kavanaugh campaign has done its work. Even if Kavanaugh gains an appointment to the Supreme Court every decision he makes will be scrutinized and he will feel that scrutiny.
I'm not totally convinced that we have enough knowledge of Cavanaugh to be able to make a valid assessment of the man. As a kid he may have been a brat but is it fair to hold that against him?
Rex Murphy: The most obvious creeps in the Kavanaugh circus are the journalists
In all the drama and froth of Thursday’s U.S. Senate hearings into sexual assault allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, there was one vast element missing; not a single, but a whole herd of elephants in the room. Christine Blasey Ford’s 36-year-old charge was, even in the absence of all corroboration and despite its cloudiness (no place, time, or witness), a serious business. However, just the day before, one Julie Swetnick unfolded a story via distinguished pornstar lawyer and future presidential candidate, Michael Avenatti, with an affidavit that read as if torn from the lurid pages of Helter Skelter.
Kavanaugh, she charged, organized full-scale “rape parties,” engaged in “abusive and physically aggressive behaviour toward girls,” which “included the fondling and groping of girls without their consent” and “spiked the drinks of girls at house parties (she) attended with grain alcohol and/or drugs so as to cause girls to lose inhibitions and their ability to say ‘No’ … so they could then be ‘gang raped’ in a side room or bedroom by a ‘train’ of numerous boys.”
The previous day when this broke, the news channels, the newspapers and, ineluctably, the millstones of Twitter went to full grind. Ms. Ford’s accusation, if true, painted Kavanaugh as at least a loathsome creep. But the Swetnick/Avenatti indictment presented the young Kavanaugh as a full, raging psychopath monster —somewhere approaching the border of someday being fit company for Paul Bernado and the lowlifes of full perdition that unspeakably ended poor, sweet Tori Stafford.
Swetnick was specific. She was at 10 of this Caligulan rape parties. She was gang-raped herself. She witnessed others. She swore on it in an affidavit.
Yet just 24 hours later, amid the Senate hearings into Kavanaugh’s high school past, where was this enormity? What had become of this — forgive the callous, necessary pun — train-stopper of all allegations? Twenty-four hours later it had casually slipped into some vague media limbo, barely glanced at by the fervent evening television panels, a disposable footnote to the contest of the hearings. It had been chewed over, raged at, screamed from the cable studios and headlines, electrifying Twitter just 24 hours earlier, and then, presto, going, going, gone.
Why and how?
I agree with everyone that American politics has entered the surreal stage. I disagree with everyone that the universal explanation for this guttering — the Key to all Progressive Mythology — is Donald Trump.
The news media, I think, instantly recognized the Swetnick saga for what it was: An incredible malicious fantasy, which nonetheless was extremely welcome as a flask of news adrenaline to hype the stage for the next day’s hearings. In a previous time, they would have given such an accusation just bare notice coverage until it was subjected to serious investigative reporting before igniting the scandal storm. Not now. No waiting when there’s juice to be had, oil for the fire. Dissect it now, find out later is the rule. The media’s conduct during these hearings has been as abysmal and scurrilous as the politicians.
It’s not the internet that’s plaguing traditional American media. It is the now predominant turn of legions in the press to be undeclared and simultaneously blatant activists what they think — they think — should be the news; to back up covertly or overtly the side of a news story that bolsters their benighted calling to “make a difference.” They are “progressively” infused to the point of coma. They see themselves as the knights of the morning news table, laptop Galahads out to slay the Black Knight Trump and bring home the Holy Grail (quondam et futurus Clinton).
They were extraordinarily, fatally wrong in the biggest event of the new century. Trump, they infallibly pronounced, as a thousand YouTube clips will still show you, was never, could never, would never be elected. He was as dead as Marley’s doornails. The prophets of the six o’ clock news bet their reputational lives on it; the stammering clucks of cable news snarled in incredulous scorn at the idea. The sage panels of the journalistic crème de la crème hee-hawed till they wet their well-creased pants.
On the day of the election itself, the high-browed solons of The New York Times had Hillary at 91 per cent to win. Huffington Post, compared to which the National Enquirer is the Times Literary Supplement, was at a more definitive 98 per cent. They had one job — to read the American public, their public. They failed, utterly. They failed because they blinded themselves and went so far partisan that they abandoned judgment, neutrality, dispassion and — in some cases — honesty itself. They covered the election as if all the vast, diverse American public were clones of Joy Behar, Jane Fonda and Michael Moore.
And afterwards, they were angry at themselves that they were facing a truth that could not be admitted; because they were so wrong, so incompetent at telling the story of the most dramatic election of their time.
So it was Trump’s fault he won, and his fault, too, they failed. And out of that, they fashioned a massive specious excuse from the manners of President Trump for adopting “needful” activism — slanted and fully distorted coverage, selective reporting, choosing viewpoints and speakers to air (and not air). The relish, the vigour with which they have abandoned standards and conscience in the profession when dealing with reputation-destroying allegations in the Kavanaugh nomination was — to use their favourite malediction — more Trumplike than Trump.
