Will The Senate Democrats Now Apologize To Justice Barrett?

During the confirmation hearings of now Justice Amy Coney Barrett, I repeatedly objected to the clearly false narrative that she was nominated to vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act in the pending case of California v. Texas. The case was highly unlikely to result in such a decision and the Democrats knew it. The case was  focused on a highly technical and limited issues of severability. It would either be resolved on that limited basis or dismissed for standing. While Barrett might view the ACA as unconstitutional (as many do), I noted that she was more likely to dismiss the challenge or sever the individual mandate than to strike down the Act in the case. That is what she did in joined the 7-2 decision to dismiss the case.

During the confirmation, the Senate Democrats surrounded the room with giant pictures of people who would lose their health care if Barrett was confirmed and struck down the Act. They were portrayed as her future victims as members pummeled Barrett with accusations that she was just an ACA-killing shill. Barrett retained her composure and did not state the obvious — that she was more likely to vote to dismiss the case than to strike down the Act. She also refused to take the bait in responding to President Trump’s call for the Act to be struck down.

The shameful attacks were unrelenting. Democrats insisted that there was no question that Barrett would vote in the case to strip away health care for millions. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., claimed in a press release that “a vote by any Senator for Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act and eliminate protections for millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions.”

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-M.D., claimed that Barrett was on an “assignment” by Trump to get rid of Obamacare:

“We just chatted for a minute, and I really wanted to try to understand her experience as a person when it came to health care because she is being sent on assignment to the Supreme Court by President Trump. And we know what that assignment is, eliminate the Affordable Care Act.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., referred to Barrett as a “judicial torpedo” aimed at destroying Obamacare: “This Supreme Court nominee has signaled in the judicial equivalent of all caps that she believes the Affordable Care Act must go, and that the precedent protecting the ACA doesn’t matter,” Whitehouse said. He claimed that the “influences behind this unseemly rush see this nominee as a judicial torpedo they are firing at the ACA.”

Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, claimed in an interview during Barrett’s confirmation hearings that Republicans “want her on that court to hear the Affordable Care Act case… so that she can strike it down. This nominee poses a clear and present danger, an immediate danger, to the healthcare of over 20 million Americans who have healthcare thanks to the Affordable Care Act.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) declared that Barrett would “work to gut” the ACA and called Barrett a “right-wing ideologue who does not represent the majority of Americans.”

Sen. Bob Casey, D-Penn., insisted that Barrett’s nomination was being “fast-tracked” due to the pending case:

“This nominee is being fast-tracked, first of all, because this nominee has been vetted by the two groups that matter: the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation,” Casey said. “Both groups totally committed to undoing, striking down the Affordable Care Act. So she’s already passed that test, and she apparently passed with flying colors as she moved very quickly to a likely confirmation.”

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) tweeted. “Make no mistake, a vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee who meets President Trump’s tests is a vote to take away people’s health care and vital rights.”

Legal and media experts echoed the narrative that confirming Barrett meant no health care for Americans.  Professor Charles Tiefer wrote with complete confidence that “[a]s a textualist, she will find that the whole ACA is dead. It will be somber reminder that however the Presidential race comes out, Republicans have set up a 6-3 Court conservative court that will reign supreme for decades to come.”  He and others like NYU Professor Stephen Gillers said that Barrett should consider recusal from the case.

Barrett sat through days of such baseless attacks and predictions. She even had to endure Ibram X. Kendi, the director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, claiming that her adoption of two Haitian children raised the image of a “white colonizer” and suggested that the children were little more than props to their mother.

I do not seriously expect apologies. That is something that does not happen in our age of rage. Spurious attacks and false claims are simply ignored by the media when they are later proven to be untrue.  They served their purpose in the staging of the confirmation. By the time the “judicial torpedo” proved to be a dud, the members and the media had moved on to the next target and orchestrated narrative.  All that was left was the sound of a hallow clank hitting the side of the ACA as Barrett joined six other justices to dismiss the case.

151 thoughts on “Will The Senate Democrats Now Apologize To Justice Barrett?”

