Jump to content

Kavanaugh revisited...


Recommended Posts

Can we stop the character assassination of judicial nominees now?

"Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s newest member, Brett Kavanaugh, have voted in tandem on nearly every case that’s come before them since Kavanaugh joined the court in October. They’ve been more likely to side with the court’s liberal justices than its other conservatives".

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/07/supreme-court-bromance-john-roberts-brett-kavanaugh-tie-up-court/3342377002/

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

If the rule as the Constitution is written there should be no problem.... 

That's the difference btween language and math.

If it were easy to just pick up the Constitution and resolve every legal difference, we wouldn't need a court much less a Supreme Court.

When the courts consistently rule in the interest of one group of people, against another group of people, the result is -always- trouble. "Fair" is an illusive but necessary characteristic. Winning!! the Supreme Court is the most likely Trump act which will eventually destroy the United States.

Of course, this will be seen as "good" by people who didn't like freedom or the US's founding principles anyway.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

That's the difference btween language and math.

If it were easy to just pick up the Constitution and resolve every legal difference, we wouldn't need a court much less a Supreme Court.

When the courts consistently rule in the interest of one group of people, against another group of people, the result is -always- trouble. "Fair" is an illusive but necessary characteristic. Winning!! the Supreme Court is the most likely Trump act which will eventually destroy the United States.

Of course, this will be seen as "good" by people who didn't like freedom or the US's founding principles anyway.

-DSK

Cry like a 5 year old when you don't get your way....

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

Cry like a 5 year old when you don't get your way....

You can put it in super-simple terms if you like

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRorjVqitL4hxDfHwwlxvc

Looks to me like Kavanaugh cried the most, even when he ended up getting his way

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Can we stop the character assassination of judicial nominees now?

"Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s newest member, Brett Kavanaugh, have voted in tandem on nearly every case that’s come before them since Kavanaugh joined the court in October. They’ve been more likely to side with the court’s liberal justices than its other conservatives".

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/07/supreme-court-bromance-john-roberts-brett-kavanaugh-tie-up-court/3342377002/

Work product is not character. The judge assassinated his own character with his own words and actions. Seeing as he is there for life, we all can be happy if he grows into the job, it isn't like he would get fired if he doesn't.

I think past history shows that the Supreme Court judges frequently stray far from what their original sponsors wanted once they realize they'll be there longer and can't get kicked out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kavanaugh showed he didn't have the judicial temper or the maturity to be on the highest court in the land.  It's not like he was the only qualified candidate. 

His "performance" at the Ford interview should have disqualified him immediately.  The fact the Republicans pushed him through anyway only made things worse for Kavanaugh.  He has a long road ahead of him before he will be widely considered the right choice for the Supreme Court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jules said:

Kavanaugh showed he didn't have the judicial temper or the maturity to be on the highest court in the land.  It's not like he was the only qualified candidate. 

His "performance" at the Ford interview should have disqualified him immediately.  The fact the Republicans pushed him through anyway only made things worse for Kavanaugh.  He has a long road ahead of him before he will be widely considered the right choice for the Supreme Court.

LOL...the fact that he pushed back after days of having his life and career savaged by lies...yeah..poor temperament 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jules said:

Kavanaugh showed he didn't have the judicial temper or the maturity to be on the highest court in the land.  It's not like he was the only qualified candidate. 

His "performance" at the Ford interview should have disqualified him immediately.  The fact the Republicans pushed him through anyway only made things worse for Kavanaugh.  He has a long road ahead of him before he will be widely considered the right choice for the Supreme Court.

And if he stayed calm and aloof  He would’ve been condemned for not showing emotion

he was confirmed get over it

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Joker said:

And if he stayed calm and aloof  He would’ve been condemned for not showing emotion

he was confirmed get over it

You don't know that.

Interesting that you've capitalized "he", then made up for the deification in the next sentence. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

You don't know that.

Interesting that you've capitalized "he", then made up for the deification in the next sentence. ;)

I remember when Dukakis pretty much lost his election.

It had to do with a hypothetical question about the death penalty and if his own wife was raped and murdered.  

He played the aloof calm lawyer/judge and was destroyed by the media and his opponents for not showing any emotion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

LOL...the fact that he pushed back after days of having his life and career savaged by lies...yeah..poor temperament 

And there's where judicial temperament comes in.  If he had the ability to do so, he could have easily handled the whole thing and come out looking like a great pick for the Supreme Court.  IF

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

I remember when Dukakis pretty much lost his election.

It had to do with a hypothetical question about the death penalty and if his own wife was raped and murdered.  

He played the aloof calm lawyer/judge and was destroyed by the media and his opponents for not showing any emotion. 

Skip to 4:35 for the correct answers to the hypothetical question. 

https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/bush-clinton-perot-debate-cold-opening/n10302

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jules said:
3 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

LOL...the fact that he pushed back after days of having his life and career savaged by lies...yeah..poor temperament 

And there's where judicial temperament comes in.  If he had the ability to do so, he could have easily handled the whole thing and come out looking like a great pick for the Supreme Court.  IF

Sure.

Because we all want Supreme Court justices who can remain fair and impartial ......... as long as it's -their- side doing the savaging

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Jules said:

And there's where judicial temperament comes in.  If he had the ability to do so, he could have easily handled the whole thing and come out looking like a great pick for the Supreme Court.  IF

I thought that his professional accomplishments were above reproach, and that the attempts to smear him were lame - but, his personal behavior during the hearings gave me reason to question his temperament for a lifetime tenure in a position with that degree of responsibility and gravitas. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I thought that his professional accomplishments were above reproach, and that the attempts to smear him were lame - but, his personal behavior during the hearings gave me reason to question his temperament for a lifetime tenure in a position with that degree of responsibility and gravitas. 

I watched virtually all of the hearing live....is was beyond shameful

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Sure.

Because we all want Supreme Court justices who can remain fair and impartial ......... as long as it's -their- side doing the savaging

-DSK

Boo-hoo.  Kavanaugh didn't have what it takes to be confirmed, let alone be nominated.  But because we have a partisan Congress and the Senate had control, he got in. 

Look at Gorsuch and the politics wrapped around his nomination.  Whatever one may feel about Gorsuch, he handled himself professionally throughout.  Kavanaugh will always be like a Clarence Thomas - someone who got the votes because of politics.

