Kavanaugh confirmed 50-48

From Vox:

The Senate on Saturday voted 50-48 to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. It’s among the closest votes on a Supreme Court nominee in the history of our country, and it underscores just how divided this whole process has been.

There were two party defectors: Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who wanted to vote “no” but instead voted “present” so that her colleague could attend his daughter’s wedding; and Joe Manchin (D-WV), who voted in favor.

Today I have nothing but dislike for the Senate Republicans, who voted in a hotheaded ideologue when they could have made a much better choice.

Since there’s no God, Ceiling Cat help our Republic.


  1. yazikus
    Posted October 6, 2018 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    when they could have made a much better choice.

    I wonder how many of them privately believe there does exist a better choice?

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted October 6, 2018 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

      I bet enough to see him not be confirmed. A lot are conservative ideologues for whom there’s little or no hope, but some are more reasonable. (I did once think Lindsay Graham was one of the reasonable ones. So much for that.) It’s true they cannot know for sure whether or not Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault, though I do believe Ford. However, there are plenty of other reasons he should not be confirmed, the main ones being:
      1. He appears to have lied under oath;
      2. He displayed a partisan demeanour that is unbecoming to a SC justice in his opening statement. In particular, his comments that the Ford accusation is a Democrat conspiracy that is “revenge” for his role in the Clinton investigation, and his remarks in relation to Trump’s election;
      3. His op-ed tried to excuse his demeanour as being related to the pressure he was under. However, a SC justice should not react that way to pressure. His remarks were written/prepared, and not off the cuff;
      4. The way he questioned a couple of the Democrat senators was appalling. A person in a job interview for a lifetime appointment to one of the most important jobs in the country does not refuse to answer a question and instead ask the questioner about their drinking habits;
      5. From my pov, he appeared to think he was entitled to the job, and the hearing was about people being difficult and not giving him the job that should be his by right.

      (This comment got away from me a bit – it got a lot longer than I intended so I’ll stop now even though I have a lot more to say!)

      • Mark R.
        Posted October 6, 2018 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

        You almost did a homily Heather 🙂 And I agree with every point.

        • Mike
          Posted October 7, 2018 at 7:15 am | Permalink

          As do I, but from what I have read, it is going to be near impossible to impeach him, so it looks as though America is on a dark road to some Laws being overturned and others enacted for theocratic and not constitutional reasons.

      • Posted October 6, 2018 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

        Not too long. Good post and I agree.
        But if Graham’s performance represents the most reasonable on the right, we are in more trouble than 8I thought😊

        • Posted October 6, 2018 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

          more trouble than I thought.

          No idea where that yellow icon came from.

      • Posted October 6, 2018 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

        He’s lied at least 31 times before Congress.

      • Diane G
        Posted October 7, 2018 at 3:18 am | Permalink

        Let me add a #6. From an email from Secular Coalition for America, yesterday:

        There is no reason to mince words — today is a dark day in our nation’s history. As a secular country, Judge Kavanaugh’s extreme theocratic views should have prevented him from even being considered for a seat on our nation’s highest court. The confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh is deeply disappointing, but we should not mistake this setback for defeat.

        Our objection to Judge Kavanaugh was rooted in his disdain for the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. Throughout his career, Judge Kavanaugh has shown, repeatedly, that he values privileging of religion over individual civil liberties; that he promotes theocracy over democracy; and that his religious beliefs are elevated over his judicial obligation to fairly and impartially interpret the Constitution. I urge every secular American — Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, or Independent — to recognize this fact. Our analysis of Judge Kavanaugh was on his record, not his religion, not his political affiliation — his record. And he came up short.

        Unfortunately, the groundwork for Kavanaugh’s confirmation was all but set in stone back in November 2016. Elections have consequences and the religious right is reaping the benefits of their investment into Trump’s presidential campaign. The leaders of the religious right know that their white evangelical constituency is aging and shrinking while the country as a whole is becoming increasingly more diverse, tolerant, and secular. These Christian supremacists know that the success of their theocratic agenda depends on stacking the courts with judges who will enforce their ideology. For decades to come, these judges will serve as a bulwark to progress at the expense of women, LGBTQ Americans, religious minorities, and nontheists.

        I almost fear that Professor Ford’s testimony played right into the hands of the Republicans. Women’s issues seldom make or break votes, but they do polarize and fire up emotions, especially on the right; by stoking their base with this issue the Republicans never had to pay much attention to any other reservations one might have about Kavanaugh. (Not that secularism is going to play any better than women’s rights with the R’s, but it would have been nice had the Dems brought up a few more objections to Kavanaugh’s confirmation, esp. on the grounds of his judicial record.)

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted October 7, 2018 at 11:18 am | Permalink

          Well put, DG. Since today’s rightwing has abandoned wholesale much of what used to pass for conservative principle, it is largely driven by simple anti-liberalism — they are for whatever liberals are against. This is key to Trump’s success in co-opting the Republican Party. If the Left is against him, we must be for him — so their thinking goes — even if he’s an unfit lout who’s trashed bedrock conservative values (like fair trade and balanced budgets and vigorous international coalitions opposed to Russian revanchism).

          The GOP has long been an uneasy alliance of divers pieces — national-security types, cultural conservatives, economic libertarians, evangelicals, et al. — but anti-Leftism is pretty much all that remains to hold the Republican Party together in the Age of Trump.

          • Diane G
            Posted October 7, 2018 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

            Thank you for coming along and providing actual examples, Ken!

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted October 7, 2018 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

          A good addition to the list! I was talking to a friend about this saying I worry that conservative and evangelical Christians see wins like this as a sign that God’s on their side. They got Kavanaugh on the bench, able to influence US law for decades to come, despite all the opposition. How could that happen without divine intervention? Of course, the way it happens is not divine intervention, it’s corrupt and dishonest intervention by people like Mitch McConnell. This all started with him refusing to put Merrick Garland forward for a vote. Having said that, Kavanaugh wouldn’t be a suitable candidate no matter which president nominated him.