  1. Democrats don’t need to apologize for attacking Barrett. They need to apologize for lying when they took their oath of office. The only difference between them and their constituents is they got elected to office. While it’s expected their constituents will demand any number of things that are clearly unconstitutional and destructive to our rule of law, those elected take an oath to support and defend the constitution,not those that would ignorantly/selfishly undermine it. Attacking Barrett was their tell that they knew she would be an obstacle to their unconstitutional activism.

  2. That’s a good point. It seems Barrett was more focused on the technical aspects of the case rather than the overall aspect which she clearly did not agree with.

    The interesting thing I got out of this decision is the fact that the argument from Texas was that congress repealed the tax penalty, but they really didn’t. The penalty was still intact the idea of a penalty was still on the books which showed on paper that it was not the intent of congress to get rid of the law. All they did was zero out the penalty, they didn’t actually repeal the wording from the act.

    Barrett being a strict interpretation adherent had no choice but to rule with the majority because of that technicality.

      1. Svelaz– You misspelled statue as ‘statute’ in responding to my comment about the ugly George Floyd statue but I had no desire to mention it until you chose to poke someone else with that stick.

        I expected a sois disant lawyer to know better.

  3. Why should democrats apologize? There’s nothing to apologize for. Republicans do this all the time and nobody is demanding or expecting an apology. Republicans spout opinions that end up being wrong a lot. It’s what politicians do.

    Turley is just flinging some chum for his hungry followers to keep them happy for the time being.

    Obamacare which was opposed by republicans constantly seemed to ignore that a clear majority of republican voters also wanted obamacare once they realized the benefits far outweighed the perceived downsides that turned out to be not true.

    Even in Missouri a red state made Medicaid expansion a constitutional amendment.

    1. “Why should democrats apologize? “

      Svelaz, you are a Democrat and you don’t tell the truth yet you throw bombs at others who provide the evidence that intellectually you cannot handle.

      I am waiting for your definition of CRT and will wait until you change your name and icon again.

      1. Anonymous SM,

        “ Svelaz, you are a Democrat and you don’t tell the truth yet you throw bombs at others who provide the evidence that intellectually you cannot handle.”

        Clearly you can’t read minds. I find it amusing that you think I’m a democrat. I’ve been a registered Republican all my life still vote Republican when it’s rational, but lately that’s not been the case. What “bombs” are you referring to?

        “ I am waiting for your definition of CRT and will wait until you change your name and icon again.”

        I’ve given you plenty of definitions and even have you links to the sources themselves so you can determine for yourself instead of relying on others ignorance about what it is about.

        I’ve never changed my name or icon. I have no reason to.

        1. “I’ve been a registered Republican all my life still vote Republican “

          You are what is known as a convenient liar. You lie out of convenience. The alternative is that you are dumber than anyone gave you credit for. A lot of Republicans are Democrat lite, but you are a leftist without a brain.

          You provided no definitions of CRT that could be recognized as definitions and didn’t conflict with what you said. You don’t have the slightest of what CRT is and who can trust you with regard to prior icons. You are not credible, but since you have no idea of what CRT is I will provide you with the first of two email responses you have yet responded to.

          The first dumb statement tells us what a fool you are. It states CRT. Teaching CRT is no different than teaching about the Holocaust. Then you continue with ““The only reason they are doing that is because they don’t want any real discussion of what CRT brings up. ” Take note, it is you that wants to run away from discussion.
          —-

          ” CRT. Teaching CRT is no different than teaching about the Holocaust.”

          Svelaz, you can say that with certainty, yet you cannot define what CRT is, nor can you tell us how it is used. That is a sign of ignorance beyond normality. It’s a sign of a blind follower who memorizes what he is told to repeat.

          “Again, Marxism is not being taught”

          I didn’t say Marxism is being taught though in some way it is. You don’t even know what Marxism is. Yet, you tell us that item A is unrelated to item B. Another sign of ignorance from one who doesn’t know what he is talking about.

          “Right leaning think tanks are the only ones pushing this false narrative about CRT. ”

          How can you say a false narrative about CRT is being pushed when you cannot tell us what you think CRT is? The experts on CRT differ considerably in what they say. That is why you cannot define CRT, along with the fact that the experts of CRT hope you never learn.

