Don’t Let the Babble Bury Kavanaugh’s Many Flaws

October 1, 2018

By Karen

I watched all of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s and Brett Kavanaugh’s testimony before the Senate Judicial Committee last week. Republicans seem thrilled to limit their vetting to a possibly unprovable he-said-she-said scenario of attempted rape.

Matt Damon dropped by SNL for a parody of the Kavanaugh hearing. It’s hilarious but terrifying because it’s only a mild exaggeration of what happened that day.

Brett Kavanaugh has displayed so much more about his unfitness for the Supreme Court that his underage drinking and rape aspirations in high school are the least of it. While writing this, I discovered another Yale classmate, Chad Ludington, has just joined the growing list speaking out about Kavanaugh because they know firsthand that he’s lying about his behavior. Here are some other red flags we must not forget…

Sense of Entitlement – Kavanaugh talks about the Supreme Court job as if it’s owed to him. (Tough shit, Merrick Garland.) Trump’s so desperate for a justice who believes the president is above the law, you have to wonder how much smoke he’s been blowing up Kavanaugh’s ass.

Belligerence – Demanding Senator Amy Klobuchar tell him her drinking habits was so obnoxious, someone must have persuaded him during a break to apologize, even though he was only using Trump’s deflection technique. Kavanaugh also behaved like a peevish brat in refusing to answer Senator Dick Durbin’s question about whether he’d want an FBI investigation to clear his name. I could write all day about Kavanaugh’s displays of arrogance and disrespect to the Democratic side of the committee.

Partisanship – He actually managed to drag the Clintons into his opening statement, as if they have anything to do with anything. Kavanaugh’s impatient, almost sneering contempt for Democratic questioning conveyed that he will be anything but impartial if he manages to get through this. He all but said to them, “Revenge is a dish best served cold.”

Alcoholism? – From his flushed face and constant water-gulping, it appeared Kavanaugh may have been drinking earlier that day. And what other SCOTUS nominee has spent so much time talking about beer? Heavy drinking seemed to be his part-time job for many years, so how do we know he’s doing doing it now?

Lying – Following another Trump example, he lied about easily verified things, such as the meaning of boofing and a Devil’s Triangle, and that he could drink legally in high school (he was only 17). Other examples are too numerous to list here.

Gambling? – Since the latest hearing was about attempted rape, there was no mention of the $200,000 credit card debt Kavanaugh racked up mainly on baseball tickets but managed to quickly pay off before his federal judgeship although he didn’t have that much money in the bank. Was he betting on games?

Financially Compromised?Kavanaugh’s funding sources are almost as murky as Trump’s. His ($220,600) and his wife’s ($66,000) salaries seem a tight fit for their lifestyle. They bought a $1.2 million house Kavanaugh described as a “fixer-upper” that’s expensive to maintain. They joined a country club with a $92,000 entry fee and $9,000 annual dues. They have two daughters attending a $10,580-a-year-per-child private school. He seems to be getting extra cash somewhere, but it’s not revealed in his financial disclosures.

Contempt for Women – Four women have shared stories of Kavanaugh being an aggressor or of doing nothing while his friends gang-raped girls. He’s anti-abortion and considered most likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. He seems to see himself as a privileged white master of the universe, which doesn’t bode well for the rest of us.

In addition to whatever the FBI finds, I think we’ve seen and heard enough about Brett Kavanaugh to know he’s the last person this country needs on the Supreme Court. May the FBI interview enough people this week and corroborate descriptions of this despicable man to not only keep him off SCOTUS, but to kick him off the bench altogether.

Advertisements

Should Anita Hill Apologize?

October 20, 2010

By Adele

Can pigs fly?

Like everybody else, I’m wondering what — other than early-onset dementia — could have possessed Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife, Virginia, to suddenly ring up Anita Hill’s office and leave this message…

“Good morning, Anita Hill, it’s Ginny Thomas. I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. Okay have a good day.”

Virginia Thomas later told the press that her motive was to “extend an olive branch.”

Sounded more like a switch to me. Did she really expect Anita Hill to come out of the blue 19 years later and turn her life as a Brandeis University professor upside down by saying she made it all up? That Clarence Thomas was really a swell boss? That she got herself dragged through the mud for nothing?

Has anyone seen Clarence moping around about it, since his alleged misogyny got rewarded with a seat on the Supreme Court?

If anyone should be apologizing here, it should be the Thomases to Anita Hill.

Virginia Thomas founded Liberty Central Inc., a nonprofit lobbying group affiliated to the Tea Party, whose agenda is to wreak havoc with Obama. She was one of the featured speakers at the recent Tea Party shindig held right here in Richmond.

Unfortunately, it’s not illegal for Clarence Thomas to be married to a neocon nut job who uses prayer as a weapon and doesn’t know how to pick her battles. It’s just very disturbing to know this guy has Lady MacBeth trying to pull strings behind him while he’s sitting on the bench.


Repubs Look Foolish Fighting Kagan Nomination

May 11, 2010

By Adele

Elena Kagan has so many points in her favor to join the Supreme Court, it’s no wonder Republicans are foaming at the mouth to disqualify her.

Congress confirmed her just a year ago to become Solicitor General, and they didn’t find any bones buried in her backyard then.

It’s probably galling to them that, besides being female instead of an old white guy, Kagan clearly lacks tunnel vision and a narrow mind. She’s willing to listen to different points of view. She doesn’t seem arrogant, despite accomplishments that include being the first female dean of Harvard Law School.

