Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Kavanaugh Open Thread: Trump calls attacks “a hoax that was set up by the Democrats”

Kavanaugh Open Thread: Trump calls attacks “a hoax that was set up by the Democrats”

“the American public has seen this charade, has seen this dishonesty by the Democrats”

While the saga around now Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has ended, the left will not stop and we can expect to see more outrage in the coming days.

On the White House lawn, President Donald Trump called the whole thing a “hoax.”

Kavanaugh Hires More Black Clerks Than Ginsburg has During Her Tenure

The Daily Caller has reported that on his first day on the job, Supreme Court Justice has hire more black clerks than Ruth Bader Ginsburg has during her whole time on the court. One more thing. They’re all females:

Justice Brett Kavanaugh has hired a black law clerk for his new chambers at the U.S. Supreme Court, matching Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s record of African-American clerkship hiring during her tenure on the nation’s highest judicial tribunal.

With his first clerkship hires, Kavanaugh also set a gender composition record, an apparent attempt to buck the high court’s hiring patterns, which tend to favor white, male graduates of elite law schools.

Since joining the high court in 1993, Ginsburg has hired over 100 law clerks, just one of whom is black.

Ginsburg’s hiring practices have been criticized for decades. During her 1993 confirmation hearings, GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah asked Ginsburg if a court might reasonably conclude that a small business in a majority black city that hired 57 white employees and zero black employees over a period of years was discriminatory. Ginsburg dodged, before Hatch pointed out that was in fact her own record of clerkship hiring in her 13 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

“I will try harder, and if you confirm me for this job my attractiveness to black candidates is going to improve,” Ginsburg replied, to much laughter throughout the hearing chamber. (RELATED: Confirmed: Brett Kavanaugh Is Now A Supreme Court Justice)

Kavanaugh’s new clerks are Shannon Grammel, Megan Lacy, Sara Nommensen and Kim Jackson. These hires set a record in a second respect: Kavanaugh is the first Supreme Court justice to hire an all female class of clerks.

Trump: Kavanaugh Caught Up in Hoax

Trump addressed the circus around Kavanaugh and blamed the Democrats.

Harassment Continues

From Fox News:

In the wake of his vote to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Saturday, Republican Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., revealed to Fox News on Sunday that his wife had received a graphic text message with a video depicting a beheading, and that someone has publicly posted the names and addresses of his family members.

Late last month, Gardner received a letter from an anonymous individual apparently in Denver, alleging that Kavanaugh had “shoved” someone up against a wall “very aggressively and sexually” during an outing in 1998 in front of four witnesses. The allegation was later deemed not to be credible.

“Every victim of abuse, assault, and violence has been through an unspeakable tragedy and we need to do a better job listening to them, ensuring support is available, and fighting to end abuse of any kind,” Gardner said in a statement prior to receiving the graphic text messages. “I hope that the partisan divide we all feel today does not hinder the people that have bravely come forward.”

Collins said she has security due to threats:

Collins Explained Her Yes Vote on 60 Minutes

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) became a Republican hero on Friday after her stellar speech on the floor before she confirmed her yes vote on Kavanaugh.

She sat down with 60 minutes to explain her vote:

“I found her very compelling,” Collins said.

But then, she heard Kavanaugh’s rebuttal. She also read the FBI’s report and looked for corroborating evidence. Instead, she told Pelley, she found the opposite: No one beyond Ford had a recollection of the night in question.

“I feel very comfortable that I’ve made the right decision,” Collins said. “I could not come to another decision, based on the testimony and the evidence that I reviewed.”

How about Kavanaugh on Roe vs. Wade? She said:

“I could not vote for a judge who had demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because it would indicate a lack of respect for precedent,” she tells Pelley in the clip above.

Collins says she questioned Kavanaugh at length about Roe v. Wade and found his response satisfactory.

“What Judge Kavanaugh told me — and he’s the first Supreme Court nominee that I’ve interviewed, out of six, who has told me this — is that he views precedent not just as a legal doctrine, but as rooted in our constitution,” Collins says.

Nik Lentz

Lentz expressed happiness over Kavanaugh’s win!


