STARTING TOMORROW: Two different worlds!

MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2022

Graham's shocking attack: Last Tuesday, the actual questioning began just after 10:40 A.M. 

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson had been nominated to serve on the United States Supreme Court. A sprawling, 22-member Senate committee was now pretending to engage in the process of trying to decide whether to give its consent.

The actual questioning began with Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Senators Durbin (D-IL) and Leahy (D-VT) had already lobbed supportive softballs at the nominee. Senator Grassley (R-IA) had methodically read a list of questions his staff had prepared, showing no sign of knowing or caring whether the questions had been answered.

In that sense, the actual questioning started with Graham. Within less than an hour, his first line of questioning would be described as "shocking." For the record, that line of questioning started exactly like this:

GRAHAM (3/22/22): Thank you, Judge. Again, congratulations.

I want to talk to you a little bit about family and faith, because in your opening statement, and the people who introduced you to the committee, there was very glowing praise of you as a person, a good friend. 

You have a wonderful family. You should be proud. And your faith matters to you.

Many of Judge Jackson's family members were indeed present that day. Also, Jackson had referred to her faith in God at two separate points in the opening statement she had delivered the day before.

Her lifelong friend, Professor Lisa Fairfax, had also cited Jackson's religious faith as she formally introduced Judge Jackson to the giant, generally unimpressive Senate committee. There's no reason why Fairfax shouldn't have done that, and Graham made no such suggestion.

"You have a wonderful family. You should be proud." So Graham dared to say, right at the start of his shocking line of inquiry. 

This initial line of questioning extended for slightly more than three minutes. During that period, Graham added these additional shocking remarks:

He said, at two separate points, that he felt sure that Judge Jackson  could set aside her own religious beliefs to judge others fairly. 

(Graham: "I couldn't agree with you more, and I believe you can.")

He agreed with Jackson that there is, and should be, no religious test for federal office. 

("There will be none with me," Graham said.)

As Graham's shocking conduct continued, so did these shocking accusations. Indeed, a bit later in those first three minutes, he launched such shocking attacks as these:

GRAHAM: I have no doubt that your faith is important to you. And I have zero doubt that you can adjudicate people's cases fairly if they're an atheist. 

If I had any doubt, I would say so.


GRAHAM: So Judge, you should be proud of your faith. I am convinced that, whatever faith you have, and how often you go to church, it will not affect your ability to be fair. 

In such ways, Graham repeatedly gave voice to his shocking attacks. Along the way, he also revealed the rationale behind his shocking conduct.

The rationale was perfectly clear. Whatever you thought of his rationale, there was nothing shocking about it.  

It had nothing to do with anything Judge Jackson had ever done. Quite plainly, Graham wasn't criticizing Ketanji Brown Jackson during this exchange.

He hadn't criticized Jackson at all during this first presentation. But shortly after 11:30 P.M., the Senate committee took its first break of the day, and we in our failing, unimpressive blue tribe received our first bit of messaging. 

By now, Graham's questioning was done. So was the questioning of Senator Feinstein (D-CA).

By now, five senators had questioned Judge Jackson. On CNN, Kate Bolduan threw to legal analyst Laura Coates, and Coates quickly offered this:

BOLDUAN (3/22/22): CNN Senior Legal Analyst Laura Coates, with us as well. Laura, how do you think the judge has done so far?

COATES: I think she's doing phenomenally well. And I will note, of course, that I am twinning in her outfit inadvertently. But let me tell you, that's really where the comparisons stop because she is phenomenally talented in what she's doing.

Of course, it's her fourth time being before the Judiciary Committee, so she's well aware of the stakes and what needs to be done in order to make sure that she is conveying her intellect in a way that is persuasive, that is compelling, and really showcases what she's all about. 

Trust us! Pundit Coates was "twinning" Judge Jackson in more than the outfit she wore. 

According to Coates, Jackson had been "phenomenally talented" in what she had offered so far. Among other things, Judge Jackson had been conveying her intellect in a way that was compelling and that really showcased what she's all about. 