Kagan has never been a judge, which will make her the 41st justice who wasn’t. With typical revisionist flair, the Repubs are protesting like it’s the first time that’s ever happened. How dare Obama?

Do they think Kagan has argued cases before SCOTUS not knowing how to research and interpret the law? Are they worried she doesn’t understand how trials work? Do they seriously think she’ll ever be alone on the bench, left to her own devices?

Every time they open their mouths to vilify Kagan, Republicans just reveal ignorance and irrational thinking.

They worry she won’t interpret the Constitution as the Founding Fathers intended, parading that non-argument like evangelicals who claim their every harebrained notion is in the Bible.

The Founding Fathers never came close to envisioning today’s world, with all its technological complexity, amorality, and senseless brutality.

Trying to maintain laws as if we’re still living in the 1700s is just nuts. Some laws need reinterpreting to get in step with the times.

After loony-toon rulings like it’s OK for Big Business to buy elections and that crush videos make wholesome entertainment, SCOTUS obviously needs a stiff dose of logic and decency. Elena Kagan is just the one to give it to them.


Let Supreme Court Star in Crush Videos

May 5, 2010

By Yul

In a breathtaking departure from sanity, the Supreme Court decided 8-1 in U.S. v. Stevens that cold-blooded, premeditated murder is a freedom-of-speech issue and struck down the “Crush Act.” Depictions of helpless creatures being brutally tortured and killed is once again a legitimate form of expression.

The court has reinstated perverted carnage as a dandy form of entertainment because they thought the wording of the Crush Act was so broad, it might impinge on the rights of hunters to film legal animal slaughter.

Now Dick Cheney need never fear he’ll be denied a photo op while mowing down defenseless birds or friends of his. The court has made it once again open season on innocent puppies, kittens, and other small animals who will meet horrible ends to satisfy sickos’ sexual fantasies.

It’s too bad all the justices except Samuel Alito, the lone vote of compassion, won’t ever enjoy the thrill of being under a dominatrix’s stiletto as she slowly grinds it through their livers while talking dirty and laughing at their agonized screams.

Fortunately, we animals have other humans watching our backs. California Congressman Elton Gallegly has introduced H.R. 5092 to make the Crush Act’s language more specific and overcome even the most blood-thirsty justices’ objections.

The ASPCA is also on the case. Cats Working urges you to visit their Advocacy Center to find out if your representative is a co-sponsor of the bill and, if not, urge him or her to become one so it can be passed quickly.

The Supreme Court is WRONG. Crush videos must NEVER be allowed to regain a foothold.


Animal Cruelty: Entertainment to Supreme Court?

October 7, 2009

By Cole

Under a 1999 federal law banning graphic animal cruelty videos, a Virginian named Robert Stevens got 3 years in jail for selling films of  pit bull fights. A federal appeals court overturned his conviction, and now the Supreme Court will decide if people’s freedom of speech is violated if they can’t film animals being tortured and killed.

As if anybody needs to be making Stevens’ bloody garbage or “crush videos,” so perverts can watch women stomp mice and kittens to death with their bare feet or in high-heeled shoes.

Dissecting the law, which the Obama administration and 26 states support, the justices played verbal games, implying it could ban educational films about hunting or nature.

The justices miss the point. To make these films, film-makers need “actors” — animals who can’t protest being thrust into dangerous or deadly situations. They can only use their claws and teeth to futilely fight for their lives while cameras roll.

Because animals can’t “speak,” we don’t deserve the right to live?

If we were talking about filming naked women in stilettos slicing and dicing a few babies or Supreme Court justices for fun, I think the debate would have been over quickly.

Justice Antonin Scalia said, “It’s not up to the government to decide what are people’s worst instincts.

Scalia, you soulless douche bag, by even considering throwing out this protection for animals, the Supreme Court displays its own worst instincts.

Going back to Robert Stevens, his argument is that his pit bull flicks were fine because they weren’t “obscene, inflammatory, or untruthful.”

Wrong, Stevens. They were obscene. And you are obscene, promoting the “sport” of dogs tearing each other apart. You should have gotten life in jail — with a hungry pit bull as your cellmate.


Ideal Solution for Obama’s Hillary Problem

June 5, 2008

By Adele

Watching her drag the carcass of her campaign around all week, I’m beginning to wonder if Hillary Clinton is completely unhinged. She seems to think staying in a fog of denial will somehow make Barack Obama roll over and play dead.

But we know that if Obama offers Hillary the No. 2 spot on his ticket, he’ll have to sleep with the light on the whole time he’s in the White House. Putting her a heartbeat away from the presidency would just be tempting fate for something “unfortunate” to happen to him, given the Clintons’ talent for making people disappear.

Barack’s best hope of living to serve two terms is to promise Hillary a seat on the Supreme Court if he wins.

I’m sure Hillary would be thrilled to be deemed Supreme, forever able to hide her thick ankles under judges’ robes. Ruth Bader Ginsberg could retire with a clear conscience, giving up her seat to a fellow liberal and a woman, and the current balance of power would remain stable to keep the Republicans quiet.

On the court, Hillary could indulge her penchant for mud-wrestling, regularly getting down and dirty with world-class chauvinists like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Now and then, she might even manage to keep them from setting the country back a hundred years.

With Hillary permanently sidelined from campaigning, the Democratic party wouldn’t have to worry about Clintons stirring up any more trouble – unless Chelsea someday enters politics. But that wouldn’t be for years because Chelsea has to get comfortable talking to the media first.


%d bloggers like this: