A Kavanaugh Roundup

These were a few of my favorite tweets:


28 Comments for “A Kavanaugh Roundup”

  1. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    My, my, Stephen. Such spew, such bitterness.

    You and your fellow conservatives have achieved what you wanted — a Court controlled by “originalists” who hold fast to the doctrine that the only unenumerated rights are those “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition”.

    You and your fellow conservatives have put in place a Court controlled by five men who believe that both Roe and Obergefell were incorrectly decided, and that Griswold, the legal underpinning of a long line of other cases — Loving, Turner, Zablocki, Lawrence, and Carey , to name a few — was incorrectly decided and defined an unenumerated right (the “right to privacy”, “the right to be left alone”) that is not, and should not be, protected by the Constitution unless the protected behavior is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition”.

    So you’ve got what you want. We are back, in turns of Constitutional theory regarding protection of individual freedom in private life, to the 1950’s, a time that you are almost certainly too young to remember, but a time that you will get to relive as this Court, augmented as it almost certainly will be, by another justice or two chosen off the “21 List”, strips away the Constitutional protections in the Griswold line.

    God bless you. You fought the good fight to achieve a Court more likely than not to bury Justice Kennedy’s Romer, Lawrence, Windsor and Obergefell legacy, and you succeeded. The path is now open to implementing the “culture wars” planks of the 2016 Republican Platform without judicial impediment.

    So why are you so bitter?

    A few years ago, in the immediate aftermath of Obergefell, you often quoted George Will’s quip about “sore winners”. You might want to take a look back at those posts and think about your own behavior.

    You should be celebrating, Stephen. The path has been opened to a new America that for which you have been advocating for as long as I have been reading IGF, just shy of 15 years, and you are unable even to take pleasure in your achievement. Instead, you bitterly attack over whom you have prevailed. That’s sad.

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      Breeder bitches who kill gay babies should be executed.

      Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      Abortion-loving breeder whores killed more unborn gays than Hitler killed born ones. But you and other anti-life activists don’t fucking care about that, Uncle Tom Scharbach, you disingenous Kraut, just like you don’t care about gay erasure in the name of the cult of jenn-durr. You just care about projecting your own bitterness and self-hatred on the Right who is pleased as punch that the Rule of Law won out over a Warlock Hunt waged by a privileged white heterosexual gentile female who went to a douchebag school with a racist mascot and a long, sordid history of academic fraud.

      The Regressive Left only supports gay marriage as long as gay men reduce ourselves to the level of the lowest most vile heterosexual male cheaters. They won’t even let us say “gay marriage” anymore; we have to say “marriage equality” as if the marriage of two men was no better than the marriage of a man to a dog. Gays, Jews, and black people deserve special treatment under the law because we are genetically, morally, culturally, and intellectually superior to heterosexuals, gentiles, whites, and non-black non-Jewish non-gay POC who still benefit from heterosexual privilege and gentile privilege.

      Reply
    • posted by Jim Michaud on

      I hope you realize, Tom, that Stephen and his cohorts will think that the entire GLBT community will just be getting a taste of their own medicine. No self reflection or remorse. Just revenge on what they believe the whole GLBT community has done to them.

      Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        Allies say gay, bigots say el-jibbity. I am not part of a community with self-loathing self mutilators or hate speech-appropriating fat breeder hausfraus with hair dyed a color that couldn’t possibly exist in nature.

        El-jibbity is a war on gay existence. The Regressive Left is not just bigoted for supporting it, it has gay blood on its hands. Only monsters support sterilizing children (or adults for that matter) for the way they like to dress, and that’s what you’re doing by saying el-jibbity instead of gay. I will not be reduced to a vile acronym that lumps gay men and lesbians in with the truly depraved.

        Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      Just revenge on what they believe the whole GLBT community has done to them.

      We got uppity instead of knuckling under, and that is a sin that conservatives cannot forgive.

      Reply
      • posted by Jorge on

        Liberals either, judging from their responses to Kavanaugh’s overlong Clarence Thomas moment.

        Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        What has the Regressive Left done to earn the forgiveness of decent human beings, gays who are actively hurt by policies you support included? Nothing.

        What has the Regressive Left done to earn the benefit of the doubt when each and every thing you support has enabled huge chunks of the United States to turn into second-world shitholes under YOUR control? Zilch.

        Why should the Regressive Left be trusted to protect the rights of gays when they have done nothing to stop the cult of jenn-durr from wiping out a whole generation of gay youth with hate speech, chemicals, and condescending lovebombing platitudes that are actually quite homophobic, lesbophobic, and blatantly misogynistic when you go beyond the surface? You shouldn’t.