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I think the Democratic opposition to Kavanaugh began in January, 2017, long before he was even nominated. Nancy Pelosi was very open about the tactics the Democratic Party planned to use.

Nancy Pelosi on the wrap-up smear Jan 2017

And so, when DJT nominated the Republican equivalent to a Merrick Garland (similar backgrounds and philosophies; both on the DC Circuit together, both voting together on issue after issue and case after case), they chose not to recognize that the candidate was one that they obviously should have happily agreed on, if policy were their chief concern.

The dems are STILL looking for a way to somehow “annul” DJT’s election as illegitimate – and reverse everything he’s done as a result.

The backlash conservatives have received are nothing short of TERRORISM TACTICS – all endorse and encouraged by the left.

At some point, they will really take it the last step TOO FAR – and instead of conservatives allowing themselves to be harassed, threatened and assaulted – they will STICK BACK IN SELF DEFENSE.

This has gone on for FAR TOO LONG, and to the Nth extreme. For the left, there’s nothing off the table including widespread violence – and they seem be be just fine with that escalation too.

The time draws near. Keep your powder dry, rotate your old carry ammo out.

Every issue is a “crisis” that requires Democrat intervention. No crisis? Invent one or several. The Dems demand “restraint” yet bring out salacious lies and innuendo. Same old play book , now even more effective, due to the dumbing down of the sheeple.

There is no room for measured articulate debate. If Trump wasn’t potent as opposition, none of this industrial strength garbage would be needed by the Left. Their ultimate power over people, the courts, are slipping out of their grasp.

Colonel Travis | October 8, 2018 at 11:56 am

I could not vote for a judge who had demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because it would indicate a lack of respect for precedent

I do not know what Kavanaugh told her about precedent but I can guarantee he doesn’t believe what she implied. No case can ever be overturned, no matter how stupid the alleged legal reasoning behind it? Good luck with that. Every leftist twit knows that kind of POV will not hold, which is why Kavanaugh’s spotless reputation was destroyed by them.

Does the left stand this firm for precedent on the court, across the board?

No. If we had 9 leftist judges, this country would be flushed down the toilet immediately with precedent-crushing rulings every single time, not counting the good* precedents that would be upheld every single time.

(*goodness sold separately and only to leftists.)

    No less than the old moonbat herself, Ginsberg, has said the abortion issue would be better established at the ballot box.It takes up an inordinate degree of court time and generates emotion that could have been tempered by voting one’s belief.

      iconotastic in reply to puhiawa. | October 8, 2018 at 12:40 pm

      Exactly. I have wondered for a long time why those who support abortion haven’t tried harder for an Amendment legalizing abortion across the country, rather than depending upon SCOTUS precedent to preserve it. Or, failing that, work to legalize abortion in the states.

        dystopia in reply to iconotastic. | October 8, 2018 at 1:53 pm

        The Democrats want the issue of abortion as a cudgel with which to scare Democrat women. In 2010 when the Democrats held a filibuster proof majority in the Senate they could have enacted Federal Legislation enshring Roe v Wade into Statute. But scaring liberal women was more important to them.

          tom_swift in reply to dystopia. | October 8, 2018 at 4:49 pm

          when the Democrats held a filibuster proof majority in the Senate they could have enacted Federal Legislation enshring Roe v Wade into Statute.

          Ahh . . . how? Commerce Clause?

          The fundamental legal fiction underlying Roe is that federal law (including the Constitution, which the Big Daddy of federal law) arbitrarily supersedes state laws in any way that federal employees see fit, although this is explicitly verboten:

          The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively

          There’s nothing currently in the Constitution about federal control of abortion policy. Unless it’s a “living document”, in which case an imaginative Court can pretend to find a new-grown malignant excrescence to justify whatever it wants. Lacking that, neither SCOTUS (via the concept of “unconstitutionality”) nor the federal legislature can regulate just any old state activity it feels like.

          The only way activists can make abortion explicitly legal in all 57 states is by amendment (which won’t happen), or by making it explicitly legal in all 57 states. And that they don’t believe they will be able to do.

          tom_swift: one clause, the supremacy clause, which renders Federal law supreme to all state laws in areas Constitutionally of Federal concern, and the Incorporation doctrine, which holds that the 14th Amendment basically allowed the Federal government to override any state laws that conflicts with them. Thus the “right to privacy” allows abortion and the states cannot block it.

