Patterico's Pontifications

7/9/2018

It’s Kavanaugh

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:00 pm

He seems to be the best of the options on the table. Another good choice by Donald Trump.

And, yes, far better than Hillary’s choice would have been. No question about it.

UPDATE: Ed Whelan has the lowdown on Kavanaugh at his indispensable Bench Memos. Quotable:

Kavanaugh is a strong critic of the Chevron principle of deference to administrative agencies — both of the foundation of that principle and of the manner in which it is often exercised. He has earned acclaim for “cabining” the Chevron doctrine by helping to develop an exception to it for “major questions” of policy.

Just like Gorsuch. I love it. In this way, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are actually an improvement on Scalia.

Kavanaugh argued (in dissent) that the District of Columbia’s ban on possession of most semi-automatic weapons and its registration requirement for all guns violated the Second Amendment.

. . . .

Kavanaugh argued (in Priests for Life v. HHS, again in dissent) that the HHS contraceptive mandate violated the religious-liberty rights of objecting religious organizations. He also rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to the prayers at the presidential inauguration and to the inclusion of “so help me God” in the official presidential oath.

. . . . On campaign-finance restrictions, a liberal academic who broadly supports such restrictions bemoans that “the only question is whether [Kavanaugh would] be more like Justice Scalia (voting to strike down more and more campaign limits) or like Justice Thomas (voting to do that AND strike down campaign finance disclosure laws).”

This is all good. And an improvement over the unreliable windbag Kennedy.

Great stuff.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

474 Responses to “It’s Kavanaugh”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. Trump live now to confirm it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  3. Hope he works out great (don’t know enough to give opinion) and has an excellent career.

    Be prepared for the mentions of ‘white patriarchy’ to increase. Also the new ‘Christian Sharia’ I’m starting to see re Roe v Wade.

    harkin (9d2fbb)

  4. This is an extraordinary choice that every american can rally around.

    Just more evidence that President Trump’s an indefatigable uniter and a consensus-builder without peer.

    In retrospect it seems silly I ever harbored doubt about the value President Trump would bring to the table.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  5. I’m never so happy about Trump being President than I am at times like this.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  6. Woo hoo!!! It’s official!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  7. me too it’s times like this it feels like we’re all brothers and sisters in Trump and I love it so much

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  8. In that case let’s hope to do it twice more.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  9. Too bad Ted Cruz decided to take to Twitter and troll America. Now we know how he would have treated The Executive had he won.

    Shameful.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  10. 7. Jesus H. Tapdancing…. Even when you’re happy with Pat, you’re creepy. SMDH

    Gryph (5efbad)

  11. Yup.

    Had Hillary been President, the Court would now be 6-3 liberal. RBG and Breyer would have been replaced by younger leftists, Making recovery nearly impossible in my lifetime.

    The 2nd Amendment would be dead. Political speech would be regulated. “Rights” would be only what the State said they were.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  12. “Liar”… “Cheat”… “Con man”… “adulterer”… chooses career swamp creature as SCOTUS nom.

    But today, you love him!

    Are you not entertained?!?!

    What.
    A.
    Showman.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  13. Tonight’s big question: will Gloria Allred have a purported victim of sexual assault by Brett K
    Kavanaugh in time for the morning news shows, or will we have to wait a few days?

    The Dana who has learned from history (8a2cfa)

  14. I will give Trump not only credit due for picking from the list, thereby keeping a major campaign promise, but also for picking an exceptional choice on the list, thereby putting aside any reservations he may have had about Kavanaugh’s history with the Bush-43 White House.

    Thank you, President Trump. You have my enthusiastic and wholehearted approval for this decision.

    Thanks, too, Leonard Leo and Ed Whelen. Thanks, Don McGahn. Thanks to anyone else involved in the selection (which I suspect and hopes includes Sen. McConnell for having pre-cleared this pick, to the extent possible, with key GOP senators who might otherwise have been difficult). Thanks, Sen. Cruz, for getting Trump’s written commitment to pick from the list in September 2016 — a commitment by then-candidate Trump which surely we can all agree has turned out to be a great plus for him and the GOP; let’s hope it sets a precedent that future GOP presidential candidates and presidents likewise follow.

    Congratulations, Judge Kavanaugh. I support your confirmation, and I’m confident that both of my homestate U.S. senators will strongly support you in your confirmation hearings and the floor vote.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  15. Flame-ret*rdant underwear will be helpful to get him thru the confirmation process. He appears to have a lot of support and respect from folks in the profession. That is a very good thing.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  16. “Liar”… “Cheat”… “Con man”… “adulterer”… chooses career swamp creature as SCOTUS nom.

    But today, you love him!

    Woo hoo!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  17. He seems to be pre-empting the Democrat attack.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  18. 13- trolling (original definition) trailer parks with a sack of money as we speak I’m guessing…

    lee (ab26cf)

  19. It’s good the man does not wear a mustache and appears to remain flat-footed while at the podium. That should be a big help.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  20. Now is the time for the Distinguished Gentleman from Arizona, Senator John McCain, to go ahead and resign, and allow the Governor to nominate a replacement for Mr McCain in the Senate. Senator McCain is simply no longer able to perform his duties, and he is depriving his constituents of one half of their representation in the United States Senate.

    The Dana who has driven through Arizona, once, in 1972 (8a2cfa)

  21. That was an absolutely fabulous and brilliant acceptance speech by Kavanaugh.

    The Dems will be digging quite the hole if they do this guy dirty as they do all of their significant enemies.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  22. Whew.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  23. UPDATE: Ed Whelan has the lowdown on Kavanaugh at his indispensable Bench Memos. Quotable:

    Kavanaugh is a strong critic of the Chevron principle of deference to administrative agencies — both of the foundation of that principle and of the manner in which it is often exercised. He has earned acclaim for “cabining” the Chevron doctrine by helping to develop an exception to it for “major questions” of policy.

    Just like Gorsuch. I love it. In this way, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are actually an improvement on Scalia.

    Kavanaugh argued (in dissent) that the District of Columbia’s ban on possession of most semi-automatic weapons and its registration requirement for all guns violated the Second Amendment.

    . . . .

    Kavanaugh argued (in Priests for Life v. HHS, again in dissent) that the HHS contraceptive mandate violated the religious-liberty rights of objecting religious organizations. He also rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to the prayers at the presidential inauguration and to the inclusion of “so help me God” in the official presidential oath.

    . . . . On campaign-finance restrictions, a liberal academic who broadly supports such restrictions bemoans that “the only question is whether [Kavanaugh would] be more like Justice Scalia (voting to strike down more and more campaign limits) or like Justice Thomas (voting to do that AND strike down campaign finance disclosure laws).”

    This is all good. And an improvement over the unreliable windbag Kennedy.

    Great stuff.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  24. Jake Tapper, on the Clinton News Network, pointed out that Brett Kavanaugh was a political operative for President Bush, as was — to a lesser extent — John Roberts, but somehow neglected to mention that Elena Kagan was an assistant White House counsel for Bill Clinton and Solicitor General for President Obama.

    The Dana who spotted the bias (8a2cfa)

  25. AWWwwwww, look at Patterico becoming a Forever Trumper.

    There is hope for all of us!

    Dejectedhead (9ebd51)

  26. let’s hope it sets a precedent that future GOP presidential candidates and presidents likewise follow.

    I wholeheartedly agree. A very positive refinement to the process.

    lee (ab26cf)

  27. Star Chamber Wars: Teh Papist Menace

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  28. 57-42 (McCain not voting.)

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  29. you can’t trust CNN fake news Jake Tapper

    he’s not trustworthy and he has his own agenda

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  30. 25. This doesn’t change my opinion of Donald J. Trump at all. Not one. Single. Iota. But thank God for Trump’s judicial advisors.

    Gryph (5efbad)

  31. Say what you will about Kennedy – most if not all of it deserved – but his retirement at this time was a gift, was it not?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  32. “I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have, and I hope a bipartisan majority will do the same,” Schumer said. “The stakes are simply too high for anything less.”

    so he’s thinking tundra bimbo and lobsterpot bimbo can be bought off or intimidated

    but this is only a concern cause piggy-coward John McCain is such a cowardly low-class pig

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  33. It is the Irish seat on the court so it makes sense.

    AZ Bob (09743f)

  34. Thanks, Sen. Cruz, for getting Trump’s written commitment to pick from the list in September 2016 — a commitment by then-candidate Trump which surely we can all agree has turned out to be a great plus for him and the GOP; let’s hope it sets a precedent that future GOP presidential candidates and presidents likewise follow.
    Beldar (fa637a) — 7/9/2018 @ 6:14 pm

    That commitment was just for the Scalia opening, was it not? Trump didn’t promise that he would use that list for all SCOTUS openings during his presidency. So, be generous in your praise for Cruz regarding the Gorsuch pick, but Trump get all the credit for this one, even in your estimation, right?

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b)

  35. @31 No Colonel, the timing is garbage. Grassley and others begged Kennedy to step down months ago if he were not going to return. Kennedy’s arrogance and ego wouldn’t even make the announcement from the bench.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  36. ROFLMAO

    U.S. Circuit Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy who is viewed as one of the leading contenders to replace him, has argued that presidents should not be distracted by civil lawsuits, criminal investigations or even questions from a prosecutor or defense attorney while in office.

    source- http://www.washingtonpost.com

    Paul Lynde in the center square to block…

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  37. Hunh… I didn’t know that, Ed. Just figured it was a good thing that it happened l before the mid-terms.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  38. Happened before the mid-term election.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  39. Did you know you can pan fry fish, like a piece of cod, using almond flour? I just learned that. Way lower on the carbs and tasty!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  40. Cliff Arquette to wrestle ASPCA to the ground and sit on his face.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  41. @39. OT- P, you seem concerned about carbs of late… hope your real world issues are okay. My brother got a wake-up call w/heart issues a few years back- in his mid 50’s then, and has to manage the carbs accordingly.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  42. The two Supreme Court choices make Trump’s victory worthwhile.

    DN (172f46)

  43. Taking a moment to pour a wee dram and thank the Democrats for nominating a presidential candidate so corrupt, dishonest and unlikeable that their ticket was rejected and we ended up with what I’m hoping is a SCOTUS conservative majority to last most of the rest of my life.

    This is HUGE.

    harkin (9d2fbb)

  44. Hahahaha… HA!!! Twitter good for something

    https://twitter.com/MattsIdeaShop/status/1016439853460873216/photo/1

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  45. @40. =Haiku!= Gesundheit!

    The Colon-elle knows all about Charley and his stool.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  46. “Almond flour”

    Will give it a try, we always pan fry halibut and other flounder in crushed Special K cereal. Great, tasty crust but not sure on nutritional value.

    harkin (9d2fbb)

  47. and Arquette pulls the pencil-necked geek out of his BarcaLounger…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  48. crushed Special K cereal

    We often used corn flakes for fried chicken but began using Special K and it is just as tasty.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  49. Will give that almond flour a try…

    best fish i’ve ever eaten:

    1) Grouper for lunch at an engineering conference in Naples, FLA
    2) Rock Cod baked 3 hours after I caught it at the 14 mile bank between Newport Beach and Catalina Island

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  50. Haven’t been here for awhile. Is Trump still considered a secret libtard around here?

    JCurtis (721387)

  51. With Russian fertilizers and Monsanto chemicals, it probably is a good idea to avoid wheat flour as much as possible these days. I suspect those are the real culprits, not glutens, behind the alleged gluten sensitivities. It’s a pity, because the American wheat strains were the gold standard when my father was planting it.

    nk (dbc370)

  52. MSNBC and CNN are already calling Kavanaugh ‘controversial’.

    The left just turned the Losing An Election Tantrum Machine up to 12.

    harkin (9d2fbb)

  53. And this is why I voted for Trump–even if he does nothing else during his time in office, getting two solid conservatives on the Supreme Court will at least slow down our lurch to the left. And if we’re really lucky, perhaps he’ll get a third pick as well (I can dream,can’t I?).

    Rochf (877dba)

  54. #36:

    It is becomeing clear that Trump’s presidency is a gift to na&iumlve cynicism.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  55. #36:

    It is becomeing clear that Trump’s presidency is a gift to naïve cynicism.

    (stupid preview)

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  56. Best fish I ever had.

    Fish Tacos – Estero Beach Hotel, Ensenada.

    Halibut Provencial – Tognazzini’s Bayside Inn, Morro Bay

    harkin (9d2fbb)

  57. The Left takes a moment for cool, calm reflection:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhtXHxtUEAAgdxm?format=jpg

    harkin (9d2fbb)

  58. 56- seems DCSCA and Gryph not only insist on looking a gift horse in the mouth, but pry a few teeth out of the beast with pliers for something to bltch about.

    Some people just prefer bitter. Whatta going to do?

    lee (ab26cf)

  59. Hes old man, yelling at cloud, what can you do.

    Narciso (370326)

  60. Kavanaugh’s left-leaning Yale law professor gives him a big two thumbs up, saying the Dems would be foolish to raise a ruckus against him.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  61. Well, I have GOT to hand it to DJT. Only a man of his vision could predict this would come true:

    Mexico will pay for the wall!

    Then again, it is on their Southern border, not Northern.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  62. The true reason for the appointment, compliments of MSNBC: Rachel Maddow and her guests are saying that Trump appointed him because he could count on him to not vote to indict him while in office.

    *sigh*

    Patricia (3363ec)

  63. 59… “Calm down, Bernie, you’ll blow your O-ring!”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  64. 59. Don’t put words in my mouth, you dumba$$. I said this doesn’t change my opinion of Donald Trump. Pat will probably tell you the same (and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, Pat). I also said it was a good move by Trump’s judicial advisers (also a sentiment which I’m sure Pat shares).

    As I’ve said before here, I didn’t vote for Hillary. And I’ve never regretted my decision not to.

    Gryph (5efbad)

  65. The elation of low expectations. Like a a 1973 Ford Pinto which managed to take you to the grocery store. Now let’s see if it’ll take you back home with your groceries. (There’s still the Senate confirmation.)

    Seriously, dudes, why isn’t the nomination of someone like Kavanaugh by a Republican President something that should be expected as a matter of routine?

    nk (dbc370)

  66. I also like K’s speech. He touched on many points of his life and background which will make it a little more difficult for the left to start calling him Hitler or one of the -isms.

    Patricia (3363ec)

  67. 66. Really good question. One worth contemplating in my opinion.

    Gryph (5efbad)

  68. Patricia, that idea is taking over the Twitter Left.
    Kavanaugh did say POTUS shouldn’t be sued or investigated.
    But he also said the appropriate way to do so was Congressional legislation.
    He didn’t claim POTUS has an inherent immunity.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1016510007314210818

    kishnevi (ea0f8c)

  69. 66- Harriet Miers?

    lee (ab26cf)

  70. It’s not about or facts, it’s about power, that’s why manafort is sitting in a jail cell, and a real criminal clan like the swans get a,jaywalking ticket.

    Narciso (370326)

  71. Yes, exactly, Harriett Miers. The Shrub did less than was expected of him, got told so, and did the right thing by nominating Alito.

    nk (dbc370)

  72. Well he had to get past the tripwire that the gang of 14 had set up

    Narciso (370326)

  73. 72-Well, all I can say is gratefullness is a virtue, even in the small things. If you can’t summon it up for something as consequential as this, I really don’t know what to at to you.

    lee (ab26cf)

  74. say to you…

    lee (ab26cf)

  75. @59. ??? That’s not the horse’s mouth you’re peering into.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  76. 74. How consequential this proves to be remains to be seen. Only time will really tell.

    Gryph (08c844)

  77. I’m grateful every time a Pinto doesn’t blow up. As for being grateful to Trump personally, f**k him! Pay somebody $130,000 to f**k him! He begged us for the job, we didn’t beg him to take it.

    nk (dbc370)

  78. @32. A Dubya appointee nominated by bone-spur Trump?!?! Pretty tempting target for Johnny Aviator, Mr. Feet! Ol’carries-no-bombs-but-only-a-grudge-McCain may just fire up his jets for one last mission before the big flame out.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  79. Meanwhile judge gee makes things up as she goes along.

    Narciso (370326)

  80. I said this doesn’t change my opinion of Donald Trump. Pat will probably tell you the same (and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, Pat).

    Trump is still a liar, cheat, con man, adulterer, boob, idiot, and doofus. Just like yesterday.

    Great pick though.

    Patterico (a048af)

  81. Glenn Reynold’s take.

    This part made me chuckle:

    (As comedian Dennis Miller tweeted: “Just to keep things in perspective, or not, Trump could nominate either Amy Coney Barrett or Vladimir Putin tomorrow and the headlines would be exactly the same.” He’s not wrong).

    lee (ab26cf)

  82. 78- didn’t mean you should be grateful to Trump, but that it’s a good day for America.

    It seems because Trump is involved, some of you just can’t bring yourselves to be happy about that. And kinda resent those of us that are.

    Maybe I’m just misreading were y’all are coming from, and if so I apologise. Imma go were the joy is now. Carry on.

    lee (ab26cf)

  83. 81…But is Trump a liberal? Is that a tough one for you to answer now? Because if he’s a liberal, like you and your ilk have claimed, you’d think he’d want to appoint liberal justices because scotus is kinda important. I suspect you’re gonna cower from that question.

    JCurtis (721387)

  84. Responding to my comment above (#14), Anon Y. Mous wrote (#34):

    That commitment was just for the Scalia opening, was it not? Trump didn’t promise that he would use that list for all SCOTUS openings during his presidency. So, be generous in your praise for Cruz regarding the Gorsuch pick, but Trump get all the credit for this one, even in your estimation, right?

    Trump’s first list, containing 11 names, was released on May 18, 2016, after Trump had secured the delegates to be nominated but before the convention:

    Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Wednesday released the names of 11 potential U.S. Supreme Court nominees that he would choose from to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

    The list, first reported by the Associated Press, includes judges from around the country: Steven Colloton of Iowa, Allison Eid of Colorado and Raymond Gruender of Missouri, Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, Joan Larsen of Michigan, Thomas Lee of Utah, William Pryor of Alabama, David Stras of Minnesota, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin and Don Willett of Texas.

    Trump previously mentioned Pryor and Sykes — both nominated to federal appeals courts by President George W. Bush — during a debate in February.

    ….

    [Trump] added that the names on his list are “representative of the kind of constitutional principles I value and, as president, I plan to use this list as a guide to nominate our next United States Supreme Court Justices.”

    Announcing that he planned to use this list as a guide obviously fell well short of making a binding commitment to choose from it. Note that neither Kavanaugh nor Gorsuch are on this May 2016 guide-list.

    After the convention, Veep-nominee Mike Pence was widely reported by both liberal and conservative media to have served as a private intermediary in a deal to secure a more full-throated endorsement of Trump from Cruz, as the delegate runner-up. Here’s what Cruz posted on Facebook on September 23, 2016 (boldface mine):

    In Cleveland [at the GOP convention], I urged voters, “please, don’t stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket whom you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”

    After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

    I’ve made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.

    Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable — that’s why I have always been #NeverHillary.

    Six key policy differences inform my decision. First, and most important, the Supreme Court. For anyone concerned about the Bill of Rights — free speech, religious liberty, the Second Amendment — the Court hangs in the balance. I have spent my professional career fighting before the Court to defend the Constitution. We are only one justice away from losing our most basic rights, and the next president will appoint as many as four new justices. We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue. Trump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices “in the mold of Scalia.”

    For some time, I have been seeking greater specificity on this issue, and today the Trump campaign provided that, releasing a very strong list of potential Supreme Court nominees — including Sen. Mike Lee, who would make an extraordinary justice — and making an explicit commitment to nominate only from that list. This commitment matters, and it provides a serious reason for voters to choose to support Trump.

    Cruz’ FB post correctly describes the press release from the Trump campaign announcing the 10 additional names, which was posted on the Trump campaign website that day. That webpage has since been taken down. Nevertheless, this page — dated January 31, 2017, but still part of the current White House website — correctly describes and quotes from the September 2016 press release thusly:

    TRANSPARENT: President Trump provided an initial list of eleven possible candidates to the American people to replace Justice Antonin Scalia as far back as May, 2016. In September, the President added ten more names, providing a final list of twenty-one candidates. President Trump promised “this list is definitive and I will choose only from it in picking future Justices of the United States Supreme Court.” The list:

    *Justice Keith Blackwell
    *Justice Charles Canady
    *Judge Steven Colloton
    *Associate Justice Allison Eid
    *Judge Neil Gorsuch
    *Judge Raymond Gruender
    *Judge Thomas Hardiman
    *Judge Raymond Kethledge
    *Associate Justice Joan Larsen
    *Senator Mike Lee
    *Associate Justice Thomas Lee
    *Justice Edward Mansfield
    *Judge Federico Moreno
    *Judge William Pryor
    *Judge Margaret Ryan
    *Judge Amul Thapar
    *Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich
    *Associate Justice David Stras
    *Judge Diane Sykes
    *Justice Don Willett
    *Chief Justice Robert Young

    Note that Gorsuch’s name was among the 10 added in September 2016. Note, too, that although there is a specific reference to replacing Scalia as part of the preface, in the actual commitment, there is a quotation attributed directly to Trump by name, that the list was “definitive,” followed by a reference to “future Justices [plural] of the Supreme Court.”

    Gorsuch was actually nominated on January 31, 2017 — the same date that appears on the linked webpage just above. At some point after the Gorsuch confirmation, the list was again enlarged, to 25 names. It no longer included Gorsuch, of course — but among the additions, as compared to September 2016, were both Judges Kavanaugh and Barrett. Here’s the version dated November 17, 2017, which says nothing either way about whether it would apply until further notice, until the next vacancy, or throughout Trump’s first (or even second) term. Neither Cruz nor anyone else squawked about the enlargement of the list after Gorsuch was confirmed, presumably because the newly-added names came from the vetting source (Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society) as the previous names and were of comparable superb quality.

    I give Trump full credit for making the final selections of both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, just as I previously applauded Trump for agreeing to Cruz’ request for a commitment to chose from the September 2016 list. I doubt that but for Cruz’ request, Trump would have published the September 2016 list with its exclusive commitment, but that’s obviously a matter of speculation; regardless, it shored up a ton of squishy GOP votes for Trump in the general election, so there’s plenty of credit to be shared.

    I will have no complaint if Trump continues to revise and update the November 2017 version of the list, provided that he consults the same resources he’s previously consulted and similarly accepts their guidance. Thus, whether the September 2016 list would or wouldn’t be binding should a third or subsequent vacancy occur seems to me, therefore, a point no longer worth arguing.

    And Trump has clearly recognized the utility of the process he tested out with Gorsuch and has now reconfirmed with Kavanaugh. He’s getting massive approval tonight from well outside his most devoted supporters. And presuming, as I think is reasonable, that Kavanaugh is similarly confirmed
    even if on a party-line basis), then Trump will certainly be entitled to claim this appointment as among his greatest accomplishments as POTUS right along with the Gorsuch appointment.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  85. A beauty part of this pick is there is an ACB on deck as a near full inoculation if any of the current females leave SCOTUS. If she is as Leo et al say she is, we have some fun reading ahead of us as she makes her Appellate mark on the world.

    Man, I hope the Dems are stoopid enough to stand and be ob;iterated on this hill. Custeresque, it is.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  86. It’s looking like Kavanaugh is exactly what the Democrats needed to keep people coming to the polls for them and voting Republicans out of office, for decades! Thank you.

    Tillman (d34303)

  87. Trump is still a liar, cheat, con man, adulterer, boob, idiot, and doofus. Just like yesterday.

    Trump is certainly suboptimum, but a sack of noodles would be better than nearly any Democrat. ANd Trump is mostly better than a sack of noodles.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  88. http://patterico.com/2018/07/09/its-kavanaugh/#comment-2135014

    Petty and spiteful. Tillie, that is so unlike you, who pissed in your flowerpot?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  89. It’s the truth and you know it Drunku. Deal with it.

    Tillman (d34303)

  90. Enjoy Tillman. You earned it.

    NJRob (b00189)

  91. Elections matter. His confirmation will similarly motivate people to put down the Cheetos and the remote control and go and vote for Republicans.

    nk (dbc370)

  92. kishnevi, of course it’s a reasonable legal position that K wrote about, but of course MSNBC is shrieking GETOUTJAILFREE card. Don’t know what the crime is yet, but they will think of something!

    Patricia (3363ec)

  93. Will try the almond flour, thanks for the tip.
    Best pan fried fish – Black Sole in Kinsale Ireland.
    I admire President Trump for searching out a team that knows conservative judges and then listening to the team. That’s what leaders do.
    I was hoping for the catholic lady with 7 kids. But I’m happy Patterico is happy!

    mg (9e54f8)

  94. Teh Orange Gandhi…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  95. Can Mitch limit the hearings to a few hours then vote it out of committee and schedule the floor vote? Simple majority?

    mg (9e54f8)

  96. It’s looking like Kavanaugh is exactly what the Democrats needed to keep people coming to the polls for them and voting Republicans out of office, for decades!“

    Even more of a lock than the media declared Hillary to be in the weeks before the election?

    harkin (9d2fbb)

  97. Trump has already surpassed the two Bushes with his SCOTUS picks.

    With Bush-I we got Souter, because Papa Bush didn’t want to fight the Senate Liberals. With Bush II we got Harriet Miers, a woman who’s only qualifications were her “good character” and friendship with George Bush.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  98. That was a great speech by “coach K.”

    felipe (023cc9)

  99. Lets make sure hes confirmed first, then we’ll talk.

    narciso (d1f714)

  100. Its funny that people have attacked Trump as a “Loose Cannon” and unstable, but Bush II’s nomination of Harriet Miers has to be the most bizarre SCOTUS nominee since the unethical LBJ speech writer -abe fortas.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  101. With Bush II we got Harriet Miers, a woman who’s only qualifications were her “good character” and friendship with George Bush.

    No, you did not get Harriet Miers. You got Samuel Alito.

    nk (dbc370)

  102. Patterico,

    Have you ever thought about creating a /r/Patterico subreddit to have conversations on? I think your comment section format is a bit limiting. It’s free and you can set mods too.

    Dejectedhead (9ebd51)

  103. Like,I say, one was limited by what that jackass McCain and 13 other cardinals,would accept, w was not elected on the promise,of being a,budget cutter or an immigration hawk.

    Narciso (fde8d8)

  104. @96. =Haiku!= Gesundheit!

    The Orange Julius… beware the berobed bearing smoothies.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  105. Beldar (fa637a) — 7/9/2018 @ 8:52 pm

    My, you do go on. :)

    All that and you never got around to the fact that Kavanaugh was not only not on the list of 11, but he was also not on the list of 21. He didn’t make the list until after it was up to 25 names, well after whatever agreement Trump had with Cruz was made.

    Of course, the list wasn’t Cruz’s idea; it was Trump’s. Adding to the list as time goes on is also a good idea. I’m not looking to knock Cruz, I just think you are giving him credit for something where there is no credit due. Gorsuch, maybe. I still think Trump just did what he was going to anyway, but framed it in a way that Cruz could claim partial authorship as a means to get his endorsement. But Kavanaugh? No way. Cruz can’t claim credit for that one.

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b)

  106. Trump has already surpassed the two Bushes with his SCOTUS picks.

    With Bush-I we got Souter, because Papa Bush didn’t want to fight the Senate Liberals. With Bush II we got Harriet Miers, a woman who’s only qualifications were her “good character” and friendship with George Bush.
    rcocean (1a839e) — 7/9/2018 @ 9:50 pm

    The best justice currently sitting was put on the court by Bush 41. He sure did screw the pooch with Souter, though.

    Even Reagan didn’t do so well. Yes, he nailed it with Scalia, but Kennedy and O’Connor were dogs.

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b)

  107. I am thankful Boosh gave us Justice Thomas.
    The Thomas hearings were disgraceful other than Justice Thomases rebuttal.

    mg (9e54f8)

  108. Anon Y. Mous wrote (#107):

    All that and you never got around to the fact that Kavanaugh was not only not on the list of 11, but he was also not on the list of 21. He didn’t make the list until after it was up to 25 names, well after whatever agreement Trump had with Cruz was made.

    However, I distinctly wrote, in #85:

    At some point after the Gorsuch confirmation, the list was again enlarged, to 25 names. It no longer included Gorsuch, of course — but among the additions, as compared to September 2016, were both Judges Kavanaugh and Barrett.

    Then I linked the November 2017 list upon which those names appeared. I “got around” to it; I was precise; and provided a link to an authoritative source.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  109. I also did not credit Cruz with the Kavanaugh pick. I don’t know why you are misstating me, when I clearly wrote:

    Thanks, Sen. Cruz, for getting Trump’s written commitment to pick from the list in September 2016 — a commitment by then-candidate Trump which surely we can all agree has turned out to be a great plus for him and the GOP; let’s hope it sets a precedent that future GOP presidential candidates and presidents likewise follow.

    Gorsuch was chosen from the September 2016 list, but I didn’t even credit Cruz with Gorsuch. To the contrary, I began my comment in #14 by giving credit to Trump for picking Kavanaugh, and in #85, I wrote:

    I give Trump full credit for making the final selections of both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh ….”

    I don’t know how I could be any plainer — or you any more wrong in your characterizations tonight of what I’ve written.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  110. Damnation, but I’m tired of having to write, “I didn’t say that.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  111. @84. You don’t get it; it’s a Faustian bargain; a means to an end.

    Trump is not an ideologue. So when he successfully plugs one into anything; by incompetence, intent or by accident, there is joy.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  112. Worth reading: A Liberal’s Case for Brett Kavanaugh:

    The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice is President Trump’s finest hour, his classiest move. Last week the president promised to select “someone with impeccable credentials, great intellect, unbiased judgment, and deep reverence for the laws and Constitution of the United States.” In picking Judge Kavanaugh, he has done just that.

    In 2016, I strongly supported Hillary Clinton for president as well as President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland. But today, with the exception of the current justices and Judge Garland, it is hard to name anyone with judicial credentials as strong as those of Judge Kavanaugh. He sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the most influential circuit court) and commands wide and deep respect among scholars, lawyers and jurists

    The author, Yale Law prof Akhil Reed Amar, was one of Kavanaugh’s law professors, and is probably what passes for a moderate progressive at Yale Law. This kind of article could provide cover for a Joe Manchin or a Heidi Heitkamp.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  113. @ jcurtis, who wrote, in part (#84):

    Because if he’s a liberal, like you [i.e., Patterico] and your ilk have claimed, you’d think he’d want to appoint liberal justices because scotus is kinda important.

    You’ve just badly misstated our host’s consistent position, dating back to well before the general election, on the subject of Trump’s judicial appointments. You may wish to research what he’s actually written; he’s explained his position often, it’s always been consistent, and it’s never, ever been what you just characterized it as being.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  114. The part about your suspicion that our host is “gonna cower from [your] question” did give me a chuckle, though, jcurtis.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  115. Speculation: The Garza v. Hammond abortion/immigration case discussed here is probably one of the cases that might have prompted Sen. McConnell to express concerns about his confirmability, if that actually happened. Either way, that case is going to be talked about in the press in the coming week, and Kavanaugh will certainly be asked about it during his interviews with Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski.

    Here’s the en banc opinion, including Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent, that is discussed in the above-linked WSJ article (I’m not sure if it’s paywalled). And here is the June 4 opinion from the SCOTUS, in which the entire Court (no dissents, unsigned opinion) granted certiorari, and then peremptorily reversed, without oral argument, the en banc D.C. Circuit’s judgment on a procedural ground relating to mootness. (The would-be immigrant minor immediately got her abortion as soon as the DC Circuit en banc ruling came out, and the government was effectively denied its chance to seek a stay.) Thus, the SCOTUS didn’t rule either way on the underlying constitutional and statutory issues that were the basis of Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent. FWIW, the SCOTUS disposition vacates the D.C. Circuit’s judgment and hence turns its legal reasoning into non-binding dicta, rather than binding precedent.)

    What you must grasp to understand Kavanaugh’s dissent is that because he’s on an inferior appellate court, he and the rest of the D.C. Circuit were supposed to be bound by SCOTUS precedent. He therefore absolutely, positively had to presume, and acknowledge in his dissent, that Planned Parenthood v. Casey (reaffirming Roe) is indeed the current state of the law on abortion. So Kavanaugh will doubtless insist, and correctly so, that no inferences could be drawn either way, from his ruling in this case, about whether Casey and Roe should be reconsidered and perhaps overruled. He’ll then insist that on that subject, he can say nothing now either, because it’s an issue very likely to come before the SCOTUS if he’s confirmed.

    This may persuade Murkowski and Collins, and I’m very, very sure Judge Kavanaugh already has his spiel down about this case, and that it will be solid: Even though the case was handled in a hurry, on an emergency basis, his dissent is well-polished, including arguments and supporting citations to show that he was sticking precisely to SCOTUS precedent while the (progressive) majority on the D.C. Circuit were running amok.

    But a case combining the Trump Administration, immigration, and abortion is very red meat for the Dem base, and they will demagogue the dickens out of this case.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  116. Ack. Here’s the en banc opinion from the D.C. Circuit, including Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  117. Intro to Kavanaugh’s dissent:

    The en banc majority has badly erred in this case.

    The three-judge panel held that the U.S. Government, when holding a pregnant unlawful immigrant minor in custody, may seek to expeditiously transfer the minor to an immigration sponsor before the minor makes the decision to obtain an abortion. That ruling followed from the Supreme Court’s many precedents holding that the Government has permissible interests in favoring fetal life, protecting the best interests of a minor, and refraining from facilitating abortion. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Government may further those interests so long as it does not impose an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion.

    Today’s majority decision, by contrast, “substantially” adopts the panel dissent and is ultimately based on a constitutional principle as novel as it is wrong: a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. Government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand, thereby barring any Government efforts to expeditiously transfer the minors to their immigration sponsors before they make that momentous life decision. The majority’s decision represents a radical extension of the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence. It is in line with dissents over the years by Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun, not with the many majority opinions of the Supreme Court that have repeatedly upheld reasonable regulations that do not impose an undue burden on the abortion right recognized by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.

    That’s of course just a summary, and it’s fleshed out in very fulsome detail.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  118. Kavanaugh is a good, solid pick, eminently qualified and extremely well experienced. He is a staunch supporter of the 1st and 2nd amendments, but not so much of the 4th. That’s a problem for libertarian leaning Republicans like Amash, who called the pick “disappointing,” but he’s a Representative, not involved in the confirmation. Senator Paul, who is involved, said he will keep an “open mind.”

    Personally, I think people place too much attention on the Supreme Court, almost as if it were an obsession. In reality, the Supreme Court only makes decisions in cases it grants a hearing, and there aren’t really very many of them in a year, compared to the number of appeals considered. Granted, the decisions in those cases are consequential. However, in the many appeals not granted hearings, the lower courts’ rulings stand. Therefore, judicial activism occurs in the lower courts, not the highest.

    Anyway, Kavanaugh is a strong conservative and will most likely be confirmed, hopefully soon. And that’s fine, let Trump bask in momentary glory, adulation and praise. Then we can turn our attention to far more serious matters, like escalating trade wars and ruinous foreign policy debacles.

    GawainsGhost (b25cd1)

  119. Democrat leadership rally after supreme court pick. You could see the fear in their faces of what the democratic party will do to them like they did to fat joe crowley if they fail to stop nomination. If democrats flush pelosi and schumer down the toilet for being corporate establishment failures warning you won’t like who will replace the phony hippocrite limousine liberal leadership.

    wendell (0b9863)

  120. nk wrote:

    I’m grateful every time a Pinto doesn’t blow up.

    An old girlfriend, who drove a Pinto, kept using the line, “Pintos explode from the rear!”

    The ancient Dana (8a2cfa)

  121. Just saw a snippet on Morning Joe — sometime around 8:10 AM — in which the hosts and guests stated that Judge Kavanaugh was about the most qualified and ‘mainstream’ of anyone President Trump would have selected. Sounds like MSNBC has concluded that this nomination can’t be stopped, and they’re just keeping their powder dry.

    It was noted that Judge Kavanaugh’s article suggesting Congress pass a law shielding a sitting President from criminal charges or civil suits was published in 2009, at the start of Barack Obama’s term, so it was hardly self-serving for a conservative.

    Mr Kavanaugh had worked for Ken Starr in the impeachment investigation, and saw, first hand, how distracted President Clinton had become due to the Paula Jones lawsuit. (That last is mine; it was not mentioned on Morning Joe.)

    The Dana who watched Morning Joe so you wouldn't have to (8a2cfa)

  122. Our esteemed host wrote:

    Trump is still a liar, cheat, con man, adulterer, boob, idiot, and doofus. Just like yesterday.

    Great pick though.

    No one doubts that our 45th President is a liar, cheat, con man and adulterer, kind of like our 42nd! An idiot? Looks to me like he has outsmarted a whole bunch of people, Democrats and Republicans alike, who thought that they were smarter than him.

    The question isn’t whether or not he’s an [insert slang term for the rectum here]; the question is, is he a good President? On the whole, I’d say that yes, he has been.

    The inquisitive Dana (8a2cfa)

  123. How has he “outsmarted” anyone? He made a SCOTUS nomination, with the help of a team of people who actually knew who the nominees were. Have we abandoned the notion of damning with faint praise?

    Leviticus (4dbde0)

  124. You could see the fear in their faces of what the democratic party will do to them like they did to fat joe crowley if they fail to stop nomination.