          “The only reason they are doing that is because they don’t want any real discussion of what CRT brings up. ”

          How can anyone discuss CRT until CRT’s parameters are revealed. Again, you are demonstrating that ignorance that plagues you here and elsewhere.

          A Partial Explanation of CRT Follows.

          SM

          1. Anonymous SM,

            “ You are what is known as a convenient liar. You lie out of convenience. The alternative is that you are dumber than anyone gave you credit for. A lot of Republicans are Democrat lite, but you are a leftist without a brain.”

            Actually it is you who is lying here. You made the claim that I’m a democrat as if you knew for certain what my registered affiliation was. If that’s the case you are a criminal who has been looking into my private information. Are you in possession of my registration records SM? Should I report you to the authorities?

            You had no clue what I am. None. I had no reason to lie when I pointed out to you that I am indeed a registered Republican. Your convulsing disbelief that I couldn’t possibly be republican is your own problem. It just shows all of us the limits of your mental capacity. It’s not surprising.

            “ You provided no definitions of CRT that could be recognized as definitions and didn’t conflict with what you said. ”

            I did provide it SM, multiple times. The problem is YOU have an inability to recognize complex theories or debates. I can’t make it any more dumber for you so you can get at least a hint.

            “ The first dumb statement tells us what a fool you are. It states CRT. Teaching CRT is no different than teaching about the Holocaust. Then you continue with ““The only reason they are doing that is because they don’t want any real discussion of what CRT brings up. ” Take note, it is you that wants to run away from discussion.”

            SM, you really are not a very smart cookie are you? You still have not researched the issue itself. It’s very obvious because all you say are insults and talking sh!t about what you are not getting. You’re an adult, I assume, you seem perfectly capable of finding out for yourself what you want to know. I’ve already explained it to you multiple times. I can’t help you if you’re really too stupid to understand. That’s just something that only you can correct.

            “ The only reason they are doing that is because they don’t want any real discussion of what CRT brings up. ”

            How can anyone discuss CRT until CRT’s parameters are revealed. Again, you are demonstrating that ignorance that plagues you here and elsewhere.”

            SM, CRT’s parameters? CRT isn’t a study dumba$$. It’s an academic theory. It’s based on historical records not studies.

            The “parameters” that you think haven’t been revealed are right there for you to READ for yourself. They are not hiding anything. It’s a theory that’s been around for decades. Decades SM.

            1. Svelaz, what I said is not a lie. There are multiple reasons why one is in error by calling it a lie. You say you are not a Democrat. I said, you are. But do you have any credibility any longer?

              You say: “Are you in possession of my registration records SM? Should I report you to the authorities?”

              Yes, report me so that more people can laugh at your ignorance. One’s registration of a political party is not a closed book.

              “CRT isn’t a study dumba$$. It’s an academic theory. It’s based on historical records not studies.”

              I never called it a study, even though you confuse yourself with the different meanings of the word. You might be the most confused person on this blog.

              You never did define CRT though you said what CRT wasn’t. Were you lying when you said what CRT wasn’t, or was it the evident answer that you don’t know what you are talking about? That is what we all know.

              Yes, teaching about the Holocaust is teaching history. Teaching about CRT is proselytizing. I am sure you can look up the word in any dictionary so you can learn the difference.

              I already know what CRT is. You probably will have to look up who Derrick Bell is unless you are dumb enough to assume he is related to Bell’s telephone. That is how poorly educated you are and how badly your mind works.

              You keep writing about CRT, but fail to recognize how difficult it is to define and how in flux the ideas behind it are. In the end, two things tell enough about it. 1) ‘Marxists’ have substituted class with CRT, and 2) it is pure racism. It replaces character with color.

              ” that’s been around for decades.”

              Now you have to look up who Derrick Bell is.

              SM

              1. Anonymous SM,

                ““CRT isn’t a study dumba$$. It’s an academic theory. It’s based on historical records not studies.”

                I never called it a study, even though you confuse yourself with the different meanings of the word. You might be the most confused person on this blog.”

                You asked to define the ‘parameters’ of CRT. The word “parameters” denotes a set of data in a study. Come on SM keep up. CRT is an analysis of historical events. There is a difference. You keep claiming you are smart, but you insist on making that a false claim making these silly arguments.

