I didn’t believe her, the little girl voice, the large frame glasses and her not remembering fact turned me off. The week she spent in California she was trained to respond like that. Also the fact of her afraid of flying was a big lie. She deserves an Oscar for her performance.

Never-Trumpers climb aboard the Trump train...
Unite the Right!

I Was A Never Trumper Until Democrats Went Gonzo On Kavanaugh. Now, Hand Me That Red Hat

As a voter who recognizes the unfortunate realities of our politics, I believe supporting Trump has become the responsible choice.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/...gh-now-hand-red-hat/

^excellent

Prof Who Called for GOP Senators' ‘Deaths’ Admits to ‘Doxxing’ Her Haters’ Addresses, Phone Numbers

https://pjmedia.com/trending/p...esses-phone-numbers/

The Georgetown University professor who called for the “miserable deaths” of GOP senators admitted Thursday to PJ Media that she runs a “doxxing” blog where she posts the names, phone numbers, and addresses of people who send her rude emails.

The blog — “ShitMenSay” on Tumblr — was launched by Professor Christine Fair in January 2017. First, she began by posting screenshots of the “hate mail” she was sent by Facebook and email, typically only including names and people’s email addresses.



But as early as May 2017, Fair changed course. Instead of simply screenshotting the person’s email or Facebook message, Fair appears to have subscribed to a service that would help her figure out where these people exactly live.

PJ Media reviewed hundreds of posts (yes, hundreds) on “ShitMenSay” and identified 11 accounts of full-on doxxing, for which home addresses, phone numbers, photos, aliases, and occasionally work phone numbers and other family members were made public.

“When will these male trolls learn?” she wrote on September 28.

“I do research for a living. Locating their residences (these folks live in a town in [redacted] near an elementary school on [redacted] St.), their wives, employers, etc. is mental sport for me,” wrote Fair in one doxxing post.

“I will be notifying his current and past employer as well as his wife,” she wrote on a separate doxxing post. (PJ Media is not linking or screenshotting any of these posts due to privacy concerns for the victims of her blog.)

While Fair justifies her doxxing by calling it “accountability” for “harassment,” the emails that she received are garden-variety hate mail, and wouldn’t in any case rise to an illegal level of harassment.

For example, one man was doxxed after he emailed: “I find it interesting that you refer to half the [men] in this country as a form of ape. Your (sic) a PHD right? I guess it must not be difficult to get a PHD.”

He ended his brief missive with “HAHAHHAAHA GO TRUMP, I’M GLAD HE IRRITATES YOU.” In turn, Fair posted his email, his home address, and his phone number, and contacted his employer. It is unclear if he is still employed; he was unreachable by phone and email.

Title IX Complaint Filed Against Prof Who Called for ‘Miserable Deaths’ of White Senators

PJ Media contacted the 11 people who were hardcore doxxed by Professor Fair. The vast majority of this hardcore doxxing came after she tweeted that GOP white senators “deserve miserable deaths” during the Brett Kavanaugh TV saga.

Except for two victims, none responded to PJ Media's requests for comment.

One man, K, said he was unaware he was doxxed. (To be fair, it is unclear how many people follow Fair’s doxxing blog. It could easily have a handful of followers, or thousands.)

“Why would she post my personal information? Is it to create an opening for someone ... to harass me? Is this the new way for people with extreme points of view to 'punish' and try to quiet those that disagree with them?” said K.

“Since when is the goal to damage or have some anonymous person damage a person that disagrees online? Muzzling free speech thru fear is not an American ideal. It does however, seem to be a new weapon to beat down conservative voices. Sad situation,” K told PJ Media.

Another man, B, said he was doxxed within a day of sending Fair an email that contained his phone number in the signature line.

“Then I got 30 emails with the subject line ‘ASSHAT’ or something like that and some of the contents of those emails contained attachments with very disturbing images. Very gruesome. People."

“Were they dead or alive?” I asked B during a phone interview on Sunday.

“That I don't know. I only completely opened one email attachment, and was too afraid to open any others,” B told PJ Media. Then B got a phone call from a man who said he knew where B lived, claiming that he was calling on behalf of Professor Fair.

Afraid for his safety, B was forced to temporarily move and change his phone number.

Fair — for her part — denies wrongdoing. Her blog is about “accountability,” she maintains. She says she only posts the contact information for the people who “harrass” her, but claims she herself does not harass people back.