It would be hard to be more complimentary to the nominee, who is of course highly accomplished. But concerning the fiendish Senator Graham, Coates now offered this:

COATES (continuing directly): I will say the moments for Senator Lindsey Graham were perhaps the most shocking of the day.

The discussions of trying, on the one hand, to educate the first black woman to be nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States, to try to attempt to educate her on double standards in America, was just too rich for me. 

So was the notion of him trying to use the time to think he squandered a great deal, squandering the time pointing out the ideas of other past nominees as opposed to focusing on this particular person.

Discussions about Judge Childs and the idea of so-called conservatives and other rounds as well attacking and asking her about what she knew about these attacks on social media, as opposed to what she knew about the law, was a missed opportunity to elevate the conversation. 

According to Coates, Graham had authored "a missed opportunity to elevate the conversation." Whatever you thought of Graham's performance, an ironist might have imagined that legal analyst Coates, outfitted so chicly, was doing that same thing herself!

With apologies, we're using the CNN transcript today. We have no way to proofread the transcript against videotape of what was said. 

That said, this transcript has Coates declaring Graham's "moments" as not just shocking, but as "the most shocking [moments] of the day." In truth, nothing especially shocking had actually happened to that point in time, but Coates (and her CNN colleagues) were now starting to lay down our highly unimpressive blue tribe's official narrative line.

It's clear that Coates was referring, in large part, to the three-minute exchange from which we've already drawn excerpts. To appearances, Coates had been offended by the focus of Graham's first set of questions, during which he repeatedly complimented and agreed with the nominee.

To appearances, Coates had been offended by the idea that Graham would have tried to "educate [the first black woman to be nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States] on double standards in America"—in this case, on alleged double standards concerning the way judicial nominees get treated at Senate hearings. 

This had been shocking conduct, the haughty pundit declared. Now, a bit of disclosure:

Here on our sprawling campus, we had watched Graham's round of questioning in real time. Truth to tell, his various lines of questioning hadn't struck us as "shocking" at all.

We didn't necessarily agree with every word he said, but his conduct hadn't seemed shocking. But in this first burst of CNN punditry, we saw the emergence of two different worlds—the world of red tribe political perception as opposed to the childish and silly "Eek a mouse!" world of blue tribe corporate punditry.

In our view, the existence of those two different worlds puts liberal / progressive values and interests in significant peril. In our view, the dumbness of current blue tribe punditry is one of the greatest threats to those liberal / progressive interests.

On the one hand, our nation has a clamoring red tribe which has already elected Donald Trump once, and could do so again. On the other hand, we have a gang of overpaid corporate TV flunkies who perform in the way Coates quite frequently does.

In fairness, Coates was hardly alone this day on CNN's pundit panels. Indeed, all across the liberal world, reaction to last week's hearings revealed the limited quality of the team which scripts the tribal battle cries with which we head off to war.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but a modern nation can't expect to survive or prosper as a yammering Babel inhabited by "one, two, many" landlocked tribes. More to the point, some such nation can't expect to keep Donald J. Trump, or a Trump substitute, out of the White House again.

On the one hand, you have the True Crazy of people like Ginni Thomas, along with the incessant shrieking of "lost boy" Tucker Carlson. On our side, we respond with a hopeless band of "well educated" flunkies who should be thrown overboard.

As we hope you've been able to note, none of this has had a thing to do with the merits of Judge Jackson. All week long, we'll be speaking of Coates and the rest, who help define the mental horizons of one of our two different worlds.

I believe in you, the senator said. It was part of the shocking attack which our tribe quickly spotted!

Tomorrow: Incredibly moving, very compelling—and very, very untrue


  1. Tsk. Yes, dembots will be dembots, dear Bob.

    We know it, and you know it. Clowning, hate-mongering, being the usual scumbags, and all that.

    This simple truth, being glaringly obvious to anyone with a functioning brain, doesn't require a small fraction of the pixels you've spend here...

  2. "Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson had been nominated to serve on the United States Supreme Court. "

    Odd choice of verb tense here. Jackson IS nominated to serve on the Supreme Court. The vote on her nomination is pending, not past, and it seems likely she will be approved.

    Somerby makes it sound like he is examining something in the distant past concerning a nomination that is over and done with.

