Keep in up, you friggen' insane leftists...keep it up!

quote:

A Minnesota teacher has been placed on leave as the school district investigates complaints over a Twitter post that allegedly references killing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

“So whose gonna take one for the team and kill Kavanaugh,” reads the tweets, posted on the evening of Saturday, Oct. 6 from a now-suspended account.

Good luck with that, enjoy your firing and being brought up on charges, darling.


‘Kill Kavanaugh' post puts Minnesota teacher on leave, district investigating

On the House races, I suspect that the DNC machine and the loony fringe will be in for a rude surprise come the evening of November 6.

There aren’t a bunch of newly-activated leftists ready to go vote.

What the Kavanaugh debacle did is to anger many moderate and right-leaning voters who *will* vote — when they normally might not — in the coming midterms.

Trump is hated mostly by the activist left and the professional SocProgs in higher ed, media/entertainment, and organized gov/labor.

I have been trying for two days to send an email to the two Democrat Senators from Michigan. No joy, their email seems to be out of commission. I hope it is because so many people are emailing to voice their displeasure over the Democrat treatment of Justice Kavanaugh and his family. When I finally get through to them (and I will), I intend to tell them that I will work very hard for whomever is running against them until they are defeated and Michigan can be proud of our Senators instead of deeply ashamed as we are now.
Rod

Let's not forget that the opposition to Judge Kavanaugh did not start with Christine Blasey Ford. It started with the Democrats extreme position on abortion. I agree with Susan Collins, Judge Kavanaugh is not likely to force women into 'coat hanger abortions', but the radical feminists can't take the chance that their may be any restrictions on the 'right' to abort.

WATCH: Shapiro On His Fox News Special :

In all of the chaos regarding the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, we should remember one simple fact: if Kavanaugh were pro-choice, he would have been confirmed with 100 votes. He’s clearly not an advocate for abortion, but Democrats didn’t have the votes to stop him so instead, Democrats decided to slander him as a gang rapist. Remember, Democratic opposition to Kavanaugh started not with Christine Blasey Ford, but with women in Handmaid's Tale outfits occupying the Senate confirmation hearing room, and pro-abortion protesters being dragged out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Shapiro segued to the campaign from abortion factory Planned Parenthood that targeted Kavanaugh:

It’s not a shock that Planned Parenthood, the organization responsible for hundreds of thousands of abortions per year, openly threatens senators in poetry: “Roses are red, violets are blue, Senators vote NO on #Kavanaugh, Or else we’re coming for you. #National Poetry Day #Stop Kavanaugh.”



https://www.dailywire.com/news...d-assault-daily-wire

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by Otto Pilot:
^^^
Umm, I believe that's about the protesters being paid, not that they protested. Not that I would wrap fish heads in the NYT, but I think that's the gist of that.

The point is the "without proof" and "without evidence". The same thing these maggots were accusing Justice Kavanaugh of. No proof and no evidence, but simply with allegations, and they ate all up.

Ahhh.

quote:

Originally posted by Otto Pilot:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by Otto Pilot:
^^^
Umm, I believe that's about the protesters being paid, not that they protested. Not that I would wrap fish heads in the NYT, but I think that's the gist of that.

The point is the "without proof" and "without evidence". The same thing these maggots were accusing Justice Kavanaugh of. No proof and no evidence, but simply with allegations, and they ate all up.

Ahhh.

Yeah, that whole "We Believe Survivors" thing has been a sham from the beginning. *I* believe 'Survivors;' there just isn't a SINGLE SHRED of credible evidence to support ford's claim that she really IS a "Survivor."

As has been stated, leftists aren't known for their overwhelming sense of logic and reason. . .

NYT posts opinion piece today, post Kavanaugh and an attack on Collins for not supporting women regardless if the attack is false.

So they attack White Women for the next election to either get them to stay home, or change vote.


White Women come get your People

“…Kavanaugh, along with his law clerks, already has been at the Supreme Court preparing for his first day on the bench Tuesday when the justices will hear arguments in two cases about longer prison terms for repeat offenders. The new justice’s four clerks all are women, the first time that has happened.