“I run my Tumblr blog. You can see only people who send me vile notes are doxxed,” Fair emailed PJ Media last Thursday. She did not respond to follow-up inquiries.

According to a FIRE spokesman, Fair’s actions thus far are protected by the First Amendment. But James Salby — a manager at Acronis, a digital security firm — said that the fallout of doxxing can be immense.

“Occasionally, doxxing is used by people who feel vulnerable and powerless to try to expose and hit back at people who are hiding behind secrecy and anonymity,” he said.

“It is a crude weapon that can also harm innocent bystanders: family members, and people with similar names or appearances,” he added. “The reason to take it seriously is that its use is growing. That’s because it’s effective and it’s cheap and fairly simple to do.”

Georgetown University spokesmen did not respond to requests for comment for this article. Fair is currently on paid research leave, and her Tumblr doxxing blog can only be viewed by those with Tumblr accounts who turn off safe-mode.

Note: The two victims have been identified in this article by an initial bearing no correlation to their actual name.

How's that workin' out for ya, babe?

Roberts refers ethics complaints against Kavanaugh to federal judges

Fox News

Chief Justice John Roberts is referring complaints about statements made by new Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to federal judges outside the Beltway.

In a letter posted Wednesday on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals website, Roberts announced that he has asked judges who handle ethics complaints for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to deal with the claims.

Roberts said in his letter that he was initially notified of complaints against Kavanaugh on Sept. 20. The complaints deal with statements Kavanaugh made during his confirmation hearings and were initially filed with the D.C. Circuit, where Kavanaugh served for 12 years before joining the high court.

In a statement issued Saturday, D.C. Circuit Judge Karen Henderson said the complaints only "seek investigations ... of the public statements [Kavanaugh] has made as a nominee to the Supreme Court." Kavanaugh was confirmed to the high court that same day after a contentious nomination process that included allegations of sexual misconduct dating back to his days as a high school and college student.

Roberts received the first three of 15 eventual complaints a week before Kavanaugh's angry denial of a sexual assault allegation by Christine Blasey Ford.

The Denver-based 10th Circuit handles appeals of cases that originate in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming.

The judiciary's rules allow members of the public to lodge complaints about federal judges. They typically are dealt with by experienced judges in the courthouse or region where a judge serves. Judges who receive complaints have a range of options that include dismissing them out of hand, having local judges investigate them or asking Roberts, in his capacity as head of the federal judiciary, to assign the complaints to judges in a different part of the country.

It's possible the complaints will never be investigated if the lower-court judges determine they have no jurisdiction over a Supreme Court justice under the judiciary's ethics rules.

Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit, typically deals with ethics complaints, but he apparently stepped aside from complaints against Kavanaugh. Garland had been nominated to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama, but Senate Republicans never acted on the nomination.

Roberts' letter was sent to Judge Timothy Tymkovich, the 10th Circuit's chief judge. Tymkovich was on President Donald Trump's list of possible Supreme Court nominees.

Link

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Alaska GOP Considering Whether To Throw Murkowski Out Of GOP For Opposing Kavanaugh

The Alaska Republican party has requested that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) submit any information she has that might dissuade them from reprimanding her for opposing Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

As AP reports, “Party Chairman Tuckerman Babcock says the committee could decide to issue a statement. Or he says it could withdraw support of Murkowski, encourage party officials to look for a replacement and ask that she not seek re-election as a Republican.”

It might be emotionally satisfying, but it would be certifiably idiotic to push too hard on this, with a squeaky-thin Senate majority and right before a very close mid-term, after which every vote to keep Schumer in the Minority column is to be desired. There are already two 'independents' that vote for Schumer - Sanders and King.

If we end up with 60-40 majority, though, might be time to recall the Klingon axiom, that "revenge is a dish best served cold". Till then, best to keep your friends close and your not-up-for-relection RINOs closer.

Yeah, no shit. You don't get the hundred bucks.

Lena Dunham claims the Kavanaugh hearings triggered fibromyalgia.

https://trib.al/KQl72bR
Breitbart link

I wonder how the libs would respond if Trump proposed a plan to increase the Supreme Court to 11 justices and nominate two pro-life judges for the new seats. I think we would see heads explode. They would be screaming about tyranny, abuse of power and constitutional crisis.