                “Svelaz, what I said is not a lie. There are multiple reasons why one is in error by calling it a lie. You say you are not a Democrat. I said, you are. But do you have any credibility any longer?”

                Yes, you did lie. You had no idea what my affiliation was until I told you.

                “You never did define CRT though you said what CRT wasn’t. Were you lying when you said what CRT wasn’t, or was it the evident answer that you don’t know what you are talking about? That is what we all know”

                SM, I did define it for you multiple times. As I have said, I can’t make you comprehend what you are reading. That is something YOU will have to deal with.

                “Yes, teaching about the Holocaust is teaching history. Teaching about CRT is proselytizing. I am sure you can look up the word in any dictionary so you can learn the difference.”

                No, Teaching about CRT is not proselytizing. This is just further proof that you have not read about CRT at all.

                “You keep writing about CRT, but fail to recognize how difficult it is to define and how in flux the ideas behind it are”

                No SM, it is not difficult to define. I’ve defined it to you multiple times. It’s been put right in front of your eyes, but you are way too dense to realize it. You’re so invested in your own version of what you think CRT is based on talking points rather than actually read about it. You’re a hopeless cause SM. It’s pretty sad.

                1. “parameters” denotes a set of data in a study.”

                  Svelaz, parameters is not a word exclusive to scientific studies.

                  “CRT is an analysis of historical events.”

                  In part it is and analysis have parameters. Take an easy one, dates. You are demonstrating your ignorance.

                  What you say, Svelaz, can be true or false. Your most recent definition of parameter was false. You are not credible. You are a far left-wing follower.

                  “SM, I did define it for you multiple times. “

                  Again, you are not credible. If you could define it before then you wouldn’t be making this claim over and over again. You would define it and explain it.

                  Let me ask you a question. Do you think MLK was wrong: “”I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

                  Based on your support for CRT it seems you think people should be judged on the color of their skin. You want to avoid that most significant question.

                  “No, Teaching about CRT is not proselytizing.”

                  Then what is it? Is it telling our young that all men are created equal? No. CRT talks about equity. To convince children that one side is equitable and the other is not, is proselytizing.

                  You are unable to even explain the difference between equity and equality, color and character. You are nothing more than a fool that blindly follows a leader. You cannot discuss CRT because you don’t understand it, nor can you define it and explain how it works.

                  1. S. Meyer,

                    “ In part it is and analysis have parameters. Take an easy one, dates. You are demonstrating your ignorance.”

                    LOL!!!! You’re just completely clueless man. I’m amazed that you can even muster the ability to breathe and walk at the same time.

                    1. Keep it up Svelaz, you have already convinced most people you are a nincompoop. Maybe you will be able to convince all.

                      I will again ask the question that must be asked. Do you believe in what MLK said? “Do you think MLK was wrong: “”I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

                      If you decide to go down the path of judging people by the color of their skin then you are going down the path of racism.

              2. There isn’t a person who frequents this blog that lies more than Allan. He’s truly disingenuous and as a first response tries to shift the parameters of discussion. When this is pointed out he accuses others of exactly that. He’ll try to ‘mind read’ and assume he knows what you’re trying to say. He’ll introduce made up points to the discussion, claiming you made them and then say “no one can tell if that’s really true or not…”. And then there’s the old standby of resorting to insult immediately, telling whoever he’s debating that they don’t know how to think (at best), or more likely that they’re an ‘idiot’.

                Right now he’s confused about what CRT and it’s because Fox has begun using it as a catch all for anything they’d deem worthy of causing ‘white guilt’, hence it’s become something they’ll spit fire at. Media watchdogs tracking the word ‘CRT’ have found that Fox has mentioned it almost 1500 times in the last month.