The clerks are Kim Jackson, who previously worked for Kavanaugh on the federal appeals court in Washington, Shannon Grammel, Megan Lacy and Sara Nommensen. The latter three all worked for other Republican-nominated judges. Lacy had been working at the White House in support of Kavanaugh’s nomination…”

https://apnews.com/c40afcf2258f4a3b96bad2b1fbb8c682

This is what I realized long ago: Everything from the left-- everything they say, everything they do-- is about power. Namely, their attempt to seize or increase their power, and also try to diminish the power of the right. Issues, causes, are the weapons they use. It is pointless to get caught up in any of it, because none of it matters in itself.

All this #metoo bullshit, for example. Senator Hirono-- "believe every woman!"-- was an arch supporter of Senator Inouye when he was accused by a number of women of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape.

Then, consider Bill Clinton. How about Ted Kennedy? If you are a Democrat, you can not only rape women, you can literally kill a woman while drunkenly seducing her and not only survive politically, but be lionized.

In one word: Power.

That is why the road our country is on right now, with increasing hostility, intimidation, and violence from the left, ultimately ends up in an armed showdown. There can be no reconciliation on the issues because the issues never mattered in the first place.

I don't think we will get to that showdown because the lefties don't have the guts. I've lived in countries that ended up in civil war and revolution, and believe me these loudmouth crybabies don't even resemble those who are willing to put life and limb on the line.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
So they attack White Women for the next election to either get them to stay home, or change vote.

Wait, wait, wait, wait - I thought the Dems were counting on white women to take back the House in '18 and hand Trump his ass in 2020? I'm confused. Or I would be, if I expected the NYT op/ed page to make sense.

OTOH, does this mean that the libs, in once again eating their own, are shooting themselves catastrophically in the foot?

Unless, of course, white (or any other) women like being bullied and like being browbeaten into doing something they don't want to do - which I don't think they doo-ooo.

quote:

In one word: Power.

That is why the road our country is on right now, with increasing hostility, intimidation, and violence from the left, ultimately ends up in an armed showdown. There can be no reconciliation on the issues because the issues never mattered in the first place.

Yes. Power.

It's ultimately the American Anti-Revolution, or counter-revolution. It's about power and control by the collective over the individual. The American Revolution, the founding of this country, was about recognizing individual rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness [Property].—

These are individual rights. The founders did not recognize collective rights.

That's the fun part about lefties - they keep wanting to refight the ideological wars of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Don't buy into that "very possible" media narrative BS. The Dem's have screwed up so big, are running so short on campaign cash, and are running candidates so incompetent and flawed, that the House is no where near a given for them at this point. Personally, I think the Dem's are going to be very disappointed overall when the final vote counts are completed.

I think this is closer to reality.

These are midterms; traditionally Democrats have a poor turnout for these things. Even though I love to put down Democrats, I do recognize the majority of them really don't give a shit about the nuances of commie thought. Demographically, urban blacks, hispanics, and legal immigrants more likely could care less about the last few weeks. Yeah, they're stupid enough to vote for an Obama or Hillary, but I'll bet many of them really can give a rat's ass about the Supreme Court, or the women's MeToo bullshit for that matter.

I think in general, Republicans care more about the SCOTUS, and more likely will be coming out for the midterms, especially after the behavior of Democrat politicians. And I'll bet many Independents are also disgusted by the Dems behavior as well.

^^ Don't underestimate the determination of rank'n'file Republican voters to keep the House and perhaps even add to the Republican majority there. Everyone now knows where the (potential) problem lies.

Come to think of it, how many truly exciting races are there for the Dems this year? At least in terms of motivating people who aren't political junkies to make it to the polls?

quote:

Even though I love to put down Democrats, I do recognize the majority of them really don't give a shit about the nuances of commie thought. Demographically, urban blacks, hispanics, and legal immigrants more likely could care less about the last few weeks. Yeah, they're stupid enough to vote for an Obama or Hillary, but I'll bet many of them really can give a rat's ass about the Supreme Court, or the women's MeToo bullshit for that matter.

That's true. Most of them aren't thinkers... which is why you can't argue with them. They are followers. They truly want to be part of a collective. It's a hive mentality. You don't need to be a thinker if you're going to follow the hive. When it's time to swarm, you join the hive and swarm. You don't ask why.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Someone should contact the Trump-hating Stephen King and ask him to consider a reboot of his novel, changing the automobile from a Plymouth to a Ford.