    Language reflects thought. Why would Somerby put it like this concerning this woman's very much alive nomination?

  3. "That said, this transcript has Coates declaring Graham's "moments" as not just shocking, but as "the most shocking [moments] of the day." In truth, nothing especially shocking had actually happened to that point in time, but Coates (and her CNN colleagues) were now starting to lay down our highly unimpressive blue tribe's official narrative line."

    Somerby quotes only a few lines of what Graham said to Jackson. Those lines bear no resemblance to the quotes of the journalist claiming that he said something shocking and wasted his questioning time. Then Somerby claims that there was nothing shocking about what Graham said. But Somerby didn't actually quote the parts that were controversial. He leaves us to dig out Graham's complete questioning ourselves, to determine whether we agree with Somerby's assessment or the journalist Coates.

    This is another example of the way Somerby puts his thumbs on the scales, not trusting his readers to decide for themselves whether what Somerby complains about is true or not.

    I have to intention of going back to the hearing and seeing whether Graham wasted his time or not. I suspect that Coates is correct and Somerby is wrong. In any case, Somerby's attempt to fool his readers is wrong and dishonest.

    I do see Somerby using sarcasm (not irony) to suggest that Graham's words that he himself quoted were not particularly shocking -- they aren't. But these are obviously not the portions being referred to by Coates. Sarcasm doesn't help anything, especially when Somerby has unfairly excerpted from Graham's questioning to select a phrase that it appears (from her statements) Coates was not referring to.

    If you are fooled by this manipulation of Somerby's, shame on you.

  4. Right, Bob. If there's one thing that can be ascertained via your comment board (most recently illustrated by the Anonymouse above) it's that the blue tribe is composed of dainty eggheads rather than neurotic malevolent toddlers.

    1. Cecelia, whose own thinking is so bankrupt that all she knows to do is name-calling. Yes, "dainty egghead" and "malevolent toddler" are names, not criticisms of anything said by today's anonymous (who she continues to refer to as mice despite being asked not to). She clearly cannot think of a rebuttal (to use Krazy Kat's recent term) but she really really wants to see her name online. And notice how Cecelia uses Somerby's own technique of generalizing from one anonymous person's opinions to the "blue tribe"!

      Yes, Cecelia is copying Somerby's tactics, but I think Somerby himself is using the tactics of the right wing himself, another indicator that he is no liberal and had been (and continues to be) carrying water for Republicans by exclusively focusing on their talking points, as he does today.

      Way to make a point for me, Cecelia!

    2. Anonymouse 11:24am, my rebuttal was to Bob's description of his peers.

      Your rebuttal to what I said to him is"I know you are, but what am I?"

      I've already answered that question.

    3. One thing that can't be ascertained by comments via Somerby's comment board, is the name of that non-existent Republican voter who cares about something other than bigotry and white supremacy.

    4. Explain why that last post is not a troll, if you can.

    5. Because he is telling the truth and most likely sincerely believes what he or she is saying.

      I agree with what @11:43 says. Repeating it doesn't make them a troll. This is a liberal blog where many of us are likely to find the comment true, so it is not intended to upset or annoy others, the way much of what you say here does.

      Troll definition: "A troll is someone who harasses other people online to try to get a negative reaction from them."

      This person isn't harassing the liberals on this supposedly liberal blog. If you feel harassed, it may be because you are the troll, making statements here that annoy and attempt to elicit a negative reaction from the liberals reading liberal Somerby's liberal blog.

      Explain why you are not a troll, if you can.

    6. "Explain why you are not a troll, if you can."

      Because I don't go around saying something ridiculous like that there are ZERO Republican voters that care about anything besides bigotry and white supremacy.

      A ridiculous statement on its face, it's designed to troll.

      Your support of it makes you a troll as well. I shouldn't be replying and will try to show more self control in the future.

    7. Once they sucker you into believing in supply-side economics, getting you to believe there is a Republican voter who cares about something other than bigotry and white supremacy is child's play.

  5. "Here on our sprawling campus, we had watched Graham's round of questioning in real time. Truth to tell, his various lines of questioning hadn't struck us as "shocking" at all.