    Ha, ha, ha! Here are the vote totals in that primary:

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — 15,897 — 57.5%
    Joseph Crowley* –11,761 — 42.5

    A Congressional district has 730,000 residents. All that happened was that Joseph Crowley ran such a sh!tty campaign that couldn’t get 16,000 people to go out and vote.

    nk (dbc370)

  125. It was written in the Third Book of Moses:

    How has he “outsmarted” anyone? He made a SCOTUS nomination, with the help of a team of people who actually knew who the nominees were. Have we abandoned the notion of damning with faint praise?

    Everyone thought that him even running for President was a joke, and that he’d be destroyed in the Republican primary campaign; he won.

    All of the smart people told us how Mr Trump had no chance to win, and that Hillary Clinton, once she survived her own primary campaign, was a lock to win the presidency; she didn’t.

    The smart people were telling us that his immigration policies were illegal and would never work; they’ve passed muster at the Supreme Court, and they’re working.

    We were told, by some oh-so-intelligent people that even the Republicans would get so tired of him that he’d be forced from office in a year; he’s still there.

    He hasn’t won on everything, and some of his losses — the Obysmalcare repeal — were his fault. Nevertheless, on so many of the things we were told he’d fail, he has succeeded. He has moved far more boldly on so many issues where President Jeb Bush would have mealy-mouthed, where President Marco Rubio would have caved, and he’s won in most cases. President Trump embodies the ‘go big or go home’ attitude that has been too lacking in other Republican presidents.

    In this world, there are born winners and born losers. Mr Trump is a winner.

    The realistic Dana (8a2cfa)

  126. Trump promised a conservative pick. He delivered on a conservative pick. And, if you believe the media, he persuaded Kennedy to resign at a time where he could be guaranteed a conservative pick.

    That’s actually playing the game well.

    There is a temptation to treat Trump as an idiot, because he chooses to talk like one from time to time, and because he acts uninformed on a lot of issues. But the man is not stupid, his media strategy might even work, he can be effective, and he is doing a pretty good job of forcing the GOP to remake itself in his image.

    If you believe that Trumpism is a bad thing (and tariffs and racism and corruption and strategic polarization ARE bad things), you might want to consider (i) why Trump HAS superfans and (ii) how to move forward, without becoming the forever hair on fire Resistance.

    Praise Trump when you need to. Damn him when you need to. Beware of underestimating him. He gets the rhythm of media. He even understands the exercise of power, even if his understanding of the Constitution is way undernourished.

    Appalled (96665e)

  127. Looks to me like he has outsmarted a whole bunch of people, Democrats and Republicans alike, who thought that they were smarter than him.

    Hit don’t work lahk that. “Hain’t we got all the fools in town on our side? And hain’t that a big enough majority in any town?”, is how it works.

    nk (dbc370)

  128. Sure wish they was all as smart as you, nk.

    Colonel Haiku (5fd258)

  129. the problem is you Californians allowed this to get out of hand,

    https://heavy.com/news/2018/07/judge-dolly-gee-5-fast-facts-you-need-to-know/

    narciso (d1f714)

  130. because they don’t read the law, they gauge what the requirements of a powerplay is, and they use the requisite dog whistle, ‘ripping children from their parents’ ‘the boy belongs with his father’ they apply inapposite parallels like the Chinese exclusion act, dred scott, Korematsu, whatever works,

    narciso (d1f714)

  131. when I make such statements, it’s like I’m speaking in Sanskrit, or enochian, (the language of the old ones,) but you know it’s true,

    narciso (d1f714)

  132. narc:

    When I read you, I feel like I have come into an intense political discussion which has been going on for 45 minutes, and I have no clue about the context, but I know something smart just might have come up (or something utterly nuts).

    Appalled (96665e)

  133. 81 outside of winning a lottery are idiots ever as successful as Trump has been? If an idiot can accomplish everything he has; why haven’t all you none idiots been more successful?

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  134. Here’s a primary in Democrat Cook County in which a pro-life, pro-RKBA Democrat (DINO?) was also challenged by a Berniebroad.

    Daniel Lipinski* — 47,116 — 51.2%
    Marie Newman — 44,992 — 48.8%

    Just power up the Machine, that’s all you need to do. Is why Trump faced Hillary and not Bernie.

    nk (dbc370)

  135. Well hell nk, seeing as theres a bunch of Archie Bunker votes that didnt show up in June, can’t Anthony Pappas become a trivia answer like Michael Patrick Flanagan?

    urbanleftbehind (fab96f)

  136. Great start to the week, now hopefully Trump goes and bangs some NATO heads. Donald Tusk of the EU Council needs reminded how insignificant and wrong he is.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  137. If I were the Republican against Ocasio-Cortez my campaign slogan would be “I’m Sane”.

    nk (dbc370)

  138. like Stevenson, remarked, that may not be a majority in that district,

    narciso (d1f714)

  139. now, trust them to get manafort or Flynn right, when they aren’t sleeping with committee staffers or
    snitching to the bureau,

    https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1016673965807472640

    narciso (d1f714)

  140. This is fine but, technically, Trump hasn’t appointed anyone from his Campaign list of Supreme Court justices:

    The list includes: Steven Colloton of Iowa, Allison Eid of Colorado, Raymond Gruender of Missouri, Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, Joan Larsen of Michigan, Thomas Lee of Utah, William Pryor of Alabama, David Stras of Minnesota, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin and Don Willett of Texas.

    He added 14 more to his list (bringing the total to 25) after he became President, and those added people — the attorneys with elite pedigrees like John Roberts — are the judges he is picking.

    I am glad he is picking very qualified attorneys and I hope they stay conservative, but I don’t give him credit for sticking to his campaign list.

    DRJ (15874d)

  141. Another GOP departee expresses it well.

    One more time: A conservative can be a fierce critic of Trump on many key matters and still acknowledge he made an outstanding SC pick. Is the argument that even if you believe Kavanaugh is an excellent pick you dare not say so? Sorry; no way.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  142. Good point, DRJ. It seems to be a “living” list. However POTUS settled on Kavanaugh the biggest political question for confirmation was which fight to wage going into the fall election. A pick that drives the left further into madness while the republican establishment leads the fight for the pick seems like a good way to stop the republican civil war for now and fight the real enemy. If it takes a “living” list to do that, well OK then.

    crazy (5c5b07)

  143. And the GOP departee adds:

    To Trump acolytes: His conservative critics can praise the Kavanaugh pick & still believe the grave damage Trump’s doing in other areas isn’t absolved. Example: it doesn’t invalidate concerns Trump is a pathological liar/corrupt. He can get some things right/many things wrong.

    Appalled (96665e)

  144. maybe their judgement was mistaken in other areas, as well, imho, had we followed his lead, who knows who would replaced kennedy, eric holder, Laurence tribe,

    narciso (d1f714)

  145. I agree with, too, Appalled.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  146. Eh, agree with that

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  147. I like Kavanaugh’s understanding of judicial restraint and Congressjonal responsibility:

    While there are certainly plenty of unanswered legal questions, Kavanaugh hasn’t come down one way or the other on how the Supreme Court must rule on the issue of presidents being subject to prosecution. The judge has only said what he thinks Congress ought to do.

    Kavanaugh made this distinction clear in a much maligned 2009 article written for the Minnesota Law Review. Before joining the D.C. Circuit Court, he played a lead role in the Kenneth Starr investigation that lead to President Clinton’s impeachment. Then Kavanaugh worked as counsel to President Bush. Those experiences shaped his personal opinion that “we should not burden a sitting president with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions.”

    DRJ (15874d)

  148. Kavanaugh believes a President should only face legal process after his service ends, in the same way the law protects members of the military from legal suits while they are deployed.

    DRJ (15874d)

  149. If Dems and fellow traveling #NeverTrumpers along with the noisy self-appointed high priests of Conservative Principles raise enough stink to delay a Senate confirmation vote till after the Midterm elections, both sides will have one heck of an issue to run on.

    Let the games begin, and let the devil take the hindmost!

    ropelight (4479c6)

  150. Thing is, I cannot find it in my heart to believe that if Trump had appointed Kamala Harris to the Supreme Court, Trumpkins would not only be vigorously defending but in fact praising his 3Dchessmanship.

    nk (dbc370)

  151. well you’re entitled to your delusions,

    narciso (d1f714)

  152. Let the games begin, and let the devil take the hindmost Left’s hindquarters!

    FIFY

    Colonel Haiku (5fd258)

  153. Thing is, I cannot find it in my heart to believe that if Trump had appointed Kamala Harris to the Supreme Court, Trumpkins would not only be vigorously defending but in fact praising his 3Dchessmanship.

    nk (dbc370) — 7/10/2018 @ 8:18 am

    Nk,

    it’s nonsense like the above that makes people believe anti-Trumpers have lost their minds. You have no evidence for the remark, but it makes you feel better to insult people who disagree with you. Whatever, carry on with your foolishness.

    NJRob (b00189)

  154. Ben Shapiro made some excellent points on Beck this morning.

    The main one being that Roberts will likely go for incrementalism in granting cert with a guy like BK coming in, as opposed to a Kethledge or a Hardiman. BK does appear to me to have too much awe for a Judiciary as an ideal and not as it really is. Very much like Roberts. While it is true JR knew he had a wobbly 4th vote in Kennedy, he just does not have it in him to assert a bold agenda. I will be startled to learn that BK, having clerked for Kennedy and Kagan, would somehow become a Thomas or Scalia.

    Like Shapiro, I just don’t see BK leading a charge, with the exception of curtailing the Administrative State. Shapiro declared the nomination a “double,” and not a Gorsuchian home run. I agree.

    FYI – I just learned that my sister is a Parishioner at the same church (Blessed Sacrament) as BK. She has not had any interactions with any of them. She is very disappointed that Hardiman, a fellow Domer (ND grad) did not get the nod.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  155. his[Trump’s] understanding of the Constitution is way undernourished.

    I’m curious if this can be factually backed up better than Bored Lawyer’s claim that Trump bragged about a Muslim Ban after the Travel Ban was enacted.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  156. Appalled quoted:

    To Trump acolytes: His conservative critics can praise the Kavanaugh pick & still believe the grave damage Trump’s doing in other areas isn’t absolved. Example: it doesn’t invalidate concerns Trump is a pathological liar/corrupt. He can get some things right/many things wrong.

    The problem with that formulation is that he has gotten many things right, and a few things wrong.

    The very realistic Dana (8a2cfa)

  157. A good libertarian/conservative endorsement by Jon Adler.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  158. On 7/10/2018 @ 8:26 am NJRob wrote:

    Nk,

    it’s nonsense like the above that makes people believe anti-Trumpers have lost their minds. You have no evidence for the remark, but it makes you feel better to insult people who disagree with you. Whatever, carry on with your foolishness.

    On 23 January 2016, presidential candidate Donald Trump stated the following during a campaign rally in Iowa:

    I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.

    Well?

    nk (dbc370)

  159. So what has he done wrong, policy wise?

    Narciso (2fbeb7)

  160. #161 —

    The things he’s done right are tainted by the pandering to racists, dictator love, disregard for the truth, and all that character stuff that used to be important but now magically isn’t. And tariffs may rather quickly kill the nice economy that keeps Trump from sinking back to 35% popularity.

    Trump is really good at spacing out the promises he keeps. But he’s had a good economy that doesn’t have much to do with him

    Appalled (96665e)

  161. . . . . On campaign-finance restrictions, a liberal academic who broadly supports such restrictions bemoans that “the only question is whether [Kavanaugh would] be more like Justice Scalia (voting to strike down more and more campaign limits) or like Justice Thomas (voting to do that AND strike down campaign finance disclosure laws).”

    And Hillary Clinton actually campaigned on overturninbg Citizen’s United.

    This would have prevented anybody in the country from spending more than about $2,700 – and even that would need to be reported – on opposing or supporting any candidate. With exceptions probably for pre-existing association, like unions, and volunteers, and for established media institutions.

    And all this does nothing to prevent corruption, because people refuse to draw connections when warranted (when it involves Democrats, or people they favor. How much did it help stop the Clintons? Maybe after a long time, a little (but the email scandal mattered much more)

    And Hillary Clinton is still the top Democratic Party presidential contender for 2020.

    https://nypost.com/2018/07/07/is-hillary-clinton-secretly-planning-to-run-in-2020

    Not long ago, I told a group of friends, all liberal Dems, that I believed she was keeping open the possibility of a rematch against Trump, and might already have decided to run.

    It was unanimous — they were horrified. “I would not give her a single cent,” one man, formerly a big donor to Clinton, said emphatically….So she’s toast, right? …

    …Here’s how I believe she sees the playing field, and why she can’t be ignored.

    First, because there’s no clear front-runner for the nomination 18 months into Trump’s presidency, Clinton remains the closest thing to an incumbent. She’s also got numerous advantages, from name recognition to campaign experience to an off-the-shelf cabinet, that could give her a head start.

    Second, a crowded, diverse field diminishes the chances of anyone knocking her off. Recall how Trump outlasted 16 GOP rivals by having a committed core of supporters that grew as the field shrank. Clinton could be in a similar position — unpopular among many, but also unbeatable by a single opponent.

    Third, looking ahead to the 2020 primaries, she sees no reason to fear the favorite daughters and sons in key blue states. She would almost certainly beat Sen. Kamala Harris in California, Sen. Cory Booker in New Jersey and Gov. Andrew Cuomo in New York.

    And please — forget Sanders and Joe Biden. Sanders is already 76 and Biden, at 75, has never been a viable candidate for president and still isn’t.

    Fourth, money is not an issue. Some donors will resist Clinton at first, but any Dem nominee can count on all the money in the world to run against Trump.

    To be clear, there are scenarios where Clinton doesn’t run. Health reasons, for example, or a younger rival could rocket to the top of the pack and become the party’s next Barack Obama. Either way, recurring nightmares of two previous defeats would send her back to wandering through the Chappaqua woods.

    For now, I am convinced Clinton wants to go for it. Doubters should recall the line about pols who get the presidential itch: There are only two cures — election or death.

    Besides, the third time could be the charm.

    And, on the otehr hand, people make many false connections. Sometiems very strained.

    We are seeing the problems we get from disclosure of contributions with people becoming targets for harassment. Mostly with ballot iniatiatives but it can turn into candidates what with the way some people want to boycott supporters of Trump.

    Justice Clarence Thomas remembers a Supreme Court case from about 1958 when the state of Alabama wanted to forcer the NAACVP to disclose its contributions..

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  162. 164 — Tariffs! I also think repeal of mandates without total repeal of Obamacare is irresponsible, and going to be hurtful. With respect to OGH, I don’t have the usual problem with the tax bill. Also, I think the focus on divisive issues (the kneeling thing) is unworthy of a President, and meant to divide.

    Appalled (96665e)

  163. So what has he done wrong, policy wise?

    The Omnibus which is the biggest spending bill ever, Second Amendment rights stagnant (no national reciprocity and NFA not repealed among other things), abortion still at status quo, country still chock full of Muslims and Mexicans not to mention Commies, playing footsies with Commie Kim Jong Un instead of just nuking him, no Wall that Mexico paid for, no affordable health care for everybody, our troops still in Iraq and Afghanistan. Basically the only promise he’s kept is to give lifetime government jobs to a handful of Harvard law school elites.

    nk (dbc370)

  164. You weren’t going to get anything else out of McConnell and Ryan, they have been able to do some administrative revisions and reallocation of funds. Islamic State has been significantly downgraded

    Narciso (2fbeb7)

  165. You wanted a larger border adjustment fee against Mexico, I think princes notion of mercenaries holds some promise based on his experience in Syria and yemen

    Narciso (2fbeb7)

  166. 144. DRJ (15874d) — 7/10/2018 @ 7:47 am

    I am glad he is picking very qualified attorneys and I hope they stay conservative, but I don’t give him credit for sticking to his campaign list.

    Well, the list I think actually applied only to his first appointee (the successir to Scalia) but the added names seem to come from the same people.

    Trump seemed to want to pick a second Scalia type.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  167. I noted a,parallel with the flynn vs McCabe/mueller fracas.

    http://www.probashionline.com/duel-avenue-kolkata-site-duel-changed-modern-indian-history/

    Narciso (2fbeb7)

  168. https://www.denverpost.com/2018/07/08/trump-supreme-court-list/

    The curator of the list is Donald McGahn who was first Donald Trump’s top campaign lawyer, and later the White House counsel.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  169. I was being more than a little tongue in cheek there.

    nk (dbc370)

  170. 5th Avenue Brain Freeze… 5th Avenue Brain Freeze

    Colonel Haiku (5fd258)

  171. Burke i admit does not look good here:

    https://www.bartleby.com/268/6/3.html

    Ignoring the particulars, does the surgeon sound familiar.

    Narciso (2fbeb7)

  172. What I want least in a judge is activism. Whether it is liberal activism or conservative activism. I don’t want them being policy makers or social engineers. Not with lifetime appointments. That should be the province of lawmakers we can throw out of office if we don’t like the direction they want to take us.

    I hope that Kavanaugh will be a restrained judge more than anything else. More than on how he’ll rule on specific hot button issues. If he just follows the law honestly, he will be right more often than he will be wrong.

    nk (dbc370)

  173. That’s a silly notion, if a law is wrongly decision, like the box of chocolates from whizz Pelosi handed us, it must be reversed,

    Narciso (2fbeb7)

  174. By contrast Ernesto Miranda should never have been released, to take and pillage, but this is because not enough scrutiny was made about Warren and Brennan not to mention fortas.

    Narciso (2fbeb7)

  175. 165 “pandering to racists, dictator love, disregard for the truth, and all that character stuff that used to be important but now magically isn’t.”

    Except there has been no pandering to racist, dictator love is a made up complaint because you don’t like his diplomacy, his lies have been no more numerous than any other president, especially the last one and what he lies about, crowd size, is inconsequential. When was character stuff important? It was claimed it was important but government has been full of womanizers like R Kennedy and murders like T Kennedy for 200+ years.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  176. They might and did make the first attributions to Reagan for Mississippi and bob Jones, the second ‘re Pinochet and Marcos and videla till 1982, questions about el salvador in the third.

    Narciso (2fbeb7)

  177. “That’s a silly notion, if a law is wrongly decision, like the box of chocolates from whizz Pelosi handed us, it must be reversed,”

    – narciso

    “Wrongly decided”? Like, as an ontological matter?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  178. 180 — I am not going to convince you, so it’s not worth it to me to dig around in the evidence drawer on these issues. Besides, this thread’s subject is the good thing Trump just did.

    Appalled (96665e)

  179. How about just bad law like robertscare and fodd frank

    Narciso (2fbeb7)

  180. Obama hanging around with reverend Wright and as it,would turn out Farrakhan, his,support of the revolutionary guard and the cuban army certainly didnt discourage you.