So when Swetnick’s “story” arrived on the doormat, enough to kill the man’s reputation, and his family’s peace and honour beyond all hope of redemption, they went full bore on the instant. And, as in the whole of this sage jump in with the #MeToo vigilantes, dread Rose McGowan and her ilk, with their spiteful chants of “men are trash” and “men shut up” and all men are rapists and “believe the victim” and “feel her pain.” Of this new, dark liturgy, the greatest anathema of all, however, is the racist and ageist super-cry of “old, white, men.” Believe them?
Patriarchists, molesters and liars all. Kavanaugh is one of them — so off with his judicial head.
Thursday in the committee room was only a fragment of this hearing. The hearing, I’d almost say the real hearing, has been also “out there.” It is as much all the frothing panels, the shoddy and irresponsible reporting, the corrosive, numbing extreme hostility to anything or anyone President Trump does or knows. That’s where things really get decided, opinion carved, judgments made, politics calculated. What chance in that forum did Kavanaugh have? No better than in the gang-up from the slander campaign of the leftist Senators. No wonder, finally, he was angry.
The journalism of the Trump era is no better than the politics. But even those who despise Trump even to hating him will admit his one mixed virtue: he does not hide what he is. And in that, even if it is only a sliver of difference, an atom of distinguishment, he may claim to be the superior of so many big names and outlets covering him.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/re...s-in-the-kavanaugh-circus-are-the-journalists
In all the drama and froth of Thursday’s U.S. Senate hearings into sexual assault allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, there was one vast element missing; not a single, but a whole herd of elephants in the room. Christine Blasey Ford’s 36-year-old charge was, even in the absence of all corroboration and despite its cloudiness (no place, time, or witness), a serious business. However, just the day before, one Julie Swetnick unfolded a story via distinguished pornstar lawyer and future presidential candidate, Michael Avenatti, with an affidavit that read as if torn from the lurid pages of Helter Skelter.
Kavanaugh, she charged, organized full-scale “rape parties,” engaged in “abusive and physically aggressive behaviour toward girls,” which “included the fondling and groping of girls without their consent” and “spiked the drinks of girls at house parties (she) attended with grain alcohol and/or drugs so as to cause girls to lose inhibitions and their ability to say ‘No’ … so they could then be ‘gang raped’ in a side room or bedroom by a ‘train’ of numerous boys.”
The previous day when this broke, the news channels, the newspapers and, ineluctably, the millstones of Twitter went to full grind. Ms. Ford’s accusation, if true, painted Kavanaugh as at least a loathsome creep. But the Swetnick/Avenatti indictment presented the young Kavanaugh as a full, raging psychopath monster —somewhere approaching the border of someday being fit company for Paul Bernado and the lowlifes of full perdition that unspeakably ended poor, sweet Tori Stafford.
Swetnick was specific. She was at 10 of this Caligulan rape parties. She was gang-raped herself. She witnessed others. She swore on it in an affidavit.
Yet just 24 hours later, amid the Senate hearings into Kavanaugh’s high school past, where was this enormity? What had become of this — forgive the callous, necessary pun — train-stopper of all allegations? Twenty-four hours later it had casually slipped into some vague media limbo, barely glanced at by the fervent evening television panels, a disposable footnote to the contest of the hearings. It had been chewed over, raged at, screamed from the cable studios and headlines, electrifying Twitter just 24 hours earlier, and then, presto, going, going, gone.
Why and how?
I agree with everyone that American politics has entered the surreal stage. I disagree with everyone that the universal explanation for this guttering — the Key to all Progressive Mythology — is Donald Trump.
The news media, I think, instantly recognized the Swetnick saga for what it was: An incredible malicious fantasy, which nonetheless was extremely welcome as a flask of news adrenaline to hype the stage for the next day’s hearings. In a previous time, they would have given such an accusation just bare notice coverage until it was subjected to serious investigative reporting before igniting the scandal storm. Not now. No waiting when there’s juice to be had, oil for the fire. Dissect it now, find out later is the rule. The media’s conduct during these hearings has been as abysmal and scurrilous as the politicians.
It’s not the internet that’s plaguing traditional American media. It is the now predominant turn of legions in the press to be undeclared and simultaneously blatant activists what they think — they think — should be the news; to back up covertly or overtly the side of a news story that bolsters their benighted calling to “make a difference.” They are “progressively” infused to the point of coma. They see themselves as the knights of the morning news table, laptop Galahads out to slay the Black Knight Trump and bring home the Holy Grail (quondam et futurus Clinton).
