Judge Kavanaugh is A-Ok by me.

Nice troll of the "OMG, White Power symbol" snowflakes. A symbol of which no one is aware, apparently.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Cory's "crucifixion" has not even begun to reach its full potential(yet I must admit Ben Shapiro nails it as usual (pun intended )...Cory wanted a presidential "Sparticus moment" to share with his fans, and ended up looking more like Mr. Bean struggling to accomplish something trivial. LOL!

Senate Democrats Go Full WWE

Democracy takes a beating from its purported defenders.

American Spectator
Daniel J. Flynn

As Senator Richard Blumenthal complained of Republicans violating Senate “norms” in conducting the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings on Tuesday, his fellow Democrats opted to violate a few.

“The protests are not normal, but these are not normal times,” Jennifer Epps-Addison of the Center for Popular Democracy Action, conceded to USA Today. “These women are standing up because they know that if they’re quiet now and they allow these rigged, shamed hearings to proceed, their lives are going to be impacted in the future.”

The shouts from the galley, not quite incessant but quite frequent, included, “Do your jobs and stop this hearing,” “We will not give our reproductive rights up to Kavanaugh — you must vote no,” and the slightly more polite, “Kavanaugh will overturn our future — please vote no.”

Senator Dick Durbin, who behaved in a collegial manner during his Wednesday questioning, nevertheless earlier called the interruptions “the noise of democracy.” His colleagues agreed and partook, noisily.

Preempting a backlash from their left flank, Democrats opened the hearings by interrupting Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley immediately. Kamala Harris behaved as Kamala the Ugandan Giant, but without a Skandor Akbar to temper her tantrums. “We cannot possibly move forward with this hearing, Mr. Chairman,” she shouted over Grassley. Within the first minute of the hearing, Senators Mazie Hirono and Richard Blumenthal, as well as the audience, joined in the WWE-style free-for-all, using foreign objects, hand-made placards, and all means at their disposal.

Senator Cory Booker managed to outdo them all in violating Senate norms. He announced a unilateral decision to publicize post-9/11 documents regarding airport security that he described as marked confidential. He welcomed efforts to expel him from the Senate and grandiosely labeled his actions in the tradition of “civil disobedience.” The grandstanding left Bill Burck, the man overseeing the release of Bush-era documents, befuddled. “We were surprised to learn about Senator Booker’s histrionics this morning because we had already told him he could use the documents publicly,” Burck explained in a statement. “In fact, we have said yes to every request made by the Senate Democrats to make documents public.”

Several Democrats outdid themselves in feigning (or not) contempt for the mild-mannered Kavanaugh, who though he, like every other recent nominee, avoided many questions at least did so in a thoughtful and polite manner. On Thursday, Sheldon Whitehouse contended that Kavanaugh should recuse himself on any cases involving Donald Trump because the president nominated him, a standard not applied to any previous Supreme Court justice. The poker-faced Kavanaugh briefly slipped into the expression last seen on him when he watched the end of The Sixth Sense.

Juxtaposed with the even-keeled and well-mannered Kavanaugh, Democrats, excluding Dianne Feinstein and a few others, looked like children throwing a brat-fit. In an effort to paint their opponents as extremists, they laid bare a shiny-eyed face of fanaticism — their own. Despite all the talk of “democracy” among protesters (protesters trying to stop the work of elected officials), the electorate spoke in a louder voice than even those in the room in electing a Republican Senate and a Republican president. Elections have consequences.

Though Democrats ignore away the last election, they seem transfixed on two upcoming ones. The outbursts uncharacteristic of the Senate aim to motivate the Democratic base for November. The fact that Senators Booker and Harris, two politicians considering runs for the White House, outdid the rest in their bad behavior affirms that 2020 is not hindsight but the focus in view.

The obvious farce of the orchestrated outrage masks the farce of the vetting of Supreme Court nominees that has little to do with temperament or qualifications and everything to do with abortion. The questioned avoids incoming by pretending that sharing any insight into judicial philosophy might show prejudice toward future cases before him. The questioners pretend to care about matters other than abortion. Even when Democrats questioned Kavanaugh on torture or racial profiling, the subtext of abortion loomed large as though they raised these questions as a means of damaging the nominee because of the primary concern, abortion. Cognizant, to an extent, of how their monomania comes across, the interrogators included questions on whether the Justice Department can indict presidents, at least this one, or what the jurist thought of media attacks on former boss Ken Starr. Even when it’s not about abortion, it’s about abortion.

