All right, everyone — listen up, because an astonishing number of you don’t seem to understand the overwhelming support behind Brett Kavanaugh, or how the SCOTUS confirmation process even works.
The President can nominate whomever he damn well pleases, and it’s up to the Senate whether or not to confirm. There isn’t an ideological litmus test, and it doesn’t matter how “mainstream” a nominee is, because the Supreme Court does not exist to represent YOUR interests OR mine. The only “interests” it represents are those of the United States Constitution. (Worth noting: Brett Kavanaugh is an utter caricature of Middle America.)
The only relevant concern is whether the nominee is capable of doing the job.
Think he lacks the experience to fill a seat? Fine. Think he doesn’t understand the Constitution, or how to properly apply it? That’s fine too. Have concerns about the candidate’s ethics, or do you otherwise question whether he can and will remain objective in his rulings? Then certainly, Senator, you should vote ‘no’.
But please, all of you screaming your heads off about Roe v. Wade — shut the fuck up already. You don’t actually believe Trump can be pressured into nominating someone who supports abortion; you’re just looking for an excuse to bitch about Trump.
If you had any serious concerns about Kavanaugh’s confirmation, you belonged taking them to your senator — not taking to the streets like savages or whining about it on social media.
(To anyone who contacted their senator’s office and THEN whined: 👍 But I hope they had the good sense to ignore you unless you actually had something constructive to say.)
I’m tired of all the mischaracterizations of Kavanaugh supporters, and of people reframing the issues around irrelevant topics instead of challenging our arguments directly.
This was NEVER about abortion — not for us. It was never about politics — not for us — and if you think this was a right-wing movement, you’re living in an echo chamber.
Standing With Brett was never about wanting him confirmed. It was never about the Patriot Act, or about Donald Trump, or the myth of male privilege, and we aren’t the ones seeking to politicize sexual assault.
Standing With Brett boiled down to three things:
(1) Upholding the integrity of the judicial nomination process.
(2) A reaffirmation of due process.
(3) A rejection of the #metoo movement and its underlying feminist ideology.
No matter where any one of us happens to stand politically, THESE were the three things we held in common.
Am I the only one who seems to recall that SCOTUS justices are not popularly elected? I mean, Brett Kavanaugh certainly wouldn’t have been my pick, but all of these arguments about whether he represents the interests of one group or another are patently absurd. He’s a member of the judiciary — soon to be one of the highest judges in the land. The only interests he represents are those of our Constitution.
A constructionist? Who, me? Finally, you’re catching on. 👌 But lest I find myself accused of being a conservative, here is some Internet proof to the contrary:
What if you speak up and millions join in on trying to destroy you.
What if feminist ideology, mixed with power, mixed with craven ambition to win, to control, to dominate, comes for you: to remind you that no matter what, if you survive, you better survive it silently
What if… ⠀
What if we listened ⠀
What if we stood in alliance ⠀
What if we joined and fought ⠀
What if for the sake of our daughters and our wives our sisters, (our sons, our husbands, our brothers) our validation was stronger than any attempt at degradation or devaluation. ⠀
What if the hard work of justice overcame the viciousness of #metoo and #BelieveWomen. ⠀
Meet Foreign Policy Magazine. Rated “Least Biased” and “Factual Reporting: High” by Media Bias and Fact Check, they are now working to throw November’s election by spreading actual Fake News — with help from #metoo’s Alyssa Milano.
Click on the above tweet from Foreign Policy’s senior foreign policy editor, or click here to go directly to the article.
The Trump administration on Monday began denying visas to same-sex domestic partners of foreign diplomats and United Nations employees, and requiring those already in the United States to get married by the end of the year or leave the country.
The U.S. Mission to the U.N. portrayed the decision—which foreign diplomats fear will increase hardships for same-sex couples in countries that don’t recognize same-sex marriage—as an effort to bring its international visa practices in line with current U.S. policy. In light of the landmark 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, the U.S. extends diplomatic visas only to married spouses of U.S. diplomats.
”Same-sex spouses of U.S. diplomats now enjoy the same rights and benefits as opposite-sex spouses,” the U.S. mission wrote in a July 12 note to U.N.-based delegations. “Consistent with [State] Department policy, partners accompanying members of permanent missions or seeking to join the same must generally be married in order to be eligible” for a diplomatic visa.
The new policy —which enters into force Monday—requires that foreign domestic partners of diplomats and U.N. officials posted in the United States must show the State Department proof of marriage by Dec. 31, or leave the country within 30 days. As of today, domestic partners of diplomats and U.N. officials based abroad will need to show they are married in order to enter the country on a diplomatic visa. The latest policy change, the United States explained in the note, was aimed at ensuring all couples were treated equally.
Same-sex couples already inside of the United States could go to city hall and get married. […]
Visas are being denied to both same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partners!
In other words, same-sex couples are receiving equal treatment. (Wasn’t that always the point?)
Alyssa Milano — who was a personal guest of Dianne Feinstein at Thursay’s hearing — wasted no time, tweeting this out to her followers:
Who of course began freaking out en masse because nobody bothers reading past the headlines anymore. 🙄
I replied to a number of sub-threads, hoping to call attention to what was actually going on here:
But at least I didn’t get the James Woods treatment. Funny how the DNC can accuse him of trying to influence an election by making fun of soy boys, while Dianne Feinstein’s friends can blatantly work to throw one (“text and imagery that has the potential to be misleading in a way that could impact an election”) and get a free pass — if not actual help — from Twitter.
For the record, I am adding Alyssa Milano to my List of Women I Would Like to See in Refrigerators.
Women who make false rape accusations are human refuse.
Also, feminism is cancer.