    We didn't necessarily agree with every word he said, but his conduct hadn't seemed shocking. "

    Maybe "shocking" isn't the best word to use for the condescending and patronizing talking down to a black woman who is herself already a judge on the Court of Appeals with a great deal of legal experience.

    What shocks Somerby may not be what shocks women about Graham's questioning. That wouldn't surprise me at all, given Somerby's ignorance and tone-deafness about gender issues and his own misogyny. Frankly, it sounds to me like Coates is accusing Graham of major mansplaining of a Supreme Court nominee, which is not only ludicrous, but outrageous. Somerby wouldn't use the word "shocking," but that doesn't mean it isn't a good descriptor of what happened. And who cares what Coates wore or whether she made a pleasantry about her clothing? Sometimes Somerby's mockery is unintentionally revealing of his own attitudes.

  6. Bob, who could have predicted that happy talk and affirming questions with KBJ would be just as racist as any other?


    "YAMICHE ALCINDOR: There are a lot of Black women who watched Cory Booker and said, "This is someone who came to really give her the sort of flowers that she deserved."

    You should know that not one of the people you just saw is a poor person. Not one of them is oppressed. Not one of them has anything at all in common with the people they claim to speak for. So, they are to a person every bit as fraudulent as the people on stage, telling you from the peak of the fake meritocracy that they're somehow fighting against the current. Of course, the opposite is true, but you're not allowed to say it, but imagine the reserve of energy it takes as a newsman to pretend, having shown the clips that we just did, that that was anything but horrifying, anything but so fake that the hair on the back of your neck goes up at the fraudulence.

    That's honestly like telling you that, Lia Thomas is it deeply accomplished female swimmer who's winning because she just practiced harder than the other girls. A lot of the Black women who watched that loved it, said one NBC journalist—a person who can't define what a woman is. The problem with all this is easy to make fun of, but the problem is they are praising a sitting United States senator (Remember the Judiciary Committee) for asking zero questions during a confirmation hearing, during which we're choosing the next Supreme Court justice.

    They're saying it is immoral because of the way that she looks, to ask her real questions, to know what we're getting before she takes the seat for life and of course, this was the whole point. It's the Greta Thunberg play. You throw someone up there who represents your views, who can't be questioned because anyone who questions the person is, of course, mean or racist or sexist or whatever. You know, pick your attack, but the person is immune from sincere questions."

    1. When did you stop beating children?

    2. "You should know that not one of the people you just saw is a poor person. Not one of them is oppressed."

      You do not have to be poor to be oppressed.

      This business of transpeople in sports is more complicated than you think. Sometimes the hormones taken to achieve a physical change interfere with athletic performance. Further, having a body that now has greater fat % relative to muscle and a different center of gravity may be disruptive to former years of practice. On the other hand, greater muscle mass acquired during puberty may outweigh other changes. It takes a competent expert to determine whether transitioning helps or hurts an athlete, but ruling such a person ineligible to compete is not a solution. With performance enhancing drugs, which also change the body in substantial but not gender-related ways, there is a similar problem. Commissions decide which drugs in which amounts should cause an athlete to be excluded. It should work the same way with transpeople. Jackson understands that there are complexities so she will not make politically motivated statements off the top of her head about biological and medical questions.

      It is not "immoral" but "disrespectful" to ask a prospective nominee to answer questions phrased the way Hawley and Blackburn did. Whether you intend to support a nominee or not, basic courtesy and respect should be accorded to all. The extreme disrespect shown to Jackson is itself a racially motivated political statement -- and it is recognizable and objectionable to both black people and women who have themselves seen their own accomplishments diminished in such a manner. (These Republican questioners were not subtle.)

