A Solid, Safe Choice

34 Comments for “A Solid, Safe Choice”

  1. posted by JohnInCA on

    Kavanaugh has written multiples times on how a president shouldn’t be criminally prosecuted, only impeached.

    So I have to concede, I thought President Trump would just toss out this nomination as another appeasement to his base, but it looks like he actually put thought into this one.

  2. posted by Jorge on

    Not my first choice from what little I know, but I’m not part of Trump’s base because of my conservative bona fides.

    I have seen a growth lately in people throwing in political commentary irrelevant to their stated mission in their professional blogs. It probably started because of the same trend in personal blogs.

    (It’s a pre-warning to dismiss everything “Gay News!”-related you hear about how disastrous he will be. Mr. Miller has a way of setting the foundation without ever informing the reader or reminding the reader after the fact that he’s done it.)

    • posted by Matthew on

      I remember the good old days when “Gay News!” was actually about gay people, gay culture, and gay issues, not a celebration of genital mutilation.

      • posted by Jorge on

        I remember when sex education was a celebration of genital mutilation.

  3. posted by David Bauler on

    The judicial nominee has generally been bad on voting rights issues.

    • posted by Jason S. on

      Ah, meaning he’s been good on allowing states to take reasonable measures against voter fraud. You need to show a picture ID to enter many government buildings, but no ID required to vote in blue states.

    • posted by Matthew on

      And the Regressive Left scaremongering train arrived on time today.

      Why do you hate American citizens and legal immigrants?

  4. posted by Kosh III on

    from HRC “Kavanaugh has ruled that an employer’s religious beliefs should be allowed to override their workers’ access to birth control.”

    He wants YOUR life dictated by someone else’s religious OPINION.

    • posted by Matthew on

      How many gay babies have been aborted since Roe v. Wade?

    • posted by Ricport on

      No, he wants companies that are owned by people who have deeply held religious beliefs not to be forced by the government to provide something that is morally wrong to them and that is readily available at any corner drugstore, convenience store and bodega. Nobody is forcing someone to work somewhere where the employer refuses to cover contraception in their health plan. This kind of governmental overreach the left just can’t get enough of is exactly why Trump was elected (I didn’t vote for him – I voted Libertarian).

      • posted by JohnInCA on

        Except as usual the exception is narrow and issue-specific.

        I could not, for example, say “pregnancy is against my religion” and drop all related coverage from my hypothetical employee plan. I could not refuse to cover blood or organ transplants.

        When you make an exception for only *one* belief, and not others, it obviously isn’t about freedom of conscience or belief, it is about favoritism.

        • posted by Matthew on

          Or we could just make homosexuality mandatory. Do to heterosexuals what they did to us for generations.

      • posted by Matthew on

        “Deeply held religious beliefs” = Christians and Muslims pushing their usual anti-gay, anti-child, anti-woman, anti-Jewish, anti-human agenda. What about MY deeply held religious beliefs as a gay man and a Jew? There is no God but the Jewish God, and not being Jewish is a violation of the first two commandments: “I am the Lord Thy God” and “Thou shalt have no Gods before Me.” I’m pretty sure worshiping Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Vishnu, Ganesh, Zoroaster, or any other god but God is a violation of that.

    • posted by Jorge on

      As usual, Hillary Clinton distorts the facts to suit an ideological narrative. Nothing is preventing an employed person from accessing their own birth control with their own money.

      • posted by Matthew on

        Homosexuality is a form of birth control with a 100% success rate.

        • posted by JohnInCA on


          Gay teens are actually more likely to be involved in teen pregnancies then their straight peers, as (before they’re out) they feel the need to perform heterosexually to “prove” that they aren’t gay.

          Or at least, that’s how it used to be. It’s possible that with increasing acceptance that things have changed.

          And that’s ignoring that gay men and women have had kids for centuries. Sometimes through “socially acceptable” marriages, sometimes by explicit arrangement, sometimes using turkey basters, sometimes by “corrective rape”. Bottom line? Just ’cause your gay doesn’t mean the gear doesn’t work.