                CRT can be boiled down to one sentence: it’s a theory of how race intersects with the legal system. And that’s why it’s only really taught in law schools. But to people like Allan who suck up the slop put out on Fox it’s become this boogeyman that reminds them they’ve been on the wong side of racial issues basically forever. At lower levels of education the only place where something like CRT would intersect with curriculum would be a teacher asking themselves how certain subject matter would sound to a student of color…, and of course Fox nation finds this infuriating. It’s there that we find our friend Allan. Think of him as someone who sees his role as to be someone who provides non stop PR for someone like Tucker Carlson because the world needs help in understanding him…

                Of course the one who needs help in understanding something is Allan. I’m afraid that condition will remain consistent and persistant.

                eb

                1. “CRT can be boiled down to one sentence: it’s a theory of how race intersects with the legal system. And that’s why it’s only really taught in law schools. “

                  We can forget your stupid insults and the fact that you can’t show me lying (which makes you a liar). Let’s get to the important sentence above.

                  The Bug has thought really hard about what CRT Critical Race *THEORY* is and concluded that CRT is “a theory”. That is true (it’s part of its name so that should be obvious) though some would prefer to call it a fantasy something the Bug is very good at producing.

                  Let’s continue. “how race intersects with the legal system.”. That is part of CRT and is the first intelligent thing Bug has stated in months.

                  “And that’s why it’s only really taught in law schools. “

                  I think both the left and the right on this blog realize that the glimmer of light from bug disappeared almost immediately. CRT is not only taught in law schools.

                  SM

                  1. Notice i log lined out CRT into a sentence and Allan does what he always does…, he doesn’t question me on the specific points that inform the theory (of which there are 6). To discuss those points would highlight both the fundamental truths which ground the theory in reality, and also make clear that how the theory is being portrayed in alt right media is NOT what the theory consists of.

                    He also maintains CRT is taught in schools other than law schools but doesn’t give one concrete example of a school where it’s taught that isn’t a law school,..

                    Probably best is the requisite insult where he deems himself as an authority worthy of proclaiming whether there is a “glimmer of light” in what I say or not, as if I give a flying f&*k what his opinion of me is.

                    I notice he has moved off of claiming CRT is a ‘study’. Probably someone actually pointed out to him that the ‘T’ in CRT actually stands for the word ‘theory’ because seeing him argue otherwise was probably too painful to not acknowledge.

                    eb

                    1. “he doesn’t question me on the specific points that inform the theory (of which there are 6)”

                      Bug, it’s hard to pick out the points in between the infantile garble and the insults. You are blaming others for your inability to make your points. I will help you. You said:

                      “the only place where something like CRT would intersect with curriculum would be a teacher asking themselves how certain subject matter would sound to a student of color…”

                      You are wrong and do not know how CRT is being used in the classroom. You blame Fox when you should be blaming your own ignorance. However, in that phrase asking people to think about what they are saying is something of significance. I will repeat what I said on the blog a while back. Maybe you remember, maybe not.

                      My friend in grade school commented on another child who was defined by specific characteristics. It wasn’t nice, and my mother told him so. He responded that it was OK because the other boy wasn’t in class at the time. My mother told my friend that it wasn’t good enough. She suggested that he think of how he would feel if someone else said something similar about him.

                      My friend never forgot that lesson decades later when he reminded me of it. That is not CRT. That is proper behavior, perhaps something Bug, you have never been taught.

                    2. Allan, what your mother did would be *exactly* how CRT would function in an lower educational setting were it formal doctrine in lower education. Probably best for you to review the individual principles (as I mentioned, there are six) of CRT and explain why you take issue with them.

                      eb

                    3. “Allan, what your mother did would be *exactly* how CRT would function in an lower educational setting were it formal doctrine in lower education. ”

                      Bug, you don’t know what CRT actually is and what it is doing and how. It is creating race boundaries, not eliminating them. What my mother said was more than enough to satisfy what you think you know about CRT and my mothers attitude came from generations of parenting. She also advised education and study. Do the best you can. Don’t have babies before you are educated, married and can afford to support them. No drugs. Don’t steal.Think of all people as individuals. Individuals are not groups. Any individual in a group can be better or worse than the average so one cannot predict how any one individual will turn out based on his group.

                      At a later age we were taught what the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence said and that was taught independently of the Declaration of Independence because that portion of the DOI is a way of living and behaving.

                      “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed… ”

                      Your problem, Bug, is you have been trained to destroy and not trained to build. You appear not to have been taught the basics of parenting or you hide that you were very well.