Maybe Brett will redeem himself.  I believe he has it in him but I also think he has to grow up.  It's just unfortunate for our country he will have to do his maturing while sitting as Supreme Court Justice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jules said:

Boo-hoo.  Kavanaugh didn't have what it takes to be confirmed, let alone be nominated.  But because we have a partisan Congress and the Senate had control, he got in. 

Look at Gorsuch and the politics wrapped around his nomination.  Whatever one may feel about Gorsuch, he handled himself professionally throughout.  Kavanaugh will always be like a Clarence Thomas - someone who got the votes because of politics.

Maybe Brett will redeem himself.  I believe he has it in him but I also think he has to grow up.  It's just unfortunate for our country he will have to do his maturing while sitting as Supreme Court Justice.

AS long as he doesn't sit in his back office yearning to slam a few cold ones with Squee and Billy, he might mature...but he "likes beer". 

Certainly a high point in supreme court nomination hearings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have only practiced law for 35 years.  I am a neophyte. 

These things become obvious.  Those who want to become judges demonstrate those attributes early.  Often, privileged and from very exclusive parts of society.  They avoid difficult issues and problems because resume is more than result.

I am not writing a book here, so I will just say, it is best that a judge or a jury not determine your fate.  Best that you be nice to the police or pay a nice lawyer who tells you don't try that again.

The great issues will be decided by those who decide to get involved.  Without diligence, this republic will not prevail.  Damn I wish I was as good as I thought I was. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'd don't place much weight on what young men did or didn't do in their teens 40 years ago.

Shocking as their behaviour may have been in todays lights, if you prosecuted every young man that drunkenly assaulted women back then, you'd have the courts tied up for decades and jails busting at the seams...(rape and murder not withstanding) 

It's Kavanaughs behaviour as an adult that counts. He's shown himself unable to be politically impartial, made serious attempts to damage the lives of young women and misuse his judicial powers to forward his religious beliefs and political agenda..that makes him unfit to sit on the SC.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Justice Kavanaugh has voted with the liberals on the court, so he did not do what he has been accused of doing in his youth. 

 

A bit of a welcome surprise. In the past he's been a pretty shallow hater. If he keeps looking at cases by merit and law, it won't be long before Trump and his legion of retards are calling him names and publicly regretting his appointment.

Sometimes, the time makes the man. But it's not a smart way to bet. If it's really happening, I'll be glad.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
8 hours ago, Jules said:

And there's where judicial temperament comes in.  If he had the ability to do so, he could have easily handled the whole thing and come out looking like a great pick for the Supreme Court.  IF

I thought that his professional accomplishments were above reproach, and that the attempts to smear him were lame - but, his personal behavior during the hearings gave me reason to question his temperament for a lifetime tenure in a position with that degree of responsibility and gravitas. 

It's not a smear to say that for a few years he was up to his elbows in mega-partisan sleaze.

Much of what I've read of his published words give the impression of somebody that puts the Republican Party on a pedestal.

The accusations of Dr Ford were quite serious and perhaps badly handled in procedure but not deserving of the partisan counter-attack. His temperament was shown to be childish and vindictive.

OTOH his behavior on the Court itself so far has been pretty good better than I expected

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Joker said:

I remember when Dukakis pretty much lost his election.

It had to do with a hypothetical question about the death penalty and if his own wife was raped and murdered.  

He played the aloof calm lawyer/judge and was destroyed by the media and his opponents for not showing any emotion. 

And here we all thought it was that goofy picture in the tank.

Oh...and Willie Horton.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Personally I'd don't place much weight on what young men did or didn't do in their teens 40 years ago.

Shocking as their behaviour may have been in todays lights, if you prosecuted every young man that drunkenly assaulted women back then, you'd have the courts tied up for decades and jails busting at the seams...(rape and murder not withstanding) 

It's Kavanaughs behaviour as an adult that counts. He's shown himself unable to be politically impartial, made serious attempts to damage the lives of young women and misuse his judicial powers to forward his religious beliefs and political agenda..that makes him unfit to sit on the SC.

I disagree. 

A lot us drank when we were young. A lot of us chased women.

Some of us managed to not rape anyone, or even tried. Some of us realized that women not in control of their facilities need protection, not abuse. 

I knew guys that acted differently. That took advantage of women, harmed them.

Rape is rape. Character tells. If you're willing to rape a woman when you're 17 and you've never been held accountable for it, why would you change? Especially when rich and powerful men take you under wing and groom and protect you.

Rape is rape. By 17 if you are sociopathic enough to force yourself on a woman who is fighting you off and screaming, you are broken. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

And here we all thought it was that goofy picture in the tank.

Oh...and Willie Horton.

The tank pic was pretty funny.  I wonder if the staffer that set that up got fired  

The Horton ad played on emotions and was very similar to the one run by the NAACP against Bush a decade later  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

Once upon a time Simple Jack used a  sock name almost like this.

Threw me, because he usually wasn't coarse.

Times have changed. He's a prolific asshole.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B.J. Porter said:

I disagree. 

A lot us drank when we were young. A lot of us chased women.

Some of us managed to not rape anyone, or even tried. Some of us realized that women not in control of their facilities need protection, not abuse. 

I knew guys that acted differently. That took advantage of women, harmed them.

Rape is rape. Character tells. If you're willing to rape a woman when you're 17 and you've never been held accountable for it, why would you change? Especially when rich and powerful men take you under wing and groom and protect you.

Rape is rape. By 17 if you are sociopathic enough to force yourself on a woman who is fighting you off and screaming, you are broken. 

 

sorry, i meant not including rape and murder.

No meaning no is a culturally recent concept.

How many guys did you know that when drunk would be more "persistent" than "acceptable" today? one in 10? one in 5? one in 3?

Stats indicate that something like one in three women have at some time experienced sexual assault to one degree or another at some time in their lives.

Either the stats are wrong, there's a few very busy boys out there or a lot of boys with no restraint or conscience.

I get annoyed when this man or that gets lambasted in these high profile cases for thing they did as teenagers.(not that they shouldn't be held to account for serious assaults).it sort of minimalises a pretty widespread  problem. What is serious crime now was glossed over back then. (not right but reality)

Holding adult men to account for teenage boorishness only assists the deniers in trivialising the complaints and lumping the whole thing in the sneered at "me too" basket.

