1
- “We oppose the nomination of XX, a dangerous right wing extremist ….” (The gist of an actual progressive press release, where someone forgot to fill in the name of the actual nominee after the announcement. But they probably were the first out of the gate to oppose whoever-the-heck.)
- We oppose the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, a dangerous right wing extremist …. (subsequent story, stable for a while).
- We oppose the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh because this woman says he lewdly and drunkenly attacked her at a teen drinking party 36 or so years ago.
- We oppose the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh because he dangled his dong in front of an extremely drunken co-ed at Yale, which nobody else present saw. Oh. Never mind.
- We oppose the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh because he ran quaalude-fueled gang rape parties. We know because a client of Trump’s evil progressive twin says she attended lots of them and finally got raped. Oh. Never mind.
- We oppose the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh because we believe all survivors. (11th-hour virtue-signaling theory, to which some still adhere despite the patent lack of corroboration.)
- We oppose the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh because he got too hot under the collar after we threw all this crap at him and was very evasive about our questions and didn’t break down under questioning like someone on Perry Mason.
Am I the only one who thought “they’re playing Calvinball, not conducting a Senate inquiry”?
Calvinball is a game invented by Calvin and Hobbes. Calvinball has no rules; the players make up their own rules as they go along, making it so that no Calvinball game is like another.
Rules cannot be used twice (except for the rule that rules cannot be used twice), and any plays made in one game may not be made again in any future games. The game may involve wickets, mallets, volleyballs, and additional sports-related equipment.
There is only one permanent rule in Calvinball: players cannot play it the same way twice. For example, in one game of Calvinball, the goal was to capture the opponent’s flag, whereas in a different game of Calvinball, the goal was to score points by hitting badminton shuttlecocks against trees using a croquet mallet. Masks must be worn at all times in Calvinball; these are not allowed to be questioned.
Are there more than a dozen of us who are bothered by Kavanaugh’s excessive (and probably illegal) drinking as a teenager? Absent evidence that he has an ongoing problem, I wouldn’t disqualify him for it, but the halo is ill-suited to him.
2
Jonathan Chait and Andrew Sullivan, prophets:
Remember when @sullydish called out the potential for Trump to be elected… back in 2011?https://t.co/bNddmknXM4
— Grumpy In General (@GrumpyInGeneral) October 7, 2018
3
The mandatory “presidential alert” this week was a reminder of how state power tends to grow: gradually, undetected, and with a “public safety” rationale https://t.co/MKjAaqZ3Rc
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) October 6, 2018
I feel so affirmed that at least one other person in the cosmos thought that!
4
Speaking of “legitimacy,” some of the people bemoaning threats to “the rule of law” question the legitimacy of an election won under the existing rules because they disaprove of those rules. And think a Supreme Court confirmation is illegitimate because they don’t like the Senate
— Randy Barnett (@RandyEBarnett) October 7, 2018
5
Liberals gush over RBG, but the most important liberal Justice on the Court is now Kagan. She’s clearly the smartest of them and the most likely to persuade Roberts to take narrow, institutionally focused positions.
Because it is now Roberts’s Court.
— Nathan Oman (@nate_oman) October 6, 2018
6
What do they teach children today?!
Justices are not supposed to “represent the will of the majority,” as some are saying today. Their job is to apply the Constitution as it is, not re-write to say what the majority wants it to say. The Constitution says what it says, and it doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.
— Rick Duncan☘️ (@FedSocLawProf) October 7, 2018
If you want to change the Constitution, then work to amend it under Art. V. Judicial amendments under the Living Constitution are not legitimate, not consistent with the Rule of Law. If the Constitution is law, it binds judges as well as Legislators and Presidents.
— Rick Duncan☘️ (@FedSocLawProf) October 7, 2018
* * * * *
Follow me on Micro.blog, too, where I blog tweet-like shorter items and … well, it’s evolving. Or, if you prefer, those micro.blog items also appear now at microblog.intellectualoid.com.
Tipsy Teetotaler ن 