                    4. I’m not sure my “problem” is what you think it is, Allan. And I worked in a public school for 15yrs coaching basketball, my assistant for 5 of those years was one of the best teachers I’ve ever run across at any level. I stay in touch with him on a regular basis and he finds the CRT PR effort of late to be rather hilarious for practical, on the ground reasons.

                      As far as what’s problematic about this discussion it’s clearly that you don’t know the tenets of CRT and you’re accepting the false charaterizations of it from alt right media. Everything from what it actually consists of, to how it’s applied, to when and where one might find it inside curriculum.

                      But we know this about you because it is, indeed, how you roll.

                      eb

                    5. ” you don’t know the tenets of CRT and you’re accepting the false charaterizations of it from alt right media.”

                      Bug, if that is the case, why don’t you tell me what I am missing and what CRT is and how it is being used.

                      SM

                    6. I won’t do that, Allan. You have a long track record with me and everyone else of making similar requests and then not dealing with the information presented. I won’t play that game anymore. instead, pick just one of the 6 tenets, present it, and we can discuss in detail.

                      eb

                    7. I understand Bug, it is difficult to produce fact and analysis. People find it much easier to fill the page with little nothings. You have to blame yourself for going off target, but you will note that when you are on target a real discussion can occur.

                      SM

                    8. Allan. I know the tenets of CRT. The real ones, not the Fox translations of them. i can’t make you bring a serious point in for discussion, and I’ve had mutiple experiences of the game you run by asking people to do your research for you and then veering off topic. I suspect how I’m handling this now is the only way in which to deal with you. It’s kind of sad actually. But you leave no other alternative other than just ignoring you entirely.

                      eb

                    9. Eb: “But you [Allan] leave no other alternative other than just ignoring you entirely.”

                      Welcome to the club!

                      Jeff Silberman

                    10. Bug, ignore away. Why do you think it bothers me if someone ignores me? Why would I care? Jeff ignores me because he is Ball-Less and can’t respond with proof. That suits my needs. What have you provided me? Very little, though I responded to you with information. Apparently learning anything is painful to you.

                      SM

                    11. “Allan. I know the tenets of CRT. “

                      Keep telling yourself that Bug. You might convince yourself and maybe a few others, but those with knowledge of CRT will know that you are wrong. As Sam recently corrected you CLT is not CRT. Stop blaming others for your own foolishness.

                      SM

                  2. CRT is “a theory of how race intersects with the legal system. And that’s why it’s only really taught in law schools. “

                    Somebody is confusing CLT with its progeny, CRT.

                    In fact, it’s infecting countless academic programs: history, education, literature, writing programs, sociology, the “studies” programs, etc., etc.

                    When the then-chair of Sociology at Duke University spells “America” as “Amerikkka,” you know the cancer of CRT has metastasized.

                    OT: Why do some people keep pontificating on subjects about which they are ignorant?

                    1. How about you tell me since you seem to be a clear expert on the topic. Noted that you’ve not brought up one of the tenets of CRT in your response. I suggest you discuss with Allan since you seem to be on the same wavelength.

                      eb

                    2. “Noted that you’ve not brought up one of the tenets of CRT in your response.”

                      I’ve already noted elsewhere on this blog its essence, its goals, and its genealogy.

                      “. . . since you seem to be a clear expert on the topic.”

                      Your sarcasm notwithstanding, I am. I spent 17 years at a university that is a hotbed of CRT, and that institutionalized academia’s “studies” mania. Add to that the articles I wrote for mainstream publications. (I think that those are better qualifications than, say, being a former BB coach.)

  4. It is not just the Democrats.
    MSM, crying with the sky is falling over Justice Amy Coney Barrett (and Kavanaugh), fearmongering. Will they even acknowledged their part?

    As professor Turley has noted, recent rulings by the court has shown the court is not as “out of whack,” as President Biden would have you believe.

    1. Slavery, not indentured servitude, yes. The KKK (e.g. neighborhood incursions, occupation, intimidation), too. The wicked solution, denial of a woman and man’s dignity and agency, of course. Planned Parent/hood in a bid to remove the anti-fascist who dared step on their special and peculiar interests. Diversity (i.e. color judgment), inequity, and exclusion. One step forward, two steps backward, past, present, and progressive.

