Let’s Not Re-Investigate Justice Kavanaugh

 

As if there wasn’t enough turmoil in this country this summer, Democrats are calling for another investigation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. On a personal level, I’m disgusted by the very thought that the Democrats are even considering such an action. Then I learned that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse was leading the pack of attack; his involvement speaks volumes to the corruption of the Democrat party.

Jonathan Turley wrote an excellent article on this debacle:

The furious allegations of a cover-up began this week with a letter from Assistant FBI Director Jill Tyson to Sens. Whitehouse and Chris Coons (D-Del.). The letter was a delayed response to an earlier inquiry on the investigation of tips given to the FBI during Kavanaugh’s heated confirmation process. To call the letter ‘delayed’ is an understatement by a measure of years. Whitehouse and others are correct in objecting to the fact that these senators asked two years earlier about these tips and any investigation. There is no excuse for failing to respond to members of Congress on such questions, particularly given their oversight responsibilities of the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ).

I understand that Whitehouse and Coons are very annoyed about Tyson’s lack of responsiveness. But one explanation is available if anyone had bothered to check it out. Turley explains that the investigation of Kavanaugh was completed on July 18, 2018. Then in September 2018, Senator Dianne Feinstein submitted information she had received weeks earlier about Kavanaugh’s involvement in a sexual assault. (Feinstein waited until a week after his confirmation hearing was completed.) But many people don’t realize that a procedure had been established years earlier for additional information that was submitted:

The DOJ conducts background investigations pursuant to a March 2010 memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the DOJ and the White House. Under the Obama MOU, the FBI promptly notifies the ‘requesting entity’ if it learns of new information before a candidate assumes a nominated position that would raise questions about the ‘candidate’s suitability or trustworthiness.’ Clearly, the FBI can investigate any substantial evidence of a crime. However, the background investigation itself is not a criminal investigation.

Please note that neither the original investigation nor the follow-up one was a criminal investigation. The FBI also made the mistake of opening a “tip line” and received 4,500 tips, an impossible number to investigate. None of the tips pointed to anything criminal occurring anyway. (Ford didn’t file a criminal complaint.) And since the FBI was directed to keep its investigation brief, they interviewed 10 people over six days. As we all know, Kavanaugh’s nomination was confirmed.

*     *    *     *

To pursue an investigation at this point would be a malicious act and destructive to the country. First, Kavanaugh’s hearings, more like a hateful, partisan show trial, were painful enough for the country to view; no jurist should ever again have to go through that kind of interrogation again. Second, there is still no evidence, in spite of conspiracy groups and the media follow-on investigations, of criminality. Third, the Democrats would see an effort to remove Kavanaugh as a way to further damage his reputation, the reputation of the Federalist Society, of Trump, and of Republicans. Fourth, if they were able to remove Kavanaugh, they would see this victory as a prelude to expanding SCOTUS and to seating Leftist judges to further the agenda of the Left.

Meanwhile, everyone—Congress, the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, and the FBI—would be under the spotlight so that our country could watch the show. And the world would view us with increased disdain.

Once again, I am disgusted by the venality and vengeful behavior of Democrats, as they try to destroy reputations and lives to fulfill their cause. They will not only be tarnishing the members of the Supreme Court, but trying to destroy the lives of Kavanaugh and his family. Even if you are unhappy with some of Justice Kavanaugh’s most recent rulings, that is no reason to give your blessing to this detestable action.

It is unconscionable.

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 54 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. CACrabtree Coolidge
    CACrabtree
    @CACrabtree

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    I understand that Whitehouse and Coons are very annoyed about Tyson’s lack of responsiveness. But one explanation is available if anyone had bothered to check it out. Turley explains that the investigation of Kavanaugh was completed on July 18, 2018. Then in September 2018, Senator Dianne Feinstein submitted information she had received weeks earlier about Kavanaugh’s involvement in a sexual assault. (Feinstein waited until a week after his confirmation hearing was completed.) But many people don’t realize that a procedure had been established years earlier for additional information that was submitted:

    The testimony of Ms. Ford could not be, and was not affirmed by the friend that she said drove her home after her rape, or attempted rape. Her friend said that she never gave her a ride home. A tip line that generated 4,500 responses brings out every lunatic, and virtue signaling liar seeking their 15 minutes of fame.

    Whitehouse and Coons were never smart to begin with, and as they have aged they still are as stupid as they were decades ago.