Haaaaaa! You almost made me pee on myself.

If this does not motivate you to vote, nothing will. The left has a plan to regain the Supreme Court, and it would destroy this country. If they ever acquire both chambers and the presidency watch out. They can legally pack the court with liberals.All this rhetoric they are spewing is just laying the groundwork

On the Left, Eyeing More Radical Ways to Fight Kavanaugh

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1...h-supreme-court.html

By Charlie Savage

Oct. 7, 2018

WASHINGTON — The bitter partisan fury that engulfed Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation was the fiercest battle in a political war over the judiciary that has been steadily intensifying since the Senate rejected Judge Robert H. Bork in 1987.

But an even greater conflagration may be coming.

“This confirmation vote will not necessarily be the last word on Brett Kavanaugh serving a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court,” said Brian Fallon, executive director of the liberal group Demand Justice and the top spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Facing a Supreme Court controlled by five solidly conservative justices, liberals have already started to attack the legitimacy of the majority bloc and discussed ways to eventually undo its power without waiting for one of its members to retire or die.

Some have gone as far as proposing — if Democrats were to retake control of Congress and the White House in 2020 or after — expanding the number of justices on the court to pack it with liberals or trying to impeach, remove and replace Justice Kavanaugh.

Either step would be an extraordinary violation of constitutional and political norms. No justice has been removed through impeachment. And a previous attempt at court packing, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt after a conservative-dominated Supreme Court rejected important parts of his New Deal initiatives during the Great Depression, is broadly seen as having been misguided.

Either step would also face steep odds. Some Republicans would have to go along for them to work: a court-expansion bill would need the support of 60 senators to overcome a filibuster, and while a simple majority of the House could vote to impeach, removal would require two-thirds of the Senate.

Still, even the political pressure of the threat might make some of the conservative justices more cautious. While Congress rejected Roosevelt’s court-reform bill, the court changed course while lawmakers were considering it and started upholding New Deal laws — a move called “the switch in time that saved nine.”

Today, the majority five on the Supreme Court are all movement conservatives — Republican lawyers who came of age after an ideological backlash a generation ago to decades of liberal court rulings. As judges, they tend to rule more consistently for conservative outcomes than older Republican appointees, like the retired Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
Editors’ Picks
Homelessness, Step by Step
Can Good Teaching Be Taught?
California’s Highway 1, With Memory Riding Shotgun

And just as in the early decades of the 20th century, when a conservative-dominated Supreme Court repeatedly struck down progressive economic policies like child labor and minimum-wage laws leading up to the New Deal fight, Democrats fear that the new majority will systematically crush their achievements — not just hollowing out past gains like abortion rights, but also striking down programs they hope to enact if they regain power, like expanding Medicare or efforts to curb climate change.

For the next few weeks, many Democratic strategists want to change the subject from the Supreme Court, hoping that Republican voters’ passions aroused by the Kavanaugh fight will fade ahead of the midterm elections. Noting that the election is approaching, Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that talk of impeaching Justice Kavanaugh was “premature.”

“Talking about it at this point isn’t necessarily healing us and moving us forward,” he said.

But Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said on “Fox News Sunday” that he intended to help House Republicans in swing districts campaign on the issue over the next month, saying their Democratic opponents should be asked whether they supported impeaching Justice Kavanaugh and “Do you want an outcome so badly that you would basically turn the law upside down?”

Still, many liberals are quietly looking forward to reviving the fight if they win a House majority and subpoena power, rather than resigning themselves to waiting for a conservative justice to leave the court. The oldest of the five, Justice Clarence Thomas, is just 70.

Many are vowing, for example, to try to uncover more files from Justice Kavanaugh’s time as an official in George W. Bush’s White House in hopes of finding more evidence to support their accusations that he lied under oath about his actions.

“We’re going to get those documents that are shielded from view, and they will provide further proof that he lied,” Mr. Fallon said. “And these sexual assault allegations have created a wave of outrage and challenge to the court’s legitimacy that may even eclipse the impact of the lying.”

Because of the Presidential Records Act, any Bush administration files that Republicans refused to seek during the confirmation hearings may remain hard for Congress to subpoena until 2021. But the right eventual finding could provide a basis to try to impeach and remove Justice Kavanaugh from the court.