          • Diane G
            Posted October 7, 2018 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

            I’m sure that today (it’s still Sunday here) plenty of pastors were proclaiming from their pulpits exactly what you worry about in your second sentence!

      • yazikus
        Posted October 7, 2018 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

        No need to stop, and hear, hear! Well said. Always appreciate your input.

  2. Harrison
    Posted October 6, 2018 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    Seems we may see a Justice removed from the bench in our lifetimes.

    • Damien
      Posted October 6, 2018 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

      What do you mean ?

      • Mark R.
        Posted October 6, 2018 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

        Maybe he’s speculating that bad stuff will keep coming out about BK and the Senate will have no choice, even a Republican one. Leaks of the FBI sham investigation? More women, more classmates coming out. We can pray to Ceiling Cat, but it won’t help.

        • Damien
          Posted October 6, 2018 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

          Thank you for the answer.

          At that point it seems to me Kavanaugh could have committed a crime in front of the cameras hand still have been appointed.

          • Heather Hastie
            Posted October 6, 2018 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

            We may see an impeachment of a SC justice, just like we may see a successful presidential impeachment.

          • Nicolaas Stempels
            Posted October 7, 2018 at 2:22 am | Permalink

            Perjury is a crime, Mr Kavanaugh lied several times under oath (already in 2006).
            So it is not that he could have committed a crime in front of the cameras and still have been appointed, he actually did and was still confirmed.

            • Damien
              Posted October 7, 2018 at 3:03 am | Permalink

              Point taken.

            • Diane G
              Posted October 7, 2018 at 3:20 am | Permalink

              Hear, hear. Why not at least pursue that?!

  3. Tom Besson
    Posted October 6, 2018 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    I wonder if the senate’s action will portend a Brettxit from the U.S. There are plenty of options.

  4. JezGrove
    Posted October 6, 2018 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    Drinking til you blackout suddenly seems appealing…

    • Mark R.
      Posted October 6, 2018 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

      Good one! I was going to comment is it too early to start drinking (1:30 pst here)? It’s 5 o’clock somewhere…

  5. Posted October 6, 2018 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    A good day for the idea evidence matters.

    • Randy Bessinger
      Posted October 6, 2018 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

      Also, a great day for evangelicals.

    • mudskipper
      Posted October 6, 2018 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

      And lying under oath doesn’t.

    • mordacious1
      Posted October 6, 2018 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

      Law and decency 1
      Mob rule 0

      • Mark R.
        Posted October 6, 2018 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

        You make me laugh. You know perjury is a felony, right?

        • mordacious1
          Posted October 6, 2018 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

          Proof of lies?
          Yeah, I didn’t think so.

          • David Evans
            Posted October 6, 2018 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

            Proof of lies? Try these

            • mordacious1
              Posted October 6, 2018 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

              No lies there. His school mates wrote a letter saying that they used Devil’s Triangle as a drinking game, the other term was about farting. The guy’s dated Renate, but without sex per her, so it wasn’t about conquest.
              This kind of high school crap just makes the Dems look silly.

              Blackouts. No one but he knows if he ever blacked out without memory. Some do, some don’t. Try proving that. That article is a bunch of crap.

              • David Evans
                Posted October 7, 2018 at 2:21 am | Permalink

                He was in high school. Of course it’s about high school crap. What’s your evidence for your first paragraph?

              • Nicolaas Stempels
                Posted October 7, 2018 at 2:43 am | Permalink

                Yeah, Devil’s Triangle is a drinking game, we suppose one he invented? Who is he trying to fool? It is an unnecessary, stupid lie. And ‘boofing’ is farting? and the no 1 ‘ralpher’ due to spicy food? Spicy food does not cause nausea (unless you’re pregnant, although that is more about odour than ‘spiciness’), but it can cause heartburn. However, overdose of ethanol is a notorious inductor of ‘ralphing’. Spicy food: the excuse of an adolescent.
                I’ve seen a lot of adolescents, and although I may not detect all their lies, if I see one lying I know they do.
                Look, if it had only been, say, ‘boofing’ as farting, we could have given him the benefit of the doubt, but not all of them.
                Note he has antecedents: he’s not shy of lying under oath, in 2006 he lied about not being involved with the treatment of ‘combatants’, while it was later established he participated in at least one meeting exactly about that. And then he lied in the Pickering saga too.
                I admit, he’s not a compulsive liar like Mr Trump, he only lies in his own interest, but he did lie under oath.

              • mordacious1
                Posted October 7, 2018 at 3:26 am | Permalink

                It doesn’t matter what the definition is, or how YOU define words, it only matters how BK and his high school buddies defined them. They all support his claim that they used the words as he said. So no, he wasn’t lying.

                You could feed all the King’s horses with the straws that you and the Democrats have grasped. Enjoy his 30 years on the bench.

              • Nicolaas Stempels
                Posted October 7, 2018 at 4:00 am | Permalink

                It is not how I define words, that is irrelevant indeed, just go to the Urban Dictionary, a trusted source for non-mainstream meanings. FFFFFF’s, yes, probably bragging, I’d say, but why not just say so? Why the lying about a stutterer?
                Moreover, meanings adolescents purportedly attach to these terms (of course very innocent ones /s) have little import on his lying under oath in 2006.

              • mordacious1
                Posted October 7, 2018 at 9:04 am | Permalink

                David Evans

              • Nicolaas Stempels
                Posted October 13, 2018 at 7:02 am | Permalink

                Mordacious, do you seriously believe that crap? If so, I have a nice bridge to sell, very cheap!