      1. Just a reminder that the last couple of comments @12:05 and 12:21 would be right at home in any group location area in a psych ward.

  5. The democratic party is a ruthless, Orwellian organization that would never even consider an apology. On the contrary, thye knew that these lies would hurt Trump’s reelection and therefore they would do it again in a NY minute. Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, and the rest of the leadership have the integrity of Goebbels. They care nothing for democracy and their accusations are simply projections that are amplified by the propagandists masquerading as journalists. Mr. Turley’s question if not rhetorical is Panglossian in its naivete. But I am hopeful it is the former!

  6. Lefties lie.

    They use mendacity as both a tool and as a weapon.

    What amazes me is that the Lefty small folk like to be lied to.

    Look at the Lefty posters on the blog, busy rationalizing why the lies were really a good thing for the country.

    The communists described them as “Useful idiots”.

    I think that the second word suffices.

  7. Stealing a phrase from someone else, how do you know when a Democrat is lying? His lips are moving.

    1. No they won’t apologize to Justice Barrett for this, they won’t apologize to Trump for calling him racist when he questioned where COVID started, they won’t apologize to the state of Georgia for lying about their new election law, they won’t apologize to Ron DiSantis for the lies and mischaracterizations of his Pandemic response in Florida, they won’t apologize for …..
      You get the picture.

  8. In three years if Barrett turns out not be as horrible as we all know she is, the maybe. But so far she is doing a fine job being a right wing stooge.

  9. Apologize? Really? Oh come now, you are joking, right?

    Lots of malice in those comments. And people wonder why there are divisions outside of the beltway. Comments like those, amplified by the legacy media, exacerbate the schism. Unfortunately, the D’s are not the only ones who engage in such spurious actions; the difference being that the legacy media and their offspring reach far more people

  10. As someone who runs political interference often, Jon, I’m wishing for you to be more cognizant of those Dems using their 1st amendment rights and expressing an opinion that weighs into the mix. A little working of the referee ahead of time. Repubs do it all the time and have brought the practice to a fine art, sometimes to the point of seeding mainstream media with their talking point so much they deserver producer credit for the reporting.

    So no, they don’t need to apologize. If anything, the Justice should thank them for creating the space to more fairly make a ruling.

    Then again, the Ferderalist society has always been adept at the one step forward, two back game. Most likely they know how to avoid an overt firestorm in order to make more silent (and more consequential) erosions behind the scenes. Federalists gonna federalist after all.

    eb

  11. So, progressive prices, disparate pricing, will persist under the heavy-handed shared/shifted responsibility mandate of the Obamacares Act. It’s not another wicked solution, but a myopic solution with “benefits” (e.g. redistributive change). Meanwhile, 80% of cases were realized under the “healthy at any weight” social paradigm, a drug (e.g. fentanyl) addicted, metabolically compromised population. One step forward, two steps backward.

  12. I say this as an old Hubert Humphrey Democrat, these Democrats have no class. none. When Schumer ran for the Senate, the NYT predicted correctly that if he was elected to the Senate the Great Deliberating Body was going to be lost with people like him. Now we have a group of these low classless politicians.

  13. The Democrats are nothing more than 21st century snake oil salesmen. While their cheap shots and mendacity are understandable once one realizes that all they’re after is raw, unchallenged power, it’s more difficult to comprehend the millions of supposedly decent people who actually vote for these bums. Have they no sense of integrity?

  14. What the Dems have done to us, and in record time, is inconceivable, unforgivable, and more and more – seemingly irreversible. I weep for my country. I don’t know how we course correct at this point. Their domestic terrorism narrative is aimed squarely at the midterms, and I fully expect their threats to be blatant and out in the open then.

    1. I share your sentiments. I miss my daddy every day, but thank God he is not here to see this.

      1. Likewise, my father has passed too. He was a veteran, and also a Democrat voter. His heart would be very heavy.

  15. “Will The Senate Democrats Now Apologize To Justice Barrett?”

    Democrats have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that to them any means to an end result that they would prefer is justifiable so no they won’t apologize even though they were dead wrong.

Leave a Reply