  5. posted by Kosh III on

    THIS should trouble everyone: “Kavanaugh claimed that “the President may decline to enforce a statute… when the President deems the statute unconstitutional, even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional.”
    This is the gateway to an Imperial President.

    • posted by JohnInCA on

      Remember when Republicans/conservatives pretended outage over Obama not defending DOMA in court even as he continued enforcing it? Pretty sure their base won’t.

      • posted by Matthew on

        More whataboutism from a Regressive Leftist. Try again.

        • posted by JohnInCA on

          C’mon dude, at least use the bullshit terms correctly.

          “Whataboutism” is when you try to excuse bad behavior from your own team by pointing at bad behavior of the other team.

          That is not what I did here.

          • posted by Matthew on

            Yes it is. It is exactly what you did by changing the subject to the GOP. Saying “b-b-b-but the GOP” is whataboutism. And calling it a bullshit term just confirms it.

            We should have banned the Slaveocrat Party the moment Lincoln died. You have been a cancer on this country since its inception.

          • posted by JohnInCA on

            Okay, this just got interesting.

            You think that, while talking about the views of the *Republican* pick for SCOTUS, it is “changing the subject” to point out what the GOP has said about a related topic in recent memory?

            We’re still taking about Republicans. And specifically, we’re still taking about Republican views of acceptable Executive action when the executive branch thinks a law is unconstitutional.

            The subject had not been changed, it has been *broadened*.

            This isn’t “whataboutism”, it’s contrasting Republican votes on similar subjects.

            Seriously dude, up your game.

    • posted by Matthew on

      Obama enabled Iranian imperialism with that deal of his.

    • posted by Jorge on

      I disagree. Justice Kennedy wrote recently that it is the responsibility of other government parties to follow the oath to uphold the Constitution even in cases where the Supreme Court cannot act. All branches of government must uphold the Constitution.

  6. posted by David Bauler on

    1. Voting rights – Beyond the issue of voting rights for the poor and disabled, the Judicial Nominee was hostile to ballot access claims from the Libertarian Party. More so then was necessary. Voting rights touch upon the right of citizens to vote, as well as the right of citizens to form political parties and run for elected office.

    2. Transgender people have always been a part of the gay press, and gay pride albeit mostly restricted to the entertainment section. To be sure, ‘LGBT’ or similar title was not widely used until the 1990s, but transgender people have always been a part of the gay community. What has changed is that transgender people are getting tired of only being included to provide entertainment.

    If gay pride/gay press only allowed Jews to participate as comedians, but didn’t want to hear about violence or discrimination against Jews, I suspect that Jews would probably get tired of being restricted to the entertainment section.

    3. I have zero problem with a society making a proper distinction between illegal and legal immigrants. Only the libertarians actually seem to support open borders, or at least the party platform does, so lets actually talk sensibly about immigration policy, instead of lots of wild theories and needless brutality. The current system being promoted by Trump Inc. is not going to work. I do not think that the libertarian solution is going to work either. But, for some reason those are the two policies that are getting attention, at the expense of sound, bipartisan solutions.

    4. Heck, if Congress passed a law that said you cannot abort because of the sexual orientation or gender identity of the unborn baby/fetus, while also adding LGBT to civil rights laws (with standard exemptions), I would not be opposed to it. The problem is that the pro-life movement is run by people who think that life is sacred, but something like, health care or equal opportunity is merely a novelty.

    • posted by Jorge on

      The problem is that the pro-life movement is run by people who think that life is sacred, but something like, health care or equal opportunity is merely a novelty.

      That’s a rather deceptive telling of the conservative view on those topics.

      Conservatives believe that everyone should have an equal opportunity, but abhor measures such as quotas and wealth redistribution on the grounds that they discourage equal opportunity by guaranteeing results to someone regardless of the effort he put into something.