I wonder how they reconcile that with the serious proposals they are now making to pack the court should they regain power?

^^ I can see Trump floating that balloon just to see their heads explode.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
I wonder how the libs would respond if Trump proposed a plan to increase the Supreme Court to 11 justices and nominate two pro-life judges for the new seats. I think we would see heads explode. They would be screaming about tyranny, abuse of power and constitutional crisis.

I wonder how they reconcile that with the serious proposals they are now making to pack the court should they regain power?

In for a penny, in for a pound.

Why not advocate the increase, and nominate everyone on his list? There were about 20 or so, most of them appellate court judges which would give a whole new bunch of seats to fill.

Democrats' Kavanaugh Obsession Costing Them Dearly

After a grueling and vicious battle, Judge Kavanaugh has rightfully been confirmed to the Supreme Court. Despite the fact that Kavanaugh is exceptionally qualified and possesses the perfect temperament to sit on our nation's highest court, Democrats cry foul and make various arguments about why Kavanaugh should not be on the bench. While some Democrats believe that their conduct is helping their party, their calls for impeachment and their illogical arguments appear partisan in nature and could be hurting their credibility with the voters.

Despite Kavanaugh's lawful confirmation, the drumbeats (regarding impeachment) are still being heard from those on the left. For example, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) indicated that the option of impeaching Kavanaugh should not be ruled out and supported further investigation. "If there is conclusory evidence that shows unequivocally that he lied to a Senate committee, that is a crime and he should be held accountable for those criminal acts."

Perhaps Mr. Booker and other Democrats calling for Kavanaugh's impeachment need to review the record, which includes seven FBI investigations, over thirty hours of testimony, individual meetings with senators, and a hearing involving Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford. While Democrats supported a one-week delay for the FBI to investigate the allegations against Kavanaugh, they were dreadfully unhappy with the results: no evidence that Kavanaugh committed any wrongdoing. Simply stated, it appears that Democrats are grasping at straws to find an impeachable offense.

Given the absence of an impeachable offense, Democrats added another argument to their repertoire. According to former attorney general Eric Holder, Kavanaugh's addition to the Supreme Court calls into doubt the legitimacy of the Supreme Court:

"With the confirmation of Kavanaugh and the process which led to it, (and the treatment of Merrick Garland), the legitimacy of the Supreme Court can justifiably be questioned. The Court must now prove – through its work – that it is worthy of the nation's trust," Holder tweeted, referring to former President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee whose confirmation process was blocked by Republicans in 2016.

Senator Dianne Feinstein echoed Holder's remarks, stating that confirming Kavanaugh "in the face of credible allegations of sexual assault that were not thoroughly investigated, and his belligerent, partisan performance in last Thursday's hearing undermines the legitimacy of the Supreme Court."

Feinstein's argument is wrong for several reasons.

First, Kavanaugh underwent seven FBI investigations, the last of which was conducted roughly one week ago. None of these investigations produced any evidence of wrongdoing (the allegations were uncorroborated). Second, Kavanaugh was not belligerent and partisan. Rather, Kavanaugh fervently defended his innocence and welcomed whatever additional steps the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended. In addition, he was rightfully upset and angered due to the uncorroborated and false allegations that were launched against him and his family by Senate Democrats. Feinstein's conclusion that Kavanaugh's confirmation undermined the legitimacy of the Supreme Court appears to be an indictment of Judge Kavanaugh based on politics and desperation.

Some media outlets also joined in this farce. For example, according to an article in Newsweek, Kavanaugh is now the "fourth out of nine justices nominated by a president who did not initially win the popular vote." In other words, if a president fails to win the "popular" vote, then any of his nominees to the Supreme Court, by association, is illegitimate because the majority of people don't support him.

This argument is illogical for two reasons. Fist, pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, the president of the United States alone is empowered to nominate Supreme Court justices, and the U.S. Senate is required to confirm those nominations. There is no mention of the popular vote, nor is it relevant to the legitimacy of the nominees to the Supreme Court. Second, just because a president does not win the popular vote, that does not mean that the majority of people will oppose the candidate he nominates for the Supreme Court. This argument lacks merit, as the two issues are separate and distinct.