A party once committed to the maintenance of slavery goes all-in on abortion. As the forced conversions of Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, Dick Gephardt, Al Gore, and Mario Cuomo indicate, this article of faith predates this era. While Republican presidents since Roe v. Wade, a decision authored by a Republican appointee and joined by four other Republican-appointed judges, nominated a roughly equal number of jurists supporting as opposing that decision, Democratic nominees have uniformly supported abortion as a constitutional right. A litmus test exists, just not in the way the narrative portrays it.

The larger irony amid the smaller one of activists attempting to derail the nominating process in the name of democracy involves a case that stripped the lawmaking ability of the people and their representatives in all 50 states regarding abortion. Should Kavanaugh fulfill the prophecy of his opponents in providing the fifth vote to overturn Roe — it seems not a fait accompli that he will — the laboratories of democracy again determine the laws that work for them.

Is democracy so frightening that activists would rather scream and disrupt democracy than face it?

Link

quote:

Is democracy so frightening that activists would rather scream and disrupt democracy than face it?

No, its not frightening, its antithetical to their goals. Democracy assumes you can convince a majority of your fellow citizens to share similar beliefs and/or goals. The Dem's know they can no longer accomplish that result, so their only recourse is to 'control' all of the levers of government so they can 'control' all of us. We are not equal and they have zero interest or intent in behaving like adults and sharing control of this country.

The current Dem party is every bit as much an enemy of this country as any foreign country. Maybe more so.

^^^

agreed - they are the domestic enemy we hear so much about

and yet we continue to do nothing but play their game

Ok, is the show over, yet? So, we can move on to the next phase, the Senate voting to confirm him the next SCOTUS Justice.

Here is a link to a very long article with interviews with five originalist lawyers working in the front lines to get us back our Constitution.

The last line of the article is:

quote:

It is definitely time for Democrats to panic.

The author, through her interviews with people representing major conservative legal foundations, details how Cavenaugh’s presence on SCOTUS will help in areas of First Amendment freedoms, restoration of free commerce, ending the Chevron deference precedent, and restoring the “privileges and immunities” of citizens set out in the 14th Amendment.

I highly recommend reading it.

Are Dems Right to Panic over the Court? Five Originalists Weight In

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Ok, is the show over, yet? So, we can move on to the next phase, the Senate voting to confirm him the next SCOTUS Justice.

The vote isn't happening till the first week of Oct. They will be on break till then.

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
Here is a link to a very long article with interviews with five originalist lawyers working in the front lines to get us back our Constitution.

The last line of the article is:

quote:

It is definitely time for Democrats to panic.

The author, through her interviews with people representing major conservative legal foundations, details how Cavenaugh’s presence on SCOTUS will help in areas of First Amendment freedoms, restoration of free commerce, ending the Chevron deference precedent, and restoring the “privileges and immunities” of citizens set out in the 14th Amendment.

I highly recommend reading it.

Are Dems Right to Panic over the Court? Five Originalists Weight In

Thanks for that head’s up, doc!

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo54:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Ok, is the show over, yet? So, we can move on to the next phase, the Senate voting to confirm him the next SCOTUS Justice.

The vote isn't happening till the first week of Oct. They will be on break till then.

Jim

Yes, but the circus ended today, right?

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo54:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Ok, is the show over, yet? So, we can move on to the next phase, the Senate voting to confirm him the next SCOTUS Justice.

The vote isn't happening till the first week of Oct. They will be on break till then.

Jim

Yes, but the circus ended today, right?

This circus is ended. There is a committee vote which will be 11-10 for sending the nomination to the floor with approval. Then a motion for cloture will be made. There will be a vote on that, then after whatever histrionics the GDCs come up with, the vote will occur.

I expect some further fireworks. Sen. Harris will have a press conference with whoever she claims Kavanaugh talked to at the law firm about the Mueller probe. Maybe with Gloria Allred consoling the sobbing witness who was also groped during the discussion, for a grand slam. The transcripts will be studied to play it just right. Harris wasn’t doing that little folk dance just to play the fool on TV.