I often wonder just how many good men today have shameful episodes in their past? What to do? Out them all or encourage them to talk about it and teach their sons different?

Fear never helps.

  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jules said:

Kavanaugh showed he didn't have the judicial temper or the maturity to be on the highest court in the land.  It's not like he was the only qualified candidate. 

His "performance" at the Ford interview should have disqualified him immediately.  The fact the Republicans pushed him through anyway only made things worse for Kavanaugh.  He has a long road ahead of him before he will be widely considered the right choice for the Supreme Court.

He attended Drug them and Rape them parties every week in school. Hundreds of witness have come forward to corroborate the accusations. Lear 8-track and Sony Beta tapes have surfaced of him beating women senseless and raping them.

When you add up all the crazy accusations there has to be troves of witnesses and Polaroids of his shenanigans. 

And of course let'us not forget Julie Swetnick & Michael Avenatti,

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

sorry, i meant not including rape and murder.

No meaning no is a culturally recent concept.

How many guys did you know that when drunk would be more "persistent" than "acceptable" today? one in 10? one in 5? one in 3?

Stats indicate that something like one in three women have at some time experienced sexual assault to one degree or another at some time in their lives.

Either the stats are wrong, there's a few very busy boys out there or a lot of boys with no restraint or conscience.

I get annoyed when this man or that gets lambasted in these high profile cases for thing they did as teenagers.(not that they shouldn't be held to account for serious assaults).it sort of minimalises a pretty widespread  problem. What is serious crime now was glossed over back then. (not right but reality)

Holding adult men to account for teenage boorishness only assists the deniers in trivialising the complaints and lumping the whole thing in the sneered at "me too" basket.

I often wonder just how many good men today have shameful episodes in their past? What to do? Out them all or encourage them to talk about it and teach their sons different?

Fear never helps.

  

The Christine Ford situation could have...would have...ended un a serious assault if she'd been any less in control. 

For guys like that, that was just another weekend of fun.

Consent existed in the 80s. I'm Brent Kavanaugh's age, I went to college an hour and a half from where he did. Same sort of environment, same sort of school.

We knew what consent was and we talked about it. Some chose not to listen, or ridiculed the concept. We knew their types. 

Even drunk, naked and in your bed...no meant no, even in 1984.

For some of us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

The Christine Ford situation could have...would have...ended un a serious assault if she'd been any less in control. 

For guys like that, that was just another weekend of fun.

Consent existed in the 80s. I'm Brent Kavanaugh's age, I went to college an hour and a half from where he did. Same sort of environment, same sort of school.

We knew what consent was and we talked about it. Some chose not to listen, or ridiculed the concept. We knew their types. 

Even drunk, naked and in your bed...no meant no, even in 1984.

For some of us.

For some of you.

Odd that I went to a bog standard state school. same applied. I doubt you knew what consent was in todays terms.

Girls drunk and giggly in provocative clothing that consented to go outside..were "consenting " While fighting screaming penetrative rape was not so common ..there was many a 3/4 shot, semi conscious  girl was fucked without "violence and knowing consent"..don't be so naive. How many aging rock stars are trembling in their boots?  

Anyone got the guts to post an anon poll here and see how many blokes did something they are now ashamed of?

How many men are knowing accomplices of things their mated did?

How many men listen to the boasts of workmates..and say and do nothing..you don't dob your mates right?

If men felt "safe" in discussing past crimes of themselves and their mates with their wives, sons, girlfriends. thered be a better awareness and culture today.

As it is, the culture continues albeit underground.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Anyone got the guts to post an anon poll here and see how many blokes did something they are now ashamed of? 

How many men are knowing accomplices of things their mated did?

How many men listen to the boasts of workmates..and say and do nothing..you don't dob your mates right?

I'm Tom Ray from Punta Gorda FL and I never did any such thing nor heard about it from my friends.

Not sure why someone would want anonymity to say that. Nor really why anyone would pretend that internet anonymity is possible. I gave up on the idea in the 90's after realizing it's almost impossible for people with a lot more computer knowledge than I will ever have. Truly impossible for me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

I'm Tom Ray from Punta Gorda FL and I never did any such thing nor heard about it from my friends.

Not sure why someone would want anonymity to say that. Nor really why anyone would pretend that internet anonymity is possible. I gave up on the idea in the 90's after realizing it's almost impossible for people with a lot more computer knowledge than I will ever have. Truly impossible for me.

How about..my name is ..... and when I was 18 we were at a party at my place..no parents..as it wound up one girl missed her bus and I said she'd be safe for the night in my bed..she's drunk and drowzy..she didn't object.

Or..when I was 16 I met a silly awed 14 year old at the skating rink..I took her outside ..she didn't know what I was up to..but I was quick and she didn't object.

Or

I was drunk and bailed a strange girl up in the bathroom..she slapped my face and left.

so many nuances

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

The good old days, when you couldn't rape your wife.

 

 

Because she couldn't say no.....

For shits and giggles, people should research when their jurisdictions recognized rape as a criminal offence between a man and his wife.

Our mums deserve our sympathy....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, boys, drink and hormones effect them.Effect girls too. The #metoo movement has done good and not so good.

There's an element of vengeance propagating fear among men..Men and women need to accept  that times were different and acknowledge that what was angrily and reluctantly tolerated then, needs to be addressed now without fear of retribution.

Women knew what went on, and they too were silent.or blamed the girls stupidity.or scolding but not willing to make a fuss.

I'm guilty of that. 

We won't get past this without acknowledging that it was wrong and doing better by exposing it to the light and talking about it.

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

How about..my name is ..... and when I was 18 we were at a party at my place..no parents..as it wound up one girl missed her bus and I said she'd be safe for the night in my bed..she's drunk and drowzy..she didn't object.

Or..when I was 16 I met a silly awed 14 year old at the skating rink..I took her outside ..she didn't know what I was up to..but I was quick and she didn't object.

Or

I was drunk and bailed a strange girl up in the bathroom..she slapped my face and left.