“If a careful examination of the entire scope of his legal history — thus far withheld from the Senate — demonstrates that Mr. Kavanaugh lied under oath, the constitutionally prescribed remedy would be impeachment proceedings,” more than three dozen of the most progressive House Democrats wrote to Mr. Trump urging his withdrawal ahead of the confirmation vote.

The idea of court packing emerged even before Mr. Trump nominated Justice Kavanaugh. As soon as Justice Kennedy announced his retirement in June, some liberals began calling for Democrats to prepare to expand the court by two justices when they regain power, permitting a future Democratic president and Democratic-controlled Senate to try to transform the court’s controlling faction from its five Republican appointees to six Democratic ones.

Still, opening that door could lead Republicans to simply expand the court again when the pendulum swung back, continuing the downward spiral.

And Carrie Severino, the chief counsel and policy director of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, deemed it wishful thinking that Democrats would uncover irrefutable evidence of perjury by Justice Kavanaugh. She said it was “inconceivable” that the Senate would convict and remove him, and warned that even such an effort would damage the rule of law by delegitimizing the court as an institution that stands apart from partisan politics.

“They are speaking out of anger and frustration, and I hope it is not a way most Democrats would like to go. To say, ‘We’re so angry about losing one fight that we basically destroy the entire institution in a fit of pique,’ that is not going to be helpful to anyone,” she said. “I don’t think they would like that to be the standard applied across the board; I opposed Justice Kagan’s confirmation, but I’m not trying to impeach her.”

Indeed, Roosevelt’s court-packing proposal failed to gain support even from his fellow Democrats. Roosevelt should have been more patient, letting the court evolve through elections and natural turnover, William H. Rehnquist, then the chief justice, said in a 1996 speech looking back at that era.

“Although Roosevelt lost that battle, he eventually won the war by serving three full terms as president and appointing eight of the nine members of the court,” Chief Justice Rehnquist said. “This simply shows that there is a wrong way and a right way to go about putting a popular imprint on the judiciary.”

Still, liberals today are increasingly questioning the legitimacy of the process by which several conservative justices won seats on the court, noted Russell Wheeler, a Brookings Institution visiting fellow who studies judicial confirmations. For example, many on the left are still seething at Senate Republicans’ refusal to give a hearing in 2016 to Judge Merrick B. Garland, President Barack Obama’s last nominee for a vacancy, and consider Justice Neil M. Gorsuch to be occupying a stolen seat.

“The conservative majority will include four justices who were appointed by presidents who achieved office despite losing the popular vote, and added to that, the percentage of the voting population represented by Senate Republicans reflects a minority of the overall population,” Mr. Wheeler said. “And then you have the asterisk next to Justice Gorsuch’s name.”

Lee Epstein, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis who studies the judiciary, predicted that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., aware of the danger to the court’s legitimacy, would try to guide it into staying quiet for at least several years.

“This could be a terrible moment for the court,” she said. “The Republicans aren’t going to be running government forever, and it could lead to the kind of clash that we had in 1936 with Roosevelt. That was a bad moment for the court and a bad moment for the country.”

Swiftly after Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation on Saturday, Democrats promised they would be watching closely.

“The legitimacy of the Supreme Court can justifiably be questioned,” former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. wrote on Twitter. “The court must now prove — through its work — that it is worthy of the nation’s trust.”

In an essay on Vox, the progressive political and policy writer Matthew Yglesias also took note of a line of “optimistic” thinking that Chief Justice Roberts, concerned about preserving the court’s popular legitimacy, could serve as a brake on the other four conservatives — as he did when he voted to uphold part of the Affordable Care Act in 2012.

But if the five conservatives stick together and severely circumscribe a future Democratic majority’s ability to govern, he wrote, “Democrats will face some difficult questions about whether to try court-packing or other forms of exotic procedural extremism in order to secure the authority to govern.”

In that case, he said, the silver lining for liberals is that Justice Kavanaugh was confirmed, as opposed to being withdrawn and replaced by an untarnished but ideologically similar nominee. The cloud over his presence, Mr. Yglesias predicted, will help the left’s “necessary delegitimization” of the court.

Witchcraft charges for Amy Coney Barrett?