I would never accuse the Junior Senator from California of playing a fool.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
^^^

agreed - they are the domestic enemy we hear so much about

and yet we continue to do nothing but play their game

President Trump doesn’t play their game. He plays by his own rules. And wins.

quote:

The obvious farce of the orchestrated outrage masks the farce of the vetting of Supreme Court nominees that has little to do with temperament or qualifications and everything to do with abortion. The questioned avoids incoming by pretending that sharing any insight into judicial philosophy might show prejudice toward future cases before him. The questioners pretend to care about matters other than abortion. Even when Democrats questioned Kavanaugh on torture or racial profiling, the subtext of abortion loomed large as though they raised these questions as a means of damaging the nominee because of the primary concern, abortion. Cognizant, to an extent, of how their monomania comes across, the interrogators included questions on whether the Justice Department can indict presidents, at least this one, or what the jurist thought of media attacks on former boss Ken Starr. Even when it’s not about abortion, it’s about abortion.

A party once committed to the maintenance of slavery goes all-in on abortion. As the forced conversions of Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, Dick Gephardt, Al Gore, and Mario Cuomo indicate, this article of faith predates this era. While Republican presidents since Roe v. Wade, a decision authored by a Republican appointee and joined by four other Republican-appointed judges, nominated a roughly equal number of jurists supporting as opposing that decision, Democratic nominees have uniformly supported abortion as a constitutional right. A litmus test exists, just not in the way the narrative portrays it.

The larger irony amid the smaller one of activists attempting to derail the nominating process in the name of democracy involves a case that stripped the lawmaking ability of the people and their representatives in all 50 states regarding abortion. Should Kavanaugh fulfill the prophecy of his opponents in providing the fifth vote to overturn Roe — it seems not a fait accompli that he will — the laboratories of democracy again determine the laws that work for them.

Is democracy so frightening that activists would rather scream and disrupt democracy than face it?

Abortion remains the elephant in the room.

When a number of Republican-appointed judges went along with the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 I have no doubt that they thought the issue was "solved" and the controversy would soon fade away. 45 years later, and it hasn't calmed down or become a less contentious issue. Of course, when one side believes it is "a woman's right" to abort, and the other side believes it is "the taking of innocent life", the passions are going to be high.

In my opinion, it was wrong for the Court to take the decision away from the States and their duly elected representatives. It was a huge blow to the concept of federalism without accomplishing what I believe the justices at the time thought they would accomplish.

One of the highest aims of the God Damned Commies since at least 1987, Bork confirmation, has been to keep off the Federal bench anyone who could be suspected of having the slightest indication of a sympathy to the idea that Roe v. Wade might be overturned or diluted somehow.

A cabal of left-wing Senators, Biden, Kennedy, Leathy, Schumer, and others ensured this, at all costs.

They use the same tools of rules, seniority, chairmanships, staffs, as the Souther senators used to defeat or block almost all civil rights legislation for nearly 100 years.

quote:

Should Kavanaugh fulfill the prophecy of his opponents in providing the fifth vote to overturn Roe — it seems not a fait accompli that he will — the laboratories of democracy again determine the laws that work for them.

I don't think the Court will take an abortion case if they think it's likely to be a 5-4 decision. I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg will have to retire before the issue is again considered by the Court.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
The author, through her interviews with people representing major conservative legal foundations, details how Cavenaugh’s presence on SCOTUS will help in areas of First Amendment freedoms, restoration of free commerce, ending the Chevron deference precedent, and restoring the “privileges and immunities” of citizens set out in the 14th Amendment.

I highly recommend reading it.

Are Dems Right to Panic over the Court? Five Originalists Weight In

That was a hopeful read.

I have long been against Levin's Convention of the States idea. There are too many ways for it to go very badly in our uneducated environment.

Getting government back to more founding limitations through the Court and better representatives always seemed the better, more stable way to repair so much.

It could get very interesting if the Court reviews Commerce Clause issues, too.

A quote from the author:
" An originalist court will bring needed changes to everyday life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We’ve already seen several dramatic victories when Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court last term. This was a foretaste of far-reaching changes to come. Reinstating constitutional safeguards against government power will be significant for religious freedom, free speech, curtailing racial preferences, unleashing free enterprise, and stopping unaccountable government."