In addition to the Democrats' impeachment and illegitimacy arguments, CNN legal analyst Areva Martin opined last week that Kavanaugh should recuse himself from cases involving civil rights, such as gerrymandering. "Those cases are often brought by political parties, they're brought by Democrats, so if Judge Kavanaugh believes that this allegation brought by Dr. Ford was somehow orchestrated or engineered by Democratic operatives, how can he be unbiased in a gerrymandering case that's brought by a Democratic party?" "His name on the court will always have an asterisk."

It appears that Ms. Martin believes that recusal is necessary due to Kavanaugh's alleged bias against Democrats. However, a review of Kavanaugh's record reflects a jurist who issues rulings based on the law and not based on party or politics. As one example, "recently nominated Circuit Judge for the D.C. Court of Appeals, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, once voted in favor of President Trump's least favorite 'news' organization, CNN."

It is time to accept the reality that Justice Kavanaugh was properly and fairly nominated, and confirmed, to the Supreme Court. The arguments by some on the left are illogical or devoid of any factual support or corroboration. By consistently making such arguments, Democrats could well be hurting themselves with moderate and centrist voters and, ultimately, helping Republicans as the midterms inch closer.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.co...y.html#ixzz5TjUxjBVN

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
I wonder how the libs would respond if Trump proposed a plan to increase the Supreme Court to 11 justices and nominate two pro-life judges for the new seats. <snip>

Bad idea IMO – we already have a 5-4 advantage. The Dems have floated the possibility of increasing the number of SCOTUS Justices in order to overcome the current conservative advantage if they gain the presidency and the senate. That idea would legitimize the Dem’s scheme.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
I wonder how the libs would respond if Trump proposed a plan to increase the Supreme Court to 11 justices and nominate two pro-life judges for the new seats. I think we would see heads explode. They would be screaming about tyranny, abuse of power and constitutional crisis.

I wonder how they reconcile that with the serious proposals they are now making to pack the court should they regain power?

Unfortunately most politicians are too short sighted. For example, when the filibuster rule was changed in 2013, regarding lower court judges, the Senators that wanted that change, ignored the fact that those in opposition could use in the same tactic "tit for tat" later on Supreme Court Justices. Which is precisely what happened.

Maybe serious people took that as a lesson, and will realize that "court packing" is a game both sides can play, and will lead to disaster. Hopefully that is what happened, and neither side will go down that path.

I do find it ironic that those decrying the loss of "legitimacy" at the Court, are some of those now advocating for "packing" the Court. Nothing would hurt the credibility of the Court more than such ridiculous, and blatantly partisan, action.

Unfortunately, I really do believe that too many politicians are short sighted, and may attempt this foolish court packing.

https://townhall.com/notebook/...r-kavanaugh-n2526538

The Left has made it pretty clear how it feels about Sen. Susan Collins after she voted “yes” on Saturday to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. She’s received “multiple serious threats” according to her office, has had protestors swarm her home each morning, and was even called a “rape apologist” by the Women’s March.

Collins visited her home state Sunday to speak at a bridge dedication ceremony honoring Somerset County Sheriff’s Cpl. Eugene Cole who was killed in the line of duty this past spring. During her remarks, the senator briefly touched on Saturday’s momentous vote.

“I’ve had, obviously, protesters again at my house this morning before coming here, but it has been overwhelmingly positive – as I think you could tell by the reaction of the people who are here for this important ceremony today,” Collins told the crowd, reports the Portland Press Herald. “So that’s been very heartening.”

“Many people have thanked me for my vote, and have said that they were very pleased that I did the right thing and that I applied the judgment that I did," she added.

Still, Collins and her offices have been given enhanced security for the “foreseeable future,” according to the senator’s communications director, Annie Clark.

“Due to multiple serious threats, we began providing enhanced security measures for Senator Collins and her offices three weeks ago. These measures have been recommended by the Senate Sergeant at Arms and the United States Capitol Police, who are working in coordination with the Maine State Police and local law enforcement,” Clark said in a statement. “The Senator and her staff are grateful for their assistance, and we anticipate that these measures will be in place for the foreseeable future.”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Jen Psaki tweeted:

who wants to run for Senate in Maine? there will be an army of supporters with you

Susan Rice tweeted back:

Me

I saw this headline and I actually Laughed Out Loud.

The case for abolishing the Supreme Court

It is like these people have never actually studied history.