    The sight of Whitehouse leafing through Kavanaugh’s prep school yearbook, wondering aloud about the meanings of “boof” and “ralph club” should embarrass every voter in Rhode Island.

    • #31
  2. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    That guy is an esteemed attorney (Jonathan Turley) and professor and I think he has been very fair to the Right. Are you saying he has DTS because of a relevant quote from Trump? The Left hates him.

    Turley got the quote from a book by a guy who really despises Trump.

    Just to be clear–you said the guy who wrote the article had DTS. We don’t know if Wolff, (who’s detestable) who wrote the book, was lying. I wouldn’t put it past Trump to have said that.

    Guess I might as well chime in since I brought it up. Trump granted Wolff the interview so the conversation was direct, not hearsay. Could Wolff have “embellished”? I suppose so, but I’m not aware of any denials from the Trump camp. Professor Turley is highly reputable, and clearly believes the quote. Taken in the context of Kavanaugh “letting Trump down,” and what we know about Trump’s reaction to those who do so, I see no reason to doubt its authenticity. This is one of those things where I part company with the idea that support for Trump means support for all things Trump.

    Jonathan Turley is someone that is highly reputable. He is one of two individuals that I consider a great resource on the law. The other is Trey Gowdy. If I made an arrest I would be entirely satisfied with Mr. Gowdy prosecuting the person I arrested, and I would be entirely satisfied with Mr. Turley reviewing my Incident Report.

    The Trey Gowdy who ran interference for the coup attempt launched by Team Obama before and after Trump’s inauguration, or some other Trey Gowdy?

    • #32
  3. Doug Watt Moderator
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    That guy is an esteemed attorney (Jonathan Turley) and professor and I think he has been very fair to the Right. Are you saying he has DTS because of a relevant quote from Trump? The Left hates him.

    Turley got the quote from a book by a guy who really despises Trump.

    Just to be clear–you said the guy who wrote the article had DTS. We don’t know if Wolff, (who’s detestable) who wrote the book, was lying. I wouldn’t put it past Trump to have said that.

    Guess I might as well chime in since I brought it up. Trump granted Wolff the interview so the conversation was direct, not hearsay. Could Wolff have “embellished”? I suppose so, but I’m not aware of any denials from the Trump camp. Professor Turley is highly reputable, and clearly believes the quote. Taken in the context of Kavanaugh “letting Trump down,” and what we know about Trump’s reaction to those who do so, I see no reason to doubt its authenticity. This is one of those things where I part company with the idea that support for Trump means support for all things Trump.

    Jonathan Turley is someone that is highly reputable. He is one of two individuals that I consider a great resource on the law. The other is Trey Gowdy. If I made an arrest I would be entirely satisfied with Mr. Gowdy prosecuting the person I arrested, and I would be entirely satisfied with Mr. Turley reviewing my Incident Report.

    The Trey Gowdy who ran interference for the coup attempt launched by Team Obama before and after Trump’s inauguration, or some other Trey Gowdy?

    The Trey Gowdy who understands police officers. The Trey Gowdy who is not confused about who prosecutors should prosecute.

     

    • #33
  4. Arthur Beare Member
    Arthur Beare
    @ArthurBeare

    Back to the OP: 

    I certainly hope it does not come to this, but were the second set of Kavanaugh hearings a replay of nastiness displayed in the first, I suspect they would cost the Dems a lot of votes, maybe even millions of votes.                                  

    • #34
  5. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    I don’t want to distract too much from the excellent points in the O/P, but, since there was a link to the Turley column, I’m compelled to say I find this comment in the column indefensible:

    In a recent interview, former President Trump said of Kavanaugh: “I saved his life. He wouldn’t even be in a law firm. Who would have had him? Nobody. Totally disgraced. Only I saved him. … I saved his life, and I saved his career.”

    Why is it indefensible? It is likely true.

    If the quote wasn’t simply extrapolated by Michael Wolff, Trump is saying he could have thrown Kavanaugh under the bus and nominated, say, Amy Barrett; in the process earning a lot of positive press.  (This is more or less the mistake Trump made with Gen Mike Flynn, early in his term.)  

    As dumping him would tacitly accept the sexual misconduct charges against Kavanaugh, Democrats and RINOs would then demand his resignation from the Federal bench altogether.

    Trump stood by Kavanaugh but, in his mind, Kavanaugh did not stand by him.