              • mordacious1
                Posted October 13, 2018 at 8:46 am | Permalink

                So, BK is lying, even though he has collaborating testimony to support his statements? The accusers are telling the truth, even though there is not one shred of supporting evidence or testimony? Talk about confirmation (no pun intended) bias.

            • Nicolaas Stempels
              Posted October 7, 2018 at 4:02 am | Permalink

              Sorry about the bold, it should have closed after “I”. My apologies.

      • Damien
        Posted October 6, 2018 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

        I don’t understand what you mean. What do you mean ?

        • Posted October 6, 2018 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

          He means he is a republican.

          • mordacious1
            Posted October 6, 2018 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

            Nope. Independent Centrist. I’m just currently repulsed by the behavior of Democrats…they’re over the deep end.

            • Harrison
              Posted October 6, 2018 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

              Gotta love those “centrists” who always turn up who are conveniently okay with or at most claim some slight but ultimately immaterial policy disagreements with the majority party in government but are simply incensed at how the mean old minority party don’t just roll over and let them do as they please.

            • Heather Hastie
              Posted October 6, 2018 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

              And the GOP isn’t? There are extremists on both sides here. The question should be whether Kavanaugh is a suitable candidate to be a SC justice, and I think an independent view is that he isn’t.

              Most Democrats would oppose him whether or not he was suitable because they oppose his views, and the same goes for Republicans supporting him.

              I don’t support his views (women’s right to choose, election finance, guns, president not able to be subpoenaed, presidential pardon power being extended to state convictions, gerrymandering okay), but I would accept that he was a suitable candidate if I thought he was. I think he has displayed that he isn’t. I outlined my reasons in a couple of posts, and in comment #1 above.

            • Posted October 6, 2018 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

              That label does have a nice ring to it. Makes you sound both fair, thoughtful and reasonable.

              • Posted October 6, 2018 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

                But why would someone in the center support a nominee who is extreme far right?

              • mordacious1
                Posted October 6, 2018 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

                They said the same nonsense about David Souter, how extreme he was. Totally wrong, as usual.

                BK’s lower court rulings have not been extreme far right. Everyone who is conservative is labeled extreme far right by the Left. BTW, I also supported RBG’s appointment, and she could be considered extreme far left.

                Now, after what Kavanaugh went through, If RBG leaves the court, Trump will appoint Amy Coney Barrett and you’ll see what someone extreme right looks like, but at least she probably hasn’t assaulted anyone.

              • Posted October 6, 2018 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

                Are you convinced yet mordacious, or should they insult you some more?

              • Posted October 6, 2018 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

                Garland has joined 24 of BK’s opinions. He dissented 1 time. They voted together 93% of the time. He articulated the argument the Chief Justice used in re Obamacare and dissented from the circuit court finding that it was unconstitutional. He is perfectly mainstream.

                Roe v Wade will never be overturned, that is just a fund raising ploy by both left and right.

              • Posted October 6, 2018 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

                I did not mention Roe. Or his opinions. I was judging him by his answers and his writings.

              • mordacious1
                Posted October 6, 2018 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

                Yeah, Roe is a red herring. What they really mean is that he’ll uphold the 2nd Amendment.

              • Posted October 6, 2018 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

                My problem with him is his views on the separation of powers and office of the president. He is pretty radical.

              • Nicolaas Stempels
                Posted October 7, 2018 at 3:01 am | Permalink

                Ken B, if Mr Garland and Mr Kavanaugh only differ in 1 of 25 times (that would be agreement in 96%, not 93%), why would the Senate Committee have refused to even hear him?
                How could that possibly make any sense?

              • Posted October 7, 2018 at 3:01 pm | Permalink


          • Damien
            Posted October 6, 2018 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

            Thank you for the answer.

            I wrote elsewhere that nobody would support Kavanaugh in this venue.

            I stand corrected.

            • mordacious1
              Posted October 6, 2018 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

              It’s tough to have a different opinion about politics here. You do get hanged up on. Try the articles about gun control. Those are doozies.

              • mordacious1
                Posted October 6, 2018 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

                Ganged up on

              • Damien
                Posted October 7, 2018 at 3:15 am | Permalink

                With 0% irony here, your alternative viewpoint, so to say, forces me to think, to polish my ideas, so thank you.

                I understand there is a certain amount of courage in displaying them here, but I have also to say that i consider this forum as a “safe place” : people are courteous in their disagreements here.

                I wholeheartedly thank Pr Coyne for that, by the way.

              • Saul Sorrell-Till
                Posted October 7, 2018 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

                As far as I can tell your opinions are all of a piece with any number of right-wingers out there who support Trump and hate the left and SJWs to the point of political derangement.

                All the same talking points seem to come up in your posts; as does the last reserve of the Trump apologist, which is to desperately imply that the moral abyss of the American right is somehow counter-balanced by the left, as though students being obnoxious and rape victims being insufficiently quiet and polite(although, of course, when they are quiet and polite they get accused of putting on a ‘baby voice’) is equivalent to the ascent of a flat-out demagogue and disgusting, nationalist POS like Trump. His complete disdain for principles, the independence of the judicial system, hatred of other countries, mockery of the disabled, effectively treasonous actions by Trump and his hangers-on…

                If you support Trump you should own it. You do not get to feign moral outrage – your candidate is arguably the most obscene human being to attain the leadership of a western country in the postwar period.
                The idea that a reasonable process, during which the Democrats did the barest minimum one would expect given a woman had accused Kavanaugh of attempted rape, is somehow a valid reason to vote Republican is the invention of moral cowards, a pathetic figleaf to cover the appallingness of the candidate and party you are supporting.