    Narciso (2fbeb7)

  181. The problem with that formulation is that he has gotten many things right, and a few things wrong.

    That’s a matter of opinion, Dana, and while just my opinion man (like The Dude), a person is unfit for president when over three-quarters of his factual claims are false, misleading or unsupported. But hey, give him credit for judicial picks.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  182. Charles Cooke has a point. Reporters like Leigh Ann Caldwell–who based her “reporting” on a single anonymous source–contribute to the MSM’s beleaguered reputation.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  183. 80% of the coverage has been like this, lictblau, Ross the doe eyed miss Watkins all push this garbage, destroying reputations inciting violence, ‘rubbing raw the sources of discontent

    Narciso (2fbeb7)

  184. Sammy 171: Gorsuch wasn’t on the original list.

    DRJ (15874d)

  185. More childishness. Ask Trump to make a list of whom he might pick to be a SCOTUS judge. He makes a list. Some people complain the the list is too exclusive. That Trump should listen to advisers and such and add some overlooked judges to the list. He listens, makes list longer. Then he picks from the longer part of the list, ones advisors have had input on. Then the complaint, in spite of the fact that for the most part everyone that is a so-called “conservative” agrees are good picks, that “well, he didn’t pick from the original short list” and “he only picked good judges because of his advisors.

    Do you people even listen to yourselves? It’s embarrassing.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  186. so embarrassing

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  187. And now, a short note from one of us happy Americans.

    lee (ab26cf)

  188. Hopefully Kavanaugh’s fidelity will be to the Constitution and not the press or the Washington DC cocktail circuit. If he does, we will all benefit.

    God bless the USA.

    NJRob (b00189)

  189. “In selecting Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill the vacancy left by Justice Kennedy, President Trump has chosen a nominee with impeccable credentials and a strong record of upholding the Constitution,” McCain said in a statement Monday shortly after the nominee was named.

    “One of the Senate’s highest constitutional responsibilities is to provide advice and consent on nominations to the Supreme Court, and I look forward to the Senate fulfilling this critical duty through a fair and thorough confirmation process.”

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  190. Mr. Judge Kavanaugh will be the number one justice with Mr. Gorsuch cause President Trump vetted them carefully, and he knows they have the temperament and the moxie to make the tough calls!

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  191. Luckily for the American people, neither GWB nor Trump are anywhere near as stupid and out of touch as some of their detractors seem to be

    steveg (a9dcab)

  192. 152. Spanky fancies himself above the law, therefore his SCOTUS pick. Kavanaugh naively thinks that a POTUS has no time for worryiong with abiding by laws. The POTUS has to have his golfing time, you know?

    Tillman (d34303)

  193. cnn is the equivalent mental act of cruelty:

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/10/kavanaugh-law-clerk-touts-him/

    narciso (d1f714)

  194. alright back on your heads, taking berman’s word for it is the first mistake,

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/10/dershowitz-kavanaugh-read-constitution/

    narciso (d1f714)

  195. So I got a little excited watching my neighbor shampoo and groom the poodle and then watching it prance around day after day after day… and in case you were about to ask, I was no where near when little bo peep lost her sheep

    steveg (a9dcab)

  196. Reports were teh pooch gave as good as he got. Will this inbred have to register as a sex offender?

    Colonel Haiku (5fd258)

  197. oh never mind:

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/07/yet-another-anonymously-sourced-trump-russia-story-falls-apart/

    but they got everything else, right mr. montagu,

    narciso (d1f714)

  198. 186 Paul, selection bias. When 100% of your claims I reviewed where lies, you shouldn’t bash Trump for 76%.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  199. @ Ed from SFV: Did Shapiro apologize to Judge Kavanaugh for utterly misrepresenting his past writings and position on Chevron deference?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  200. “Thing is, I cannot find it in my heart to believe that if Trump had appointed Kamala Harris to the Supreme Court, Trumpkins would not only be vigorously defending but in fact praising his 3Dchessmanship.”

    Did you mean to type “disbelieve”

    harkin (9d2fbb)

  201. narciso (d1f714) — 7/10/2018 @ 11:49 am

    Dershowitz’s new book apparently claims that Congress can’t impeach POTUS absent clear evidence of actual lawbreaking and that SCOTUS could overrule Congress if Trump is impeached and convicted by the Senate.

    This ignores the actual history of impeachment, and the latter claim at least suggets that Dershowitz himself needs to read the Constitution

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/alan-dershowitz-supreme-court-could-overturn-trump-impeachment

    kishnevi (bb03e6)

  202. According to David Brock’s book, “Blinded by the Right,” Mr Kavanaugh once mouthed, but did not say aloud, “Bitch” when the cameras panned toward Hillary Clinton during her husband’s 1997 State of the Union speech. Perhaps this doesn’t reflect judicial temperament, but Mr Kavanaugh wasn’t a judge then, but a staff attorney for Ken Starr.

    What it does reflect is keen discernment.

    The very snarky Dana (8a2cfa)

  203. Ken “Popehat” White has details on Kavanaugh’s extensive First Amendment precedents. Summary paragraph:

    Kavanaugh has been an appellate judge for 12 years and has written many opinions on free speech issues. They trend very protective of free speech, both in substance and in rhetoric. His opinions are consistent with the Supreme Court’s strong protection of free speech rights this century. People who buy into the “conservatives are weaponizing the First Amendment” narrative will see him as a strong advocate of that movement, in that he has applied the First Amendment to campaign finance laws, telecommunications regulation, and other aspects of the regulatory state. But he’s also demonstrated fidelity to free speech principles in classic speech scenarios. Even when he concurs in a First Amendment decision, he frequently writes a separate opinion to clarify his analytical approach to the problem. He’s quoted First Amendment guru Eugene Volokh — one of the leading voices in free speech analysis and a strong defender of speech rights.

    It’s this extensive record which mades Kavanaugh the very safest bet available to Trump, among many other very good choices. This guy is not going to wander off leftwards, like his former Justice, in search of the sweet mysteries of life.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  204. I use almond flour as a substitute in salmon cakes (as binder instead of breadcrumbs), it works and hang the carbs, it tastes better /improves the texture.

    The other thing I mainly use it in is French macarons, and since those have to be made with a megaton of sugar thers no carb advantage, only deliciousness to recommend.

    SarahW (3164f0)

  205. Kennedy came to stern defense of the first amendment more than once, and if Kavanaugh is his equal or better I feel less uneasy! not that Kavanaughs selection wasn’t a relief in other ways.

    SarahW (3164f0)

  206. schumer has to do kavanaugh kabuki all summer

    but the caravan goes on

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  207. 209. kishnevi (bb03e6) — 7/10/2018 @ 1:23 pm

    Dershowitz’s new book apparently claims that Congress can’t impeach POTUS absent clear evidence of actual lawbreaking and that SCOTUS could overrule Congress if Trump is impeached and convicted by the Senate.

    This is all wrong, especially teh norion taht the supreme Court could ooverturn it. (It could, though. if enough people forget what the constitution says)

    Here is Edmund Burke on the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” in the context of impeachment:

    This speech was delivered a little after the clauses in the U.S. constitution dealing with inmpeachment were wrotetn, but should show the context. He argues there can be no arbitrary power. IOt means alot of things for which there may not be any criminal code.

    This is the list of charges:

    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13968/13968-h/13968-h.htm

    Impeachment is usdually for stuff for ewhich a criminal prosecution is not suitable.

    https://www.bartleby.com/268/6/3.html

    This ignores the actual history of impeachment, and the latter claim at least suggets that Dershowitz himself needs to read the Constitution

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/alan-dershowitz-supreme-court-could-overturn-trump-impeachment

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  208. baby-in-a-box says President Trump did dirty dirty bushfilth all up in it

    “It just seems like Trump, in this case, just bowed to the elite in Washington, and I think that’s going to rub a lot of people the wrong way.”

    i think that’s a little overwrought if not wholly contrived for the cameras

    i think our sagacious president, President Donald Trump, wants somebody confirmed before November is all

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  209. 214. happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/10/2018 @ 1:50 pm

    schumer has to do kavanaugh kabuki all summer

    ON CBS This Morning, he used teh word “repeal” about what the Suopreme Court might do with regard to Roe v Wade over and pver again.

    Not the correct word “reverse” or “overrule” or “overturn.”

    Repeal applies to a law, or legislation. The Democrats really don’t want people to realize that the courts are not supposed to make law.

    This is worse than Trump saying ajudge signed a bill because he knows better.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  210. @207 – Beldar I came in after some minutes had elapsed. No, I heard nothing like a correction or apology.

    I am far more concerned with Roberts than I am Kavanaugh, who is excellent.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  211. if kavanaugh truly hates republicans and conservatism with a burning passionate fire he’ll repeal the roe and the wade both

    but my sense is he’s smarter than that and he wants those little girls to grow up in a country what’s recognizably american

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  212. I would have preferred that he pick barrett, but the press room might have ended up like the finale in kingsman, would have made quite a mess,

    narciso (d1f714)

  213. he’s cranky but dealing with cilizza, can do that to you:

    https://twitter.com/jtLOL/status/1016525219014553600

    narciso (d1f714)

  214. barrett’s a hyper-religious freak

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  215. but they got everything else, right mr. montagu,

    Since I’ve never referenced or commented on that particular story, I’ll take your comment as gratuitous, narciso. Disappointing.

    Paul Montagu (cbbfc4)

  216. Paul, selection bias. When 100% of your claims I reviewed where lies

    Selection bias? How? And if you’re calling me a liar, prove it.

    Paul Montagu (cbbfc4)

  217. 220. narciso (d1f714) — 7/10/2018 @ 2:10 pm

    I would have preferred that he pick barrett,

    The top two in some kind of an online straw poll conducted by radip talk show host Mark Levin were Barrett and Mike Lee. Probably mostly because they were perceived as feeling more strongly about some issues.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  218. …but the press room might have ended up like the finale in kingsman, would have made quite a mess,

    What is Kingsman and what is its finale?

    Some movie?

    About spies? British ones, like James Bond?

    The finale of which one? The original or the sequel out late in 2017?

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  219. the original was the only one anybody saw

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  220. Amending my comment at 224.
    Nate, I demand that you retract your comment that “When 100% of your claims I reviewed where lies” and apologize.

    Paul Montagu (cbbfc4)

  221. 216/ happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/10/2018 @ 1:59 pm

    i think our sagacious president, President Donald Trump, wants somebody confirmed before November is all

    I think trump decided not to worry about that. The argument being made to him by Mitch McConnell it was said NOT to pick Kavanaugh was that it could take longer to confirm him. * And so he might not be confirmed by the time of the new Supreme Court year, at the beginning of October.

    Still, there’s yet another month and a few days till the November election. I think Trump decided to go for the long term perception of quality.

    ——————

    * Supposedly Rand Paul might give Mitch McConnell a bit of trouble.

    No other reason was given, but maybe Kavanaugh’s long judicial record could make for more delay.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  222. In the meantime somebody is proposing that Democrats pledge either to vote for Kavanaugh OR name two other possible nominees that a Republican president might reasonably name if he will agree to answer every “fair” question.

    What would be the point?

    This would mean either creating arguments for recusing himself in sensitive cases, or maybe Kavanaugh might say something that would pry away one or two Republican Senators, either because of their own reaction, or their constituents.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  223. @214 Six more years, Mr. Feet! He’s in like Flynn; Errol, not Michael:

    ‘One of the headers in Kavanaugh’s article from the Minnesota Law Review reads:

    “PROVIDE SITTING PRESIDENTS WITH A TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF CIVIL SUITS AND OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS.”

    Kavanaugh began that section by explaining the difficulties faced by any president. “The decisions a President must make are hard and often life-or-death, the pressure is relentless, [making that putt, riffing that rally, tweetle dumb or tweetle thee: Morning Joe, Fox & Friends or CNN New Day] the problems arise from all directions the criticism is unremitting and personal, and at the end of the day only one person is responsible,[and it’s always Sessions.]” he wrote.

    Kavanaugh concluded, “I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible. The country wants the President to be ‘one of us’ who bears the same responsibilities of citizenship that all share. But I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office. ” – source heavy.com

    Woo hoo.

    “It’s good to be the King.” – King Louis XVI [Mel Brooks] ‘History of the World, Part 1′ 1981

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  224. Skorcher,

    I did not complain that Trump failed to pick from his original list. I pointed it out because I think facts matter, and it is a fact that Trump has not chosen anyone from his original list.

    However, he has not ignored them. He put Willett on the Fifth Circuit.

    But if you liked his original list because you thought they were good conservative thinkers and you applauded his willingness to name them, you might be disappointed he hasn’t chosen any of them.

    DRJ (15874d)

  225. It';s not that he met his wife on September 10, 2001, but the timing of the September 11th attacks probably led to his marriage:

    “Our first date was on September 10, 2001. The next morning, I was a few steps behind her as the Secret Service shouted at all of us to sprint out the front gates of the White House because there was an inbound plane.

    “In the difficult weeks that followed, Ashley was a source of strength for President Bush and for everyone in this building. Through bad days and so many better days since then, she has been a great wife and inspiring mom,”

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  226. yes, it’s a very broad take on the avengers, 60s version not marvel, with a touch of Deighton’s harry palmer, ironically caine was the working class bloke, assigned to a mysterious govt agency, which was riddled by upper clad traitors, he plays the traitor, anyways, sam Jackson’s failsafe is a patch that prevent the mind inducing wave, is an explosive charge, that blows up the heads of Obama’s cabinet, the un security council, and a host of other insiders, deep staters if you will,

    narciso (d1f714)

  227. “barrett’s a hyper-religious freak”

    Sounds like one of them there Deplorables.

    harkin (9d2fbb)

  228. http://patterico.com/2018/07/09/its-kavanaugh/#comment-2135178

    Let’s be clear, Paul. Are you demanding satisfaction? Are you throwing your virtual glove down before young master Nate?

    Colonel Haiku (5fd258)

  229. Mon Dieu! C’est magnifique! France advances to World Cup final! Wednesday, England vs. Croatia for other spot.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  230. Sounds like one of them there Deplorables.

    nonono but Amy’s value now is how you can juxtapose her hyper-religious rabid papism with Mr. Kavanaugh’s tempered, balanced, reasoned approach

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  231. narciso @234. This is not much of a help.

    Deighton’s harry palmer?

    upper clad traitors Should that be “upper class”

    sam Jackson’s failsafe?

    a patch?

    mind inducing wave?

    explosive charge, that blows up the heads of Obama’s cabinet, the un security council, and a host of other insiders?

    They had something like that with real people in a movie?

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  232. 238. That sounds like he doesn’t want to vote against him. And he has no reason to, either.

    His problem is maybe his national base.

    Kavanaugh apparently didn’t actually have any involvement in the major criticisms Rand Paul has of the Bush Administration. It would make sense anyway to look at his published judicial opinions.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  233. Let’s be clear, Paul. Are you demanding satisfaction? Are you throwing your virtual glove down before young master Nate?

    A retraction and apology will do for “When 100% of your claims I reviewed where lies” because he won’t be able to back up his smear.

    Paul Montagu (cbbfc4)

  234. 180. Taking credit for the economy is like any other president, but some of Trump’s statements go beyond that,

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  235. 189. DRJ (15874d) — 7/10/2018 @ 10:42 am

    189.Sammy 171: Gorsuch wasn’t on the original list

    Was he on the expanded list released before the November, 2016 general election?

    I don’t recall any complaints about names at any time.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  236. This is encouraging:

    The centrist GOP senators offered few hints on Tuesday about how they will vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. But it’s clear that Trump could have made confirmation in the narrowly divided Senate much more difficult if he had picked someone like 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett or another equally conservative nominee.

    “Let’s put it this way: There were some who have been on the list that I would have had a very, very difficult time supporting, just based on what was already publicly known about them,” Murkowski (R-Alaska) said in an interview on Monday. “We’re not dealing with that.”

    Collins (R-Maine) told reporters that while she wouldn’t directly compare Kavanaugh with Barrett, she touted Kavanaugh’s experience and sounded warm notes about him while insisting she has yet to decide.

    “It will be very difficult for anyone to argue that he’s not qualified for the job. He clearly is qualified for the job,” Collins said. “But there are other issues involving judicial temperament and his political, or rather, his judicial philosophy that also will play into my decision.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  237. This may not be relevant in a confirmation hearing, but Mr. Kavanaugh is a good guy.

    Paul Montagu (cbbfc4)

  238. I don’t recall any complaints about names at any time.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 7/10/2018 @ 3:17 pm

    Some of the names on the original list are very conservative and the kind of picks that might make liberal heads explode. I think they helped Trump solidify conservative support.

    DRJ (15874d)

  239. The idea was that Trump wasn’t afraid to suggest attorneys, many of them state court judges, that would appeal to very conservative people. It reinforced the idea he was a man of the people, not the elites. But ultimately he has named elite attorneys as Supreme Court Justices — people Cruz would have named. I like it fine but it surprises me that Trump supporters like it.

    DRJ (15874d)

  240. i hate we have so much dirty narrow-minded ivy league trash on the court and that Brett will just make it that much stinkier but you pick your battles and lobsterpot bimbo and tundra bimbo were just lookin for a reason

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  241. Justice Kennedy is assuming senior status. If Judge Kavanaugh is not confirmed until after the next term of the Supreme Court begins, can Justice Kennedy still sit on the Court until his replacement is confirmed, and continue to participate in all cases which he heard?

    The Dana with a real question (8a2cfa)

  242. i’m fine with that

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  243. But ultimately he has named elite attorneys as Supreme Court Justices — people Cruz would have named

    Rockefeller Republicans..

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  244. “But ultimately he has named elite attorneys as Supreme Court Justices — people Cruz would have named. I like it fine but it surprises me that Trump supporters like it.”

    I supported Cruz up until he withdrew, so, as I now support the man who won the election, I am fine with these choices.

    Colonel Haiku (5fd258)

  245. Yes Sam Jackson plays a tech tycoon who is so crazy about climate change he develops a chip which makes other people psychotic the only antidote is a wired patch with an explosive charge, Obama’s whole cabinet ate among those protected, it’s not brutally depicted

    Narciso (370326)

  246. @ Adjectival Dana (#250): I don’t think so, no: Senior status judges don’t sit by designation on the SCOTUS, only on courts of appeals (common) or district courts (rare). I think that Kennedy’s resignation has to be effective in order for there to be the vacancy for Trump to nominate Kavanaugh to, and I don’t think they can just “bump it” a few weeks to try to keep an odd number of sitting Justices.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  247. I ought to have said, in #255, “senior status Associate Justices,” to be precise.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  248. David French thinks Trump picked the wrong Judge, but I believe this was not the time to pick Barrett simply because of the thin majority Republicans have in the Senate. It is better to wait until the Senate is firmly held by Republicans before nominating Barrett. In fact, the optics would be better (if only for gender preservation) if Barrett was nominated to fill RBG’s seat.

    felipe (023cc9)

  249. More on NBC reporter Leigh Ann Caldwell and her botched reporting on Anthony Kennedy from Erik Wemple.

    Paul Montagu (cbbfc4)

  250. @ DRJ: I think “the list” is being used for two purposes by Trump and his advisers on SCOTUS matters. The main and stated purpose is to identify potential SCOTUS nominees. The secondary purpose is to spotlight “up and comers” who aren’t yet “ripe,” but whose future confirmation prospects might be improved by having been recognized and publicized simply by being on “the list.” Having been named as “runners-up” in the leaks with this nomination will enhance the future prospects of Barrett, Hardiman & Kethledge.