    • #35
  6. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Taras (View Comment):

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    I don’t want to distract too much from the excellent points in the O/P, but, since there was a link to the Turley column, I’m compelled to say I find this comment in the column indefensible:

    In a recent interview, former President Trump said of Kavanaugh: “I saved his life. He wouldn’t even be in a law firm. Who would have had him? Nobody. Totally disgraced. Only I saved him. … I saved his life, and I saved his career.”

    Why is it indefensible? It is likely true.

    If the quote wasn’t simply extrapolated by Michael Wolff, Trump is saying he could have thrown Kavanaugh under the bus and nominated, say, Amy Barrett; in the process earning a lot of positive press. (This is more or less the mistake Trump made with Gen Mike Flynn, early in his term.)

    As dumping him would tacitly accept the sexual misconduct charges against Kavanaugh, Democrats and RINOs would then demand his resignation from the Federal bench altogether.

    Trump stood by Kavanaugh but, in his mind, Kavanaugh did not stand by him.

    That’s how I understand it. 

    • #36
  7. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    The Dems’ scorched Earth policy is meant to intimidate good Republicans from entering politics.  No sane person wants to expose his family to real danger, so you have to be either brave or nuts (probably both) to step up on stage and into the spotlight . . .

    • #37
  8. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Stad (View Comment):

    The Dems’ scorched Earth policy is meant to intimidate good Republicans from entering politics. No sane person wants to expose his family to real danger, so you have to be either brave or nuts (probably both) to step up on stage and into the spotlight . . .

    I would also think that a potential Republican would look at the current legislators and ask himself why he should join up with a party that doesn’t do anything. It discourages even the principled people.

    • #38
  9. She Member
    She
    @She

    Taras (View Comment):

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    I don’t want to distract too much from the excellent points in the O/P, but, since there was a link to the Turley column, I’m compelled to say I find this comment in the column indefensible:

    In a recent interview, former President Trump said of Kavanaugh: “I saved his life. He wouldn’t even be in a law firm. Who would have had him? Nobody. Totally disgraced. Only I saved him. … I saved his life, and I saved his career.”

    Why is it indefensible? It is likely true.

    If the quote wasn’t simply extrapolated by Michael Wolff, Trump is saying he could have thrown Kavanaugh under the bus and nominated, say, Amy Barrett; in the process earning a lot of positive press. (This is more or less the mistake Trump made with Gen Mike Flynn, early in his term.)

    As dumping him would tacitly accept the sexual misconduct charges against Kavanaugh, Democrats and RINOs would then demand his resignation from the Federal bench altogether.

    Trump stood by Kavanaugh but, in his mind, Kavanaugh did not stand by him.

    Yes, I think that’s the gist of it. A more polished and articulate man would have said something like: “No other Republican president in the last XteyX years would have stood by Kavanaugh in the face of such accusations.  He’d have been pressured to withdraw his nomination before any of the facts were known, and he’d have had to retire in disgrace.  He’d probably be teaching business law at a community college by now.  But I stood by him, reason prevailed, the accusations were shown to be without merit, and now he’s on the Supreme Court where he deserves to be.  I made the right decision, and I look forward to his maturing into an excellent Justice.”

    Unfortunately, Trump’s sloppy rhetoric, the fact that he makes it all about himself, and the clear implication that Kavanaugh owes him judicial fealty for the rest of his working life only prolongs and adds fuel to the deranged conspiracy-mongering and machinations of the Left. 

    • #39
  10. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    She (View Comment):
    Unfortunately, Trump’s sloppy rhetoric, the fact that he makes it all about himself, and the clear implication that Kavanaugh owes him judicial fealty for the rest of his working life only prolongs and adds fuel to the deranged conspiracy-mongering and machinations of the Left. 

    It also adds to the argument that “even Trump didn’t respect the man and regretted nominating him” from the Left.

    • #40
  11. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    why he should join up with a party that doesn’t do anything.

    And a party that won’t stand behind you when you’re under attack.

    • #41
  12. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    She (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    I don’t want to distract too much from the excellent points in the O/P, but, since there was a link to the Turley column, I’m compelled to say I find this comment in the column indefensible:

    In a recent interview, former President Trump said of Kavanaugh: “I saved his life. He wouldn’t even be in a law firm. Who would have had him? Nobody. Totally disgraced. Only I saved him. … I saved his life, and I saved his career.”

    Why is it indefensible? It is likely true.

