Democrats Said Brett Kavanaugh Would Bring the End Times. Why Are They So Polite To Him at His Confirmation Hearing?

When Brett Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court, Democrats said he would shift the court far to the right in a disastrous way. During Senate confirmation hearings, however, this “dangerous” nominee faces a smooth, easy ride without major challenges.

23 thoughts on “Democrats Said Brett Kavanaugh Would Bring the End Times. Why Are They So Polite To Him at His Confirmation Hearing?

  1. On the same OT:

    At the stroke of midnight, 12:00AM, Sept 12, we will commemorate the 17th anniversary of that glorious day when George “the profoundly impaired” Bush instantly became the world’s expert on terrorism.

  2. OT: Today is 9/11. I think. I don’t see many flags flying, my hometown paper barely mentioned it, the political cartoons are focused on other topics, and even the internet is less enraged than I would expect for the anniversary of The Defining Event Of The Twenty-First Century™.

    Why is that? Where did Freedom Day go? I can’t help but be reminded of the way the sheeple turned their backs on Iran/Contra/Reagan bribing an enemy to incarcerate American citizens. “Meh, Bush so used it as an excuse to mislead the country into yet another senseless quagmire, killing a million or so foreigners and a significant number of our own … what are ya’ gonna do? Anyway, that’s soooo last decade.”

  3. When you have David “Blinded by the Right” Brock speaking out on the NBC news website about what kind of guy Brett Kavanaugh was in the ’90s, you know the guy has problems.

    Some quotes:

    …..Brett actually makes a cameo appearance in my memoir of my time in the GOP, “Blinded By The Right.” I describe him at a party full of zealous young conservatives gathered to watch President Bill Clinton’s 1998 State of the Union address — just weeks after the story of his affair with a White House intern had broken. When the TV camera panned to Hillary Clinton, I saw Brett — at the time a key lieutenant of Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating various Clinton scandals — mouth the word “bitch.”

    But there’s a lot more to know about Kavanaugh than just his Pavlovian response to Hillary’s image. Brett and I were part of a close circle of cold, cynical and ambitious hard-right operatives being groomed by GOP elders for much bigger roles in politics, government and media. And it’s those controversial associations that should give members of the Senate and the American public serious pause.

    Call it Kavanaugh’s cabal: There was his colleague on the Starr investigation, Alex Azar, now the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mark Paoletta is now chief counsel to Vice President Mike Pence; House anti-Clinton gumshoe Barbara Comstock is now a Republican member of Congress. Future Fox News personalities Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson were there with Ann Coulter, now a best-selling author, and internet provocateur Matt Drudge.

    At one time or another, each of them partied at my Georgetown townhouse amid much booze and a thick air of cigar smoke.

    In a rough division of labor, Kavanaugh played the role of lawyer — one of the sharp young minds recruited by the Federalist Society to infiltrate the federal judiciary with true believers. Through that network, Kavanaugh was mentored by D.C. Appeals Court Judge Laurence Silberman, known among his colleagues for planting leaks in the press for partisan advantage.

    When, as I came to know, Kavanaugh took on the role of designated leaker to the press of sensitive information from Starr’s operation, we all laughed that Larry had taught him well. (Of course, that sort of political opportunism by a prosecutor is at best unethical, if not illegal.)

    Another compatriot was George Conway (now Kellyanne’s husband), who led a secretive group of right-wing lawyers — we called them “the elves” — who worked behind the scenes directing the litigation team of Paula Jones, who had sued Clinton for sexual harassment. I knew then that information was flowing quietly from the Jones team via Conway to Starr’s office — and also that Conway’s go-to man was none other than Brett Kavanaugh.

      • Brock is being serious and so was I posting that link – there was this cadre of rightwing crazies trying to take Bill Clinton down in the 1990s. Ted Olsen was at the top of it, alongside R. Emmett Tyrell of the “American Spectator” magazine. It was all backroom legal bullshit, and the costs of Tyrell’s “Arkansas Project” sunk his publication after the Clintons left the White House – he had PIs talking to Arkansas cops, paid informants who were lying through their teeth, etc.

        That’s how this stuff operates in American ToryLand – their party is like an oversized yacht club with lots of “smoking rooms” that are actually political operations conferences, and a lot of what they tell the common people is a load of doubletalk, because they are running the country by and for the extremely wealthy, but that’s just too unpalatable to be stated openly.

      • > there was this cadre of rightwing crazies trying to take Bill Clinton down in the 1990s.