          “them” should be “the Bill of Rights”.

      inspectorudy in reply to puhiawa. | October 8, 2018 at 5:32 pm

      Almost every issue that the left thinks is important to them has been decided by the SCOTUS not Congress. That is why they wanted a 4-4-1 justice setup. Instead of legislation, we get the Supremes deciding issues that should be law, not court rulings. Their agenda is too radical for passage into law so they go to the courts to get their way. That just changed!

    All Supreme Court precedents must be respected, eh Collins? So Collins also wouldn’t have wanted these established precedents overturned:

    — Dred Scott v. Sandford (holding U.S. slaves of African ancestry can’t claim U.S. citizenship)
    — Plessy v. Ferguson (upholding constitutionality of racial segregation laws for public facilities, so long as separate facilities equal in quality)
    — Pace v. Alabama (upholding state laws prohibiting interracial marriages)
    — Bowers v. Hardwick (upholding state laws prohibiting oral or anal sex between consenting adults)

    Good to know, Susie!

Contrary to the Democrat narrative, DJT is careful about releasing confidential information. All he’s saying now is that the wrap-up smear on Kavanaugh was a “hoax,” he is not saying what the basis for this remark might be.

I’m not going to ignore the (pardon me) elephant in the room. Christine Blasey Ford’s existing social media had been wiped, down to her high-school yearbooks and including later-published explorations of what was wiped. I presume this was done with her co-operation. This, plus her lawyers’ refusal to turn over the balance of her therapist’s notes and details of her 2-question polygraph, leaves a lot of room for mischief.

    puhiawa in reply to Valerie. | October 8, 2018 at 12:21 pm

    You will find it next to impossible to wipe out a Facebook account. It is surmised that Ms Ford had help from Facebook, a feat easily accomplished by a telephone call from Feinstein to Sandberg. That is my wild speculation.

because it would indicate a lack of respect for precedent

I wonder if Collins still pines for landmark precedents like Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Korematsu v. United States.

How come all the violent threats, mobs, keyed cars, vandalism etc. come from the people on the left directed at those on the right to intimidate them?

Sad little children having tantrums. The infantilism runs deep in the Socialist Democrats.

    Mac45 in reply to Dimsdale. | October 8, 2018 at 12:45 pm

    Yes, they are behaving like sad, little children having temper tantrums. But, as every parent knows children having temper tantrums can be very destructive. They break thing, burn down houses and even kill their parents, if they do not get their own way. These people, though sad, are not harmless.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Mac45. | October 8, 2018 at 6:08 pm

      With each of my children, typically during tween or teen age, would pitch a fit and announce they were mad. I would calmly tell them that their mother and I might occasionally care, but the rest of the world would not.
      I did something similar when the were younger, and flop down on the floor kicking their feet. I told them that if they wanted us to really pay attention, that they should start banking their head on the floor. Then we would know they really meant meant it. When the oldest was four or five, they immediately stopping the tantrum and quite reasonably said that would hurt. It was really quite funny.

      With libs, there is nothing funny about either their mindset or actions. It is way past time to paddle them.

    thalesofmiletus in reply to Dimsdale. | October 8, 2018 at 1:54 pm

    Because the Enlightenment model of Revolution is that a handful of priests storm the winter palace, successfully applying hard power, because the warrior class, who could crush them like ants, have been neutralized by priestly soft power.

    However, they tried that a few days ago and were crushed like ants by the warrior class. 🙂

Roe v Wade WILL be overturned someday. And the libs know it.

Roe v Wade rests on two false supports. The first is that a fetus is NOT a human being. The second is that the Constitution has some nebulous “privacy” right buried somewhere within it.