    If the quote wasn’t simply extrapolated by Michael Wolff, Trump is saying he could have thrown Kavanaugh under the bus and nominated, say, Amy Barrett; in the process earning a lot of positive press. (This is more or less the mistake Trump made with Gen Mike Flynn, early in his term.)

    As dumping him would tacitly accept the sexual misconduct charges against Kavanaugh, Democrats and RINOs would then demand his resignation from the Federal bench altogether.

    Trump stood by Kavanaugh but, in his mind, Kavanaugh did not stand by him.

    Yes, I think that’s the gist of it. A more polished and articulate man would have said something like: “No other Republican president in the last XteyX years would have stood by Kavanaugh in the face of such accusations. He’d have been pressured to withdraw his nomination before any of the facts were known, and he’d have had to retire in disgrace. He’d probably be teaching business law at a community college by now. But I stood by him, reason prevailed, the accusations were shown to be without merit, and now he’s on the Supreme Court where he deserves to be. I made the right decision, and I look forward to his maturing into an excellent Justice.”

    Unfortunately, Trump’s sloppy rhetoric, the fact that he makes it all about himself, and the clear implication that Kavanaugh owes him judicial fealty for the rest of his working life only prolongs and adds fuel to the deranged conspiracy-mongering and machinations of the Left.

    If Trump spoke the way you suggest, he would never have been elected President in the first place, so the whole thing would never have happened.

    I wonder if today’s Supreme Court regrets the decision of an earlier Court, to essentially legalize the libel and slander of public figures.

    They thought they were just screwing with politicians and movie stars. It never occurred to the Justices, back then, that this could hurt them.

    • #42
  13. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Why is it that every discussion about disreputable Democratic politician behavior ends up being about President Trump? Trump supporters are not conjoined twins/triplets/quadruplets….. Let’s focus on current threats to the Republic.

    • #43
  14. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Why is it that every discussion about disreputable Democratic politician behavior ends up being about President Trump? Trump supporters are not conjoined twins/triplets/quadruplets….. Let’s focus on current threats to the Republic.

    See #s 3&5, above where I initiated the topic.  Turning this into a Trump thread is a legitimate concern but not irrelevant to the subject.

    • #44
  15. She Member
    She
    @She

    Taras (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    I don’t want to distract too much from the excellent points in the O/P, but, since there was a link to the Turley column, I’m compelled to say I find this comment in the column indefensible:

    In a recent interview, former President Trump said of Kavanaugh: “I saved his life. He wouldn’t even be in a law firm. Who would have had him? Nobody. Totally disgraced. Only I saved him. … I saved his life, and I saved his career.”

    Why is it indefensible? It is likely true.

    If the quote wasn’t simply extrapolated by Michael Wolff, Trump is saying he could have thrown Kavanaugh under the bus and nominated, say, Amy Barrett; in the process earning a lot of positive press. (This is more or less the mistake Trump made with Gen Mike Flynn, early in his term.)

    As dumping him would tacitly accept the sexual misconduct charges against Kavanaugh, Democrats and RINOs would then demand his resignation from the Federal bench altogether.

    Trump stood by Kavanaugh but, in his mind, Kavanaugh did not stand by him.

    Yes, I think that’s the gist of it. A more polished and articulate man would have said something like: “No other Republican president in the last XteyX years would have stood by Kavanaugh in the face of such accusations. He’d have been pressured to withdraw his nomination before any of the facts were known, and he’d have had to retire in disgrace. He’d probably be teaching business law at a community college by now. But I stood by him, reason prevailed, the accusations were shown to be without merit, and now he’s on the Supreme Court where he deserves to be. I made the right decision, and I look forward to his maturing into an excellent Justice.”

    Unfortunately, Trump’s sloppy rhetoric, the fact that he makes it all about himself, and the clear implication that Kavanaugh owes him judicial fealty for the rest of his working life only prolongs and adds fuel to the deranged conspiracy-mongering and machinations of the Left.

    If Trump spoke the way you suggest, he would never have been elected President in the first place, so the whole thing would never have happened.

    If that’s the case, then I think it’s a shame that we’ve become so indiscriminate in our attention to civil discourse that no public servant/politician who speaks truth to power robustly, civilly, determinedly and with honor can be elected. 

    However, the number of people that Donald Trump elevated to higher station, and then subsequently threw under the bus, insulted, and attempted to destroy after they challenged or disagreed with him is legion.  Frankly, in some instances, I think he might have done better to hold his fire, and mend some fences.  But then,  I always think that.