        Yet today, they see nothing wrong with having a sexual predator in the White House. Okay, I understand why the politicritters are so blatantly two-faced, but I don’t understand why anyone takes them seriously.

        Nor can I understand how a law-school graduate could lie about the consitution’s intent with a straight face. I’m an engineer, I couldn’t keep a straight face if I tried something similar.

        “Well, y’see, Newton’s originalist laws mean that objects at rest tend to spontaneously sprout wings and fly out the window….”

        I could never show my face among other engineers again. I’d be worried that my license would be revoked with extreme prejudice and no hope of parole.

        Lawyers? Not so much.

      • “Okay, I understand why the politicritters are so blatantly two-faced, but I don’t understand why anyone takes them seriously.”

        Maybe because Americans are not critical thinkers, but are believers who parrot back whatever verbal trash is thrown at them.

        Critical thinkers might question the intent of a speaker after considering the meaning of his words, but believers know their place in the universe is to believe.


        This is why I am atheist to the conceptual object of political theology.

      • > Maybe because Americans are not critical thinkers,

        True, dat. But then the same applies to the vast majority of humans, regardless of nationality.

        “Only 1% of humanity is capable of independent thinking, and only 1% of those bother to do so.”
        – Robert Anson Heinlein

        (I can’t find the original quote. Maybe The Grandmaster said 10% … which would be overly generous IMnsHO)

  4. Actor on Rhodes’ show: [Speaking about Senator Fuller] You really sell that stiff as a man among men?
    Lonesome Rhodes: Those morons out there? Shucks, I could take chicken fertilizer and sell it to them as caviar. I could make them eat dog food and think it was steak. Sure, I got ’em like this… You know what the public’s like? A cage of Guinea Pigs. Good Night you stupid idiots. Good Night, you miserable slobs. They’re a lot of trained seals. I toss them a dead fish and they’ll flap their flippers.

    Mel Miller: [of writers] Here you see the lepers of the great television industry. Men without faces. Why, they even slide our paychecks under the door so they can pretend we’re not here.

  5. :: sigh :: Sometimes you gotta wonder just how naive the founders were.

    The Supreme Court should be bound by the constitution, but what can we do if they don’t even bother to read it? Sure, a justice can theoretically be impeached – but when the president can shoot someone on fifth avenue in broad daylight, how likely is it that congress will step up to doing so?

    • So: “Consider, then, Socrates” the laws might say, “whether we
      speak the truth about the following: that it is not just for you to try to do to
      us what you’re now attempting. For we gave birth to you, brought you up,
      educated you, and gave you and all the
      other citizens everything we could
      that’s good, and yet even so we pronounce that we have given the power
      to any Athenian who wishes, when he has been admitted as an adult and
      sees the affairs of the city and us the laws and is not pleased with us, to
      his possessions and leave for wherever he wants. And if any among
      you wants to live in a colony because we and the city do not satisfy him, or
      if he wants to go somewhere else and live as a foreigner, none of us laws
      stands in the way or forbids him from
      taking his possessions with him and
      leaving for wherever he wants.
      But whoever remains with us, having observed how we decide
      lawsuits and take care of other civic matters, we claim that this man by his
      action has now made an agreement with us to do what
      we command him
      to do, and we claim that anyone who does not obey is guilty three times
      over, because he disobeys us who gave birth to him, and who raised him,
      and because, despite agreeing to be subject to us, he does not obey us or
      persuade us if we are d
      oing something improper, and although we give
      him an alternative and don’t angrily press him to do what we order but
      instead we allow either of two possibilities, either to persuade us or to
      comply, he does neither of these.
      We say that you especially wil
      l be liable to these charges, Socrates, if
      indeed you carry out your plans, and you not least of the Athenians but
      most of all.” If, then, I would say, “How do you mean?”, perhaps they
      would scold me justly, saying that I have made this agreement more than
      other Athenians. They might say
      “Socrates, we have great evidence for
      this, that we and the city satisfy you. For you would never have lived here
      more than all of the other Athenians unless it seemed particularly good to
      you, and you never left the city f
      or a festival, except once to Isthmos, but
      never to anywhere else, except on military duty, nor did you ever make
      another trip like other Athenians, nor did any urge seize you to get to
      know a different city or other laws, but we and our city were sufficie
      nt for
      So intently did you choose us and agree to be governed by us that,
      in particular, because the city was satisfactory to you, you had children in
      it. Moreover, at your trial you could have proposed exile, if you had
      wished, and what you’re now t
      rying to do to the city without her consent,
      you could have done then with her consent. At the time, you prided
      yourself on not being angry if you had to die, and you chose death, you
      said, in preference to exile. But now you neither feel shame in the face
      those words nor have you any respect for us the laws. By trying to destroy
      us you are doing what the most despicable slave would do, trying to run
      away contrary to the contract and the agreement by which you agreed to
      be governed by us. So answer us fi
      rst on the particular point of whether or
      not we speak the truth in claiming that you agreed to be governed by us in
      deed and not merely in words.” What can we say to this, Crito? Mustn’t we
      Cr: We must, Socrates.

