On Russian TV, Brett Kavanaugh Is a Victim of “the Plague of Malignant Feminism”

I shot the Kavanaugh protests this morning for NPR, and this is the photo that will always stick with me. I walked up to her after, needing her name for the photo but knowing it was a terrible time to ask. When I asked, she ignored me and said, “How are we going to find the strength to keep fighting?” I was speechless. 
She said, “Are we going to be out here for another 30 years? I don’t have 30 years left.”

~Mary Mathis

 R_P wrote: 

Open the kegs! Partay!

 islander wrote:
 
Signed,
Rand Paul, Brain Surgeon.

 Red_Dragon wrote:
 
Is there any possibility that kurtster is actually Trump? Or is that convergence of personalities just a side-effect of drinking too much Kool Aid...?

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
You know the eyes are connected directly to the brain, so if you need glasses it is a clear indication of brain damage.

 islander wrote: 
I can't wait.

 kurtster wrote:
 
Hmmm....  you are saying, who in their right mind would want to tap 4-eyes?   

American celebrity narcissism......

 kurtster wrote: 
This should be good. Please, elaborate.

A person's glasses says a lot about the person behind them ...  

It's been bugging me since the beginning of this stuff.

Especially since cost is not a limiting factor in this case.

Her glasses are a huge red flag to me ... she has issues ...

A Florida man has been accused of threatening to shoot members of Congress and their families if Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh is not confirmed. â€œplenty of ammo for my sniper rifle,” including .50-caliber hollow-point bullets and a suppressor, and that he had taken “extra precautions and added more supplies in the tunnel under my house in case local or federal law enforcement tries to stop me.”

 pigtail wrote:  

I agree with pigtail: I don't think that there's been a similar kind of petition. I can remember two other confirmation hearings that were also very polarizing—Robert Bork's in '87 and Clarence Thomas's in '92. 

Bork was very highly qualified IIRC but his originalist views and his statement that the Constitution did not grant a general right to privacy were a sign for some groups that he would strike down Roe v. Wade. Also, Nixon turned to Bork (Solicitor General at the time) in October '73 to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox for his demand that Nixon turn over the Watergate tapes. Attorney General Eliot Richardson and Deputy AG William Ruckelshaus had  both refused to fire Cox and resigned on SAturday 10/19/73. Bork was sworn in as AG and fired Cox that same day (see "Saturday Night Massacre").  Critics viewed Bork's participation in that firing as a sign that he favored disproportionate levels of power for the executive branch; he may have written earlier to that effect as well. Bork was very bitter about the nomination process and felt that Democrats had deliberately distorted his record to keep him off the bench. 

I don't believe that there was any petition against Thomas. Before the Anita Hill story broke however there was real concern that he was not sufficiently qualified to sit on the SC. 

Part of the Kavanaugh spectacle, I think, has to do with the Internet and social media finally catching up with the SC nomination and confirmation process. It's now easier to voice and marshal opposition to federal policy proposals and nominations. Twitter is rapidly outpacing traditional media's coverage of events and people more eagerly bandwagon onto positions about breaking events. Also, Kavanaugh is catching the fire of anger over the way McConnell stiffed Obama on getting Merrick Garland nominated. And then there's the #MeToo movement and America's new awareness about sexual harassment. 


Finally, Kavanaugh really screwed himself over with his prepared statement and testimony of last week. He'll likely get confirmed but he's always going to be viewed with suspicion and contempt. Few people are going to believe that he can wave a magic wand and make his biases disappear while he's a justice hearing cases. That damages the credibility of the entire Court. 


The Democrats may not be done with Kavanaugh after tomorrow, however. There is some evidence that Kavanaugh committed perjury about stolen documents, and that according to this WashPo piece may lead to impeachment hearings—even though a required 2/3 majority vote for removal in the Senate would likely keep Kavanaugh on the bench. 

 westslope wrote: 
Except this appointment is for life, let us not forget that!

Had some trouble dragging the photo of actor and model Emily Ratajkowski into the post.   Aside from providing eye candy for the heterosexual males on the forum who still have a pulse, there is a serious point I wanted to make.  Honestly.  

Protest movements tend to be viewed by "straight, ordinary folks" as social misfits in bad clothes with ugly dyed hair, too many piercings, unshaven arm pits or whatever have you.    Then a gorgeous, professionally woman like Emily gets arrested along with 300 protesters and it disturbs the classic narrative.

Frankly, I sincerely hope that the Senate confirms Kavanaugh because it increases the chances of a Democratic/Independent sweep of the November mid-term elections.    Everything the Republican party does to polarize Americans, I heartily applaud.  Sometimes, it is strategically smart to lose a few battles to win the war.  Figuratively speaking of course.  

 westslope wrote: 
I don't think so.  There is alot about this nominee that is out of the norm.

 kcar wrote:
 

Question from a dumb Canuck:  has there every been a similar petition for other Supreme Court nominees?