      Cecelia calls the objections to such treatment "fraudulent." That is not for her to decide. This is a matter of HOW someone is treated, not what they are asked. Greta Thunberg deserves respect as a person, even if you disagree with her views. Arguments should be about her views, not about her personhood (age, appearance, depth of concern, right to express a view). It IS mean to pick on a teenager in personal ways, avoiding the issues raised by her statements. In fact, it is demeaning. In the same manner, a question about the definition of man and woman is ridiculous to ask a prospective high court nominee. She doesn't make such definitions and she won't be asked to decide absent a variety of contextual specifics, perhaps involving hormone levels and medical treatment and other technical details of a specific person's situation. It makes no sense to ask for a simplistic one-size-fits-all definition that is social and in Hawley's case, political, not legal. Jackson explained that repeatedly but the Republicans continued to ask grandstanding, political, inappropriate questions. And that was disrespectful to Jackson, who thoroughly explained her answers. (Somerby pretends she didn't).

      There is no way on the face of this earth that the questions asked by Republicans during the hearing were "sincere." Making fun of nominees is not the purpose of a hearing.

      Cory Booker is not the nominee. He can use his time as he sees fit, and will be held accountable for it, just as Hawley, Blackburn, Graham, and others are being. A nomination hearing is not a contest to see who can ask the most questions. Cory Booker's statements were remedial to the damage done by the insincere mockery of the Republicans, and folks like you, now pretending that Jackson cannot tell a man from a woman when she insisted on focusing on LEGAL definition.

    3. Plenty of non-Republicans (non-sexists, non-racists, non-whatever) can ask questions without being called sexists or racists, or whatever.
      I'm not sure I'm understanding the point you are trying to make.

    4. Anonymouse12:08pm, I don't remember using the term "fraudulent" as to the feelings of Anonymices over the questioning of KBJ. I admit to Bob, there certainly is an aspect of fraudulence in the context of what we know is reflexive Anonymouse opposition to anything he writes and that wouldn't hold true with all liberals (rather than Anonymices) who are outside of this confine.

      But as to the other, you've made it abundantly clear that whether Graham or Cotton it's in your interest to label the proceedings as being racist rather than political.

      Just as we receive the double bind message that Thuneberg is to be both congratulated for her precocity and simultaneously shielded from pushback, cordial regular treatment will be assessed as condescendingly racist as the treatment based upon political/ideological differences.

      This is partisan politics through and through and it was plotted out long before KBJ was selected. Both sides are utterly aware of it and it's all for cable and Twitter.

    5. "...what we know is reflexive Anonymouse opposition to anything he writes and that wouldn't hold true with all liberals (rather than Anonymices) who are outside of this confine."

      Very true, it doesn't matter what Bob writes, he will never get fair treatment from our main commenter here.

      It's interesting to read their comments when Bob posts something uncontroversial, and they have to scramble to say his historical references aren't properly used or other weak points.

    6. "
      "It's interesting to read their comments when Bob posts something uncontroversial, and they have to scramble to say his historical references aren't properly used or other weak points."

      The vast majority of pushback from Anonymices is to allude to some authority and expertise.

      You just saw it above with the experts who are surely able to rightly gauge where denser muscle mass, broader hips, and smaller feet are in play on a case-by-case basis depending upon what age the treatment started.


    7. Funny that you do not recognize this ploy when Somerby is using it.

      And yes, some anonymous commenters push back using authority and expertise because that is how you resolve factual disputes. Somerby's main schtick here is to discredit the whole notion of expertise or knowledge (because "anything is possible). That is a stance called anti-intellectualism, and it leads to nihilism.

      The only fair way to decide whether a transperson has an advantage due to transitioning within a specific sport is to consult an expert on sports physiology. Religion has nothing to do with determining whether their participation is fair or not. Neither does any traditional definition of male versus female sex based on genetics, since we are talking about phenotype not genotype in such a case.

      Ignorance should not be the basis for resolving any court dispute. Your absolute certainty, to the point of calling a comment "chilling," is itself dismaying because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, much less what Judge Jackson meant when she answered the question asked of her.

      For myself, I have nothing but contempt for you as a person (based on the stuff you say here). It makes me very glad that the Supreme Court will have someone like Judge Jackson on it -- to counter the ignorance of folks like Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, and to counteract the barbarous attempts to roll back progress in civil rights being attempted by cretins in Congress and on the right. Those who are unlike you and your friends need to be protected from the mob clutching torches who want to go back to burning those who are different at the stake, on a heap of banned books, because progress, knowledge, wisdom are too bewildering for their tiny little minds to grasp. You are the kind of semi-literate person who gives those educated in the abuses of the past real chills. Unlike Somerby, I don't care whether your deficiencies are your fault or due to being crazy or just ignorant -- you have the capacity to do great harm to innocent people and that makes you too dangerous to spew your filth in comments without words to counteract you. My preference is that you go back to your Republican websites where only true believers, already beyond help, will hear your destructive garbage.