              • mordacious1
                Posted October 7, 2018 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

                I voted for Obama twice and Hillary twice. Hardly the action of a Trump supporter. But do know why Trump got elected? For the same reason all populists get elected. Both parties were ignoring the will of the people. For example, more than 70% of Americans want illegal immigration curtailed. Both parties make promises, neither are sincere. Both parties say they will help the middle class. Neither party does anything for them. This leads to populism, plain and simple. And I would argue that Trump has made a legitimate attempt at curtailing illegal immigration. You may not like it, but it is what a large majority of the citizens want. The Left often forgets that they live in a democracy. They like to dictate to the deplorables, because they know best. It should not work that way.

                As for me, I’m to the right on guns, crime, police, military and open borders. I’m to the left on many social issues like choice and safety net programs. I’m a big supporter of the Bill of Rights…ALL of them, not just a few.

                I hope that clarifies my position for you.

              • Saul Sorrell-Till
                Posted October 7, 2018 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

                You’ve consistently maligned Ford in her testimony, dismissed the whole thing as a farce/charade and participated in this fatuous attempt to depict an entirely reasonable hearing as somehow an intolerable affront to human decency, all while sidelining the daily disgraces perpetuated by the right and Trump.

                Your response is just further fuel to my depressing belief that once a person starts making excuses for Donald Trump a crucial thread of reasonable debate has snapped.

                What can I possibly say to someone who is prepared to set aside everything Trump has done, while engaging in performative outrage about a routine hearing into a rape allegation made against one of the most powerful and important men in the country, who will have his finger on the scales for decades to come? I don’t know. There is no ethical purchase there whatsoever.


            • Posted October 6, 2018 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

              I support the vote as well.

              • Matthew
                Posted October 7, 2018 at 12:01 am | Permalink

                You also speculated, with zero evidence, that Ford had manufactured memories. Ironic since you claim this as a victory for evidence.

                By the way, testimony is evidence.

      • Damien
        Posted October 6, 2018 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

        His whole examination was farcesque.

        That is law and decency ?

  6. Marina
    Posted October 6, 2018 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    This is obscene. America where are you going?

    • Posted October 6, 2018 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

      Toward the right. It seems🙁.

  7. Posted October 6, 2018 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    As one Facebook meme goes: Democrats play Checkers, Republicans play Chess. Democrats had their moment, but botched it when they allowed the Republicans to block their candidate. I don’t know how or why this was even possible in a nation of law, but obviously, that worked.

    I am of the left, but not American. Obviously my sympathies are with the blue side. Or they were. Not any longer, because Democrats showed themselves as utterly incompetent, who couldn’t even boil water with a water-cooker (not to mention that they aren’t really left, either, only slightly less right wing than the GOP, that is off-the-charts).

    • Posted October 6, 2018 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

      Republicans controlled the senate and under the rules the majority decides what matters are voted on.
      They still have a majority of the senate and voted their man in. It says nothing bad about the democrats other than they were and are the minority party.
      They may become the majority next year after the November elections.

      • Posted October 7, 2018 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

        —They may become the majority next year after the November elections.—
        After the now famous confirmation, (D) yesterday, Senator Chuck Schumer ended his statement

        (“Kavanaugh Doesn’t Belong On The Highest Bench”)]

        from 7:00 on, with a short and powerful advice: VOTE.-

    • Posted October 6, 2018 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

      Democrats play checkers, Republicans use tactical nukes.

      • Nicolaas Stempels
        Posted October 7, 2018 at 4:05 am | Permalink


    • Ken Kukec
      Posted October 7, 2018 at 11:30 am | Permalink

      The old saying is Democrats fall in love with their causes; the Republicans fall in line behind theirs.

      That was on ample display w/r/t Kavanaugh.

      • Posted October 8, 2018 at 11:40 am | Permalink

        At first glance I read that as “the Republicans fall in love with their behinds.” I think I liked that better.

  8. Martin X
    Posted October 6, 2018 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    In my view, this isn’t so much about the Republicans than it is about the angry mob of voters that drives them. Yes, the GOP had some role in creating that mob, but it’s been fanned first by right wing radio, then right-wing internet, and most importantly by Fox News. Once Kavanaugh was nominated, the GOP felt that it couldn’t appear weak by failing to get him confirmed. The moment that the GOP stops leading the mob, they will get trampled by it.

    The Democrats are complicit in that they failed to present a clear choice in the minds of most voters. Both parties are controlled by big money interests, and although this influence is far greater in the Republicans, this sort of nuance is lost on those who don’t pay close attention to politics. Democrats, in the minds of many voters, are just Republican-lite.

    Democrats really, really need to whip up anger against the rich elites, because the interests of the elites are directly opposed to the interests of most Americans and the Dems should have been making that argument for decades. It really took Bernie Sanders to drive the point home, with Elizabeth Warren running a close second. Hopefully, others will start beating that same drum. Blue collar workers of all ethnicities are potential allies in this fight if they can be made to see that it’s a class struggle, not an ethnic one.

    • Historian
      Posted October 6, 2018 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

      It would be nice if white, blue collar workers could think in terms of a class struggle. But, this is not the case and I don’t hold out much hope that this will happen anytime soon. Modern politics is defined by cultural identities and manifested by cultural resentments.

      In today’s Washington Post, political scientist John Sides and others report that Trump’s support was NOT due to economic anxiety, but cultural. Here is what they say:

      But the evidence is clear: Both in the Republican primaries and in the general election, white voters’ attitudes about African Americans, Muslims and immigration were more closely associated with how they voted than were any strictly economic concerns. In fact, racial attitudes were the prism through which voters thought about economic outcomes — something we call “racialized economics.” For example, after Obama became president, attitudes toward blacks suddenly became linked with people’s views on the economy: the less favorable their view of blacks, the less favorable their view of the economy. Scholars who did extensive interviews with whites in Youngstown, Ohio, and rural Louisiana reported many racially loaded statements about economic circumstances. One Youngstown factory worker said people who received government assistance had “gold chains and a Cadillac, when I can barely afford a Cavalier.”