American Spectator
George Parry

By the thinnest of margins, Brett Kavanaugh survived the Democrats’ smear machine to become the newest Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. For the first time since the 1930s, there is now in place a solid majority on the Court that will interpret the Constitution as written and refrain from legislating from the bench. Despite the efforts of the Senate Democrats, their media steno pool, and enraged feminist activists to bury Kavanaugh in a tidal wave of demonstrably meretricious slime, Senate Republicans, in a rare show of fortitude, came together to confirm Kavanaugh to the court.

But, no matter how transparently false, the smears almost worked. We live in a dangerously deranged time when emotion, prejudice and hysteria guide public discourse and decision making. For those who oppose Kavanaugh, no amount of fact-based logic will ever change their minds. They know what they know and are ready to act again on the basis of their hatred and anger.

That being the case, don’t expect the Democrats to mothball their well-oiled smear machine. As President Trump remakes the judicial branch one appointment at a time, the Democrat smears will continue and, most likely, become even more bizarre and outrageous.

The odds-on favorite to replace the aging Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is former Notre Dame law professor and current Seventh Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Among her many accomplishments, Barrett clerked for the U.S. Supreme Court and served on its appellate rules committee. She taught law at George Washington University and the University of Virginia and has published numerous scholarly articles in leading law reviews. Her nomination to the circuit court received bipartisan endorsement from more than 70 law professors (including the Obama administration’s former acting solicitor general).

Equally impressive, Barrett is a married pro-life Catholic with seven children. She and her husband adopted two of those children who are black. They have another child who has special needs. She is a truly admirable person.

But, in 2017 when President Trump nominated Barrett to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, she was attacked by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Instead of exploring Barrett’s impressive qualifications, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) grilled the nominee about the depth of her Catholic faith. Acting as ex officio arbiters in matters of faith and morals, Feinstein and Durbin set out to determine whether the nominee was perhaps too devoutly Catholic to be trusted with a judgeship.

They focused on a law review article Barrett coauthored when she was a student that discussed what should be done if a Catholic judge’s religion conflicted with his duty to follow established death penalty law. It concluded that “[t]he legal system has a solution for this dilemma — it allows (indeed it requires) the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing their job.”

Unsatisfied with this endorsement of the primacy of law over religion, Durbin probed the depths of Barrett’s faith, going so far as to ask, “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?”

Not to be outdone, Feinstein concluded her questioning by telling Barrett, “the [Catholic] dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.”

Thankfully the old-time and well-worn anti-Catholic bigotry failed, and Barrett was confirmed by the Senate. She serves today with distinction on the circuit court of appeals.

So, what will happen to her if she is nominated to the Supreme Court? Should we expect the Democrats to analyze her high school yearbook to find out if she played drinking games or her grade school diary to see if she had a precocious affinity for spin-the-bottle? After the Kavanaugh silliness, there appears to be no floor to the depths to which the bitter Democrats will sink.

In the classic comedy Monty Python and the Holy Grail, there is a scene in which a mob of idiots put a woman on trial for practicing witchcraft. Among the prosecution witnesses is John Cleese who farcically claims that the accused “turned me into a newt!” Given that he is testifying in human form, his accusation is clearly contradicted by ready deduction and common sense — not unlike the tissue-thin and absurd claims against Brett Kavanaugh.

Am I suggesting that the Democrats, the media and enraged leftists will accuse Barrett of witchcraft? Hey, why not? It would make about as much sense as the irrational, vicious, and baseless craziness that drove the attack on Kavanaugh. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Don’t expect the Democrats to willingly surrender their grip on the judicial branch. Without an activist judiciary functioning as an unelected super legislature, the Democrats have no hope of ramming through their progressive social policies. So stand by. The insanity has only just begun.

Link

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Everyone is looking at Ginsberg as the next to be replaced. Breyer is 80. Maybe he's ready to dodder off into retirement.

Why limit winning? Maybe both will leave their job in the next 12 months.

quote:

“The conservative majority will include four justices who were appointed by presidents who achieved office despite losing the popular vote, and added to that, the percentage of the voting population represented by Senate Republicans reflects a minority of the overall population,” Mr. Wheeler said. “And then you have the asterisk next to Justice Gorsuch’s name.”

Two words: Electoral college. We don't elect the President by nationwide, popular election. Thank God.
In other words: We (regressives) only want power. The rules (and elections) don't matter, unless we win.