In the first case, the Court arbitrarily established a “viability” standard which, while seeming to be rational, is not. They decided that a fetus was “viable”, able to live outside the womb, at the age of ~25 months. However, even a child who had come to term and been delivered can not live without extensive support from adults, including the mother. To make matters worse, currently 38 states have fetal homicide laws which make it a homicide to terminate a fetus without the consent of the mother. And 29 of those states apply this law all the way back to the point of conception. Now, legally and rationally, it is insane to incarcerate a person for homicide of an innocent, while allowing a family member to kill that same innocent, lawfully. Logically, this position would allow for the lawful killing of any person by its mother at any time in its life or development. Your 36 tear old son did not turn out as you wished, abort him. This tends to prove that abortion is designed to be a convenience for the mother at the expense of the child and that “viability” was unimportant to the argument.

The idea that some “right” to privacy exists, with regard to killing a human being or potential human being, is absurd, once you eliminate the spurious argument that a human being is not a human being at various points in its development. And, of course, a person’s right to privacy, including that of a woman, does not extend to taking one’s own life.

Roe was a fatally flawed decision, based upon arbitrary and faulty assumptions. It can not stand up to any real legal inspection, no more than Dred Scott or Plessy can. It was a political decision and will be overturned someday. And, that scares the heck out of liberal-progressives who are totally invested in what is, essentially, mass murder of innocent beings for an unknown reason.

    Useful idiots of the left have no understanding why it is bad law.

    Corrupt idiots of the GOPe have no understanding how to explain that to the public.

    The most virulent supporters of Roe are fat, dumpy women who have about a zero chance of finding someone above a street-level loser to have sex with them.

    No wonder they’re so worried.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Mac45. | October 8, 2018 at 6:19 pm

    So, both sperm and eggs are alive. It follows that allowing any egg to pass unfertilized is murder. Wasting any sperm is almost as bad.

    Life is one continuous process. I am sorry that all life is not created equal, but that is reality. There are things worse that dying, worse than not being born. There are people who absolutely should not be having children.

      I love people who make stupid analogies and think it is clever.

      A human egg, if left inside a woman’s body, will Never develop into a viable human being, UNLESS it is combined with a sperm cell. A sperm cell, if not removed from a male body will NEVER develop into a viable human being, UNLESS it is combined with a human egg. Why, because neither a human egg cell of a human sperm cell contains enough DNA to form a human being on its own. A human embryo, if left within a human female and is not poisoned using a chemical abortant, will probably develop into a viable human being.

      Now, let me reiterate the law, with regard to homicide of a fetus. Homicide means the killing of a human being. So, homicide of a fetus is KILLING a human being. In 38 states in the Union, it is a seperate crime to commit homicide of a fetus, unless you are the mother of that fetus. Then it is allowed. Also, in 29 of those 38 states, a person can be charged and convicted of homicide of a fetus from the instant of conception of the ovum. So, the LAW has already undermined the first part of Roe, that a fetus is not a human being until the 25th week of gestation. So, either the fetus is simply another part of the mother’s tissue [like a kidney or a spleen], until the 25th week, in which case destroying it would not be homicide, but simply an aggravated injury [aggravated battery in most states] or it is an innocent human being, in which case anyone who destroyed the fetus would be guilty of homicide. Logically, you can not have it both ways. It is simply not legally justifiable to convict a person of homicide of a fetus when the mother may legally abort the fetus during the same time frame.

According to Peter Beinart (professor of journalism at CUNY), the conflict over Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination centered not on tribalism, but on a lack of justice. “The struggle over Kavanaugh was, at its core, a struggle between people who want gender relations to change and people who want them to remain the same.” And not, apparently, between those who insist that those accused of serious misconduct deserve some level of due process and those who believe that even uncorroborated accusations about events that occurred decades ago must be believed, even absent any evidence to support the accusations.

Beinart appears to condition his conclusions based not on evidence but on who has been accused, and who is accusing: because, “There is no equivalence between the “bigotry” faced by men accused of sexual assault and the “bigotry” faced by women who suffer it. There’s no equivalence, because men wield far more power.” Just as there was “no equivalence between the “bigotry” faced by preppy lacrosse players and that faced by black males.”

Perhaps Beinart is arguing in bad faith, but I see no evidence of this: he actually seems convinced there can be no justice unless identity trumps evidence.