  6. Democrats, the party of worthy exemplars of gullibility, proficient at leading the gullible into greater gullibility.

    Obama wanted to be a leader so he went looking for followers and there he found himself in the Democratic Party, a great follower among the followers.

    The Democratic Party code:

    “Extremism in defense of gullibility is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of gullibility is no virtue.”

    Plus, it’s all Putin’s fault.

    • Hacking Democracy is the 2006 Emmy nominated documentary film broadcast on HBO and created by producer Robert Carrillo Cohen and producer / directors Russell Michaels and Simon Ardizzone and executive producers Sarah Teale, Sian Edwards & Earl Katz. Filmed over three years it documents American citizens investigating anomalies and irregularities with ‘e-voting’ (electronic voting) systems that occurred during the 2000 and 2004 elections in the United States, especially in Volusia County, Florida. The film investigates the flawed integrity of electronic voting machines, particularly those made by Diebold Election Systems, exposing previously unknown backdoors in the Diebold trade secret computer software. The film culminates dramatically in the on-camera hacking of the in-use / working Diebold election system in Leon County, Florida – the same computer voting system which has been used in actual American elections across thirty-three states, and which still counts tens of millions of America’s votes today.

      The documentary follows Bev Harris and Kathleen Wynne, director and associate director for nonprofit election watchdog group Black Box Voting, as they attempt to discover the extent to which it would be possible to alter results on the electronic voting machines of Diebold Election Systems (now Premier Election Solutions). Andy Stephenson, an employee of Black Box Voting from July–December 2004, assisted with comparisons of audit documents in Volusia County and obtained a secret videotape of Harris interviewing a voting machine testing lab. Kathleen Wynne captured live video of Harris finding voting machine records in a Volusia County trash bag, and captured video of Cuyahoga County, Ohio elections workers admitting that the initial 3% recount ballots had not been randomly selected during the 2004 presidential election. Harris and Wynne then embarked on a series of five voting machine hack tests with Dr. Herbert Hugh Thompson and Harri Hursti in 2005 and 2006. During the course of the documentary, multiple methods of tampering with the votes are shown.

      The first is through editing the database file that contains the voting totals. This file is a standard Microsoft Access database, and can be opened by normal means outside of the encompassing voting program without a password. Some jurisdictions have disabled Microsoft Access, making it more difficult to alter the database, but this protection was shown to be bypassed by Dr. Herbert Hugh Thompson through a Visual Basic program which searched for a string of text and edited the file through external means. However, alterations of the results in either of these fashions would be caught if a vigilant elections official compared the results with voting machine tapes.[2]

      Another hacking technique was demonstrated through hacking the actual computer code used in the Diebold Accu-Vote memory cards. This method was discovered by Finnish computer security expert Harri Hursti and is known as “the Hursti Hack”. In this hack, Harri Hursti rigged the Diebold optical scan voting system to make the wrong candidate win by adding negative (minus) votes to one race. This resulted in that race having votes literally subtracted from its vote total. These methods were tested by the Leon County Supervisor of Elections, Ion Sancho, on the actual Diebold optical scan voting system used by Tallahassee, Florida in all their prior elections. This method demonstrated, contrary to a previous Diebold statement, that a person attempting to rig the votes of a precinct would need access to only the memory card, not the optical scan voting system or tabulation software. This method, when cross-checked between the optical scan voting system and tabulation software, falsely appears to be legitimate, and further makes the voting machine produce a false zero-vote print-out, falsely confirming that the memory card has no votes inside it before voting begins. Following this historic hack Ion Sancho stated: “If I had not known what was behind this I would have certified this election as a true count of the votes.”[2]

  7. I run into this a lot. The whole “Why are THEY (insert the they of your choice) behaving this way? It makes no sense.”

    But it does. I will use an analogy.