Or stripped me nekkid, tied me to the shower head and left?

so many nuances

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of my neighbors get all of their news from Fox.  One stopped by the day after Ford and Kavanaugh had their interviews and out of the blue asked me what I thought.  Normally, we never talk politics so I thought he was going to tell me he had a revelation. 

I told him I thought Ford was very credible.  He agreed with me but then said Kavanaugh was credible, too.  I said somebody has to be lying, so who is it?   After some back and forth I asked him what he thought after listening to just the interviews.  He said he believed Ford.  

Hearing just the two interviews, alone, and without the usual talking head spin, Ford was the more believable.  But in our discussion I realized it was the talking heads that changed his mind.  And when I told him that, he sort of agreed but he still held on to the spin from the Fox talking heads.

I guess you can credit Fox for employing such effective spin meisters or maybe it's just a gullibility issue.  Whatever it is, the man's mind was changed despite the facts - the facts being the personal interviews of each and nothing more. 

It's always surprising to me when I hear people rely more on the opinions of others than fact.  Maybe it's an affirmation thing, I don't know.  What I do know is it makes no sense to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2019 at 5:42 PM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I see Dog is attempting to rub the liberals nose in shit but, once again, the shit ends up on Dog.

No, I think he's done very well so far in rubbing your nose in your own shit. 

BTW, you missed a little bit over by the corner of your mouth..... no down a little lower....

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2019 at 3:58 AM, Left Shift said:

AS long as he doesn't sit in his back office yearning to slam a few cold ones with Squee and Billy, he might mature...but he "likes beer". 

Certainly a high point in supreme court nomination hearings.

What's wrong with liking beer?  Are SC judges not allowed to like beer?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2019 at 7:56 AM, B.J. Porter said:

I disagree. 

A lot us drank when we were young. A lot of us chased women.

Some of us managed to not rape anyone, or even tried. Some of us realized that women not in control of their facilities need protection, not abuse. 

I knew guys that acted differently. That took advantage of women, harmed them.

Rape is rape. Character tells. If you're willing to rape a woman when you're 17 and you've never been held accountable for it, why would you change? Especially when rich and powerful men take you under wing and groom and protect you.

Rape is rape. By 17 if you are sociopathic enough to force yourself on a woman who is fighting you off and screaming, you are broken. 

 

I don't disagree with you Beej about people like that.  Once a sociopath, always a sociopath....

But the fact is that he somehow managed to spend 40 years around daughters and other young women - both in professional life (interns, clerks and such) and in social life working with all-girls sports teams, etc - and NOTHING.... not one inkling, not a rumor, not even a whisper of anything improper came out.  In fact those women who worked with and for him and those young girls he coached all lined up passionately in his defense as someone completely above reproach.  If he was as broken as you claim he must be, there is no FUCKING WAY he maintained that facade for so long.  And to not only maintain a facade but to be beloved by the women around him.  Sorry, but a sociopathic, broken man just cannot do that.  He would have more likely to have been like Dr nasser or joe sandusky than the saint he was portrayed to be by the women around him.  

Sorry BJ, that dog won't hunt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2019 at 1:30 PM, Shortforbob said:

For some of you.

Odd that I went to a bog standard state school. same applied. I doubt you knew what consent was in todays terms.

Girls drunk and giggly in provocative clothing that consented to go outside..were "consenting " While fighting screaming penetrative rape was not so common ..there was many a 3/4 shot, semi conscious  girl was fucked without "violence and knowing consent"..don't be so naive. How many aging rock stars are trembling in their boots?  

Anyone got the guts to post an anon poll here and see how many blokes did something they are now ashamed of?

How many men are knowing accomplices of things their mated did?

How many men listen to the boasts of workmates..and say and do nothing..you don't dob your mates right?

If men felt "safe" in discussing past crimes of themselves and their mates with their wives, sons, girlfriends. thered be a better awareness and culture today.

As it is, the culture continues albeit underground.

I got raped by a fat girl once when I went into a bedroom to go pass out during a party in college.  Can I be part of the "Me too" movement now?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I got raped by a fat girl once when I went into a bedroom to go pass out during a party in college.  Can I be part of the "Me too" movement now?  

absolutely you can.  stupid question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I don't disagree with you Beej about people like that.  Once a sociopath, always a sociopath....

But the fact is that he somehow managed to spend 40 years around daughters and other young women - both in professional life (interns, clerks and such) and in social life working with all-girls sports teams, etc - and NOTHING.... not one inkling, not a rumor, not even a whisper of anything improper came out.  In fact those women who worked with and for him and those young girls he coached all lined up passionately in his defense as someone completely above reproach.  If he was as broken as you claim he must be, there is no FUCKING WAY he maintained that facade for so long.  And to not only maintain a facade but to be beloved by the women around him.  Sorry, but a sociopathic, broken man just cannot do that.  He would have more likely to have been like Dr nasser or joe sandusky than the saint he was portrayed to be by the women around him.  

Sorry BJ, that dog won't hunt.

Bundy managed to date a women for years without raping or murdering her.  Didn’t kill or rape his mom. Same with his female coworkers. The BTK Killer, the NorCal rapist and so one did the same.   That Kavanaugh managed not to rape his daughters or their friends or basketball teammates or women he worked with is not remarkable.  He simply didn’t pee in his nest.

That you find it remarkable is well...

Disturbing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I don't disagree with you Beej about people like that.  Once a sociopath, always a sociopath....

But the fact is that he somehow managed to spend 40 years around daughters and other young women - both in professional life (interns, clerks and such) and in social life working with all-girls sports teams, etc - and NOTHING.... not one inkling, not a rumor, not even a whisper of anything improper came out.  In fact those women who worked with and for him and those young girls he coached all lined up passionately in his defense as someone completely above reproach.  If he was as broken as you claim he must be, there is no FUCKING WAY he maintained that facade for so long.  And to not only maintain a facade but to be beloved by the women around him.  Sorry, but a sociopathic, broken man just cannot do that.  He would have more likely to have been like Dr nasser or joe sandusky than the saint he was portrayed to be by the women around him.  

 Sorry BJ, that dog won't hunt.

Sorry, whilst my thoughts are more in line with Chesapeake's (whatever his past, Kavanaugh ruled out being the right temperament for the job with how he attacked Democrats for one woman's accusation) - you're defence is also pretty unrealistic, Jeffie. The ability of men with power, connections, and a sociopathy to abuse those vulnerable to them to keep that shit hidden is well established. See any country's investigation of church abuses and the surprise on people's faces when it's not just the fucked up creepy pervert they "knew" was a little off that gets busted. 