Yes, it’s at The Atlantic:
Which also asserts that, as the Left has lost control of the Supreme Court, it’s time for a “Requiem for the Supreme Court.”

Is there space for reasonable discussion and compromise between those who insist that all accused deserve due process, and those who are convinced that it’s time to burn witches? Are we to split the difference by only burning half of them, or by reducing the amount of fuel that may be brought to the next auto-da-fe?

    Actually, Beinart is blowing smoke.

    Many of the same people who castigated Kavanaugh, over uncorroborated accusations, defended liberal men of prominent position who were the subjects of corroborated and, in some cases, proven allegations of similar or worse behavior. The Kavanaugh split was between those who will use any tactic to gain their objectives and those who believe in a certain degree of fairness. And, there is no middle ground there.

    And this idea that innocent people, of a specific class, race, gender or religion, have to be punished for perceived injustices done to another class, race, gender or religion is absurd. If it was viable, then every European descended human being in the Western Hemisphere would have to pack up and leave the continents.

    Every time that the progressives have “lost control of the Supreme Court”, in modern history, they have tried to change it to gain an advantage. FDR wanted to expand the court so that he could appoint justices who were sympathetic supporters of his agenda.

    Icepilot in reply to Albigensian. | October 8, 2018 at 3:21 pm

    “people who want gender relations to change” – Beinart is far too modest. These folks want to deny there’s a difference between X & Y chromosomes.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Icepilot. | October 8, 2018 at 6:31 pm

      Not just chromosomes, but DNA. All DNA is not created equal, and that is not anyone’s fault, it simply is reality. The same for intelligence, which really is as much a curse as it is an advantage.

    “But we mortals hear only the news, and know nothing at all.”

    Iliad II 486.

While Trump is 100% right, he needs to insulate himself just a tad more from these issues. His “seconds in command” should deal with things like this.

    Conan in reply to Twanger. | October 8, 2018 at 3:14 pm

    That would mean the media would decide if the response got an media play. You think like the Bushes and Reagan was not as direct as Trump but he was known as the great Communicator because he went directly to the people in the same environment. Get it through your head Republicans you can’t do the same thing as the Democrats with media bias and get the same results, Reagan understood that. Trump understands that.

    Fen in reply to Twanger. | October 8, 2018 at 3:23 pm

    “He needs to – ”

    How many victories have you won?

    I dont recall even seeing you till today.

    Let Trump be Trump.

Speaking of hoaxes, I have been looking at the earlier version of the Kavanaugh hoax and came across this excellent piece by Thomas Sowell. We should not let history be distorted.

In 2007 he wrote the following piece that is a total vindication of Justice Thomas and therefore charges Anita Hill with lying.

I would be interested articles that support Prof. Hill’s version of events or critiques Thomas Sowell’s recounting.

Smart. He’s attaching the word hoax to Ford’s charges, and he’s about to lay the hammer down the Mueller hoax investigation with the release of the FISA documents. Tying the illegitimacy of each together with a single word.

“(overturning Roe -vs- Wade) will make abortion illegal in the United States”
Another lie from ’60 Minutes’.

Susan Collins a hero? Oh, Please! We’re now gilding political cowardice as a virtue? She was one of the primary Kavanaugh appointment obstructionists! The special background check revealed nothing new, served democrat propaganda purposes and delayed justice.

Susan Collins is the Barbara Boxer of New England and a one note political instrument – not a latter day William Wallace as some “republicans” repeatedly insist.

    nomadic100 in reply to Tiki. | October 8, 2018 at 4:42 pm

    I have never been a fan of Collins. She has always seemed to be Democrat lite. But in this instance, hers was a truly pivotal and essential vote for Kavanaugh and, as such, she knew, given the left’s outrage over his nomination, that she would be the focus of intense leftist rage and perhaps even violence for her vote. She gave a rational and clear explanation of her vote which I found cogent, notwithstanding her remarks about Feinstein’s integrity and Ford’s “credibility.” I want to believe that those comments were offered as mitigating verbiage to deflect some small amount of leftist rancor and that Collins did not, herself believe what she was saying.