    8. Rationalist, proper use of historical references means a lot to historians. It is how historians determine what happened in the past, a method of arbiting truth when no one living was present to say what really happened. That you denigrate this as a weak point suggests you don't know much about how knowledge is generated in the field of history.

      It would be like a lawyer saying that legal precedents are unimportant. Or a mathematician saying that it doesn't matter whether theorems are proven or not. Or a scientist saying that the details of how data were collected don't matter.

      I grant you that it is much less trouble to be stupid, but the ongoing criticisms of Somerby's points, which you consider to be uncontroversial, only means you agree with Somerby. It doesn't mean he is saying anything correct or actually without controversy.

      When Somerby says something uncontroversial to me, I don't comment on it. I suspect that is true of others. I also don't comment when others have already said what I think, often better than I could do it. I suspect many of the anonymous commenters here do the same.

      Your inability to fully appreciate the basis for some of the comments here could be remedied by asking questions or using Google to look stuff up.

    9. Brenda, you are equating the centuries old recognition of the biological differences between male and female to the burning of all knowledge, yet you want a society where a panel of experts tell us which chemically altered male has been feminized enough to compete against women.

      You do this with the brain-dead incomprehension that you're not helping these would-be women, you are marginalizing womanhood.

      You are championing a redefining of the female sex in a way that no chemical enhancement, no surgery on women could ever
      accomplish toward the male of our species.

      You'll demand this brave new world while calling every contrarian a dunce and a tyrant for being far away wiser than you.

    10. "Rationalist, proper use of historical references means a lot to historians."

      Your issues with his references are nit-picks that are largely irrelevant otherwise I would agree.

  7. We all know what this is about, eh?
    Republicans having it both ways as usual.
    They want to claim it is inappropriate to ask republican nominees about their religious beliefs and how it will impact decisions concerning a woman's right to control her own body.
    Yet at the same time they want to whine to high heaven because Roe v Wade did not consider the religious beliefs of the those who oppose abortion on religious grounds.

    Heads they win, tails we lose.

    I think the very next republican on the committee questioning KBJ started precisely with that line of questioning.

    1. KBJ mentioned her religious views in her opening statement.

      Btw- she lives up to the meaning of her name.

    2. What the hell does that mean, you nasty person.

      Wrong, she did not mention her religious "views". Unfortunately, she believes in the Constitution.
      All those who believe Amy Barrett when she says her religious views will not affect her SC decisions, please report to the Stupid Farm.

    3. It means KBJ allude to her belief in a God that has blessed and guided her throughout her life. Graham responded to her remarks.

      As to your last statement, it depends upon your POV.

    4. It's amazing how you simply cannot engage and address in a straightforward manner the points I made.

      GRAHAM: I couldn't agree with you more and I believe you can.

      So, on a scale of one to ten, how faithful would you say you are in terms of religion? You know, I go to church probably three times a year, so that speaks poorly of me. Or do you attend church regularly?

      JACKSON: Well, Senator, I am reluctant to talk about my faith in this way just because I want to be mindful of the need for the public to have confidence in my ability to separate out my personal views.

      Graham was using his time to attack democrats who had previously questioned Amy Barrett's ability to separate her extreme religious beliefs from her SC opinions. Are you really this stupid?

    5. Oh, so now the problem lies in slyly nudging any Democrat in the vicinity of these hearings, not just in mean questioning the nominee.

      KBJ did reference her fath in a guiding higher being (whatever designation you can possibly tolerate).

      Graham was imminently cordial and heartedly agreed that KBJ's faith would not color her rulings.

      You really are ridiculous in your determination to be outraged.

    6. Btw- she lives up to the meaning of her name.

      What does that mean, you nasty person.