Cardinal George Pell had people around the world, not just those he dealt with day to day, passionately lining up to sing his praises, testify with unwavering faith about his character, etc. Even had two former heads of state come out to tell everyone he just wasn't that kind of guy. Just got himself a jail sentence for kiddy fiddling... and even then only because a Royal Commission investigated the matter with the power (& actual integrity) to keep the names of people raising evidence confidential from the public. The public crucifixion of Christine Ford stands as a polar opposite to what's needed to challenge people in power. Yeah, it's perfectly plausible that a person in Brett Kavanaugh's position could keep shit quiet. 

I'm not saying that dog is going to find something, but it sure as hell hunts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I got raped by a fat girl once when I went into a bedroom to go pass out during a party in college.  Can I be part of the "Me too" movement now?  

So she penetrated you? Because rape involves the act of penetration. And of course it was unwanted.

 

Or maybe you are just talking shit. You relieving your glory days on the peg don't make for scintillating breakfast reading.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I don't disagree with you Beej about people like that.  Once a sociopath, always a sociopath....

But the fact is that he somehow managed to spend 40 years around daughters and other young women - both in professional life (interns, clerks and such) and in social life working with all-girls sports teams, etc - and NOTHING.... not one inkling, not a rumor, not even a whisper of anything improper came out.  In fact those women who worked with and for him and those young girls he coached all lined up passionately in his defense as someone completely above reproach.  If he was as broken as you claim he must be, there is no FUCKING WAY he maintained that facade for so long.  And to not only maintain a facade but to be beloved by the women around him.  Sorry, but a sociopathic, broken man just cannot do that.  He would have more likely to have been like Dr nasser or joe sandusky than the saint he was portrayed to be by the women around him.  

Sorry BJ, that dog won't hunt.

Completely untrue.

 Were you under a rock last summer?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

So she penetrated you? Because rape involves the act of penetration. And of course it was unwanted.

 

Or maybe you are just talking shit. You relieving your glory days on the peg don't make for scintillating breakfast reading.

I'm guessing it was actually a fat guy with big man boobs that skewered Jeff..... Probably several times..... In the ass, in the mouth, in the ears......

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll address Jeff and Bents points.  You are both correct to a point.  The difference is once the accusation was made people started talking and coming forward in all those cases except Kavanaugh.  He was not in a position of power for years after the time frame Ford claimed.  So this serial rapist made it through his remaining High school days plus all of college and all of Law School and nothing?  Not a single case of he tried to go to far? 

The other point is the witness’s Ms Ford claimed were right there all stated they were not there and they never heard anything about it or went to any house party that matched her description. 

That includes one very close friend. 

Sorry this was either made up or as I believe a case of mistaken identity. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, The Joker said:

I’ll address Jeff and Bents points.  You are both correct to a point.  The difference is once the accusation was made people started talking and coming forward in all those cases except Kavanaugh.  He was not in a position of power for years after the time frame Ford claimed.  So this serial rapist made it through his remaining High school days plus all of college and all of Law School and nothing?  Not a single case of he tried to go to far? 

You sound like someone that has never had to deal with the wealthy and connected before. Many a rich kid is in a position of power due simply to the lengths (and capability) of their parents to deal with their "indiscretions". As long as they keep their targets limited to the poor and/or vulnerable, they can get away with a lot with nothing more than insiders and victims knowing what kind of sick person the protected young man (or woman) happens to be.  It's only the stupid sociopaths that don't know what they're doing is wrong (by the standards of society they wish to blend into). The smart ones know they need to be discrete. 

Not making a judgement either way on Brett, just pointing out that everyone keeps pointing to the "absence of evidence" as "evidence of absence". That's not how it works. Especially for smart sociopaths with power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Joker said:

I’ll address Jeff and Bents points.  You are both correct to a point.  The difference is once the accusation was made people started talking and coming forward in all those cases except Kavanaugh.  He was not in a position of power for years after the time frame Ford claimed.  So this serial rapist made it through his remaining High school days plus all of college and all of Law School and nothing?  Not a single case of he tried to go to far? 

The other point is the witness’s Ms Ford claimed were right there all stated they were not there and they never heard anything about it or went to any house party that matched her description. 

That includes one very close friend. 

Sorry this was either made up or as I believe a case of mistaken identity. 

Yet Kavanaugh isn't prepared to repair his reputation by suing for defamation.

If someone impugned my reputation by accusing me of rape, I  would be doing all I could to disprove that accusation.  Wouldn't you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Yet Kavanaugh isn't prepared to repair his reputation by suing for defamation.

If someone impugned my reputation by accusing me of rape, I  would be doing all I could to disprove that accusation.  Wouldn't you?

I expect he feels Ford has dealt with  some issues in her past.  While he was not part of it. He recognizes it serves no purpose to drag her and the issue through the mud. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Joker said:

I expect he feels Ford has dealt with  some issues in her past.  While he was not part of it. He recognizes it serves no purpose to drag her and the issue through the mud. 

Yeah, because that totally matches the temperament and level of gravitas & compassion Brett Kavanaugh showed at his hearing. :rolleyes: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Yeah, because that totally matches the temperament and level of gravitas & compassion Brett Kavanaugh showed at his hearing. :rolleyes: 

Actually it does,  he never attacked Ford directly.    He defended himself from the charges and certainly went off about the rape party crap   Something that had zero credibility.  

Its about as hard a case to prove or disprove as I can imagine.  He said she said, with no witnesses   The biggest problem for those believing her, is her friend,  that she named claiming it never happened  

He was appointed so it’s easier to take the high ground and let it go.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Actually it does,  he never attacked Ford directly.

By that logic, suing her for defamation is not a direct attack on her either. It is merely a means to defending his reputation. He need only sue for a retraction, no damages, and show it's purely about his integrity and honour. He didn't and I don't think even you believe the bollocks that it's because he doesn't want to cause Ford undue distress.