    To be perfectly clear, I think the behavior of the “generals,” and many others of Trump’s inner circle has been equally disgraceful when it comes to airing dirty laundry in public.  And I don’t blame Trump as the instigator of a lot of it.  Nevertheless, there comes a day when doubling down becomes counterproductive and less-than-useful.  And, perhaps, that day has come.

    Continually devaluing  and insulting those you’ve previously idealized and held up as “the best of the best,” is a pattern of behavior that’s easily identified as neither normal nor desirable.  “Once,” as they say, “is happenstance.  Twice is coincidence.  Three times is enemy action.” 

    It baffles me that Donald Trump, among all the mixed messages he’s so fond of sending, all of which I truly believe he thinks are showing him to be a superior person, seems to want to announce to the world that he’s been a poor judge of character all his working life.  Again, not a normal or desirable trait, I wouldn’t think.

    And I say this as someone who was quite (unexpectedly) pleased with his tenure in office and with his selections for the Supreme Court.

    • #45
  16. She Member
    She
    @She

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Why is it that every discussion about disreputable Democratic politician behavior ends up being about President Trump? Trump supporters are not conjoined twins/triplets/quadruplets….. Let’s focus on current threats to the Republic.

    I hear you.  However, one of the problems is that the Left (and some on the Right) view “Trump” and “Trumpism” as the most dangerous current threat to the Republic.  So any wild hair that it or they pursue will ultimately end up at Trump, no matter what.* And those on the Right had better be prepared to address it.

    *I said here many times, many years ago, that the Left is like the Monty Python “Spam” skit, only with “Trump.”  That hasn’t changed.

    • #46
  17. She Member
    She
    @She

    She (View Comment):
    *I said here many times, many years ago, that the Left is like the Monty Python “Spam” skit, only with “Trump.”  That hasn’t changed.

    It would go something like this (sorry, I just can’t cope with the actual substitution of audio in the actual skit).  But.  Really.  This is how the Left sees things, and how they believe we–The Vikings–respond:

    Man: (to Waitress) Morning!

    Waitress: Morning!

    Man: Well, what’ve you got?

    Waitress: Well, there’s egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and Trump; egg bacon and Trump; egg bacon sausage and Trump; Trump bacon sausage and Trump; Trump egg Trump Trump bacon and Trump; Trump sausage Trump Trump bacon Trump tomato and Trump;

    Vikings: (starting to chant) Trump Trump Trump Trump…

    Waitress: …Trump Trump Trump egg and Trump; Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump baked beans Trump Trump Trump…

    Vikings: (singing) Trump! Lovely Trump! Lovely Trump!

    Waitress: …or Lobster Thermidor au Crevettes with a mornay sauce served in a Provencal manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and Trump.

    Wife: Have you got anything without Trump?

    Waitress: Well, there’s Trump egg sausage and Trump, that’s not got much Trump in it.

    Wife: I don’t want ANY Trump!

    Man: Why can’t she have egg bacon Trump and sausage?

    Wife: THAT’S got Trump in it!

    Man: Hasn’t got as much Trump in it as Trump egg sausage and Trump, has it?

    Vikings: Trump Trump Trump Trump (crescendo through next few lines)

    Wife: Could you do the egg bacon Trump and sausage without the Trump then?

    Waitress: Urgghh!

    Wife: What do you mean ‘Urgghh’? I don’t like Trump!

    Vikings: Lovely Trump! Wonderful Trump!

    Waitress: Shut up!

    Vikings: Lovely Trump! Wonderful Trump!

    Waitress: Shut up! (Vikings stop) Bloody Vikings! You can’t have egg bacon Trump and sausage without the Trump.

    Wife: (shrieks) I don’t like Trump!

    Man: Sshh, dear, don’t cause a fuss. I’ll have your Trump. I love it. I’m having Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump beaked beans Trump Trump Trump and Trump!

    Vikings: (singing) Trump Trump Trump Trump. Lovely Trump! Wonderful Trump!

    Waitress: Shut up!! Baked beans are off.

    Man: Well could I have her Trump instead of the baked beans then?

    Waitress: You mean Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump… (but it is too late and the Vikings drown her words)

    Vikings: (singing elaborately) Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump. Lovely Trump! Wonderful Truuump! Lovely Trump! Wonderful Trump. Tru-u-u-u-u-u-u-mp! Tru-u-u-u-u-u-u-mp! Tru-u-u-u-u-u-u-mp! Tru-u-u-u-u-u-u-mp! Lovely Trump! (Lovely Trump!) Lovely Trump! (Lovely Trump!) Lovely Truump! Trump, Trump, Trump, Truuump!