    7. Graham was imminently cordial and heartedly agreed that KBJ's faith would not color her rulings.

      Once again, you do not address the point. Republicans want Roe overturned because of their supposed religious beliefs. Are you really this dumb.

    8. " nasty person"

      The word is "deplorable", dear adorable.

      ...but thanks for the laughs...

    9. They asked about Barrett's faith because She had herself in her writing.


    10. "Once again, you do not address the point. Republicans want Roe overturned because of their supposed religious beliefs. Are you really this dumb."

      Anonymouse 3:03pm, how was I supposed to ascertain that you wanted me to address Barrett's views on abortion simply because you stated that she could never separate religion from her rulings?

      That I didn't assume that you were trying to go off on that hobby horse was evidently too generous.

      You don't have to be religious to be pro-life anymore than you must be irregilious to be pro-choice.

      Abolitionists counted the very religious (who prefaced their abhorrence to slavery upon their religious faith) among their numbers and those that were not religious. Same with pro-slavery sorts.

      If anyone should be answering for an unreasonable and biased dictate that you would put upon human beings serving on the court, it's you.

    11. "AnonymousMarch 28, 2022 at 3:01 PM
      Btw- she lives up to the meaning of her name.

      What does that mean, you nasty person."

      You don't have google?

    12. You don't have to be religious to be pro-life... Bullshit. Their belief that life begins at conception is the fucking foundation of the anti-abortion movement. They are now moving on to overturning :

      Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects the liberty of married couples to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction.

      The point is the utter hypocrisy. Don't question Barrett about her extreme religious beliefs, but overturn Roe and Griswald because it goes against certain people's deeply held religious beliefs. Can't you fucking focus on the issue?

    13. " nasty person"

      The word is "deplorable", dear adorable. "

      Do you think she's just trying to convey that I should address Judge Brown as "Miss Jackson" since I'm nasty?

    14. You can question Amy Barrett about her religious beliefs all day long. They did. Afterall, we should know if people want to sacrifice black cats on Halloween or eat human flesh.

      You not have to be religious to be pro-life anymore than you have to have fewer religious constraints than Nancy Pelosi to be pro choice.

    15. Sen. Cornyn asked Ketanji Brown Jackson whether the SCOTUS ruling establishing a right to same-sex marriage conflicts with the beliefs of some religions.

      "That is the nature of a right," she replied. "When there is a right, it means that there are limitations on regulation."

      Here we see Cornyn attacking gay marriage because it "conflicts with the beliefs of some religions"

      It sure sounds like Cornyn is saying religion should factor into SC opinions and decisions.

    16. Is he not supposed to ask her about questions related to state/federal jurisdiction?

    17. Eventually it always devolves back to "states rights", right Dixie?

    18. "You don't have to be religious to be pro-life anymore than you must be irregilious to be pro-choice."

      This statements neglects the history of the pro-life movement in the USA and ignores the religious views of people who are not fundamentalists.

      First, there are many people who are religious and yet are pro-choice, and many who are irreligious who are not pro-choice. This is a view that does not align neatly with religion in general, only with fundamentalism. Second, the current anti-abortion movement in the US began with evangelical Christian churches as a way to mobilize right-wing voters. It thus maps very cleanly onto both fundamentalism and the political right, in the USA. Democrats have similarly made protecting the right to choose a plank in the Democratic Party platform, since the 70s when Roe v Wade was decided.

      The discuss of what it means for the court to declare something a right includes the demand for respect for that constitutionally protected right regardless of individual people's religions. It does not require religious people to do anything against their own religious views, but it demands that they respect the differing views of others with respect to constitutional rights as determined by the Supreme Court. This extends from abortion rights to marriage and privacy and other rights deemed protected.

      The right wing in this country does not wish to accord these constitutional rights to others who do not practice their own religion. That makes the religious right on the wrong side of the law of our land. Some religious fanatics believe that their religion supersedes secular law. That is despite Jesus saying that his followers should render unto Caesar... These people are on track to make martyrs of themselves, since our government is not going to abandon these important protections to the dictates of a minority religion -- the biggest group now in our country consists of people with no religion.

      Religious expression is protected in our country. That doesn't give any religion the right to dictate to non-followers, nor does it give any religion (majority or not) the right to dictate religious practice to any minority group member, nor infringe the rights of any other person on the basis of their own religious belief.

      Cecelia, you might benefit from reading some of the materials available at the ACLU's website. You do not seem to understand how freedom works in our country.

    19. Brenda, as you say the country is getting more secular, yet according to an Associated Press/ NORC poll, support for abortion drops from 60% to 34%, in all or most cases, after the second trimester.

      Does that mean these people suddenly get old time "rightwing" religion when viewing things from that level of fetal development or does it mean that there is generous cohort of people who are "religious" only in the sense that they believe "there may be a God out there" and that at four months they find it hard to consign this being as merely being a conglomerate of cells?

      Hallelujah, sister! They've seen the light... Right?

      I don't need the ACLU to understand freedom. I'm all for senators asking the questions they wish in confirmation hearing.

      I'm all for vigorous debate on matters of federalism.

      I can't think of one SCOTUS Justice that I have ever dissed, although, I did once express some disappointment with Roberts and with Alito.

      You'd do well to take your clues on the appreciation of freedom from ME.

    20. Who's freedom to point out the Senators questions were made in bad faith, has been taken away?

  8. Hawley should have asked, KJB, "If your spouse was behind an attempted coup to overthrow the United States government, because black people's votes counted in an election, would you recuse yourself if the case made it to the Supreme Court?"

    1. A simple "We feel Judge Kavenaugh was treated better than Merick Garland" would have done just fine. Lame performance from our side, as usual.

    2. It may be that our side is confident it has the votes already and doesn't need to push back, or sees some liability to doing that on her behalf.

      It does seem to me that the hearing would become a greater circus if the left got into a back-and-forth with these dimwits. We wouldn't want to push any pro-vote into an oppositional position if approval is certain on Dr. Jackson's merits.

    3. It's called "quit while you're ahead" or "stop selling when you've made the sale."

  9. Well, we can agree with Bob on this: Graham behaving like a total slimeball is not shocking. He is a total slimeball.
    The Dem's inability to respond in any effective way is also something less than a surprise.

  10. IMO it is apparent that the left has some mechanism for adopting and coordinating a particular message or narrative. The chosen narrative for Judge Jackson was that the Republican questions were offensive, particularly since she is both female and black. CNN was simply fulfilling their duty to pass on the selected narrative. Note that the selected narrative should be followed regardless of the facts on the ground. Many liberals will believe a oft-repeated narrative, regardless of the facts on the ground.

    1. He meets every Monday with statisticians who advocate for cobbler charts.

    2. The one about how all Republican voters aren't just bigots is the most ridiculous of the media's narratives.

    3. Once they get you to believe in supply side economics, getting you to believe Republicans care about something other than bigotry and white supremacy is child's play.

    4. Every Republican accusation is a confession. The Republicans have been coordinating their talking points and questioning against Jackson -- naturally they would assume that the Democrats have coordinated their complaints about the right's behavior.

      But it doesn't take any kind of narrative script to be genuinely outraged by the disrespect shown toward Jackson during this hearing. To see why Democrats are outraged, just go back and watch the questions and answers during her confirmation hearing for the Appeals Court appointment, after which she was approved with a record bipartisan vote.

      David, Cecelia and the other Somerby fanboys here have been dissembling.

  11. Here is the level of stupidity and venality being displayed by the right wing:

    "Former CBS News correspondent and current Fox Nation host Lara Logan said that “the theory of evolution is the result of a wealthy Jewish family paying Charles Darwin to devise an explanation for what gave rise to humanity,” Rolling Stone reports."

    1. When you read something that seems unbelievable, you should check it out. Here's what Lara Logan actually said

      “Does anyone know who employed Darwin, where Darwinism comes from?” Logan, now with Fox News’ streaming service Fox Nation, asked. “Look it up: The Rothschilds. It goes back to 10 Downing Street. The same people who employed Darwin, and his theory of evolution and so on and so on. I’m not saying that none of that is true. I’m just saying Darwin was hired by someone to come up with a theory — based on evidence, OK, fine.”