      During the 2016 campaign, the most potent political sentiment held that “people like me” were not getting ahead because of “people like them.” In the primary race, for example, support for Trump among white Americans was weakly associated with whether people were worried about losing their jobs but strongly associated with whether people believed that employers were giving jobs to minorities instead of whites. In the general election, the belief that split Trump and Clinton supporters was not whether “average Americans have gotten less than they deserve.” Majorities of both groups agreed. Instead, the dividing line was whether they thought “blacks have gotten less than they deserve”: Fifty-seven percent of Clinton supporters agreed, but only 12 percent of Trump supporters did.


      It has been the dream of the American left for many decades that the white working class would think in class terms. I would love to see that happen, but it doesn’t seem to be in the cards anytime soon. The very poor did not support Trump, but the working class did.

      • Michael Fisher
        Posted October 6, 2018 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

        I agree with this Historian wot u wrote earlier:

        It has been the dream of the American left for many decades that the white working class would think in class terms. I would love to see that happen, but it doesn’t seem to be in the cards anytime soon…

        Why is the notion of “class struggle” not in the toolboxes of most American, white, working class adults? Is it regarded with suspicion in the same way as that naughty word “socialism”? I really don’t get how the 2008 collapse & the Occupy movement haven’t caused more Americans to reassess their thinking.

      • Posted October 7, 2018 at 1:50 am | Permalink

        The Democrats have chosen identity politics over class struggle a long time ago. They tell white workers to check their white privilege. You cannot rely on the support of people you treat like this.

        • Nicolaas Stempels
          Posted October 7, 2018 at 4:09 am | Permalink


  9. Blue
    Posted October 6, 2018 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    Quickly. In haste I write:

    LYING under oath / perjury: IS hardly EVER, EVER
    brought forth as a charge, let alone,
    TO a trial. Hardly ever. Ask any mama within
    family law court. Who loses all custody over TO a liar.
    .ANY. judge EVERYWHERE ‘ld .already. KNOW this !
    KAVANO must ‘ve gaffawing to hisssself EVERY SINGLE TIME
    that he ‘ad heard someone last week “threathen” that ! H A !

    ii) impeachment off of the SCOTUS: WILL NOT happen.
    Takes upwards and over 65 US Senate votes to accomplish same.
    HOW ‘ll .that. happen ?! N O T gonna.


    • Historian
      Posted October 6, 2018 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

      Yes, people who think Kavanaugh will be removed any decade soon have no idea how the American political system works. The likelihood of there ever being 67 votes in the Senate to remove him is near zero. No Supreme Court justice has ever been removed through congressional action.

      • Harrison
        Posted October 6, 2018 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

        “It’s impossible” cries the left about scenarios good and bad.

        Seems the bad impossibilities keep happening.

      • Nicolaas Stempels
        Posted October 7, 2018 at 3:10 am | Permalink

        Well, one could argue that Justice Fortas was -admittedly indirectly. The main reason he resigned was that he did not feel up to the looming impeachment process.

    • Blue
      Posted October 6, 2018 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

      in re perjury within .any. USA – court. Within ANY thus:

      Depending upon who you are, it is easier to lie to and deceive anyone inside an American civil court of law and get away with it than it is to lie to and deceive one’s own mom and dad. It is easier to lie to and deceive an American civil court of law, which, we all know, is a judge or a bunch of ‘em, than it is to lie to and deceive your own minister, your own teacher, your boss and co – workers, your spouse or even your own child. It is, mind you, easier to get clean, slick away with lying to and deceiving an American civil court judge about anything, depending, of course, upon who you are, than it is to lie to and deceive yourself !


  10. mfdempsey1946
    Posted October 6, 2018 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

    Has a significant part of the USA abjectly surrendered to fascism at last?

    Has this become a rhetorical question yet?

    Or do we need to await more evidence before answering it?

    As Boss Jim Gettys in “Citizen Kane” puts it to the title character, “For most people, one lesson would be enough. But you’re going to need more than one lesson. And you’re going to get more than one lesson.”

    • Posted October 6, 2018 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

      “Has a significant part of the USA abjectly surrendered to fascism at last?”

      Unfortunately, yes. They’re called social justice warriors, and we’re witnessing the result of their handiwork.

  11. Joe Hahn
    Posted October 6, 2018 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

    Reminds me of, “Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.”

  12. max blancke
    Posted October 6, 2018 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

    But anyone nominated by Trump will be portrayed as a hotheaded ideologue, or much worse.
    There does not seem to be any sense of perspective being employed.
    I was talking today to someone about the issue of unaccompanied kids at the border. It is a complex logistical problem, the present solution to which includes a provision for temporary facilities to be opened short term in cases of a surge in unaccompanied crossings. Those camps are modeled not on prisons, but on military bases. They are fairly comfortable, can be erected and disassembled quickly, and are reasonably self contained.
    Is there a better way to deal with surges in youth crossings? Probably.
    But the person I was talking to could not get past the idea that they were putting children in concentration camps, which is pure evil.
    The point of my easing off topic is that you cannot compromise with such people. You really cannot discuss the issues at all. Everything is always turned up to 11. No candidate for the court is slightly too conservative. They are all monsters. The reaction and opposition to a slightly right-leaning candidate is just as frenzied as it would be if the Exalted Cyclops of the KKK had been nominated.

    • Posted October 7, 2018 at 1:55 am | Permalink

      It is devastating for a child to be separated from his parents, no matter how comfortable the conditions are.
      Think also that the separation policy did not achieve its (stated) goal, which was to crack down on illegal immigration. If families were together and the court decided that the adults have no right to stay, the whole family would be deported. Now, some adults before deportation waive their reunification right so that the child remains in the USA.