    Take a look at the New York Times. I’m not saying that the New York Times is completely filled with idiots. Some of the staff are merely do-gooders who’ve never been blooded. They cover the wars, but not one of them has ever been shot, had shrapnel lodge in their ass, or seen someone ripped open by a land mine. So during one of the recent wars, they were shuttled under armed escort from place to place and shown exactly what was best for those who need a specific narrative about the war (whichever one it was) to continue to remain the dominant one. And those daring young stenographer– uh, journalists–went back to their bases and wrote up some unbiased articles that were sent back to New York and vomited across the pages of the Gray Lady.

    And the Times does the same thing with its real estate section. Read “The Hunt.” Week after week, it’s about young people who have gone from a good childhood filled with great schools to a great job in their early twenties. Not one of “The Hunt” columns is about someone pushing 50 who makes $50,000 on a good year and about how they find housing. Not one.

    And the Times does the same thing with its travel section. When was the last time they ran an article (in any section, come to think of it) about how much of the paper’s information is completely of no use to many of the readers due to the reality that the readers cannot afford: a trip to Thailand, a meal at 21, seats at “Hamilton,” or most of the baubles and geegaws that the Times produces so much material about?

    Grafting the Times model onto politics? Easy-peasy. Most of the politicians simply don’t give a fuck about their constituents. Oh, they’ll never say that. Even a rube politician knows to never say it out loud (can’t be sure when there’s a hot mike in the vicinity). But look at us:
    We vote in abysmally small percentages.
    Many of us have been co-opted by identity politics (forcing the politicians to appeal to the women, the Hispanics, the blacks, the Jews, the Protestants, the Protestant Hispanic women, the left-handed black Protestants, the Jews who butter their bread in an up-and-down fashion, the Catholics who butter their bread in a side-to-side fashion, and so on) making it almost impossible to get any sort of real change made. Roe v. Wade? Oh, Christ. Don’t even bring it up or I’ll lose the Catholics. And the Jews. And the Muslims.
    All we do is bitch about how we want things: better schools, safer neighborhoods, better jobs. And then, when we’re told that means more taxes, we shriek like we never ever heard the concept of Equivalent Exchange. “You mean we’s gots to pays for stuff by a very small increase ins ours taxes?”

    I’d hate us too. We behave like a bunch of kids. Worse, we behave like stupid kids. And those blithering idiots at the confirmation hearing? They know they can do whatever the hell they want because it won’t matter. In six weeks, most of us will have forgotten there was ever a vacancy in the Supreme Court to begin with.

    • They know they can do whatever the hell they want because it won’t matter

      Next generation accepts it as normal.
      Like getting groped in airports.
      In a season 1 episode of Crackanory some guy dissed s Bieber type celeb.
      Social media went wild.
      Ending is Beiber type finding the guy and taking a selfie with him for his next album.
      All hype and propaganda.
      Of course Sterling did it better with the monsters on maple street.

  8. Democrats also told us why we simply HAD to vote for Obumma for a second term: SCOTUS, SCOTUS, SCOTUS !!!

    Well his SCOTUS-appointment moment came and the vociferously-purported, 13-D political chess master revealed that, in reality, he had not progressed beyond (2-D) political tic-tac-toe, even with his prior six years of intensive training?!?

    But, of course, he still could not have presided over the Garland fiasco without the crucial “help” of the very same spineless idiots depicted in the comic, above.

    Vote Democratic … if it’s abyss jumping you crave !!!

    • Now, now, falco, you’ve got it all wrong – the reason to vote for the Democrats is to prevent the other party of the rich from, as dear Mr Obama put it, «cozying up to the former head of the KGB». Surely you’ve seen all the newspaper articles about the Republicans cozying up to Vadim Viktorovich Bakatin, the only living former head of the KGB ? Or perhaps the cozying has an element of necrophilia, and they’ve been smooching with Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria or even Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky himself. (OK, I know that these people antedated the KGB and that the latter’s first head was Ivan Alexandrovich Serov, but what’a a little historical inaccuracy among friends ?…


      • Hi Henri,

        Apparently this is not the first time for Obumma on this particular flight of fancy:

        How about this for the mid terms:
        Vote Democratic … OUR fake facts don’t stink!!!

      • Isn’t today Franco-Svensk nude granny pole dancing day?
        They alley must be filled Henri, swamped with aged flesh.

      • «Vote Democratic … OUR fake facts don’t stink!!!» A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose…. 😉


Leave a Reply