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:
Colbert: 'I Don't Know Much' About Kavanaugh, But His First Name 'Sounds More Like A Waiter at Ruby Tuesday' https://t.co/rfbUT6oh8t pic.twitter.com/mvklOVjZY2
— Mediaite (@Mediaite) July 11, 2018
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:
We'll be DAMNED if we're going to let five MEN—including some frat boy named Brett—strip us of our hard-won bodily autonomy and reproductive rights. #StopKavanaugh #SaveRoe pic.twitter.com/22GYMTVLgj
— NARAL (@NARAL) July 11, 2018
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:
Every single person responsible for that piece about Kavanuagh the carpool dad being published in a major newspaper should be required to personally apologize to every single person who read it or learned about it.
— Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) July 10, 2018
Flattering or humanizing personal pieces must be reserved for ideologically righteous nominees, you see:
Some lefties are fuming at WaPo for running an op/ed about Kavanaugh being a nice guy and a good carpool dad. Doesn’t the Post know humanizing puff pieces are for liberals only? pic.twitter.com/ph5oN0FySx
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) July 11, 2018
Recommended
We've also been treated to this tantrum from Yalies:
So some Yale students, faculty, and Alumni wrote an open letter to Yale complaining that the press release they put out about Kavanaugh's nomination said nice things about him because that kinda sorta indirectly helps Trump, I guess. https://t.co/4YO3qNCJjm
— neontaster (@neontaster) July 11, 2018
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:
This is not a fact. It’s what the Washington Post fact checker calls an “extreme distortion of what [Kavanaugh] has written.” That it remains a top leftist talking point is revealing. https://t.co/LFHDpbej0W
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) July 11, 2018
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:
Kavanaugh:
— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) July 10, 2018
?? Praised *dissent* in Roe
?? Criticized Roberts ruling on Obamacare
?? Says sitting POTUS can't be indicted/can fire special counsel whenever he wants
?? Opposes net neutrality
?? Opposes consumer bureau
?? Says assault weapon bans are unconstitutional
Aside from the 'extreme distortion' on point three, the rest of Fallon's "indictment" sounds pretty good, doesn't it?
Join the conversation as a VIP Member