      • max blancke
        Posted October 7, 2018 at 9:22 am | Permalink

        The family separation thing was bad policy. Right now, the larger issue is minors arriving without a legal guardian. It is currently taking an average of 57 days to place those kids in the care of a parent, relative or sponsor. The things they do in that period seem fairly reasonable, like verifying family relationship, communication with the home country to ensure the child was not trafficked, and home visits at the prospective sponsor’s residence. There are no fees for the prospective sponsor, and advocates and case workers are assigned to assist in placing each kid in a safe home.
        Last November, over 7000 kids were intercepted at the border unaccompanied by a legal guardian. That is a jump of 24% over last Nov.
        And a significant number of those kids are being trafficked, often for sex.
        It is a complex issue, requiring complex solutions.
        I am not anywhere near to alleging that current policies are ideal.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted October 7, 2018 at 11:44 am | Permalink

      “… anyone nominated by Trump will be portrayed as a hotheaded ideologue …”

      You mean the way Neil Gorsuch was?

      Anyone nominated by Trump will be ideological; indeed, anyone who’s name has made it onto the list the Federalist Society gives Trump to choose from is an ideological rightwinger.

      But nobody claimed Gorsuch was a hothead, and nobody claimed Kavanaugh was a hothead either, until he put his hotheadedness, and utter lack of judicial temperament (including his lack of candor), on display during his judiciary-committee testimony.

  13. W.Benson
    Posted October 6, 2018 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    Just wanted to post these three links. The first is a video of an Amanpour (CNN) interview featuring two NY Times journalists put on the Kavanaugh story. The interesting point is shortly after 9:40 where a 1983 Kavanaugh letter signed “FFFFF, Bart” is presented: The Fs represent the F-word and are given in sequence, seemingly as a joke to demean a schoolmate with a stutter.

    The Times journalists in the CNN video don’t get around to talking about Renate in the interview (or it was cut), but it appears in the following link. Seemingly Brett and his jock friends mention her repeatedly in their Yearbook as their “teacher” — Renate Alumni — in a repulsive public insinuation.

    Also, The New Yorker found a person who essentially confirmed Deborah Ramirez’s account of Kavenaugh exposing himself to her at a Yale party. Another witness identified by the New Yorker verified that Kavenaugh (and the other jocks on the football team) bullied other boys, including the kid who stuttered, and elaborates on their unspeakable treatment of the girl Renate. SCOTUS, with the help of the Republicans, seems to be on the way to becoming a den of worthless bullies and sex offenders.

    • Posted October 6, 2018 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

      NB: The note signed, “FFFFF Bart” was written just prior to the BEACH WEEKEND !!! during which BK’s stuttering friend supposedly inspired the “FFFFFourth of July” inside joke.

      How prescient.

  14. Ken Kukec
    Posted October 6, 2018 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

    Fitting that the Republicans confirmed him just in time for Happy Hour.

    Well, “what goes around, comes around,” as now-Justice Kavanaugh said in his prepared text before the judiciary committee a week ago last Thursday. Now there’s a venerable principle of Anglo-American law, dating back to Magna Carta. You’ll find it right next to the clause that says “pay back is a bitch.”

    This is a terrible day for America, and an even worse one for the reputation of the Supreme Court. The Republicans have rammed a Party hack — one who made appearances in the Starr chamber proceedings, the Elian Gonzalez fiasco, the 2000 election recount, and the Bush torture-memo debacle — onto the Supreme Court bench through a naked exercise of raw partisan political power.

    Kavanaugh is a credibly accused sexual assaulter, who repeatedly told transparent lies before the judiciary committee, and followed it up with an unhinged speech. Then (unlike any of his 113 predecessors), he lobbied his way to 50 votes with a softball appearance on Fox News and an editorial in The Wall Street Journal. If the Dems take at least one house of Congress this Fall, they will see to it that the investigation the Republicans refused to do gets done. And if it reveals additional misconduct by Kavanaugh, they’ll bring impeachment proceedings, an occurrence that will redound even further against the Supreme Court’s reputation.

    This nation is crossing lines that ought not to be crossed in a democratic republic and which will not easily be retraced.

    • Nicolaas Stempels
      Posted October 7, 2018 at 3:23 am | Permalink

      I really like your 3rd paragraph [….a naked exercise of raw partisan political power.], could not have been formulated any better (immo).
      However, in 2000 the SCOTUS lost all credibility, was that not a naked exercise of raw ppp? Can it still lose any more?

  15. Zaphod
    Posted October 6, 2018 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    Thank goodness Kavanaugh stayed the course. It would have set a very bad precedent if the tactics the Democrats employed had been rewarded. Kavanaugh’s demeanour under questioning was pretty good considering the nature of the questions he was being asked. Kamala Harris, in particular, disingenuously asked him things he could not be expected to answer definitively and then implied that he was being evasive. There were a number of occasions where he had a WTF expression on his face because he couldn’t believe what was going on. The Democrats have basically used the loaded atmosphere created by vindictive anti-male, anti-white and anti-conservative social media hysteria to drown the guy in a sea of innuendo and conveniently unverifiable accusations. I suspect it is no accident that Blasey Ford can’t remember concrete facts that would aid in verifying her tale.

    Feinstein sat on the Ford accusation until it became clear that a smoking gun was needed. Ford’s activist attorneys appear not to have passed on multiple offers of private hearings, which would have been in accordance with her wishes. It looks as if she was manipulated into taking part in a public spectacle. Moaning about needing more time for the FBI to investigate is pretty cynical under the circumstances.

    On top of everything else, facts have been twisted to create the false impression that Kavanaugh perjured himself. His facial features and something approaching a facial tick have been used to portray him in the worst light possible. Sadly, from what I’ve read about him, he probably won’t use his position to take it out on his persecutors.

    • Posted October 7, 2018 at 4:26 am | Permalink

      Seriously, you think Kavanaugh should use his new position on the Court to punish his “persecutors”? What kind of monster are you?

      • Diane G
        Posted October 7, 2018 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

        +1 !

    • Damien
      Posted October 7, 2018 at 5:39 am | Permalink

      “He probably won’t use his position to take it out on his persecutors” because that’s not what Supreme Court Justice is about.

      You’re getting it confused with Charles Bronson type vigilante.

    • Nicolaas Stempels
      Posted October 7, 2018 at 8:26 am | Permalink

      I agree the Democrats tried to play dirty, not edifying, however, they clearly are not as good at it as the republicans (Mr McConnell tops) are.
      1 – The impression he perjured himself is not false. Devil’s Triangle, a drinking game?(and who besides a habitual drinker would invent a drinking game?), are you seriously swallowing that? No 1 ‘Ralpher’ because of “spicy food” (and he kept on eating that because he wanted to be No 1 ‘Ralpher? Seriously?)
      Moreover, he was proven to have committed perjury in 2006.
      2 – Good demeanor? Shouting, sniffing, crying, drinking lots of water, insinuating conspiracies, insulting attitude to (especially female) senators. My god, the man clearly was recovering from a drinking bout and had that restlessness. Not to mention the puffy face and reddish spots. If you want to see more of that go to an AA meeting with some new recruits.
      3 – I doubt he will not use his position to take it out on his ‘persecutors’. But your calling it sad if he would not, shows you are a cad. You should be ashamed of yourself.

  16. Posted October 6, 2018 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

    Of course Garland has recused himself from hearing the ethics complaints against Kavanaugh. Because doing the right thing is frequently indentical with being a doormat.

    • Nicolaas Stempels
      Posted October 7, 2018 at 3:34 am | Permalink

      I think that is an unfair reproach. Of course Mr Garland has to recuse himself. Especially since these ethics hearings will probably be devastating to Mr Kavanaugh. How could it possibly not have been decried as unfair, prejudiced, etc. if Mr Garland had not recused himself?
      Don’t get me wrong, I do not think that Mr Garland is such a small character as to let personal feelings interfere, but it is about perception.

      • Posted October 7, 2018 at 7:41 am | Permalink

        It’s not a reproach. It’s an observation that doing the right thing often can’t compete with doing the wrong thing. I am beginning to doubt that the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice.

        • Nicolaas Stempels
          Posted October 7, 2018 at 9:04 am | Permalink

          Ok, got you wrong. I’m not beginning, I’ve been convinced for quite a long time that the moral arc of the universe does not bend toward justice.
          In the greater scheme of things we can not even find sustained malice, we only find indifference, utter callous deplorable indifference to any human-conceived morality.

          • Diane G
            Posted October 7, 2018 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

            RE the arc–that makes three of us.

  17. Posted October 6, 2018 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

    I am decidely NOT happy that Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court. I would have preferred someone more centrist, and I am hoping Chief Justice Roberts will now become that pivotal justice.

    On the other hand, it would bother me equally if someone can be denied confirmation on the basis of uncorroborated allegations which, unfortunately, is what we had here. Frankly, I don’t see how the confirmation process can operate if all it takes to derail a nominee is an uncorroborated allegation. I am not saying Ford lied or was mistaken, because I don’t know, but people can have false memories and do lie, so we can’t have a process that does not require corroboration or evidence. It does not have to be trial quality evidence, but there has to be something.

    • Matthew
      Posted October 7, 2018 at 12:09 am | Permalink

      As has been pointed out, innumerable times at this stage, is that we have more than Ford’s allegations; we have, at best, many instances of questionable statements that he’s made to congress under oath. We also have his behavior itself.

    • Posted October 7, 2018 at 1:58 am | Permalink

      + 1. I think that if I were a Senator, I’d vote for Kavanaugh to prevent an awful precedent. Maybe with my nose pressed.

      • Nicolaas Stempels
        Posted October 7, 2018 at 3:41 am | Permalink

        I would not, I would have insisted on a thorough investigation, not a week. After all, a SCOTUS seat may easily be vacant for more than a year -as the present Senate Committee taught us-, so why the hurry?
        Note, even if Mr Kavanaugh is innocent of sexual assault (he may well be, we don’t know), he still lied under oath and showed a vile temper unbecoming of a SC Justice.

      • Posted October 7, 2018 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

        Here’s ‘awful precedent’ for you:

        First, Republicans altered the long-standing Senate rules on confirmation votes, replacing the 2/3rds vote that had ensured moderate justices with a simple majority;

        Then they put forth a highly controversial nominee, the bulk of whose career was not as a judge, but as a partisan political operative;

        Just hours before the judiciary committee hearings began, the Dems received 10,000 pages of background documentation, while a further 100,000 pages were withheld;

        When new evidence appeared showing BK had perjured himself during his 2006 judicial confirmation, the GOP attempted to keep it secret;

        When multiple credible accusations of sexual harassment came to light, the GOP ignored them and attempted to accelerate the confirmation;

        In response to Jeff Flake’s request for a “thorough” FBI investigation into these accusations, the WH limited the FBI to interviewing only 9 witnesses, five of whom were close friends of BK. The FBI received lists of over 20 witnesses able to corroborate the accusations; not one was interviewed. Several corroborating witnesses themselves contacted the FBI, but were ignored. New testimony & tangible evidence that BK attempted to tamper with witnesses of the Yale incident, weeks before BK claimed he’d ever heard of the accusation, was ignored;

        Even the sham FBI report was considered so volatile, each senator received but a single hour to review a single copy in a secure vault, a procedure normally reserved for highly sensitive military or espionage documents;

        The GOP leadership was in such a rush to push through this confirmation, they could not even wait two days for one of their colleagues to return from his daughter’s wedding.