    Fen in reply to Tiki. | October 8, 2018 at 6:31 pm

    “We’re now gilding political cowardice as a virtue? ”

    Agreed. Its pretty pathetic. And I didn’t find her speech to be that great, neither was Lindsey’s. People are overreacting to a win that should have been a gimme putt.

    I raised the point yesterday with Fuzzy and got rude insulting condescension for a simple metaphor that the enemy’s launchers were still intact on the ridgeline.

    Our people are being weird. Lindsey is the next Churchill, Collins is Washington on the Delaware river.

    Adjust accordingly.

      Tiki in reply to Fen. | October 8, 2018 at 7:32 pm

      Collins pulls the rug from under our feet and then helps us up after the fall and we’re supposed to be grateful.


Imagine – just imagine – if the likes of Bush was president during all this.

Worse, imagine if McCain was president.

Even worse, imagine if McCain was alive and in the senate during all this.


I see Kavanaugh hired 4 women clerks, one a Black woman.
He now ties RBG for the number of Black clerks .. evah.

    alaskabob in reply to Neo. | October 8, 2018 at 4:43 pm

    Just doing the same as he did in his previous position. Watch the Left try to smear that also.

Comanche Voter | October 8, 2018 at 4:33 pm

When the soon to be “Notorious” RBG was before the Senate in ~1993 for her confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice, Orin Hatch asked her how many female law clerks she had hired during her 13 years as a Judge on one of the Circuit Courts of Appeal. She had hired 57 male law clerks–and one female law clerk during those 13 years. Hatch noted that if a small company had hired men at a 57 to 1 ratio it might just be accused of discrimination.

Yes, Brett Kavannaugh was molested.

But worse, so was our country and its institutions.

The democrat party is a fascist movement. It has not use for the Constitution or any of the laws of our country, unless they can use them to gain power, and ultimately, oppress the rest of us.

This is serious sh-t. Just ask Taylor Swift.

I see that Charles Blow of the NYTimes went “full tribalism”

I do not know who it will be but Trump and the GOP had better get a private investigation going into this Dr. Ford character before Nov. There is a lot that stinks about this woman and her story needs sunshine. When it is looked at in totality it looks like an orchestrated hit job with a lot of deep state help. There are just too many coincidences to be normal. If I was going to lie to Congress and the American public, I would want to make damn sure that NO ONE could prove me to be lying. This Ford person did that with so much smoke and mirrors that it looks like a professional job. First, it was the “Mid to late 80’s”, then it was changed to early 80’s and finally to 1982. Then the things that she can remember cannot be verified by the witnesses that she named. In her letter to Feinstein, she said that Judge and Kavanaugh fell onto the floor after her near-rape and started “Scrapping” with each other. Scrapping? That means horseplay and wrestling! She “Escapes” during this scrapping moment. In her testimony to the Senate, she left out the word scrapping because it made her story look absurd. But the strangest thing that she remembers the MOST was them laughing at her! WTF! Laughing at her? Does this sound like a rape in progress to any sane person? But wait, it gets worse. She then sneaks out and does not tell her BFF about her near-rape and leaves her friend alone with FOUR drinking, rape-on-their-mind boys! Can any of you imagine being that lone girl and then not asking Ford why she left her alone at the party? No cells so how did she call a ride home? None of the participants at the so-called party lived in that house so how did they get in? Can anyone imagine going into someone else’s home and throwing a party? We do not even need to get into her obvious lies that she told straight up at the hearing. They are known to all and ignored by the msm and the left. Can you imagine what the left would claim for just one single lie that Kavanaugh got caught telling? I’m sorry for all who got burned in this travesty but this woman needs to go down!

    She wants to be an example of what we can do.
    Let us oblige.
    Really, we need to pursue this to the end of the trail.
    Otherwise, we invite more.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to inspectorudy. | October 8, 2018 at 6:53 pm

    Nice synopsis, I bet that she was lusting after Kavanaugh, and that he had no interest in her. Look are her high school picture.
    I bet that her memories are a result of her fantasizing about what she wanted and could not get. She was probably having the equivalent of a wet dream.

The liberal bloc of Justices don’t look as happy as they should at getting a new colleague.

Totally off topic but the older daughter has some serious muscles it looks like.