        Why should the Regressive Left be trusted to help people of color when you have contributed to the fetishization of the ghettoization of minority cultures to the point where you are actually the ones who are racist? You can’t.

        Why should the Regressive Left and its greed for extorting other people’s money through taxes, regulations, and state-backed ponzi schemes be trusted even after it already decimated the United States’ manufacturing base? It shouldn’t.

        How can the Regressive Left be trusted to defend the United States and any of its allies after you have already spent the better part of a decade pandering to Muslim shitholes that kill gay people while waging jihad against Jews in the name of “diversity” and “multiculturalism”, just like you pandered to the Commies during the Cold War? It can’t and won’t.

        Reply
  2. posted by Jorge on

    “The Right is angry because they have near-total political power, but little cultural power. The Left is angry because they have near-total cultural power, but little political power. Each covets what the other has and feels is rightfully theirs.”

    That was a good one.

    I am not always so refined. Here’s mine:

    1) Thanks to Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, my faith in women is restored. (I’m not kidding.)

    2) Thanks to Susan Collins, it’s The Year of the Woman, yaaaaaay!

    Tom thinks celebration is in order?

    It’s The Year of the Woman! The Year of the Woman! The Year of the Woman! Yaaaaaaay!

    And Lindsey Graham is still the man. Refinement can come later.

    Reply
    • posted by JohnInCA on

      If your “faith” in women hinges on the actions of two specific women, I think it’s fair that your “faith” was never meaningful or deep to start with.

      Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        Once again, the Slaveocrat Party hacks act like they are entitled to demand the obedience of all women everywhere, even after Hillary lost her own demographic.

        Reply
  3. posted by Chang on

    OHHH SNAP!

    Reply
  4. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    An observation: Now that Republicans have adopted the party line that the testimony of Dr. Ford before the Senate Judiciary Committee was “made up”, “fabricated” and “a hoax that was set up by the Democrats”, and that Justice Kavanaugh was “proven innocent” in the hearings, I think that it is a safe bet that the number of men and women who have been sexually assaulted (about 1 in 3 women and 1 in 6 men according to the CDC) who will be voting Republican in the near future is minuscule.

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      That’s not just a “party line,” Uncle Tom. It’s the complete truth and you know it. That lying, cheating cracker breeder goy Tar Hole bitch cunt whore needs to go to jail if the rule of law and the principle of innocent until proven guilty have any meaning in this country any more. White gentile heterosexual women are an oppressor class, and this gay man has had enough of their shit.

      Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      As was just made unintentionally implicit in Matthew’s post, if that were the party line, then that would be a sensible political consequence.

      As I see it, any shift in political alignment by sexual assault survivors away from a belief in law and order, due process, protecting the interests of survivors, and other values embodied by the Republicans in the Senate over the past few weeks if a shift that would have already occurred in the past and influenced the past few elections, not one about to occur that will influence future ones.

      (What about the shift in perception about Kavanaugh?)

      That’s a control variable. All that really shows is that dirty tricks and red herring reasoning work once they’ve been deployed. This is not the first election we have seen either.

      Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        “That’s a control variable. All that really shows is that dirty tricks and red herring reasoning work once they’ve been deployed. This is not the first election we have seen either.”

        That’s literally all the Slaveocrats have got left.

        Reply
  5. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Matthew: That lying, cheating cracker breeder goy Tar Hole bitch cunt whore needs to go to jail if the rule of law and the principle of innocent until proven guilty have any meaning in this country any more.

    Jorge: As was just made unintentionally implicit in Matthew’s post, if that were the party line, then that would be a sensible political consequence.

    The President has called for Dr. Ford to be criminally prosecuted for lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    If the Republicans are as interested in the rule of law as you both seem to think, and if Republicans are as convinced that Dr. Ford is lying as they are now saying (after a short-lived nod to “credible”) then a criminal prosecution should be started as quickly as possible.

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      If she doesn’t go to jail, then why do we even have laws at all?

      Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      Non-gay non-Jewish white women have a very long, sordid history of making shit up to make themselves look like victims when the fact is more often than not they are actually victimizers. Women victimize men all the time. The white woman Gary Coleman married might just as well have shot him with a gun for all she did for him. That duplicitous bitch pushed him down the stairs and tried to make it look like an accident. Heterosexuality kills.

      Reply
      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        So just out of curiosity, what do you think of the drumbeat of Republican allegations that a foreign-born Jew, George Soros, paid the females protesting Justice Kavanaugh’s elevation to the Court?

        A few of the more prominent examples of the drumbeat:

        SENATOR GRASSLEY

        Maria Bartiromo, Fox Business Network: “Do you believe George Soros is behind all of this, paying these people to get you and your colleagues in elevators or wherever they can get in your face?”

        Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley: “I have heard so many people believe that. I tend to believe it. I believe it fits in his attack mode that he has and how he uses his billions and billions of resources.”

        PRESIDENT TRUMP:

        “The very rude elevator screamers are paid professionals only looking to make Senators look bad. Don’t fall for it! Also, look at all of the professionally made identical signs. Paid for by Soros and others. These are not signs made in the basement from love! #Troublemakers”

        RUDI GIULIANO (retweeting):

        “Follow the money. I think Soros is the anti-Christ! He must go! Freeze his assets & I bet the protests stop.”

        DAILY CALLER:

        “Left-wing groups funded by George Soros and other major Democratic donors hand out cash to protesters arrested for disrupting Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, the activists revealed Monday night.”

        Ah, the International Jewish Conspiracy rears its ugly head once again in the fetid conservative imagination.

        Next thing we know, conservatives will be echoing President Putin.

        Reply
        • posted by Matthew on

          Oh, you mean the same fake Jew Soros who willingly did business with Nazis as a teenager and is spreading his ill-gotten gains to sell the West out to the anti-gay anti-Israel anti-Jewish anti-woman anti-child trans-Islamo-pedophile alliance right now? The same one Benjamin Netanyahu detests?

          Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      And don’t get me started on that fucking cracker breeder goy whore who sent Emmett Till to an early grave. She’s the one who should have been lynched instead. How many gay, black, and Jewish men’s lives have been destroyed because of lies and violence instigated by women? Too many to count. All of them need to be avenged. Eva Braun was equally as much to blame for the Holocaust as Adolf Hitler. Incidentally, Karl Marx treated his wife like shit. Heterosexuality kills.

      Reply
      • posted by Jorge on

        Emmett Till, huh?

        I’d be interested to know where you came across that comparison. I do not believe it to be an original one, and I don’t much like to see plagiarism.

        Reply
        • posted by Matthew on

          Even before that in the 1910s, there were the riots in Rosewood, FL over a white woman’s false claims that a black man raped her. That was even the subject of a movie several years ago.

          Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      I was talking about the testimony being made up, a hoax, and Kavanaugh being proven innocent, Tom. Evidently my Accuracy: Bombthrowing stat could use a bit of training.

      Reply
      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        I was talking about the testimony being made up, a hoax, and Kavanaugh being proven innocent, Tom. Evidently my Accuracy: Bombthrowing stat could use a bit of training.

        So do you think that Dr. Ford’s testimony was made up, a hoax perpetrated on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Kavanaugh proven innocent? The reason I ask is that in your earlier comments on the topic, you sounded as if you thought that Dr. Ford’s testimony was credible.

        Reply
        • posted by Jorge on

          I am entirely undecided on that. In any event, I think it would be a sensible position for the Republican party to take.

          I scoured my earlier comments and do not understand how you came to that conclusion but for me not committing myself.

          My actual view of her testimony at the time she gave it was that even the answers she gave in response to Rachel Mitchell’s questioning were damaging to Kavanaugh’s nomination and denials.

          That being said, my doubts about her credibility have increased over time, primarily after reading Mitchell’s report to the Republican Senators on her assessment of Ford’s credibility.

          (Which I find a little troubling, in that it didn’t explore Kavanaugh’s testimony and statements at all, but excusable on the premise that she argues Dr. Ford can’t even make a case in the first place.)

          The sole source of convenient remembering on Ford’s part is not just when Brett Kavanaugh came on the short list of Supreme Court nominees. It was also when she began to have marital problems. She did not mention the incident at all at any time between. Granted that it was said that it was a prominent individual, and granted that Sen. Collins affirmed her own experience that it’s not so unusual, but why wasn’t anything more than that known during the therapy sessions? These and other gaps and contradictions that Ms. Mitchell buries in her report, while I don’t think they’re a smoking gun, present to me a considerable worry that Dr. Ford is prone to making subtle but significant alterations to her personal history for her self-interest.

          As I read it, during Anita Hill’s testimony, Arlen Specter explored these sorts of contradictions and shifting perspectives directly, and came away convinced on national television that Hill had committed perjury. Better in this case for such a conclusion, which can be the source of sharp division, to be stifled.

          Reply

Leave a Comment