And frankly, no. Kavanaugh did not show himself as the kind of person with the temperament and level of compassion at his hearing that would avoid suiing someone for a heinous accusation because it might hurt the person accusing him. Quite the opposite. He was petty, self-centred, and at times outright dishonest about things that might have been embarrassing but were far from worth lying about (boofing, Devil's Triangle, etc). 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I don't disagree with you Beej about people like that.  Once a sociopath, always a sociopath....

But the fact is that he somehow managed to spend 40 years around daughters and other young women - both in professional life (interns, clerks and such) and in social life working with all-girls sports teams, etc - and NOTHING.... not one inkling, not a rumor, not even a whisper of anything improper came out.  In fact those women who worked with and for him and those young girls he coached all lined up passionately in his defense as someone completely above reproach.  If he was as broken as you claim he must be, there is no FUCKING WAY he maintained that facade for so long.  And to not only maintain a facade but to be beloved by the women around him.  Sorry, but a sociopathic, broken man just cannot do that.  He would have more likely to have been like Dr nasser or joe sandusky than the saint he was portrayed to be by the women around him.  

Sorry BJ, that dog won't hunt.

How you spend 40 years avoiding the limelight is getting picked up by someone who grooms you, and explains that if you can learn to hide your bullshit, they can make you a judge.

Learn more about Kavenaugh - he's had "mentors" grooming him and curbing his behavior since Yale.

Before that, he sounds like he was an animal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:
4 hours ago, The Joker said:

I’ll address Jeff and Bents points.  You are both correct to a point.  The difference is once the accusation was made people started talking and coming forward in all those cases except Kavanaugh.  He was not in a position of power for years after the time frame Ford claimed.  So this serial rapist made it through his remaining High school days plus all of college and all of Law School and nothing?  Not a single case of he tried to go to far? 

You sound like someone that has never had to deal with the wealthy and connected before. Many a rich kid is in a position of power due simply to the lengths (and capability) of their parents to deal with their "indiscretions". As long as they keep their targets limited to the poor and/or vulnerable, they can get away with a lot with nothing more than insiders and victims knowing what kind of sick person the protected young man (or woman) happens to be.  It's only the stupid sociopaths that don't know what they're doing is wrong (by the standards of society they wish to blend into). The smart ones know they need to be discrete. 

Not making a judgement either way on Brett, just pointing out that everyone keeps pointing to the "absence of evidence" as "evidence of absence". That's not how it works. Especially for smart sociopaths with power. 

This ^^.

How much jail time did Brock Turner do?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Fakenews said:

Bundy managed to date a women for years without raping or murdering her.  Didn’t kill or rape his mom. Same with his female coworkers. The BTK Killer, the NorCal rapist and so one did the same.   That Kavanaugh managed not to rape his daughters or their friends or basketball teammates or women he worked with is not remarkable.  He simply didn’t pee in his nest.

That you find it remarkable is well...

Disturbing.

He not only didn't pee in his nest, shit where he lives, etc.....  but there is not an inkling that there has been anything even remotely hinting at a sociopathic broken man anywhere else.  If you accept BJ's premise, there is no way he couldn't help himself from following his nature elsewhere.  But not a single woman has surfaced since his younger days....  That doesn't sound like a sociopath to me, Gaytor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Sorry, whilst my thoughts are more in line with Chesapeake's (whatever his past, Kavanaugh ruled out being the right temperament for the job with how he attacked Democrats for one woman's accusation) - you're defence is also pretty unrealistic, Jeffie. The ability of men with power, connections, and a sociopathy to abuse those vulnerable to them to keep that shit hidden is well established. See any country's investigation of church abuses and the surprise on people's faces when it's not just the fucked up creepy pervert they "knew" was a little off that gets busted. 

Cardinal George Pell had people around the world, not just those he dealt with day to day, passionately lining up to sing his praises, testify with unwavering faith about his character, etc. Even had two former heads of state come out to tell everyone he just wasn't that kind of guy. Just got himself a jail sentence for kiddy fiddling... and even then only because a Royal Commission investigated the matter with the power (& actual integrity) to keep the names of people raising evidence confidential from the public. The public crucifixion of Christine Ford stands as a polar opposite to what's needed to challenge people in power. Yeah, it's perfectly plausible that a person in Brett Kavanaugh's position could keep shit quiet. 

I'm not saying that dog is going to find something, but it sure as hell hunts.

Your argument might have been true 10-20 years go.  But not with #METOO and his huge profile.  Any women he supposedly might have molested since HS would be coming out of the woodwork knowing full well they would get all the $upport they needed.  Sorry, the dog is sleeping and dreaming of chasing rabbits, not wild geese.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

How you spend 40 years avoiding the limelight is getting picked up by someone who grooms you, and explains that if you can learn to hide your bullshit, they can make you a judge.

Learn more about Kavenaugh - he's had "mentors" grooming him and curbing his behavior since Yale.

Before that, he sounds like he was an animal.

Oh BS - you've been reading too many crime novels!  As you said, once a sociopath, always a sociopath.  I don't care how much mentoring you get, you don't change your spots like this and have that sort of discipline and self-control for 40+ years.  

But for argument's sake, lets say you're right and all this mentoring curbed his behavior.  I would say 40 years clean makes him a changed man.  Aren't you willing to accept a man who could make that big of a change in his fundamental character?  And not even stray once.  Not once in 40 years?  Fuck, I would say that ALONE, if true, make him even MORE qualified as a SCJ, to be able to not only see but live that sort of redemption.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Your argument might have been true 10-20 years go.  But not with #METOO and his huge profile.  Any women he supposedly might have molested since HS would be coming out of the woodwork knowing full well they would get all the $upport they needed.  Sorry, the dog is sleeping and dreaming of chasing rabbits, not wild geese.  

