Media Go Wild for Child-Porn Friendly Judge
These were Google’s top headlines this week about the hearings on President Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson:
White House chief of staff Ron Klain hits back at Sen. Ted Cruz — Business Insider, April 4, 2022
Cory Booker demolishes GOP attempts to smear Ketanji Brown — Washington Post, April 5, 2022
Lindsey Graham Throws An Impotent S–T Fit Over Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court Nomination — Vanity Fair, April 4, 2022
Wow, Republicans must have had their asses handed to them! They were “hit back,” “demolish[ed]” — and now they’re throwing “s–t fits.”
(I can trust the media, right?)
The hit-back consisted of the following: Ted Cruz said KBJ would be “the most extreme” justice on the court, and — get ready for the snappy comeback — Klain said that “nothing” in Jackson’s record “supports this assertion.”
Thank God for our free press and the reporters who dig up stories like this!
Sen. Booker DEMOLISHED Republicans (you can always trust the “Watch so-and-so DEMOLISH” headlines), according to Jennifer Rubin of the Post, with this biting rejoinder: “Sen. Cory Booker had heard enough. [HERE IT COMES!] … Booker compared Jackson’s confirmation hearings to the ‘Festivus’ holiday from the sitcom ‘Seinfeld.’ ‘There’s been a lot of airing of grievances.’”
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call, “DEMOLISHED.”
Vanity Fair’s attribution of an “Impotent S–t Fit” to Graham reminds me of the sad story about liberals being dropped on their heads as children, so they can’t remember what happened yesterday, or what might happen tomorrow.
Apparently, Sen. Graham is a “petty little bitch” because, as VF’s Bess Levin put it, “Jackson is all but certain to be sworn in to the highest court in the land in short order.” And yet — DESPITE THIS — “Graham took the time on Monday to rage against her nomination.”
Good thing Republicans have never controlled the Senate during a Supreme Court vote and never will again. Oh wait — actually, just three years ago, all 48 Senate Democrats were apparently being “petty little bitch[es]” when they opposed the “all but certain to be sworn in” Amy Coney Barrett.
Nuff said.
Although, now that I think about it, four years ago, as it became clear that Brett Kavanaugh’s feminist accusers were lying psychopaths, the entire liberal establishment instructed us: THE SUPREME COURT IS DIFFERENT FROM AN APPELLATE COURT!
To wit:
Ari Melber: “Today’s debate is not about removing Kavanaugh from his powerful perch on the D.C. circuit, [but] … a big decision to promote him to a big job for life.” — “The Beat With Ari Melber,” Sept. 17, 2018
Rachel Maddow: “Obviously, this is not a criminal investigation. … This is about figuring out if somebody is suitable for a big job promotion, basically.” — “The Rachel Maddow Show,” Oct. 2, 2018
Joy Ann Reid: “So, the thing about the Supreme Court is that once you make it there, you are there for life, unless you choose to retire or you pass away.” — “The Rachel Maddow Show,” Sept. 28, 2018
Sen. Richard Blumenthal: “We’re dealing with a United States Supreme Court nomination, an appointment for life to the highest court in the land that makes a real difference in people’s lives in the real world.” — “The Beat With Ari Melber,” Sept. 17, 2018
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: “This is about do you deserve the promotion? Do you deserve this job opportunity to be a Supreme Court justice, to a lifetime appointment, to make fundamental decisions about women’s rights for perhaps decades to come?” — “All In With Chris Hayes,” Sept. 25, 2018
So cut the crap, liberals, about how Lindsey Graham “voted to confirm her in the past, like literally within the past year” (Reid), and therefore is “humiliat[ing] himself” by “only now object[ing] to” KBJ (Lawrence O’Donnell), staging a “reversal” (New York Times) and “magnificently fail[ing]” at “consistency and Supreme Court nominations” (Reid).
You want consistency? Read your own statements from a few years ago on the GIGANTIC difference in confirming someone to an appeals court and making a “big decision to promote him to a big job for life.”
COPYRIGHT 2022 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION
Good sleuthing, Ann.
The (((shysters))) find her useful so she’s in like Flynt. Larry Flynt.
As a distant relative of Oliver Wendel Holmes i a man am absolutely appalled how the legal system has been so corrupted. I have yet to hear one lawyer or one judge speak out on how the lawyers language (legalese) has been used to literally make 99.7% of Americans,Canadians,andUkians volunteer for their own slavery under the “law”. Did you know the US constitution allows and condones voluntary slavery? Did you know the legalese language is NOT the English language? Compare the definitions for yourselves if you dare. Use the word idiot for example. Look at its etymology and then look how the “law” defines it. Did you know “black’s law” comes from the French rules how to treat their Negro slaves?
Did you know by LAW a Man stands above 99% of the courts in all three of these countries? A person as defined by the legalese language is only a tiny aspect of a man. Look the etymology up of the word person, it originated as “a mask”. So the legalese language has twisted that to mean a “person” is a “corporation” aspect of a MAN or WOMAN.
The truth is coming out in America how the 13th and14th amendment made 99%+ of us slaves after the war of the States. The States sold their people out to the “US” corporation which in turn sold the “US citizens” out to the “UN” which sells out all the peoples of the world out to whomever finances and is part of said UN.
They are
Clause 17:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square
– my comment which i learned from someone else; this explains the millions of “US” “laws”
13th ammendment
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude – VOLUNTARY servitude is 100% legal
14th ammendment
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
-my comment; a “person” cannot be “born” as per the etymology of that said word. For the truest oldest definition of said word is basically “a mask” worn in roman theater
https://www.etymonline.com/word/person#etymonline_v_12750
(12c., Modern French personne) and directly from Latin persona “human being, person, personage; a part in a drama, assumed character,”
The earliest form of the legalese language i have found in 20 years of looking is found in the old testament of the bible. Change “homeborn” with filthy rich people( gaggle of best lawyers), and “sojourner” with poor man or woman who cannot afford the best lawyers and has been brought up in government “education”
It is found 3 times at least.
Exo_12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
Lev_24:22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.
Num_15:16 One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.
The “US” is and has basically always been a foreign entity by definition
If we have only a limited time on earth, then we now have the damned duty to provide for the happiness of our children, and without Jewish terror! If we do not, we are not worthy of our forefathers who made life possible for us.