      Liberals have turned the right to health care into a right to health insurance. The two are very different things. Republicans were absolutely right to point out that Obamacare has resulted in a reduction in the quality and affordability of health care for many Americans. How’s that for a right to health care? Under federal law, everyone has a right to certain standards of medical care regardless of their ability to pay for it. That’s your right to health care right there.

      If you can afford more, you buy insurance that pays for all the medical care you’d need and most of the medical care you’d want. If you can’t afford insurance, you get Medicaid, which does the exact same thing. If you’re not permitted to be in this country and you’re a child, you still get Medicaid. If you’re not permitted to be in this country, you’re an adult, and you can’t afford health care, you still have a right to certain standards of medical care. So I’m not sure what you mean about health care being a novelty when the taxpayer ends up on the hook for the medical care of people WHO AREN’T EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE IN THIS COUNTRY.

    • posted by Matthew on

      “Tr*nsg*nd*r people have always been a part of the gay press”

      So you just admitted the gay press has been in on the plan to use the transcult to wipe out homosexuality.

      “If gay pride/gay press only allowed Jews to participate as comedians”

      That would be fine with me. Rejection of Judaism is the root cause of homophobia, racism, sexism, antisemitism, ableism, and lookism.

    • posted by Matthew on

      There’s no such thing as a jenn-durr. No one has that.

      And as I have said before and will continue to keep saying until it sinks into your thick homophobic skull: allies say gay, bigots say el-jibbity. Misogynistic breeder SOBs trying to force their penises on lesbians are the enemies of the gay community. The protests like the ones in London and San Francisco are only going to get bigger and bigger the more you force gay people to accept our erasure. Get off of this board and every other gay board on the internet, you sick freak. Don’t you realize you are supporting the destruction of healthy sexual organs before they’re even old enough to be used for that purpose? That is not only anti-gay, it’s eugenics, plain and simple.

  7. posted by David Bauler on

    ‘Wealth redistribution’ is something EVERY society has and both major parties support. Heck, only the libertarians can claim otherwise. So, please stop with the buzzword BS

    Again, if the right to life is sacred, then the right to health care, should not be a novelty. Yet, much of the pro-life movement wants to end the Affordable Care Act, instead of working to mend it.

    Shucks. I suppose its just a different opinion. I believe in fixing problems, where as the regressive right believes in creating new problems.

    Again. I have zero problem with the idea of sensibly defining and outlawing ‘illegal immigration’. I do have a problem with the extremes, i.e. Trump Inc, as well as what the libertarians are calling for.

    • posted by Lori Heine on

      Thanks for playing, but try again.

      U.S. border policy is being hotly debated within the liberty movement. Not all libertarians are in favor of open borders. You’d do better making such a claim on a site not frequented by libertarians.

    • posted by Jorge on

      Again, if the right to life is sacred, then the right to health care, should not be a novelty.

      You are simply repeating something I have already responded to. Your statement on conservatives and the right to health care does not get any more compelling with the repetition. It appears rather you are trying to avoid acknowledging and discussing what my response actually was. That suggests to me you don’t really know what you’re talking about. Your offense that I gave short shrift to your statement on equal opportunity, which I absolutely did and you called me out on it, is no excuse.

    • posted by Matthew on

      Forcing people at gunpoint to pay for allopathic quackery is not doing a thing to address the problem of why there are so many sick people to begin with. Maybe it’s time George McGovern got some of the blame for that little “report” of his that has led to the obesity crisis of the last 3+ decades.

      The government can’t even be trusted to get things right with food, and you seriously want to give them that much power over people’s lives? Leftism is fascism, plain and simple.

  8. posted by MR Bill on

    100 Civil Rights groups letter opposing Kavanaugh based on his rulings: http://civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/policy/letters/2018/Letter-of-opposition-to-Brett-Kavanaugh-7.17.18.pdf

Comments are closed.