I'm sure with your lackadaisical opinion on gang rape, you do see things that way. It is patently clear your experience with rape and rape victims is limited to the imagined scenarios you joke about. When you've got some real world experience with rape victims and what it does to them, you'll know #metoo means sweet fuck all to those raped and/or assaulted decades ago, outside Hollywood, being able to come forward. Until then, you'll out yourself as having no fucking clue every time you tell the rest of us what #metoo means and how rape victims just get over it enough to jump into the public spotlight. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

“Koegler and others had set things up, and the next step seemed preordained: hit me with an unexpected allegation (Farrow) and get me to start talking. Then entangle my life, which has included a struggle with alcoholism when I was younger, with the life of Brett Kavanaugh, who had a much different journey than I. It was an oppo research hit whose lynchpin was me crumbling, babbling, and using my life to take my friend down, even if he had nothing to do with my struggles. Reading accounts of Ford’s behavior it becomes clear why she never went to the police or released her therapist’s notes (which never mention Brett Kavanaugh) and why she kept asking for delays. She was waiting for me to crack”. .. Mark Judge

I Knew the Name of the Dragon | The Stream

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Dog said:

“Koegler and others had set things up, and the next step seemed preordained: hit me with an unexpected allegation (Farrow) and get me to start talking. Then entangle my life, which has included a struggle with alcoholism when I was younger, with the life of Brett Kavanaugh, who had a much different journey than I. It was an oppo research hit whose lynchpin was me crumbling, babbling, and using my life to take my friend down, even if he had nothing to do with my struggles. Reading accounts of Ford’s behavior it becomes clear why she never went to the police or released her therapist’s notes (which never mention Brett Kavanaugh) and why she kept asking for delays. She was waiting for me to crack”. .. Mark Judge

I Knew the Name of the Dragon | The Stream

The Author

"Of course ... no means no and yes means yes. But there’s also that ambiguous middle ground, where the woman seems interested and indicates, whether verbally or not, that the man needs to prove himself to her. And if that man is any kind of man, he’ll allow himself to feel the awesome power, the wonderful beauty, of uncontrollable male passion.

Mark Gauvreau Judge. "Hard Case Crime: the Beauty of Male Passion"

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

The Author

"Of course ... no means no and yes means yes. But there’s also that ambiguous middle ground, where the woman seems interested and indicates, whether verbally or not, that the man needs to prove himself to her. And if that man is any kind of man, he’ll allow himself to feel the awesome power, the wonderful beauty, of uncontrollable male passion.

Mark Gauvreau Judge. "Hard Case Crime: the Beauty of Male Passion"

And?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The UberChristians are coming out into the open. C&P in full because it's behind a paywall.

Quote

On one level, it’s easy to summarize the Supreme Court’s about-face on the conflict between COVID-19 regulations and houses of worship. Before Justice Amy Coney Barrett replaced the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court twice upheld restrictions on religious gatherings. Afterward, the Court twice overturned them.

So, sure: Before Barrett, the churches lose, but after Barrett, the churches win.

Yet the inexplicably sloppy way in which the Court’s conservatives have written about these cases reveals something much more troubling: a seeming inability to separate legal and scientific reality from Christian nationalist conspiracy theories about the “war on religion.”

The first religion-and-COVID case that the Court decided was South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, handed down on May 29, 2020. (Strictly speaking, none of these four cases were “decisions” since all had to do with injunctions and stays of state rules. But since the pandemic has evolved so quickly and so many times, these “temporary” decisions are likely all we’re going to have.) That case concerned California’s restrictions capping indoor religious services at 25 percent capacity or 100 people, whichever was lower.

The Court voted 5-4 to allow the restrictions to take effect. The (then) four liberals didn’t issue an opinion, but Chief Justice John Roberts, the swing vote, said that this was a close case, and it was not “indisputably clear” that the rules were unconstitutional, which is the standard for an injunction against them.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, made two critical errors that recur in all four cases, writing that “California’s latest safety guidelines discriminate against places of worship and in favor of comparable secular businesses.” The first mistake is the word “discriminate,” which implies an invidious, perhaps bigoted motive—more on that in a moment.

The more subtle, but more determinative, mistake is the word “comparable.” The businesses Kavanaugh listed were “factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries.” As we’ll see in the other cases, the trouble is that none of those businesses actually are comparable when it comes to the spread of COVID-19.

In most of them, customers flit in and out; few spend more than 15 minutes in the presence of others, which is what public health experts say causes the greatest risk. South Bay Pentecostal’s services, on the other hand, run 90 minutes. And even in factories, hair salons and offices, where people do spend prolonged periods of time, few of them sing, dance, shout, and socialize with large groups of people, as do attendees at South Bay Pentecostal; nor do preachers preach (unmasked) for 30-45 minutes. So these businesses are not “comparable” at all.

The trouble is, as soon as Kavanaugh blithely equates a church with a bookstore, then either the two must be treated equally (in legal parlance, the rules must be “neutral and of general applicability”) or else the government is discriminating against the church, which can only be justified if the restriction is narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest–which basically means never.

But a church isn’t like a bookstore! That’s the whole point. Nowhere does Kavanaugh engage with the distinctive activities that take place in churches, mosques, and synagogues; he simply says the secular businesses are “comparable.” Which, as Justice Sotomayor would write in a dissent a few months later, they are clearly not. It is impossible “to square [secular] examples with the conditions medical experts tell us facilitate the spread of COVID–19: large groups of people gathering, speaking, and singing in close proximity indoors for extended periods of time.”

Indeed, churches are so conducive to spreading COVID that one study found that 35 out of 92 of people who attended an Arkansas church between March 6-8, 2020, caught COVID from just two infected fellow congregants. Three died. Wonderful things happen in houses of worship, but from an epidemiological point of view, they are uniquely suited to spreading COVID-19.

The same elision was made in the second case, Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, decided on July 24, 2020. Here, it was (no surprise) casinos and entertainment venues that were treated more favorably than houses of worship. The Court upheld the rules 5-4, without issuing an opinion. “In Nevada, it seems, it is better to be in entertainment than religion,” wrote Gorsuch bitterly.

Only, once again, from an epidemiological point of view, casinos and movie theaters are different from churches. Casinos, admittedly, are a closer case, and obviously their exemption was politically and economically motivated. But one unjustified exemption does not make another one constitutionally required, and even in casinos, there’s still not the level of singing, preaching, and gathering with fellow congregants, and casinos tend to be large and well-ventilated. So despite Gorsuch’s well-played bon mot that “there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel,” in fact, Nevada is doing no such thing. It is treating different situations differently.

Same again in the third case, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo. That case was decided Nov. 25, 2020, and was decided 5-4 in favor of the Church, now that Justice Barrett replaced the late Justice Ginsburg (for a day or two, the hashtag #amyCOVIDbarrett was trending on Twitter). The result was the opposite of the earlier cases, but the conservative justices’ mistake was the same: “[The First] Amendment prohibits government officials from treating religious exercises worse than comparable secular activities,” wrote Gorsuch.