    I think this is politically astute and genuinely useful, and whether Trump thought this all out or whether it’s mostly just the product of who he chose as his advisers, ultimately he gets the credit (just as ultimately he should get blame for any screw-ups).

    He’s obviously listening to other advisers, and indulging in his own crackpot kindergarten economics, in proposing $200 billion in additional taxes on Americans who wish to purchase selected goods from China, however. But that’s the subject of a different post.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  251. @ felipe (#257): Ditto what you just wrote.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  252. Ah Beldar, I was just about to give you praise and high kudos for being only anti-Trumper here willing to give Trump “credit when it’s due” without the gratuitous backhands that undermine the claim that that’s the Patterico motto. Then when about to post, I see “crackpot kindergarten economics” in your last comment.

    So close!

    Oh well, I still congratulate you on your restraint, relatively speaking.

    lee (ab26cf)

  253. but I believe this was not the time to pick Barrett simply because of the thin majority Republicans have in the Senate.

    That sounds suspiciously like McConnell’s argument for not trying to repeal Obamacare.

    Maybe Holder was a better option until republicans have 60 Senate seats?

    lee (ab26cf)

  254. Felipe,

    French is NeverTrump. He’s disagreeing just to be contrarian and keep his status. I’m certain he would’ve done the same no matter the choice.

    NJRob (60195f)

  255. “Trade wars are good and easy to win.” That’s the babbling of an idiot, even if the idiot made a superb choice for Kennedy’s replacement. We discussed this just the other day, lee, I know you can’t be surprised that I’m critical of Trump for this. And $200B … not chump change. That’s a gigantic tax increase, on Americans, to pick economic winners and losers, and I oppose it.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  256. The Chinese have been waging a trade war on us, for how many years, they obviously haven’t read Abe lerner,

    Narciso (370326)

  257. lee (ab26cf) — 7/10/2018 @ 5:11 pm

    Remembering that I am an Independent, I would settle for 54 R votes.

    @NJRob: I didn’t know that about Mr. French.

    felipe (023cc9)

  258. Rockefeller Republicans.

    I think that is true in some cases, but Cruz is an attorney who has practiced before the Supreme Court and has worked with/knows many of them. He may have more insight into which ones are conservatives and which ones are Rockefeller Republicans. Maybe that is why he did not recommend Kavanaugh.

    DRJ (15874d)

  259. I am of the mind that any kind of war is bad. I would argue that wars result, in part, because of a loss of, or lack of, respect, credibility, and deterrence.

    Once credibility has been lost, how does one reestablish deterrence, which requires credibility? Actions I think, not words. What good came of all of Obama’s words? When he declared a “line in the sand” only to ignore its crossing by an adversary, did this not undermine our credibility, and thus any future deterrence?

    So how does Trump go about reestablishing our credibility, and engender in the minds of other countries, a sense of respect and deterrence? I certainly do not know of any painless options other than demonstrating to opponents that we live in a dangerous world.

    felipe (023cc9)

  260. Well whAT did Sherman say ‘war is hell’ but sometimes necessary much like in the prologue to the declaration,

    narciso (d1f714)

  261. Shakespeare in the era of Twitter:

    The true sonnet has both rhythm and rhyme
    Today’s writers have neglected the last
    The form’s been preserved to last throughout time
    ‘Tis nothing that should be left to the past!
    The Bard labored long to get sonnets right
    Themes of loves won and loves which went bitter
    Heart of our days, loves labor through long nights
    Now have been shrunk to fit into Twitter.
    The Bard would lament what’s happened to prose
    And poetry’s now a very lost art
    The scent that it gives is surely no rose
    Today’s best writing is barely a fart.
    No need for iambic pentameter
    It just must fit two-eighty characters!

    The Sonnet Avenger (8a2cfa)

  262. Just another old dead white guy:

    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — ‘Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.’ — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

    RWE Self Reliance

    Pinandpuller (554e0a)

  263. Quite right, narciso.

    felipe (023cc9)

  264. Critics seem to see Trump’s flamboyant style as an indicator of his substance. There’s a lot of commentary on the web today of this type concerning the Kavanaugh nomination. If Trump’s previous judicial nominees tell us anything, it is that his approach to the judiciary is conventionally conservative. The President’s comments last night about the importance of his role in nominating judges speaks to the seriousness of his approach. News stories about the pro-active role President Trump played in soliciting opinions about the best choice to replace Kennedy confirm his seriousness. To all the lawyers here, this should come as especially good news.

    By now, Trump nominating great legal minds to the bench is a dog bites man story. Same old, same old, but very good news, nonetheless.

    ThOR (d25d69)

  265. But war if necessary should brief definitive with certain specified goals, this is where the last two generations of military expedition floundered this first in Latin America, the second in south east Asia, and for a time the middle east.

    narciso (d1f714)

  266. “I am looking to appoint judges very much in the mold of Justice Scalia. I’m looking for judges . . . that will respect the Constitution of the United States, and I think that this is so important.”

    -Candidate Trump

    ThOR (d25d69)

  267. “I am looking to appoint judges very much in the mold of Justice Scalia. I’m looking for judges . . . that will respect the Constitution of the United States, and I think that this is so important.”

    -Candidate Trump, October 2016

    I don’t see much room for surprise.

    ThOR (d25d69)

  268. Getting back on point, that Mccain Collins and murkowski like cavanaugh, is one of those canary in a coalmine exercises, his pattern is a little too similar to justice Roberts in experience and temperament

    narciso (d1f714)

  269. Thor @274.

    If Trump’s previous judicial nominees tell us anything, it is that his approach to the judiciary is conventionally conservative.

    He thinks maybe he is imitation Reagan, but actually he is imitating George W. Bush.

    Sammy Finkelman (a3d36d)

  270. Narc:

    So the only way a supreme candidate is acceptable to you is if he’ll lose in the Senate?

    Appalled (1a17de)

  271. Maybe that is why he did not recommend Kavanaugh.

    I am not sure what I am supposed to glean from your link and how the wording of your sentence relates to the link.

    Ted also didn’t recommend Jimmy Kimmel. Is that your point. Ted didn’t recommend a whole lotta people. Or is your point that Ted specifically recommend against Kavanaugh? If so, the quotes in the link are fairly weak and not supported by any sourcing within your link.

    BuDuh (7ff428)

  272. The Dana @250. Justice Kennedy could have continued on the court if no nominee as confirmed had he phrased his retirement as being “effective upon the appointment of my successor” as Chief Justice Earl Warren did in 1968.

    Sammy Finkelman (a3d36d)

  273. 247. I mean complaints from conservatives about any Trump list of potential Supreme Court justices/

    Sammy Finkelman (a3d36d)

  274. News on FOX:

    Lisa Page says she will not comply with Congressional subpoena.

    ropelight (c1dd49)

  275. For thirty-five years we have been promised that each and every Republican appointee* to the Supreme Court was going to put an end to women’s rights. I have yet to see it. The Matriarchy is stronger than ever.
    Feeling: Disappointed.

    *For reals. Look up the section on their nominations on Wikipedia. Souter too.

    nk (dbc370)

  276. However, I distinctly wrote, in #85:
    […]
    Then I linked the November 2017 list upon which those names appeared. I “got around” to it; I was precise; and provided a link to an authoritative source.
    Beldar (fa637a) — 7/9/2018 @ 11:22 pm

    You’re right. It was right there in what you wrote and I missed it. I retract my criticism on that point and I apologize for the error.

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b)

  277. To the young, the pure, and the ingenuous, irony must always appear to have a quality of something evil, and so it has, for […] it is a sword to wound. It is so directly the product or reflex of evil that, though it can never be used – nay, can hardly exist – save in the chastisement of evil, yet irony always carries with it some reflections of the bad spirit against which it was directed. […] It suggests most powerfully the evil against which it is directed, and those innocent of evil shun so terrible an instrument. […] The mere truth is vivid with ironical power […] when the mere utterance of a plain truth labouriously concealed by hypocrisy, denied by contemporary falsehood, and forgotten in the moral lethargy of the populace, takes upon itself an ironical quality more powerful than any elaboration of special ironies could have taken in the past. […] No man possessed of irony and using it has lived happily; nor has any man possessing it and using it died without having done great good to his fellows and secured a singular advantage to his own soul. [Hilaire Belloc, “On Irony” (pages 124-127; Penguin books 1325. Selected Essays (2/6), edited by J.B. Morton; Harmondsworth – Baltimore – Mitcham 1958).]

    felipe (023cc9)

  278. No, but when you can only persuade those three of say removing the mandate, but not repealing Obama care, you create more of a problem.

    Narciso (370326)

  279. 264 $200 billion in goods tariffed doesn’t mean Americans will pay $200 billion, not even close to that.

    First off a 25% tariff on $200 billion of goods is $50 billion.

    If we put tariffs on all Chinese imports it would only be $105 billion.

    Next you need to account for changes in buying habits, some changes that would benefit Americans.

    Next is elasticity of retained money.

    About Trump being an idiot and liar, you were saying…..

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  280. Zombie BuDuh @ 281, you should have stayed in your grave even if Beldar was dancing on it. From DRJ’s @268 link which you obviously had difficulty reading or comprehending:

    But Kavanaugh is opposed by powerful conservatives, including Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who has argued that once on the bench, he will disappoint the right.

    On a call with associates on Monday, Cruz warned that Kavanaugh is the sort of “unreliable” jurist by whom Republicans have been disappointed in the past, and he has worked to bolster the prospects of his colleague, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah). Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) also spoke to the president about the merits and drawbacks of each nominee, including Kavanaugh.

    nk (dbc370)

  281. I also did not credit Cruz with the Kavanaugh pick. I don’t know why you are misstating me, when I clearly wrote:

    Thanks, Sen. Cruz, for getting Trump’s written commitment to pick from the list in September 2016 — a commitment by then-candidate Trump which surely we can all agree has turned out to be a great plus for him and the GOP; let’s hope it sets a precedent that future GOP presidential candidates and presidents likewise follow.

    Gorsuch was chosen from the September 2016 list, but I didn’t even credit Cruz with Gorsuch. To the contrary, I began my comment in #14 by giving credit to Trump for picking Kavanaugh, and in #85, I wrote:

    I give Trump full credit for making the final selections of both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh ….”

    I don’t know how I could be any plainer — or you any more wrong in your characterizations tonight of what I’ve written.
    Beldar (fa637a) — 7/9/2018 @ 11:32 pm

    I stand by my criticism on this point. You are, as the saying goes, to cute by half.

    Yes, you state that you give Trump “full credit” for both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, but that doesn’t mean that you give Cruz zero credit for Gorsuch. You have explicitly given Cruz credit for his actions regarding Trump’s list and Trump selection of Gorsuch. For you then to post in a thread about the selection of kavanaugh your thanks to Cruz for his actions implies he deserves the same praise that you previously directed towards Cruz for Gorsuch.

    But, maybe I missed it. Perhaps you have explicitly retracted the praise you gave to Cruz for bringing about the circumstances of Gorsuch’s nomination. I mean, if you’re saying that Trump gets full credit for Gorsuch, does that mean that you believe that Cruz gets none at all? That’s not how I read what you said. Just because Trump gets full credit for his own actions, does not mean that you believe that Cruz did nothing to bring that about and therefore gets none.

    No, unless you explicitly say otherwise, I’ll assume that you still credit Cruz for his part in the Gorsuch nomination. And, therefore, when you comment in the Kavanaugh thread your thanks to Cruz, it is reasonable to infer you are still using the same logic when it comes to Kavanaugh. And, that’s what I responded to, and I stand by my comments.

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b)

  282. Thanks, nk. Now you can move on to my issue. Is there any sourcing that confirms the single quoted word from Cruz? For some reason they were unable to get a quotable sentence.

    BuDuh (7ff428)

  283. Nate Ogden (223c65) — 7/10/2018 @ 6:49 pm

    Someone, initially, will have to pay a tariff. The cost of which will be passed onto the eventual consumers in some, perhaps even unexpected, way. But one can always avoid certain taxes by not consuming the taxed goods. Avoiding certain tariffs, by contrast, may prove more difficult since the costs can be passed on in a variety of ways, just as advertising costs are passed on to the consumer in varied ways.

    felipe (023cc9)

  284. This is humorous:

    …which you obviously had difficulty reading or comprehending

    Considering that is was written by someone who ostensibly had read and comprehend the comment of mine that he was mocking. The comment where I wrote:

    the quotes in the link are fairly weak and not supported by any sourcing within your link.

    LOL

    BuDuh (7ff428)

  285. This may explain. Why the markets have mostly dismissed the impact of the tariff.

    Narciso (370326)

  286. The only reason I read your comment in the first place was because my blocking script was off. As for your nitpicking, call up Politico and ask them. DRJ’s comment is fine as it stands. Call up Jimmy Kimell too — maybe he asked Cruz not to put him on the list.

    nk (dbc370)

  287. Hahahaha!

    A complete fail, nk.

    BuDuh (7ff428)

  288. Bite me.

    nk (dbc370)

  289. Block me.

    BuDuh (7ff428)

  290. Yes, you state that you give Trump “full credit” for both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, but that doesn’t mean that you give Cruz zero credit for Gorsuch. You have explicitly given Cruz credit

    Oh heavens! Harumph harumph oogabooga! Dear dear.

    (faints)

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  291. Dustin (ba94b2) — 7/10/2018 @ 7:43 pm

    LOL!

    felipe (023cc9)

  292. 282

    The Dana @250. Justice Kennedy could have continued on the court if no nominee as confirmed had he phrased his retirement as being “effective upon the appointment of my successor” as Chief Justice Earl Warren did in 1968.

    See also O’Connor in 2005.

    This is to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor.

    I think it is possible Kennedy didn’t do this because he wasn’t willing to serve indefinitely if problems arose confirming a successor.

    James B. Shearer (c2a015)

  293. BITE ME/BLOCK ME

    TOMMY:
    Bite me, feel me, block me, heal me
    Bite me, feel me, block me, heal me
    Bite me, feel me, block me, heal me
    Bite me, feel me, block me, heal me, heal me

    VOICES:
    Reading your words I get so tired
    Seeing your mind the void replete
    Following you I climb the mountain
    I get it’s a Sisyphean feat.

    Apologies to THE WHO

    felipe (023cc9)

  294. Re BuDuh/Beldar imbroglio
    1 Beldar assumed readers would take his statement seriously but not literally.
    2 I am an aspie. Aspies are supposed to fixate on details. But I see people here fixating on details in ways that even I can see to be, to be serious but not literal, asinine.

    kishnevi (eb17ed)

  295. felipe! Yes!!!

    No one knows what it’s like
    To be teh bad man
    To be teh sad man
    Behind black eyes

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  296. Re BuDuh/Beldar imbroglio

    Huh?

    BuDuh (7ff428)

  297. What? Somebody’s got to be an Aspie to be an asshole? Why can’t he just be BuDuh?

    nk (dbc370)

  298. If only nk would put this energy into actual conversation.

    BuDuh (7ff428)

  299. Did I mention it’s a good day for America?

    Eric Holder isn’t a SCJ!

    Yea America!

    lee (ab26cf)

  300. 310- sometimes it’s hard not to go all dopey over Trump like happyfeet. And getting harder everyday.

    Ahem. This I think a good use of the presidential pardon. Even though Trump is a horrible, horrible person, I don’t condemn him or this particular action.

    Not that there aren’t a million other things to condemn Trump for, don’t get me wrong, but this particular one isn’t like his normal awful self. Obviously some better person (which is anyone else of course) put him up to it, but still, credit were credit is due.

    So thanks to whomever made Trump do that.

    lee (ab26cf)

  301. for this particular action, not or…

    lee (ab26cf)

  302. You could investigate Obama administration every day and fund crimes against the people, alliances objectively with enemies of this nation

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/07/how-obama-admin-subverted-plan-to-take-down-taliban-drug-running-just-like-it-shut-down-operation-against-hezbollah/

    Narciso (bbdff8)

  303. @ kish (#304): I hope anything I write here can also be taken literally, except when the context otherwise indicates. I appreciate your sentiment, though, and while I think you’ve confused BuDuh and Anon Y. Mous on this occasion, I understand why and I’ve made the same mistake in the past, and apologized for it when it was pointed out.

    *****

    When I congratulated Sen. Cruz in my initial comment (#14), I was very careful to state exactly what it was that I was congratulating him for — that is, “for getting Trump’s written commitment to pick from the list in September 2016.” I included the date to distinguish it from an earlier list, a non-binding and shorter one, from which names Trump has not yet made any SCOTUS selections.

    Notwithstanding that care, Anon Y. Mous disputed my facts, rudely (as is his wont), in #35:

    That commitment was just for the Scalia opening, was it not? Trump didn’t promise that he would use that list for all SCOTUS openings during his presidency

    Without characterizing, or even pointing out directly, the falsity of Anon Y. Mous’ factal assertions, I then wrote my comment #85, in detail and with links to authoritative sources and quotes from them, to demonstrate that exactly as I had said, the September 2016 list was released with Trump’s written commitment to choose only from it in selecting Justices, plural for the Supreme Court.

    Anon Y. Mous’ comment #107 then accused me of misstating the facts again, this time by the supposed omission of an acknowledge that, in fact, I had very explicitly pointed out (that Gorsuch didn’t appear on the earlier list, but was on the September 2016 list). I complained of that in my #110, which prompted a rare admission by Anon Y. Mous that he had been wrong and I had been right, with a short apology. There was, and has still been, neither concession or apology for Anon Y. Mous’ own original falsehood in #35.

    But I also complained in my #111 that in Anon Y. Mous’ #107, he’d also falsely accused me of crediting Cruz for the Kavanaugh nomination. Every single word I’ve written on this blog since Kavanaugh’s name was announced appears on this page. In none of those words do I say, or imply, that Cruz should be credited for Trump picking Kavanaugh. Rather, as I repeated in #111, I give Trump full credit for both the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh choices.

    Despite that, Anon Y. Mous replied with his comment at #291, which seems to me to be a magnificent and timely example of the kind of smarmy, intellectually dishonest, and extremely offensive straw-manning that our host has recently confirmed to be unacceptable here.

    To Anon Y. Mous, I have nothing left to say to you that would be remotely civil.

    To our host: As long as this guy’s around, I won’t be.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  304. I think you’ve confused BuDuh and Anon Y. Mous on this occasion, I understand why

    I don’t.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  305. I give Cruz credit for committing Trump unequivocally, in public, in writing, in an explicit quid quo pro made in negotiations between Trump’s VP nominee and the GOP runner-up intended to unify the GOP after the convention going into the general election, to the original list of twenty (actually 21 with the addition of Lee) SCOTUS nominees.