    I rest my case.

    • #47
  18. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    She (View Comment):
    I rest my case.

    Good grief! Now I have a headache! ;-)

    • #48
  19. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Sen. Whitehouse has a history of trying to intimidate Supreme Court justices, and he seems oddly proud of his efforts. 

    Gun control case in 2019.

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/30/sen-whitehouse-threatens-u-s-supreme-court-doesnt-rule-way-wants/

    Sen. Whitehouse at least garnered a state bar complaint for that action.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem-senator-bar-complaint-for-openly-threatening-supreme-court 

    Medical insurance mandates (in conjunction with prospective Justice Barrett) in 2020 

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/sheldon-whitehouse-vs-the-supreme-court-11615332964 

    from MSN, lest you think I’m cherry picking from “right wing” sources)

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sen-sheldon-whitehouse-admits-democrats-are-trying-to-intimidate-supreme-court-justices/ar-AALcb0Y

    Sen. Whitehouse is following his party leadership. Remember Sen. Schumer’s threats of physical harm to Supreme Court justices if the Supreme Court justices didn’t bow to Sen. Schumer’s wishes on the policies of abortion? (Also noted in the MSN piece.)

    • #49
  20. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Sen. Whitehouse has a history of trying to intimidate Supreme Court justices, and he seems oddly proud of his efforts.

    Gun control case in 2019.

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/30/sen-whitehouse-threatens-u-s-supreme-court-doesnt-rule-way-wants/

    Sen. Whitehouse at least garnered a state bar complaint for that action.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem-senator-bar-complaint-for-openly-threatening-supreme-court

    Medical insurance mandates (in conjunction with prospective Justice Barrett) in 2020

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/sheldon-whitehouse-vs-the-supreme-court-11615332964

    from MSN, lest you think I’m cherry picking from “right wing” sources)

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sen-sheldon-whitehouse-admits-democrats-are-trying-to-intimidate-supreme-court-justices/ar-AALcb0Y

    Sen. Whitehouse is following his party leadership. Remember Sen. Schumer’s threats of physical harm to Supreme Court justices if the Supreme Court justices didn’t bow to Sen. Schumer’s wishes on the policies of abortion? (Also noted in the MSN piece.)

    Thanks for all the links, @fullsizetabby. It also looks like we’ll suffering for a while with Whitehouse, too.

    • #50
  21. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    @she — “‘If Trump spoke the way you suggest, he would never have been elected President in the first place, so the whole thing would never have happened.’

    “If that’s the case, then I think it’s a shame that we’ve become so indiscriminate in our attention to civil discourse that no public servant/politician who speaks truth to power robustly, civilly, determinedly and with honor can be elected.”

    I meant, if Trump spoke in long, complicated paragraphs, he would not have been elected President.

    I was going to say, “he would have gone the way of Adlai Stevenson”, but I’m not sure how many people remember who Adlai Stevenson was.

    • #51
  22. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Taras (View Comment):
    I was going to say, “he would have gone the way of Adlai Stevenson”, but I’m not sure how many people remember who Adlai Stevenson was.

    This ol’ gal does, but I was too young to notice his speaking style!

    • #52
  23. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    I was going to say, “he would have gone the way of Adlai Stevenson”, but I’m not sure how many people remember who Adlai Stevenson was.

    This ol’ gal does, but I was too young to notice his speaking style!

    The official line on him was that Stevenson was too cerebral to beat Dwight Eisenhower.  Ike had the “common touch”.

    • #53
  24. She Member
    She
    @She

    Taras (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    I was going to say, “he would have gone the way of Adlai Stevenson”, but I’m not sure how many people remember who Adlai Stevenson was.

    This ol’ gal does, but I was too young to notice his speaking style!

    The official line on him was that Stevenson was too cerebral to beat Dwight Eisenhower. Ike had the “common touch”.

    I guess that I’m still old-fashioned enough to believe that the “common touch” ought to encompass the idea that the general population (even if not multi-lingual, or classically educated)  can follow a logical thought from one progression to the next.  I think we disrespect our fellows when we assume they can’t fathom common sense or logic without the accompanying sturm und drang of 21st century reality TV. If only a politician on the national stage would try such a thing, perhaps we’d have a definitive answer.

    • #54
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.