What activities? Going to “hardware stores, acupuncturists, and liquor stores” as well as “bicycle repair shops, certain signage companies, accountants, lawyers, and insurance agents.” But at which of those activities does one pray out loud for three hours, as one does in the Orthodox synagogues, which joined the Diocese in the lawsuit and which were the primary reason for the regulations?

Now, the New York rules were indeed somewhat egregious: strict numerical limits despite the size of the church, which really don’t make much sense in a huge cathedral. But everyone knows that those rules were put in place because Ultra-Orthodox communities were brazenly flaunting all COVID rules, packing into tiny synagogues with poor ventilation, and attending mass indoor weddings, funerals, and other gatherings. The diocese was just caught in the geographical net. And the rules only applied to “red zones” where infection rates were extremely high—so high, in fact, that at the time the case was decided, there were no red zones.

But regardless of their merits, the New York rules were not “discriminating.” They were based on the kinds of COVID-related activities that happen in different places.

Finally, sensing the winds had changed, the Becket Fund and other religious-fundamentalist organizations representing South Bay United Pentecostal Church returned to the Supreme Court, and got their wishes on Feb. 5, 2021: This time, California’s rules were mostly thrown out.

Yet again, Gorsuch issued a sweeping statement full of linguistic gesticulations and unjustified hyperbole: “When a State so obviously targets religion for differential treatment, our job becomes that much clearer.” Unlike in past cases, Gorsuch did engage with the four reasons California offered for why churches are different from hairstylists, manicurists, and bus terminals (his examples). But he treated them as four separate inquiries, when the whole point is that “religious exercises involve (1) large numbers of people mixing from different households; (2) in close physical proximity; (3) for extended periods; (4) with singing” all at the same time.

So, Gorsuch wrote, people from different households mix at the train station; they wait in line at the store; and they might stay at the mall for hours. Yes, but the point is that a church is all of these combined. Which is what makes houses of worship uniquely dangerous from a COVID-19 perspective, and unlike all of the other examples that he gives.

Moreover, the kind of in-depth scrutiny Gorsuch insists upon only applies, again, when the state is “discriminating” against religion. But that is the question of the case, not its premise. California does not have to explain “how a total ban on religious singing is narrowly tailored to its legitimate public health concerns,” because that is only the standard when a law isn’t neutral toward religion. Here, it is neutral, because these religious activities are not like the other examples Gorsuch brings up. Indeed, Gorsuch didn’t mention the one thing that they do resemble—indoor sporting events—perhaps because it doesn’t suit his argument, since they’re restricted just like indoor religious services are.

Gorsuch’s opinion is specious reasoning, circular argument, and insufferable hand-wringing all wrapped up in one. And just like California’s four-factor analysis, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Now, Gorsuch is not a fool. And after four similar cases, surely the Court’s conservatives understand everything I’ve laid out here. So, to paraphrase our last president, what the hell is going on?

“For decades now, the Christian Right has insisted that religious people are being discriminated against, that there is a war on religion, that religious liberty is under attack. None of this is true.”

The key is the word “discriminate.” All five of the Court’s religious conservatives—here counting Barrett—have written and spoken about the “war on religion” that they perceive to be taking place, a war that is consistently framed in theological terms as a battle between good and evil. (This was how former Attorney General William Barr framed it as well.) That narrative is as false as any of the right’s other conspiracy theories, yet it has captured the minds of these five justices. And so they have consistently elided the distinction between treating unlike cases differently on the one hand, and invidious discrimination on the other.

Justice Samuel Alito was perhaps the most outspoken of all of them in a speech given last year at the Federalist Society (whose leadership, incidentally, played a significant role in the Jan. 6 insurrection) when he complained that “the pandemic has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty” and, for good measure, lied about the Little Sisters of the Poor being “targeted” by the Obama administration, when in fact it was right-wing activist lawyers who sought them out and used them as poster children to weaken the Affordable Care Act.

Alito said the Nevada and California rules “blatantly discriminated against houses of worship” and joked that “you will see the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment which protects religious liberty, [but] you will not find a craps clause or a blackjack clause or a slot machine clause.” Ha ha ha. Only, from the perspective of the virus, the church is indeed more dangerous than the casino.

For decades now, right-wing Christians have insisted that religious people are being discriminated against, that there is a war on religion, that religious liberty is under attack. None of this is true. There are no secret minutes of an ACLU-Obama-Biden meeting to destroy Christianity. There are no gay cake bakers refusing to serve Christian customers, and no gay “therapists” subjecting Christians to abusive, disproven “conversion therapy.” Nor were there were any rabid secularists in the Cuomo administration trying to undermine Catholicism (which, of course, the governor himself professes). Indeed, while Christianity is on the wane in America, it is mostly being destroyed by demographics, as millennials and Gen-Z abandon organized religion at unprecedented rates.

But rather than face these facts and attempt to address them honestly, the religious right has—like the Trumpists, with whom they often overlap—preferred to blame some external enemy, a malevolent force attacking religion and America. Sometimes that manifests in the pervasive displays of Christian Nationalism on Jan. 6, and sometimes it manifests in inexplicable lapses of reasoning among Supreme Court justices who were handpicked by religious fundamentalists to turn our country rightward.

Having drunk this preposterous Kool-Aid for decades, these justices appear to have digested it. States’ appropriately dissimilar treatment of houses of worship in the context of fighting a contagious airborne illness triggers their confirmation biases that there is a malevolent war against Christianity, with churches being “targeted” (by whom?) for discrimination. Surely it seems simpler to understand that governments are following the advice of scientists and regulating different activities differently. But that wouldn’t fit the convoluted and baseless meta-narrative that Christianity is under attack by sinister, malevolent forces. It would merely be true.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-courts-new-conservative-bloc-uses-covid-to-go-full-christian-nationalist?ref=home

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

Onward Christian soldiers......

They want Gilead, and with the SC currently in place, have a much better chance to get it.

I really wonder what is going to happen with a SC that is so out of touch with 70% of the citizens. I can't see Christianity by Decree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 3 months later...