It Gets Dumber: Leftists Now Resisting Kavanaugh By...Mocking His First Name, Or Something

|
|
Posted: Jul 12, 2018 10:01 AM
It Gets Dumber: Leftists Now Resisting Kavanaugh By...Mocking His First Name, Or Something

Earlier in the week, Jonah Goldberg wrote a column about the brewing SCOTUS battle entitled, "It's All Going to Get Dumber."  I'd award points for prescience, but given the state of our national discourse, this prediction was a slam dunk. It always gets dumber.  It seems that some liberals, whose attacks on Kavanaugh have ranged from disjointed to preposterous, are coalescing around a red hot new talking point: Brett Kavanaugh's name sucks.  Here's late night talk show host Stephen Colbert -- who changed the pronunciation of his last name in college to sound more cosmopolitan, I must point out -- leading the charge with the following quip.  Comedy:


LOL at those silly working people named Brett!  But at least that was just a quick throwaway joke.  The abortion lobby put some real effort into this one:


Many others have pointed out that the so-called 'right' to abortion was invented by seven male justices ("MEN!"), and have smacked NARAL's sub-moronic diminishment of an eminent jurist as "some frat boy."  It is possible, I suppose, that the tweet at least got the first three words right.  Meanwhile, we have this leftist activist raging at the Washington Post (as are many liberal readers) for publishing a human interest op/ed about Kavanaugh:


Flattering or humanizing personal pieces must be reserved for ideologically righteous nominees, you see:


We've also been treated to this tantrum from Yalies:


From 'Brett' snickerers to foot-stomping Ivy Leaguers, it always gets dumber.  Finally, please read the following key passage from the fact check I reference in this tweet, responding to a common left-wing smear of Kavanaugh:

Kavanaugh’s articles from 1998 and 2009 are no smoking-gun evidence that he would vote to dismiss an indictment against Trump, should one ever be filed. Although he clearly believes it’s a bad idea to indict a sitting president, Kavanaugh never states his view whether the Constitution allows it. In fact, he says Congress should pass legislation to ensure the president is immune from civil and criminal proceedings while in office. As Feldman writes, Kavanaugh’s 2009 article can be read as a signal that he might uphold a presidential indictment unless Congress changes the law. We don’t mean to split hairs by analyzing whether Kavanaugh believes something “can’t” or “shouldn’t” happen, but in the legal arena, this distinction matters. Kavanaugh’s stated views on this question don’t go as far as Fallon, Maloney and Ocasio-Cortez claimed. Their tweets merit Two Pinocchios, although we considered giving Three. To say Kavanaugh is Trump’s “get-out-of-jail free card” is an extreme distortion of what he’s written.

Here's a former Hillary flack repeating the false charge:

Recommended
University Corruption
Walter E. Williams


Aside from the 'extreme distortion' on point three, the rest of Fallon's "indictment" sounds pretty good, doesn't it?