    I give Trump credit for fulfilling that public, written, explicit commitment by picking Gorsuch, a name on the September list who was not on the May “guide.”

    No one can prove or disprove any assertion about who Trump might have chosen to fill the Scalia seat absent that written commitment. Might it have been Gorsuch, who was not on the May guide-list, but who could fairly be described as “in the mold of Scalia” and consistent with the guide-list? Maybe.

    But recall the history of Trump during the campaign. The first time he was quizzed about who he might appoint, the only judge he could think of was his sister. Then before the GOP debates, anticipating further questioning and not wanting to draw laughter and hoots of derision by re-proposing his sister, he got a couple of names, Diane Sykes and Bill Pryor, from conservative thinktanks. By the day after the debate when he mentioned them both by name, he’d already forgotten Pryor’s name, and could only come up with Sykes’ name as an example. And he waited until May, by which time he had the committed convention votes needed to be nominated, before he even issued his “guide”-list.

    Making an exclusive and explicit public commitment in writing to the list turned out to be a huge political plus for Trump; following his commitment has likewise been a plus; and as you mentioned, he volunteered on TV today that he will make this choice from that list as well.

    But he made no written commitment to pick exclusively from a specific list before Cruz’ endorsement. He’d deliberately structured the May list to be non-exclusive, so his instincts, clearly, were to keep some wiggle-room, which indeed is the political norm for candidates.

    I find unpersuasive speculation that somehow, without Cruz’ prompting, Trump would have had the revelation that committing himself might actually be the huge political plus it has undoubtedly since become. Regardless, that’s speculation; and in the real world, there was indeed a direct causal connection between Trump’s commitment and Cruz’ endorsement. And I give Cruz credit for that, which I thought then, and think now, is important and worthy of recognition — independently of the credit I also give to Trump for committing and then following that commitment.
    Beldar (169151) — 6/27/2018 @ 4:04 pm

    http://patterico.com/2018/06/27/supreme-court-no-more-forced-union-dues-for-public-sector-unions/#comment-2130954

    That’s Beldar giving credit to Cruz for Trump’s action in nominating Gorsuch. Note: I didn’t say that Beldar denied credit to Trump. He didn’t He gave Trump credit for what he did. But, he also gave credit to Cruz, as Beldar posits that Cruz boxed Trump in.

    Anon Y. Mous (01516b)

  306. @284. More ‘NEWS’ on Fox:

    Fox’s Napolitano Pushes Wild Conspiracy Theory About Kavanaugh, Clinton, Vince Foster Death July 10, 2018

    Andrew Napolitano, Fox News’ senior judicial analyst, pushed a nutty conspiracy theory tying Hillary Clinton to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and the suicide of White House aide Vince Foster on Fox & Friends Tuesday morning. On to discuss President Donald Trump‘s nomination of Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, Napolitano brought up Hillary Clinton’s ties to the circuit court judge. “You remember Vince Foster who killed himself in the White House?” Napolitano asked his Fox & Friends hosts. “How did his body get from the White House to Fort Marcy Park?” “Who was the prosecutor in charge of figuring out how his body got there? Who was the prosecutor that exonerated Hillary and the thugs that moved his body? A young Brett Kavanaugh.”

    Conspiracy theories have swirled around the death of Vince Foster, former President Bill Clinton‘s White House deputy counsel, since he committed suicide in 1993. The most prominent (but completely unfounded) theory is that Foster was killed in the White House by the Clintons, and his body was then dumped in a park. President Donald Trump is, of course, fond of that theory.

    The reality is that Foster — a childhood friend of Bill Clinton — suffered from depression, and shot himself in Fort Marcy Park, Fairfax County, Virginia in 1993. His proximity to the Clintons and involvement in various controversies that surrounded the administration fueled the conspiracy theories. But there were five investigations into his death, and they all determined he committed suicide, in the park.’ – source, http://www.mediaite.com

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  307. Same shite, different day.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  308. Early breaking– The Ugly American:

    Trump attends NATO breakfast; eats Secretary General’s lunch, LIVE on camera.

    And why the only one with no OJ?!

    Have your Belgian waffles with strawberry jam, instead, Captain, sir.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  309. n.y. lefty dems are demanding schumer’s scalp if kavenaugh gets in. they are telling schumer if you lose this fight GET OUT! and let coumo replace you with alexsandra orcasio-cortez!

    wendell (d15fdf)

  310. Six-inch stilettos on Melania. Are those legal in Northern Europe?

    nk (dbc370)

  311. Seriously, isn’t there some kind of etiquette about women wearing those things in public except to a singles bar after sundown?

    nk (dbc370)

  312. Foster was bullied by hillary, a week before, however they were in quite a rush to clean out his office, include a young neera Hansen who has been spreading conspiracy theories about Deutsche bank and Tom Kennedy ‘s son.

    Narciso (7adc33)

  313. Tanden, she works for Soros American regress.

    Narciso (7adc33)

  314. The ATF is working to outlaw bump stocks. Meantime, Benicio del Toro shows you that you don’t need them. At around 27 seconds.

    nk (dbc370)

  315. Benicio has played a drug dealing ex contra (ground up like coquette) hunter Thompson’s atty, an honest Mexican cop, a crooked fence, most recently this agent for the dea

    narciso (d1f714)

  316. And as a bookend to his Che role, his next project is about a corrupt cop from havana, who becomes the numbers king of the north east.

    narciso (d1f714)

  317. License to Kill is to the Bond series what No. 3 (2001) was to Jurassic Park – a pure gorefest.

    urbanleftbehind (fab96f)

  318. And if Benicio really gives a spit about su gente, lets fly him to Ohare to deal with this cretin.

    urbanleftbehind (fab96f)

  319. Snorfle. He and Josh Brolin (the lead actor in the Sicario movies) are also, respectively, The Collector and Thanos in Infinity War, which provokes a few giggles on YouTube comment threads.

    nk (dbc370)

  320. There’s a worse story from LA, urbanleftbehind. A woman who could have been Obama’s daughter and four guys who could have been his sons beat up a 92-year old Mexican telling him to go back to Mexico. I didn’t research it. I wonder if it’s Maxine Waters’ district.

    nk (dbc370)

  321. And I think Garcetti/Beck will softpedal unfortunately, due due to the mayor being a dark horse 2020/2024 candidate. The Greenlight might be back and I would considered it geographically mis-allocated karma for the way my South suburban Chicago relatives got pushed into NWI.

    urbanleftbehind (fab96f)

  322. @302

    Supreme Court Justices do have an on-call rotation. One Supreme Court Justice is always on-call to handle things like final petitions to the Supreme Court in death penalty cases, and other things.

    At 81 years old, being on-call can get kind of annoying.

    Ingot9455 (483517)

  323. “but this is only a concern cause piggy-coward John McCain is such a cowardly low-class pig”

    The dialect seems familiar. Is that you, Sacha Baron Cohen? I heard you were at it again.

    noel (96c84f)

  324. @324 There are ways around door locks too you know. But that doesn’t mean we stop locking our doors. Do you lock your door(s) at night, nk?

    Tillman (d34303)

  325. This is more like the government taking away your doors because you might do something illegal behind them.

    nk (dbc370)

  326. Chicago recently passed an ordinance outlawing the ownership of bullet proof vests by private citizens. Its rationale: It makes it harder for the police to fatally shoot a “bad guy” wearing one, and since we have no way to keep them out of the hands of only the people the police might have a reason to shoot we should take them away from everybody except the police. Are door locks next?

    nk (dbc370)

  327. Sarah Palin is not happy with you, Sacha…

    “Yup – we were duped. Ya’ got me, Sacha. Feel better now?
    I join a long list of American public personalities who have fallen victim to the evil, exploitive, sick “humor” of the British “comedian” Sacha Baron Cohen, enabled and sponsored by CBS/Showtime.”

    Some of these politicians need to pilfer a sense of humor. When someone is obviously yanking your chain, try this…. laugh. Just have fun with it. Ripping off your mic and running away makes you look weak and insecure.

    noel (96c84f)

  328. Our Dear Leader needs to stop acting like our worst enemy. He poisons our relations with our best allies and tries to befriend some of our worst enemies. Why are we tolerating this? Captain Chaos is just a shameless, cantankerous Stink Bomb in almost every single thing he does.

    Tillman (d34303)

  329. Gorsuch clerked for Kennedy. So did Kavanaugh. I have to wonder how that will impact their votes on gay marriage and other key Kennedy led majority rulings. Will they be willing to overturn their mentor’s most iconic decisions?

    noel (96c84f)

  330. Tillman says, “He poisons our relations with our best allies and tries to befriend some of our worst enemies.”

    I hear ya. But they don’t. Won’t.

    noel (96c84f)

  331. remember when the daily caller was fed a story, well they picked it up from the enquirer, a brawl at her home, she was fundraising for vets, in Houston, but these jackalopes at the daily mail and the times didn’t care about an assault on her family, so civility lets have more of this, and this is why you got trump,

    narciso (d1f714)

  332. Fox News editor: Trump will fly into NATO like a bird and ‘defecate all over everything’

    http://thehill.com/policy/international/396445-fox-news-editor-trump-will-fly-into-nato-like-a-bird-and-defecate-all

    Tillman (d34303)

  333. germany seems to be in worse shape than the interwar military, the allied control commission forced upon them, when tiny Greece can punch it’s weight, even with a socialist/populist puyallop government,

    narciso (d1f714)

  334. oh he was also a zeta cop in savages, oliver stone has this thing against latinos, from Salvador to savages.

    narciso (d1f714)

  335. Gorsuch clerked for Kennedy. So did Kavanaugh. I have to wonder how that will impact their votes on gay marriage and other key Kennedy led majority rulings. Will they be willing to overturn their mentor’s most iconic decisions?

    They will not overturn the gay marriage equity rulings. Nor does Trump really want them to. We’ll see if they overturn Roe. My guess is that they will find a way to allow states to more thoroughly regulate abortion, but they may not entirely kill it.

    Y’know, a “right to privacy” is not such a bad thing in our over-connected age, and the penumbra argument from Griswold is not the worst judicial lawmaking I have seen. I kinda wish the court had done more with the idea, rather than restrict the concept to sexual choices.

    Appalled (96665e)

  336. look at the eu’s minitrue regime, the gdpr, to see what they really mean by privacy, you still haven’t caught on appalled,

    narciso (d1f714)

  337. Our Dear Leader needs to stop acting like our worst enemy. He poisons our relations with our best allies and tries to befriend some of our worst enemies. Why are we tolerating this? Captain Chaos is just a shameless, cantankerous Stink Bomb in almost every single thing he does.

    Tillman (d34303) — 7/11/2018 @ 7:05 am

    Yes Obama did. Good thing he’s not in charge anymore.

    NJRob (b00189)

  338. narciso —

    I am actually familiar with the eu privacy requirements. That’s a creature of statute. The “right to be forgotten” is nonsense. The buying and selling of personal data is something worth some government oversight. It also bothers me that it is so easy to find one’s political donation habits. It’s really nobody’s business, and those publicly available lists are used to intimidate.

    Appalled (96665e)

  339. Fox News editor: Trump will fly into NATO like a bird and ‘defecate all over everything’

    Mission accomplished for Trump, once again pissing on allies at a summit and looking forward to a warm and productive meeting with his buddy, Putin.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  340. 349… yes, when Big Zero wasn’t tractoring buttloads of cash to the mullahs, he was nixing an effort to stop the Afghan heroin warlords from supplying 90% of the world’s supply of heroin and using that cash to fund Taliban’s killing of American military personnel.

    Colonel Haiku (5fd258)

  341. 350 some people like to piss on others, some people prefer to be pissed on, apparently your the later. Maybe our allies with huge trade surpluses shouldn’t be purchasing tens of billions of energy from the country we are paying to protect them from.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  342. My hope is that Conservatives realize that, while Roe was a lousy decision, Griswold was not. The following, in fact, could stand as a good Republican declaration:

    Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers “in any house” in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    The Warren Court and its intellectual heirs weren’t interested in curbing Federal government power, so they never followed this up. It really is a shame.

    Appalled (96665e)

  343. 352. Retract and apologize for this, smearboy.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  344. Apologize for my 352? Even though you ask so politely, I decline…

    Colonel Haiku (5fd258)

  345. Haiku,

    you probably have something in moderation. He’s talking to Nate. It’s why I always recommending quoting people. Just using numbers is pointless because they often don’t line up.

    You can lead a horse to water…

    NJRob (b00189)

  346. Not you, Haiku. I was addressing Smearboy Nate. I’m still a relative newbie, forgot about that numbering thing.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  347. Appalled says, “They will not overturn the gay marriage equity rulings. Nor does Trump really want them to. We’ll see if they overturn Roe. My guess is that they will find a way to allow states to more thoroughly regulate abortion, but they may not entirely kill it.”

    That’d be my guess too. Public opinion matters to the Court and I find it highly unlikely that they would ever overturn Obergefell. Gay marriage already polls around 65% approval. 34% disapprove in last Gallup Poll. Most opponents are elderly and their numbers are, obviously, going to shrink.

    While the pro-choice side wins most polls, Roe is another matter. Many justices were chosen with the expectation that they would challenge Roe. But I think they will take small steps toward state’s rights. And even there, several states have attempted bans on abortion… conservative states…. and they have failed. Even heavily Republican controlled legislatures would be wise not to get too strident.

    Then there are the “trigger laws” which would ban it automatically in several states if the Court overturns Roe. I believe some of these would be quickly overruled with public votes by initiated measures. But again, I have my doubts that the Court will completely overturn Roe in one decision.

    I am pro-life but this will probably be slow, incremental change if it is ever to be successful.

    noel (96c84f)

  348. When I say that “several states have attempted bans on abortion…. conservative states…. and they have failed”, I am referring to referred or initiated measures with a public vote. Not legislative action.

    noel (96c84f)

  349. Oh, yes, NJ Rob… “Flame-ret*rdant underwear”, which I had posted early on without the asterisk.

    Colonel Haiku (5fd258)

  350. In #316 above, Anon Y. Mous posted a comment I’d written on June 27th that is absolutely consistent with everything I’ve written here. In it, I stated exactly what I credited Cruz with, and exactly what I credited Trump with, in connection with the Gorsuch nomination.

    And despite that, Anon Y. Mous wrote, falsely, that “[t]hat’s Beldar giving credit to Cruz for Trump’s action in nominating Gorsuch.” That is a baldfaced, obvious lie, but trolls lie, and Anon Y. Mous is a troll and a liar.

    To our host:

    I’m email you with a link to this comment, in case you otherwise might miss it, and by way of explanation for my absence from this blog’s comments as long as Anon Y. Mous is a commenter here. Life’s to short to waste on refuting a troll who lies outright about what I’ve written, even after quoting it in full. I’ve been civil, to no avail. I’ve been precise, to no avail. In my comments about Trump on this post, I’ve been gracious — to no avail.

    I give up on trying to communicate with anyone else here while the trolls run rampant.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  351. Beldar,

    Use the blocking option instead of demanding others get banned. Trying to leverage your relationship is low.

    NJRob (60195f)

  352. Trump supporters are happy that Trump nominated someone credible, and I’m also glad although Kavanaugh wasn’t my first choice. I thought we could enjoy this moment but it is not to be. If we have to pick sides then I am on Team Beldar.

    DRJ (15874d)

  353. Senate votes 97-2 on n/b resolution to support NATO.

    The two voting ‘nay’- the lovely and talented Rand Paul and Disney’s eighth dwarf, Mike Lee.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  354. Ted Cruz is glad about Kavanaugh as well. His twitter is full of praise.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  355. DRJ,

    that’s the problem. You’ve decided the team is against Trump instead of the people who are against America. Why is that?

    The blocking script exists for a reason. Trying to silence someone you don’t like goes to an entirely different level. Very leftist.

    NJRob (b00189)

  356. I give Cruz credit for committing Trump unequivocally, in public, in writing, in an explicit quid quo pro made in negotiations between Trump’s VP nominee and the GOP runner-up intended to unify the GOP after the convention going into the general election, to the original list of twenty (actually 21 with the addition of Lee) SCOTUS nominees.

    OK, how can Cruz “commit” Trump to doing anything? Does Trump lack free will to do as he pleases? Is it not within Trump’s capacity to commit to doing something and NOT within Cruz’s capacity to make Trump commit to do something? I mean if Cruz was physically threatening Trump, perhaps. If you respond to this post, have I committed you to doing so?

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  357. To be clear, I would give credit to Cruz for suggesting the idea. But to say he “committed” Trump is a bit too far.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  358. @365. Tedtoo has always been notoriously full of it.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  359. 317. DCSCA (797bc0) — 7/10/2018 @ 11:46 pm

    Andrew Napolitano, Fox News’ senior judicial analyst, pushed a nutty conspiracy theory tying Hillary Clinton to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and the suicide of White House aide Vince Foster on Fox & Friends Tuesday morning. On to discuss President Donald Trump‘s nomination of Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, Napolitano brought up Hillary Clinton’s ties to the circuit court judge. “You remember Vince Foster who killed himself in the White House?” Napolitano asked his Fox & Friends hosts. “How did his body get from the White House to Fort Marcy Park?” “Who was the prosecutor in charge of figuring out how his body got there? Who was the prosecutor that exonerated Hillary and the thugs that moved his body? A young Brett Kavanaugh.”

    Where is this coming from?

    It has to be coming from the Clinton people. Something to derail the nomination. Not to mention blame the wrong person(s) for the coverup.

    In the first place it was not Kenneth Starr who intially investigated the Vincent Foster death, it was Robert B. Fiske Jr. This is completely missing from this version of events.

    Robert B. Fiske Jr. was Clinton’s first attempt to appoint a special prosecutor. The special prosecutor law had lapsed, and in the interim, Bill Clinton had Janet Reno (who was not an accidental choice) appoint Fiske as a sort of special prosecutor. The aim, I think, was to put all possible investigations of Bill Clinton, federal and state (state also because state prosecutors would defer to teh feds) into the hands of lawyer whom Bill Clinton could trust.

    He could trust him because he had successfully protected Robert E. Rubin (who first was head of the National Economic Council he established in the White House, which didn’t require Senate confirmation, and later, when the coast was clearer, Secretary of the Treasury)

    Fiske rotected Rubin from Guiliani’s insider trading investigations. Giuliani had two big targets, Michael Milken of Drexel Burnham Lambert and the company Goldman Sachs, and Robert E. Rubin was the head of arbitrage trading at Goldman Sachs. Giuliani was going after smaller fish first, as is usual, and he had Robert Freeman in his sights. Goldman Sachs paid for his lawyer, Fiske.

    After Giuliani left to run for mayor, Fiske told prosecutors (and then almost certainly leaked and then compaliend about the leak) a story about Beatrice Foods – something Freeman could plead guilty to that didn’t lead anywhere because it aslmost certainly never happened.

    So, in 1993, Fiske was appointed this sort of special prosecutor to deal with Whitewater. Then when the Foster death happened, Fiske was handed that job too. In March 1994 Fiske issued a report and aversion opf what he would say was leaked in advance to the New York Daily news and Mike McAlary – who had reported on Bill Clinton’s connection to BCCI in February 1992 while working for the New York Post – was assigned to write the story, most of which has been forgotten but some fo which contradicts other things.

    Then later in 1994 Bill Clinton signed the law that re-established a special prosecutor, with the idea that the 3 federal judges tasked with appointing the prosecutor would ratify the decision that Janet Reno had made. Only the judges named Kenneth Starr instead.

    Starr never re-investigated the case. He relied entirely on what the FBI had reported.

    Brett Kavanaugh was not part of any coverup, although it is possible the was taken in.

    I just found something where he challenged a finding of the Foster investigation:

    http://www.fbicover-up.com/miguel-rodriguez.html

    Narrator:

    Brett Kavanaugh, Starr’s associate, gave a good deal of credit to the pathology panel of experts that worked for Starr’s predecessor Robert Fiske. We now learn that these so-called “experts” did not examine the original crime scene photographs….

    Narrator:

    Starr’s office used the same photos as his predecessor Fiske. Brett Kavanaugh wrote that the conclusion of suicide was based on photographs, “gathered during the prior investigation.”

    …..Starr’s associate independent counsel Brett Kavanaugh wrote, “The 35-millimeter photographs were underexposed: thus, the POLAROIDS were of greater investigative utility.” Kavanaugh knew the 35-millimeter photos were not underexposed, and he had access to all first generation photos. [that makes him look guilty, but there are many possible explanations as to how he signed on to that, including not doing all the work himself]

    … Both Kavanaugh and Rodriguez served as Associate Independent Counsel under Kenneth Starr. Starr chose Kavanaugh to replace Rodriguez…

    ….

    Brett Kavanaugh

    Well it all comes down to that brown car issue, right? Ah, all the police and medical personnel that were in the park also described it as brown.

    Narrator

    The conclusion that Vincent Foster committed suicide depends on yet another provable lie – that Foster drove his children’s gray Honda to Fort Marcy Park.

    Patrick Knowlton and all the other witnesses were correct. There was no gray car in the parking lot.

    We just heard Kavanaugh admit that all witnesses were consistent that the car was brown, proving that Foster did not drive his children’s car to the park.

    We have this also here:

    http://www.fbicover-up.com/brett-kavanaugh.html

    Associate Indendent Counsel Brett Kavanaugh admitted that “all the police and medical personnel that were in the park also described [the car] as brown.” Vincent Foster’s car was NOT BROWN. Foster did not drive to the crime scene at Fort Marcy Park, contrary to press reports.

    It seems like Kavanaugh trusted the preceding offical investigatirs and chose to believe there was no problem with contradictions. But that’s all it is.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  360. @370. Judge Nappy is a wacko, Sammy. But there are some hard right ideologues and devoted swamp drainers who preferred some other pick than K, who is a professional creature of the swamp, Sammy.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  361. Now for some facts: Vincent Foster did indeed drive his car from the White House. But he did not drive into Fort Marcy park, and he did not shoot himself with a gun that was still illegally in his house in Washington, D.C. that his widow took out of a closet, nor was he ever shown to have possessed any other gun. It’s the purest speculation that he had any other gun in Wsashington, D.C..

    Vincent Foster went to see the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who lived across the street from Ft. Marcy Park, and had temprarily moved to another nearby house because of renovations. his house was also used for highly secret meetings. He had many briefcases there that he told reporters contained secret files but probably contained money.

    Foster was orried because he thought the jig was up because he had read my email message sent to president@whitehouse.gov (read and kicked up to him because it mentioned Crown Heights. New York Governor Mario Cuomo was keeping the contents of the Girgente Report under wraps, and the Clinton people were afraid of what it would say. Why? Because it might connect them to the Crowns Heights events of August 19-21, 1991. Probably Clinton’s connection with some of the people who were trying to force the Lubavicher Chassidim to give up some government grants by killing and threatening to kill and not protecting Jews.)

    My email message arrived in the White House on July 20, routed overnight through Rochester, and seemed like it came from someone who worked at the Wall Street Journal. It stated that Janet Reno should not coover up the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum like she did that of Don Aronow, and then segued into saying that the FBI Director should not be fired, and they should THINK AGAIN because if he weas reporters would be released from their pledges of confidentiality and Sessions would be free to talk about what he knew about Waco including how he was kept from the scvene at Waco and how his water cannon plan was rejected in favor of tear gas.

    And just then he heard that fired FBI Director William Sessions had called for apress conference that Thursday.

    It looked like his worst nightmare was coming true.

    But he had an idea. He went to teh Saudi Arabian Ambassadoor (who would not be caught up in any Clinton scandal) to blackmail him for money to pay for a lawyer.

    But Foster had forgotten about DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY!

    Confronted with blackmail, someone made a decision and Foster was shot and killed by a Saudi. Or if you want, this is all wrong and it was a misunderstanding. But he was killed by a Saudi with diplomatic immunity.

    Whatever, Prince Bandar rushed over to the White House to explain the death and enlist Bill Clinton’s help in a cover-up. he needed help because even though he could not be prosecuted in the United States, and was unlikely to be prosecuted in Saudi Arabia, his career would be over and he certainly would never become king.

    Bill Clinton told him to move the body to Ft Marcy Park, which would give him federal jurisdiction.

    Some parts of setting up the scene took time. They even moved his body from one part of the park to another. His car was really late getting there.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  362. @ NJRob: The blocking script may be very useful for some, and I have sometimes used it satisfactorily with respect to some commenters when I was skimming, rather than much participating, in this blog’s comments. This very comments thread, though, indicates its limitations: Inevitably, people whom I have not blocked end up discussing the comments of those whom I have blocked, sometimes including statements to or about people I’ve known through this blog for many, many years. I had Hoagie blocked when he compared DRJ to “slime,” but saw others react to that statement, unblocked his comments to take a look myself, and definitely had an opinion to share about the impropriety of that attack.

    @ DRJ: Thank you, my friend. I am not asking, however, for anyone to pick a team.

    I posted, and emailed our host, to draw his attention to what I believe is a deliberate example of the anti-straw-manning policy (for lack of a better phrase) he previously announced. He, or others, may have different reactions to Anon Y. Mous than I have had, consistently, in my experiences with him, and if our host determines that he’s in compliance with our host’s standards, that’s that.

    From one angle, that certainly looks like me leveraging a long-standing friendship with our host. There’s no way to avoid giving that impression, and for practical purposes that may well be the effect. Regardless, a decent respect to the opinions of of the community requires that I declare the causes which impel me to my separation from these comments, which I will regret.

    The troll tax is too high for me to willingly pay anymore.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  363. So we get to revisit the Vince Foster affair again? Really? With a mad Saudi Arabian connection? If there were only a Benghazi connection, and a supporting role for Paula Jones, we would have some variety of Trifecta….

    Appalled (96665e)

  364. @374. Thank Fox & Friends.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  365. #375 — We already have so much to thank them for, like 90% of the President’s future tweets….

    Appalled (96665e)

  366. But this whole russian snipehunt that mueller let the bag out on, thats ok. Appalled.

    Narciso (2980ef)

  367. NJRob:

    DRJ,

    that’s the problem. You’ve decided the team is against Trump instead of the people who are against America. Why is that?

    I would answer but I don’t understand what you are saying. I don’t think you care about my answer anyway.

    FWIW, I support putting people in moderation (not banning) who won’t make a good faith effort to see other points of view. There are several here but it isn’t my website and I’m not interested in this drama anymore. There is more to life than Patterico.com.

    DRJ (15874d)

  368. By the way, no one has to accept or agree to other points of view but they should try to understand what other people are saying. There are commenters here who don’t seem willing to do that.

    DRJ (15874d)

  369. @ Skorcher: Recall that at the Republican National Convention, Cruz told Republicans to go out and vote their consciences in November, which enraged Trump and his supporters (who boo’d). The rift between the nominee and the first-runner-up in delegate votes needed to be mended, or at least bandaged, so Mike Pence played the role of go-between in a post-convention negotiation between Cruz and Trump, in which the quid pro quo was that Cruz would make a full-throated endorsement of Trump in exchange for Trump’s commitment to choose exclusively from the list of 21 in naming Supreme Court Justices (plural, without limitation to the Scalia vacancy). It’s not an enforceable legal contract, but both sides performed their sides of the deal, Cruz portrayed Trump’s commitment of the list as being in response to his request for more specificity about judges, and Trump made no objection to that portrayal. Of course Cruz couldn’t commit Trump, and I didn’t write that he did. Cruz did, however, secure Trump’s public, written commitment as part of this quid pro quo, to the mutual political benefit of both men, and to the GOP and its presidential nominee in November 2016. In the causal chain of events, Cruz’ involvement would be described as a contributing cause, but perhaps not the proximate cause, of Trump’s later fulfillment of the commitment he made to get Cruz’ endorsement, because Trump retained, and used, discretion as to whom he’d pick from the list, and indeed to add to the list (to which neither Cruz nor anyone else has objected) in November 2017, which addition included Kavanaugh. I therefore give Trump full credit for choosing both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh; and I have been consistent and generous in doing so.

    I’ve now had to explain, for about the 10th time, why what Anon Y. Mous has said about me and my positions is a lie. This is the troll tax.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  370. 374. Appalled (96665e) — 7/11/2018 @ 12:51 pm

    So we get to revisit the Vince Foster affair again? Really? With a mad Saudi Arabian connection? If there were only a Benghazi connection,

    There is, of course. The same man was responsible both for the deaths of Vincent Foster and Christopher stevens.

    (Did you know about this already?)

    In 2012, Prince Bandar bin Sultan (who hadn’t had that much influence for some time) had become, first, the Saudi in charge of dealing with the Saudi respoonse to the Arab Spring, and then the Saudi Director of intelligence. That’s what he was in the late summer of 2012.

    I think he plotted the murder of Christopher Stevens, the United States Ambassador to Libya.

    Chris Stevens was interfering with the shipment of arms to Saudi supported Syrian rebels. Presient Barack Obama opposed this. The CIA was there buying up weapons that had been in Qaddafi’s stockpiles (he had stored a lot of missiles and other weapons far off in the east of his country, where he thought them safest from any coup plotters) to keep from being sold or sent to Syria.

    Not to send them there! That is disinformation. It is 180 degrees wrong.

    In the meantime Saudi Arabia and Qatar were also buying up weapons. Stevens’ mission in Benghazi was to stop a ship from leaving Benghazi for Turkey. But it had already left. It was probably actually a trap.

    Nevertheless, before that, he had a meeting with the Turkish intelligence station chief and delivered some threats to Turkey. This had the effect of stopping these weapons in Turkey and they stayed in Turkey for several years.

    But in the meantime the mission and the supposedly secret CIA annex was attacked and President Obama pulled all Americans out. I wonder how they knew that would happen.

    Saudi and Qatari intelligence concocted the story of how a video inspired the assault in Benghazi. This had actually originally been said even by the attackers the night of the attack. They spread a story that demonstators had been shot at and gathered a crowd and the harrangued them about a video that nobody had ever heard of. The video of course, had been produced by someone affiliated with Saudi intelligence and was first used as an excuse for something in Cairo, although not to the crowd there.

    Hillary Clinton knew the whole story about a demonstration in Benghazi was false, but couldn’t say anything because if the whole truth came out Prince Bandar might fall, and if Prince Bandar fell, she might fall with him because the Clinton people had protected him after he was responsible for the death of Vincent Foster.

    As it was, Prince Bandar was eventually purged, even before MbS rose to power (and maybe lost some of it later) but the secret of how Vincent Foster was killed did not come out.

    and a supporting role for Paula Jones, we would have some variety of Trifecta….

    Bill Clinton instigated the Paula Jones lawsuit, which wss legally defective, filed under the wrong tort. (Clinton eventually settled the case to increase the probability that perjury charges would go away)

    He had arranged for some Arkansas State troopers closd to him to tell the American spectator a distorted verison of what happened with Paula Jones, one in which Paula Jones was a willing participant in something, and then he arranged for Paual Jones to become aware of it. Paula Jones demanded that he dcorrect teh record and satte she did nto consent to anything, but he would not.

    Then Clinton supplied her woith a lawyer.

    BILL CLINTON WANTED TO BE SUED BY PAULA JONES

    This is the only possible explanation of events.

    This was in order for him to have a publicly palatable excuse for having a legal defense fund.

    But Bill Clinton eventually outsmarted himself. (He outsmarted himself a few times. He created the presidential candidacys of Barack Obama and probably of Donald Trump. But this was another earlier one.)

    He exiled Linda Tripp (who had seen Vincent Foster leave the White House on July 20, 1993, looking like he felt bad) and Monica Lewisnky to the exact same office in the Pentagon

    He wanted both of them in government employ so he would have some control over them. But as I said, forgot that they were in the same office.

    They eventually talked when Bill Clinton kept stringing Monica LWewisnky alongh, not wanting to continue the affair, such as it was, nor wanting her to leave him (so she wouldn’t talk)

    For political reaasons, Bill Clinton had signed abill into law that gave people suing for sexual hgarassment the right to ask about other affairs – i.e., did he reqward woemn for sex or punish them for not doing that? So Bill Clinton got asked questions about that and he lied. Linda Tripp told the Starr people, and Starr started an investigation. He would have gone ahead anyway so Janet Reno authorized him to do that. But this was not truly voluntary on the part of Janet Reno (or maybe more precisely, whoever was giving her instructions but that’s Bill Clinton anyway in the end.)

    After her failed gambit to name a supposedly independent special prosecutor, in charge of all investigations dealing with Bill Clinton, Janet Reno had not authorized any other special prosecutors that might get close to Clinton. Just several Cabinet members. She had refused to start one over the 1996 campaign and had stopped the Espy special prosecutor from pursuing leads that led to a corrupt connection between Tyson Foods and Clinton, including some allegation that Don Tyson had given pilots cash to give to Clinton in 1978 (before simplyfying matters with Cattlegate.)

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  371. 354, Paul what was a smear? You link to 206, it’s a fact that 100% of your comments I reviewed were false. Granted that consisted of only one comment which I chose but that was the whole point, to point out the absurdity of your 76% comment. If you think selection bias leads to unfair generalizations then don’t use it.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  372. By the way, about Kavanaugh, there are several lines of attack, besides the ones accusing him of covering up for the Clintons and of hating the Clintons.

    There’s the attempt to accuse him of protecting Judge Kozinsky. That kind of ignores who was the boss there. The claim might be that Brett Kavanaugh knew but he didn’t blow the whistle.

    There’s the claim that Kavanaugh might have to deal with a case involving a subpoena of Predient Trump, in effect saying Trump should not name judge in his own case. Any judge I guess. But Kavanaugh is maybe worse than anybody else because he’s on record as not liking the idea of a presidenmt being subject to court orders in personal matters.

    There’s the claim there was some kind of secret deal between Justice Kennedy and President Trump.

    You see, back around 2008, when nobody would lend Trump money, Justice ZKennedy’s son was in charge of real estate lending at Deutsche bank.

    I suppose the idea is that, knowing that Trump would be president when his father was ready to retire, Kennedy’s son lent Trump money so that Trump would let Anthony Kennedy pick his successor.

    Unless you prefer the other theory that Deutsche Bank wss lending Trump money because Vladimir Putin instructed it to.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  373. 380. Beldar (fa637a) — 7/11/2018 @ 1:25 pm

    Cruz told Republicans to go out and vote their consciences in November,

    I thought he was talking about delegates at the convention.

    Trump’s commitment to choose exclusively from the list of 21 in naming Supreme Court Justices (plural, without limitation to the Scalia vacancy).

    Yet nobody seems to be holding Trump to that precise list. I think you are right. It was vacancies, plural.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  374. You link to 206, it’s a fact that 100% of your comments I reviewed were false. Granted that consisted of only one comment…

    You’re moving the goalposts, smearboy. You said, “When 100% of your claims I reviewed where lies“. Plural, not singular. You said “lies”, not “false”. You’re entitled to your wrong opinion that I said something false, an opinion that I’ve weighed accordingly, but you crossed a line with “lies”, which signifies an intentionally false statement, as defined, and is a personal character attack. Words mean things, so retract and apologize.
    I see what Beldar means about the troll tax.

    Paul Montagu (e7d63b)

  375. One other thing, smearboy. You clearly don’t understand what “selection bias” means.

    Paul Montagu (e7d63b)

  376. this is the world finance division, that’s stocks bonds and mutual funds, I know tanden skill is pilfering files before they are requested,

    narciso (d1f714)

  377. that explains this hearing this morning:

    https://twitter.com/ShidelerK/status/1017068445052145664

    narciso (d1f714)

  378. I know anyone that uses an analysis of chosen statements to claim Trump lies 76% of the time is to be pointed and laughed at. A perfect example of selection bias.

    I reviewed one comment that contained two lies, any more questions?

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  379. I’ve now had to explain, for about the 10th time, why what Anon Y. Mous has said about me and my positions is a lie. This is the troll tax.
    Beldar (fa637a) — 7/11/2018 @ 1:25 pm

    It doesn’t matter how much tap dancing you do. At the end of the day, you are trying to have it both ways. You thank Cruz for what he allegedly did in getting Trump to nominate from that list. Then when I point out you are giving credit to Cruz for Trump’s pick, you *act* like you have been wronged. It is a dishonest tactic, one that you specialize in. You can’t even be honest about the implications of your own positions, and when someone points it out to you, you act like you have the moral high ground. You do not.

    Anon Y. Mous (acdecf)

  380. Prove the lie, smearboy. Prove that I was intentionally conveying a falsehood. You first have to prove that it was a falsehood (you didn’t specify which “falsehood” it was), then you have to prove that I knew it was false yet conveyed it anyway. Get to work, bub.
    As for “selection bias”, all of Trump’s factual claims were checked in his Montana speech, not a “selection”, and if you have a problem with any of them, then make the case. Otherwise, you’re just engaging in ad hom, which is both boring and convenient to avoid discussion of an issue.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  381. So Obama was actually enabling the taliban in preventing drug smuggling that fed their operations, but crickets.

    narciso (d1f714)

  382. yeah smearboy prove it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  383. As for “selection bias”, all of Trump’s factual claims were checked in his Montana speech, not a “selection”

    Montana speech?

    But you wrote this earlier:

    a person is unfit for president when over three-quarters of his factual claims are false,

    Even though you included a hyperlink, your own words didn’t suggest you were talking about a selection of Trump’s factual claims. The selection being the Montana speech.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  384. You made the claim first, apply your standard to one of the statements you claim was dishonest.

    “It’s time to retire liberal Democrat Jon Tester.

    Misleading. Sen. Tester (Mont.) has voted with Trump 36.5 percent of the time, according to FiveThirtyEight, and is more on the moderate side of the Democratic Party than the liberal side.”

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  385. Daniel Benjamin a fmr Obama official, tried to pretend that the brotherhood and zawahiri were at odds.

    Narciso (51d5d7)

  386. Another good one for your stsndard;

    “And when they said I’m very healthy, the news was devastated. They were devastated. They didn’t want to hear that. They didn’t want to hear that.

    False. “

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  387. 358

    Then there are the “trigger laws” which would ban it automatically in several states if the Court overturns Roe. I believe some of these would be quickly overruled with public votes by initiated measures. But again, I have my doubts that the Court will completely overturn Roe in one decision.

    Actually Casey already modified Roe and is what would be overruled (or changed further).

    James B. Shearer (c2a015)

  388. your own words didn’t suggest you were talking about a selection of Trump’s factual claims. The selection being the Montana speech.

    Since he peels off 6½ falsehoods per day, there isn’t that much selection necessary, and he concentrates his falsehoods at his rallies, and they’re getting worse of late. At a previous Minnesota rally, he clocked in at 30 false/misleading statements.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  389. Yes they switched to a,14th amendment argument from privacy

    Narciso (51d5d7)

  390. That still doesn’t change what you suggested compared to what you linked

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  391. everyone needs to take a beat and remember why they loved President Trump so much to begin with

    those reasons are – if anything – even more valid today

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  392. 395. You made the claim first, apply your standard to one of the statements you claim was dishonest.

    No, you made the claim that I lied. Trump called Tester “liberal”, which is not plausible when a guy votes with Trump 36% of the time, aligning more with Trump than 41 other Democrats. Tilt.

    397. Another good one for your stsndard.

    The standard you need to meet is that I made intentionally false statements. The best you can say is that their one-word response is unsupported. But then, Trump’s claim that “the news was devastated” is also unsupported. Another tilt.
    You still owe me a retraction and an apology, smearboy.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  393. That still doesn’t change what you suggested compared to what you linked

    And it still doesn’t prove “selection bias”. His Montana rally was the most recent and it was newsworthy. Trump’s words today in Brussels will also get fact-checked and I’m confident that he’ll dinged for multiple falsehoods. Would that be “selection bias”? Do you really want to play that game?

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  394. dinged for multiple falsehoods???

    oh dear

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  395. Like Benghazi was caused by a video, you can keep your plan which will be 2500 chaeper not a smidgen of corruption.

    narciso (d1f714)

  396. And it still doesn’t prove “selection bias”.

    Here is what you said:

    a person is unfit for president when over three-quarters of his factual claims are false

    Is that three-quarters of his factual claims over his lifetime? Or is it specific to a certain select time period?

    If it is his lifetime, do you have a source for that statistic?

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  397. And to prove it the post has still not covered the capture of bin qumu, the ringleader three weeks ago.

    Narciso (51d5d7)

  398. Paul,

    Are you claiming Tester is not liberal because he votes against the left when they don’t need the votes?

    Beldar,

    I understand your point of view, but your track record with the people’s opinions that you value stands on its own. I still don’t understand the need for all the semantic arguments we have even when I partake in them. We fight over the smallest things instead of looking at the big picture.

    Why do we worry about the small stuff?

    NJRob (60195f)

  399. A sad state of affairs, the Caribbean version of greece
    https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/262327/puerto-rico-ajc

    Narciso (51d5d7)

  400. Why do we worry about the small stuff?
    NJRob (60195f) — 7/11/2018 @ 8:43 pm

    That is an excellent question. I remember one employer who was fond of stating “take care of the small details and the large details will take care of themselves.” And then we have the popular “the devil is in the details.”

    It is wise to have a care for the small things, because that is where and how all problems begin.

    felipe (023cc9)

  401. True, but what if the details are wrong or irrelevant, one is struck how a,certain big picture man, st Paul has rarely been represented on screen the bible ad was the most recent example and a,paucity of prose accounts Walgerin and Taylor Caldwell some,50 years apart

    Narciso (51d5d7)

  402. Sometimes accounts, like gold, derive value from their scarcity.

    felipe (023cc9)

  403. WWGOWGA.

    Y’all will figure it out sooner or later.

    lee (ab26cf)

  404. True Taylor Caldwell was most illuminating in filling the blanks.

    Narciso (51d5d7)

  405. Lee, I never tire of watching the wheel being reinvented.

    felipe (023cc9)

  406. If it is his lifetime, do you have a source for that statistic?

    It’s an example, a recent one. There are others.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  407. Felipe, reinvention of the wheel, or the same old treadmill?

    Ephesians 6:12

    lee (ab26cf)

  408. Are you claiming Tester is not liberal because he votes against the left when they don’t need the votes?

    No, I claimed what I said, that Tester voted with Trump 36% of the time. He’s in a state that voted for Trump over Hillary by 20 points. A person doesn’t get reelected in a state like that (which occurred in 2012) if he were liberal. The real issue with Tester is that he gutted Ronny Jackson’s chances for Surgeon General, and Trump has been known to hold grudges, so he went to Montana and lied like a rug.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  409. Of course he does, when it counts like obamacare,

    Narciso (51d5d7)

  410. It’s an example, a recent one. There are others.

    IOW, it is a selection.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  411. Oh good grief you know those allegations were a,bunch of bull steer,

    Narciso (51d5d7)

  412. And Eph 5:11

    felipe (023cc9)

  413. You must know of course, Hillary is an actual witch. And her daughter a fan of Satanists, to say the least. What do you know of Epstein’s island?. How about Q?

    Most of what you think you know is really only what you are meant to know. America is waking up.

    Jesus saves.

    lee (ab26cf)

  414. Just a reminder, there are two kinds of people. Those who use God, and those who let God use them.

    WWGOWGA

    felipe (023cc9)

  415. WWGOWGA

    felipe (023cc9)

  416. IOW, it is a selection.

    That’s not what smearboy said. He said selection bias, explaining it thus:

    I know anyone that uses an analysis of chosen statements to claim Trump lies 76% of the time is to be pointed and laughed at. A perfect example of selection bias.

    Of course one must select Trump’s statements to ascertain their truthfulness. But Trump’s factual claims in that link weren’t cherry-picked. Every single one was tested.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  417. That’s not what smearboy said.

    I don’t care what others have said. I am curious whether or not this is based off of a select group of data or a complete set:

    a person is unfit for president when over three-quarters of his factual claims are false,

    You have answered my question. It is a selection.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  418. WWGOWGA, a primer.

    lee (ab26cf)

  419. Yes they switched to a,14th amendment argument from privacy

    It was interesting to hear Kavanaugh’s deadpan reference to Kennedy’s career-long defense of “liberty” since he clearly disagreed with at least some of Kennedy’s opinions that utilized “liberty” as his cudgel (e.g. Casey, Lawrence, Obergefell).

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  420. It blows my mind that you people continue to butt heads with BuDuh. He clearly has no interest in arguing in good faith.

    Davethulhu (270006)

  421. a person is unfit for president when over three-quarters of his factual claims are false,

    As judged by people who hate him?

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  422. It blows my mind that you people continue to butt heads with BuDuh. He clearly has no interest in arguing in good faith.

    Then it will be pretty easy for you to show what is “bad faith arguing” between me and Paul.

    Give it a shot.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  423. a person is unfit for president when over three-quarters of his factual claims are false

    According to you. Thankfully we still go by the constitution in this country. Natural born citizen (sorry Cruz), over 35 (twice that’s OK), and gets the majority of votes (electorally speaking).

    Congrats President Trump.

    Don’t like it, too bad so sad. Stuff your “unfit”.

    lee (ab26cf)

  424. Can’t do it? No suprise.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  425. …. He clearly has no interest in arguing in good faith.
    Davethulhu (270006) — 7/11/2018 @ 10:03 pm

    I have to consider the source here. There’s an awful lot of bad-faith arguing going on. Particularly wrt Mr Trump, both sides’ bots are tiresome.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  426. Natural born citizen (sorry Cruz)

    Can we please just ban everyone who says this?

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  427. Here’s a better QAnon primer

    Well, an alternative primer. Time will tell which is “better”.

    What is evident is how the powers that be are invested in keeping Americans divided against each other. If you want a house to fall, that’s the way to go.

    WWGOWGO seems better than pink pussy hats, ya gotta admit…

    lee (ab26cf)

  428. Ban quoting and believing in the constitution? Novel concept. Not.

    lee (ab26cf)

  429. I mean, I don’t care how you want to spin it, Cruz is a natural born Canadian, and a naturalized American.

    Wonderful guy, don’t get me wrong. I’d be delighted if he was a SCJ.

    Just not constitutionally eligible to be president, sorry.

    lee (ab26cf)

  430. Ill never forget the day I had a conversation with Sen. Cruz. I would vote for him again,

    mg (9e54f8)

  431. Actually, hearing myself say that, I feel foolish. A naturalized citizen that thought he was eligible to be president, and actually ran…shouldn’t be within a mile of SCJ.

    But you go senator Cruz!

    lee (ab26cf)

  432. That’s easy enough to deal with, Davethulhu. Of the ten comments on this page, I only see yours and Kevin M’s. Yay for the blocking script!

    nk (dbc370)

  433. Make that “of the 17 last preceding comments”.

    nk (dbc370)

  434. As judged by people who hate him?

    You don’t know me, Kevin, so how would you know that I hate Trump? Just upthread I commended him for picking Kavanaugh, more than once.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  435. According to you. Thankfully we still go by the constitution in this country. Natural born citizen (sorry Cruz)…
    According to my opinion, yes, Trump isn’t fit for the job. I accept that opinions differ. As for Cruz, he exited the birth canal of a US citizen, so he’s in.

    Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His mother was a U.S. citizen. His father, a Cuban, was not. Under U.S. law, the fact that Cruz was born to a U.S. citizen mother makes him a citizen from birth. In other words, he is a “natural born citizen” (as opposed to a naturalized citizen) and is constitutionally eligible.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  436. You don’t know me, Kevin, so how would you know that I hate Trump?

    Are you the one who went through all of Trump’s statements and applied your truth-o-meter to them? I just assumed it was done by the DNC hacks working at various newspapers, as per usual.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  437. How anyone, in this day and age can insist that a person can be born of a US citizen AND NOT BE ONE at birth is beyond human ken. It takes a particularly warped need to get to the right answer, I think.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  438. Ted Cruz was born in Canada. Full stop.

    Any citizenship after that is due to immigration law.

    Spin it all you want, Cruz is not a natural born citizen.

    lee (ab26cf)

  439. I know that there are some who are upset that Trump doesn’t behave “like all those other presidents on the dollar bills” — I have had to work through the same issues — but perhaps this era of instant-everything demands politicians short on details and long on meme.

    Impressionism.

    They hated Van Gogh, too.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  440. Spin it all you want, Cruz is not a natural born citizen.

    Gee, and all the law books say otherwise. But YOU know best. You have the magic anus to pull facts out of.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  441. Let me ask you, if Cruz had stayed in Canada and kept his duel citizenship until a week before the election, would he have been eligible?. You think that’s what the people that wrote “natural born citizen” in the constitutional requirements for president intended?

    Maybe you do. I do not.

    lee (ab26cf)

  442. In fact, forget the “until a week before” part. Cruz gave up his duel citizenship like eighteen months before declaring(if I remember correctly). How about if he didn’t give it up at all?

    lee (ab26cf)

  443. Damn Cruz sure do live in the heads of a lot of Trump’s fans.

    I guess they think he’s going to be a challenger in the primaries?

    gets the majority of votes (electorally speaking).

    Congrats President Trump.

    A majority of the votes, by millions, went to Hillary Clinton, who other than Trump was the weakest presidential candidate in my memory. This insecurity over Trump has created this need to continuously congratulate him for things like … being elected … and accomplishments like … executive orders and appointments that literally any president could accomplish.

    But let’s not forget, when it comes to winning the majority of votes, Trump is a loser. He will enter the primaries with that fact on every voter’s mind. Most of us have never voted for him, after all.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  444. I hope he will do great. Thank you for updating.

    baby names (8ee4b6)

  445. 456 ” executive orders and appointments that literally any president could accomplish.”

    You just don’t get it Dustin. Yes, all the great things Trump has done could have been done by anyone, but none of them did. You worry about candidates while we celebrate results.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  446. New York magazine, who spiked the weinstein story in 2016, do tell squidman. This was Michael wolfs original employee whn he compared w to Fred, not Michael, I guess that was jeb

    narciso (d1f714)

  447. 427 “But Trump’s factual claims in that link weren’t cherry-picked. Every single one was tested.”

    What are factual claims, that alone is subjective, i.e. selection. From the WaPo; “We focused only on Trump’s statements of material fact at the Montana rally, avoiding trivialities and opinions.”

    Some examples of their “Factual Statements” they call not true to get to 76%;

    “It’s time to retire liberal Democrat Jon Tester.”

    “And even though we got a little surprise vote that evening, you all remember that evening somebody came in with a thumbs down after campaigning for years that he was going to repeal and replace.”

    “He voted no on cutting the estate tax or the death tax for your farms, your farmers, and your small businesses. … But you got it anyway because we got it passed. So, on your farms, for the most part, you will have no estate tax or death tax to pay. You can leave your farm, you can leave your small business to your children or whoever you want to leave them.”

    “The Democrats want open borders, which means lots of crime.”

    “He never votes for me.”

    “Yes, Jon Tester voted for liberal Obama judges who tried to take away your Second Amendment.”

    “And when they said I’m very healthy, the news was devastated. They were devastated. They didn’t want to hear that. They didn’t want to hear that.”

    “She gets special treatment under the Justice Department.”

    “How about that FBI agent? How about that guy? … You think there was just a little bias there — a little bias? Oh, did we catch them in the act. It’s a rigged deal, folks.”

    That’s just some of them. Not one of these is a false or misleading statement. If you quote the WaPo to make a point, don’t cry when you get burned for it.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  448. And last time the gope picked a candidate and he gracefully lost to tester, not like say Christine o’donnell.

    Narciso (a305e8)

  449. This is where Gabriel Sherman hangs out now

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/04/wolff200704/amp

    Narciso (a305e8)

  450. After the way Tester smeared Rear Admiral Doctor Ronny Jackson, he’s fair game for any smear up to and including having indecent relations with underage Rocky Mountain goats. And with that pear-shaped piggy-eyed face, he’s no man you can trust. What kind of lumber camp-cruising poofter boy spells his name Jon without the “h”, anyway?

    nk (dbc370)

  451. Before that new york magazine published the lies of harassed halperin and enabled heilleman

    Narciso (a305e8)

  452. That’s just some of them. Not one of these is a false or misleading statement. If you quote the WaPo to make a point, don’t cry when you get burned for it.

    You didn’t prove that I lied, smearboy. Done with you.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  453. Sherman hasn’t come up with his queeg routine in a while.

    Narciso (a305e8)

  454. A fact check on Trump at the NATO summit.

    TRUMP: “Frankly, many countries owe us a tremendous amount of money for many years back, where they’re delinquent, as far as I’m concerned, because the United States has had to pay for them. So if you go back 10 or 20 years, you’ll just add it all up. It’s massive amounts of money is owed.” — comments at meeting with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. In a tweet Tuesday, he said: “Will they reimburse the U.S.?”
    THE FACTS: There is no such debt to the U.S. or to NATO. Therefore, no delinquency or question of reimbursement.

    Actually, his comments are a frothy combination of false and stupid. The 2% of GDP number is a guideline and the NATO nations agreed in 2014 to increase their military budgets.

    TRUMP: “Germany is a captive of Russia because they supply (energy). They got rid of their coal plants. They got rid of their nuclear. They’re getting so much of the oil and gas from Russia. I think it’s something that NATO has to look at.”
    THE FACTS: He’s wrong about coal-fired and nuclear energy and overstated Germany’s reliance on Russian natural gas. In 2017, Germany got more than one-third of its energy for electricity from coal and nearly 12 percent from nuclear plants. One-third came from renewable energy. Only 13 percent came from natural gas, with Russia as the major supplier.

    The Krauts made a poor choice for the new natural gas pipeline deal with Putin, but it doesn’t make Trump’s comments less false. If Germany is captive, it’s captive to its own ill-thought out energy policy of mothballing nuclear power and replacing it with natural gas to meet their CO2 goals (link).
    Another thing. Trump’s statements that he wants NATO to increase military spending to 4% of GDP is stupid multiplied. Our own defense budgets are declining as a percent of GDP, from 3.1% in 2018 to 2.6% in 2028 (link). Also stupid is this fixation on 2% of GDP when they could’ve discussed other relevant measures such as defense investment spending, troop contributions and readiness.
    Finally, Trump made Putin’s day when he said the US would “go our own way” if NATO didn’t do what Trump demanded, which is exactly what Putin wants.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  455. Paul, when you clown yourself you shouldn’t be surprised or mad when you then get called a clown.

    MAGA

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  456. “Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition announced on 30 May 2011, that Germany’s 17 nuclear power stations will be shut down by 2022, in a policy reversal following Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.”

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  457. “Germany to set end date for coal power in 2019
    Published on 07/02/2018, 2:06pm
    A commission will decide the timeline for phasing out coal, under a coalition deal agreed between the social democrats and Angela Merkel’s conservatives”

    You were saying Paul?

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  458. Paul, when you clown yourself you shouldn’t be surprised or mad when you then get called a clown.

    Except you haven’t proven me a liar, smearboy. Nice try, but not even close.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  459. Didn’t I?

    “Done with you.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad) — 7/12/2018 @ 6:28 am”

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  460. Nope, not even close, because you don’t understand what “lie” means, even though it’s been shown to you more than once, dumbass.

    Paul Montagu (91b6ad)

  461. you can bake fish too without any flours

    or steam it

    i went to Chicago’s palm it’s a chain my sister likes and i never been and i was downtown and needed somewhere to hang out during rush hour

    and since it’s a chain it puts calories on their menu

    the Jumbo Lump Crab Cakes dinner they’re saying have only 420 calories!

    they also have an appetizer one where you just get one crab cake so that would be probably about 210 calories you would hope

    and that’s what i had it was tasty enough and filling but not really worth what they charged for it, but still it’s definitely a decent option to have on hand downtown if you have to do that kind of meal with someone staying down that way

    i tried some of their cocktails the only stand out was something they called sapphire and flowers

    overall the place didn’t seem to rise above “generic white tablecloth luxury hotel restaurant” and there’s way better places to explore than this but i was struck by how this business has been around since it opened its first location in Manhattan in 1920

    and they certainly have a nice aesthetic but relevance not so much

    and this is certainly off-putting

    The Palm opened its second location in Washington, D.C. in December 1972. According to the company’s web site, the prodding of former U.S. President George H.W. Bush, then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, encouraged the families to open the second location. Bush often quipped that there was a “lack of good American fare” in the capital city.

    this is a man who obviously hates black people and loves lobster (and he was born 4 years *after* the first palm opened)

    and is this notable?

    The company is the largest family-owned, U.S.-based chain of “fine dining” restaurants.

    Even if true I’m not sure that’s really a feather in anybody’s cap.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.0007 secs.