They were extraordinarily, fatally wrong in the biggest event of the new century. Trump, they infallibly pronounced, as a thousand YouTube clips will still show you, was never, could never, would never be elected. He was as dead as Marley’s doornails. The prophets of the six o’ clock news bet their reputational lives on it; the stammering clucks of cable news snarled in incredulous scorn at the idea. The sage panels of the journalistic crème de la crème hee-hawed till they wet their well-creased pants.
On the day of the election itself, the high-browed solons of The New York Times had Hillary at 91 per cent to win. Huffington Post, compared to which the National Enquirer is the Times Literary Supplement, was at a more definitive 98 per cent. They had one job — to read the American public, their public. They failed, utterly. They failed because they blinded themselves and went so far partisan that they abandoned judgment, neutrality, dispassion and — in some cases — honesty itself. They covered the election as if all the vast, diverse American public were clones of Joy Behar, Jane Fonda and Michael Moore.
And afterwards, they were angry at themselves that they were facing a truth that could not be admitted; because they were so wrong, so incompetent at telling the story of the most dramatic election of their time.
So it was Trump’s fault he won, and his fault, too, they failed. And out of that, they fashioned a massive specious excuse from the manners of President Trump for adopting “needful” activism — slanted and fully distorted coverage, selective reporting, choosing viewpoints and speakers to air (and not air). The relish, the vigour with which they have abandoned standards and conscience in the profession when dealing with reputation-destroying allegations in the Kavanaugh nomination was — to use their favourite malediction — more Trumplike than Trump.
So when Swetnick’s “story” arrived on the doormat, enough to kill the man’s reputation, and his family’s peace and honour beyond all hope of redemption, they went full bore on the instant. And, as in the whole of this sage jump in with the #MeToo vigilantes, dread Rose McGowan and her ilk, with their spiteful chants of “men are trash” and “men shut up” and all men are rapists and “believe the victim” and “feel her pain.” Of this new, dark liturgy, the greatest anathema of all, however, is the racist and ageist super-cry of “old, white, men.” Believe them?
Patriarchists, molesters and liars all. Kavanaugh is one of them — so off with his judicial head.
Thursday in the committee room was only a fragment of this hearing. The hearing, I’d almost say the real hearing, has been also “out there.” It is as much all the frothing panels, the shoddy and irresponsible reporting, the corrosive, numbing extreme hostility to anything or anyone President Trump does or knows. That’s where things really get decided, opinion carved, judgments made, politics calculated. What chance in that forum did Kavanaugh have? No better than in the gang-up from the slander campaign of the leftist Senators. No wonder, finally, he was angry.
The journalism of the Trump era is no better than the politics. But even those who despise Trump even to hating him will admit his one mixed virtue: he does not hide what he is. And in that, even if it is only a sliver of difference, an atom of distinguishment, he may claim to be the superior of so many big names and outlets covering him.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/re...s-in-the-kavanaugh-circus-are-the-journalists
What doesn't kill your makes you stronger, paraphrasing Nietzsche.
My worry about Kavanaugh was that he seems too bound by precedent, peer deference, procedural jurisprudence to be a truly independent conservative voice on SCOTUS. One who would cut to the chase and deliberate on what was right and wrong, good and evil.
The nomination process should have given him a good notion of the character and agenda of those determined impose a pseudo religion on America founded on the principles of moral relativism, radical individualism, atheistic humanism. In practice that would tear the U.S. asunder as is already happening.
I'm skeptical he will be instrumental in overturning Roe v. Wade; that gaping, festering, open wound, on the American corpus. He might be a swing vote the other way. Sen. Susan Collins after several hours of discussion with him seems to think he is a reliable vote to uphold.
It remains to be seen but Trump will likely have at least one more appointment, maybe 2 to move around that opposition.
My worry about Kavanaugh was that he seems too bound by precedent, peer deference, procedural jurisprudence to be a truly independent conservative voice on SCOTUS. One who would cut to the chase and deliberate on what was right and wrong, good and evil.
The nomination process should have given him a good notion of the character and agenda of those determined impose a pseudo religion on America founded on the principles of moral relativism, radical individualism, atheistic humanism. In practice that would tear the U.S. asunder as is already happening.
I'm skeptical he will be instrumental in overturning Roe v. Wade; that gaping, festering, open wound, on the American corpus. He might be a swing vote the other way. Sen. Susan Collins after several hours of discussion with him seems to think he is a reliable vote to uphold.
It remains to be seen but Trump will likely have at least one more appointment, maybe 2 to move around that opposition.
Apparently protestors at the Supreme Court are being handed $50 bills for 'bail money' for showing up. Seems worth a trip downtown for a party and some beer money. The source, who knows, George Soros maybe. Anyway its a tried and true practice in American politics to get out a turnout.. for the polls or a political rumble.
Last edited:
Not a thing. It is just a simpleton diversionary tactic from the depths of desperate attempts t o justify something that cannot be justified. It is a trumpian fall back position.........and a meaningless one.
IE......when all else fails : bring up Obama or Hillary.