          • Posted October 8, 2018 at 10:16 am | Permalink

            That’s about what I’d expect from writer for The Federalist and National Review.

            But look what I found:

            But I suppose you’re right — instead of that confused, emotional woman, we should trust the recollection of the binge drinking man who’s admitted to not remembering booze-soaked evenings and has perjured himself 31 times before Congress.

            • Posted October 11, 2018 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

              I do not see her as confused and emotional, but as an intelligent and strong-willed master manipulator who is lying through her teeth.

              • Posted October 11, 2018 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

                As opposed to the angelic choir boy who’s perjured himself before Congress 31 times.

              • Posted October 12, 2018 at 11:47 am | Permalink

                This is eclipsed by Dr. Ford’s claims. If Kavanaugh had been rejected, nobody would believe that some senator may have voted against him because of the 31 lies. Now that he is elected, most indignant comments are centered on the alleged sexual abuse.

                I have mentioned that the life term of SCOTUS members makes people want only blameless judges to be elected. I think, however, that this wish is not only unrealistic but even counter-productive. A person of high ethical standards may not wish to be rewarded with money for his honesty, but usually wishes to keep the good reputation for which he has abstained from temptations over decades. He will not wish to be dragged through the mud and even if acquitted, to have his name stained forever. (One of the most cynical comments I have read during the Kavanaugh saga was that, if one is an employer and sets an interview, he is more likely to prefer a candidate who has never been accused to one who has been accused and then cleared.)

                Seeing precedents such as this, decent judges may become less likely to apply for SCOTUS. I think something similar is observed for presidential elections.

              • Posted October 12, 2018 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

                A pathological liar should not serve on the SC. A strident partisan, who spent most of his career as a political party operative, should not serve on the SC.

                Your conclusion that, because Blasey-Ford does not possess a photographic memory, she not only fabricated the assault, but also began plotting six years ago in anticipation of BK’s SC nomination, is completely ludicrous.

              • Posted October 13, 2018 at 1:31 am | Permalink

                She did not begin plotting 6 years ago. According to all sources, she complained to her therapist 6 years ago about an assault when she was a teen but didn’t name the attempted rapist. There is no reason to think that she planned to oppose Kavanaugh at this point.
                The problem with Blasey-Ford’s “lack of a photographic memory” is that it makes impossible for Kavanaugh to prove his innocence, and this is exactly what is required of him (the due process reversed).
                The author I linked to gives discrepancies in Dr. Ford’s story (stories) that I find damning, and you dismiss all of them because she wrote to the National Review.
                I agree that there are other reasons making Kavanaugh a poor choice. However, I think it is nice that he was elected, to prevent similar “hit jobs” carried out in the future.

    • W.Benson
      Posted October 7, 2018 at 8:00 am | Permalink

      Concerning substantiation of allegation that Associate Justice Kavenaugh exposed himself to a Ms. Ramirez at a Yale party, please see the 3rd link in my comment above, #13. After all, the confirmation hearing wasn’t a trial. It was a job interview into, among other things, the character of the man.

  18. Rick Graham
    Posted October 7, 2018 at 7:51 am | Permalink

    “Today I have nothing but dislike for the Senate Republicans, who voted in a hotheaded ideologue when they could have made a much better choice.”

    Meh. You sound hotheaded.

    I’m not tired of winning yet.

    • Posted October 7, 2018 at 9:21 am | Permalink

      Well, pal, you have’t won here. You’re off of this site because of incivility.

  19. Blue
    Posted October 7, 2018 at 10:04 am | Permalink


    in re too, too many millions of .other. women:


    Continuously these women sell their sisters
    and brethren out for:
    their own … … proximal power.


    • W.Benson
      Posted October 7, 2018 at 10:34 am | Permalink

      I have often considered Hillary Clinton as belonging to that class, perhaps with greater merit than Susan Collins, who, unless I am corrected, is a self-made person. Despite this, I think Collins in voting for Kavanaugh betrayed more than women. If you think Collins should be out, it is possible to donate at

      • Blue
        Posted October 7, 2018 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

        Yes, W Benson, that what you state is correct.

        Point of reality … … in re to American
        politicians .self – made.: such ones who are
        front and center and actually ‘permitted’ by
        those other politicians … … within the
        generations since my mother’s and mine ?
        Those self – made ones ‘ld be those
        politicians who are finally ones … … women.
        Finally .only now. are a few actually there.
        Before my generation, that is, I know off –
        hand within the Senate, within the House, upon SCOTUS or within USA’s Executive office
        of none. I know of none who .could. with
        their male colleagues’, let alone, with their
        constituent voters ‘be permitted’ to / who
        .should. ‘ve come forward with their acting
        politically with the correct thing / to .be.
        upon the correct side of history.

        Self – made Senator Collins should have.

        As did Senators Murkowski and Heitkamp.
        .Neither. of whom are self – made politically.

        And in re the serving brethren there already
        or retired ? I want to commend Justice
        Stevens for coming forward. No
        commendations are needed for the Democratic
        senators, male, who did, of course, what they
        were sent to the Senate to do, let alone,
        their doing … … the correct thing.


  20. Posted October 8, 2018 at 3:30 am | Permalink

    The most disturbing part of all of this to me is the switch the republican politicians made at some point from “Kavanagh didn’t doe this” to “sure, he might have done it but we don’t really mind”.

  21. ThyroidPlanet
    Posted October 9, 2018 at 11:56 am | Permalink

    I propose another way Kavanaugh might depart the SCOTUS : he won’t be able to handle it. Since it is true he shouldn’t be there, meaning he exhibits traits antithetical to a SCOTUS judge (lying), in addiction the general high quality of judges there already (ideologies aside), by simple force of nature, or persuasion from any respectable judge, Kavanaugh will lose it, as in, bonkers.

    One can hope.

%d bloggers like this: