Search the Lounge


« A "Fairly Critical" Review of Interrogating Ethnography [UPDATED with a better link to the Monteiro and Roulet review] | Main | CFP: Georgia State Law Review Symposium on Legal Analytics »

July 11, 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Patrick S. O'Donnell

I doubt those are Kavanaugh's own words (the ones in bold print): if he said them (they sound like standard Trump/Trump administration rhetoric, which is not anchored by facts or truth, and thus prone to grotesque hyperbole), he's not too bright.

Just stop it

Apparently any republican who comes in contact with the so-called president is unable to stop themselves from feeding his enormous ego and heaping praise upon the man. Kind of like when Trump meets his boss, Vladimir Putin.

Eric Muller

Agree, Patrick. This would be a good question for a Senator to ask him.


Boy, you've really blown the lid off this scandal with this penetrating investigative report.

Next up, Kavanaugh gives up his scoop of ice cream so that President Hitler gets an unprecedented third scoop of ice cream. Run with it!

Gotta love summers off for faculty.



Thanks that there is a least one rational person out there.

THis author combs thru the statements of all these nominees, just to prove what, exactly? that he said Trump did a good job seeking the opinions of many people before making a decision, perhaps more people than any other president?

Is there even a scintilla of evidence to the contrary? Of course not, because readers like PTSOD will immediately go to the hysterical "liar" accusation at the drop of a hat, no matter what the evidence or lack thereof. (ONe is sure that PSTOD can cut and paste a 1000 word essay on counting the people a president has spoken with, complete with 100 citations to books, articles, dreams, etc.)

Your real objection is that he praised the president. "To me, it faintly suggests a desire to stroke the president's ego, a hint of kowtowing." Oh boy. Here is a perfect example of reasoning by negative prejudices.

DId it bother you when Kagan said: "I have had the opportunity to serve under [you, a person] who [has] devoted [him]msel[f] to lifting the lives of others ...." He lifted HER up, didn't he? Was this "stroking his ego" or just puffery?

For what purpose would a nominee in this situation "kowtow" in public, exactly? Fear that he might withdraw the nomination otherwise? Please. Use that big brain of yours.

I think the prize for gnat straining has to be retired, here.

There might be a lot of great arguments against this nominee. But, so far, you have demonstrated: a. that he questioned the wisdom of deriving intent from a committee's compromises and b.) he believes in using the plain meaning of a text, if possible, and c.) he praised the president who nominated him.

Really, these posts are not very illuminating or insightful. Sorry to say this. We know you can do better.


I like Trump. All of the elites bashing him just make me more deremined to vote for Trump again. Trump is not kicking the can down the road he is confronting issues that were ignored for years Trump is right on most issues.


These comments pale in comparison to how John Jay sucked up to Washington. Oh for the good old days.


Breyer was nominated on May 17, 1994.

He said "I really am very grateful to you, and not only for the honor of this nomination but also for having honored the judicial branch of government, of which I am a part, by your deep personal involvement in making this choice. The effort that you put into this, Mr. President, testifies to your profound respect for the Constitution that you were sworn to uphold."

That's not "kowtowing" for sure. This obsequiousnes was just because Breyer is so "loquacious" (how quaint, cute, actually, ever so superior and better) and, he didn't compare. Ah ... a HUGE distinction.

We don't have a precise timeline for May 94. That said, let's see some of what Bill Clinton was up to in that period, around the time that his "deep personal involvement" was in full swing:

May 6, 1994 - Sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton is filed by Paula Jones.

May 8, 1994. Shifting a policy that has led to criticism that he is insensitive to the plight of refugees, the president said the United States will begin offshore screening of Haitian boat people seeking political asylum.

June 12 – Special counsel Robert B. Fiske interviews President Clinton for 90 minutes and the First Lady for an hour at the White House.

June 13 – The White House states President Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton were questioned under oath relating to matters of the Whitewater affair and that they both maintain their innocence while having no charges pending against them.

June 14 – President Clinton reveals a $9.3-billion reform initiative imposing a limit of two years on cash benefits as well as mandating that younger recipients find work for themselves or acquire a government job during a speech in Kansas City.

Yep. Gotta love those liberals. At the time, do you remember how they defended all this?

Matthew Bruckner

How about Harriet Miers?


Trump seems to like lickspittlery, even demand it.


Chris Matthews: “I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often.”

Wikiquote: During live coverage of the presidential primaries on MSNBC, 12 February 2008.

Now, that's some first rate slobbering!

The astute response, completely applicable on this site, in particular, and with respect to almost all of the opinion ("news") sites and outlets that the folks with posting privileges on this site clearly follow and so obviously slavishly believe:

"Chris Matthews is the most vivid example of all that is wrong with political coverage. He's endlessly obsessed with personality-based politics ...."

Glenn Greenwald, interview with Harper's Magazine, 21 February 2008

This site is the epitome of this trend. Shallow, talking points developed by the DNC and its machine, presented with almost no depth, objectivity or balance, mainly based on personality or faulting "conservatives" for conduct in which liberals have engaged as well.

Certainly, never is heard a discouraging word about a Democrat, or the failings or foibles of a Democrat's personality. There is much fodder there, but these folks can't bring themselves to admit it or even recognize the truth of it. For them, there is only one goal, one truth: defeat one's political enemy.

THey think that heaven is on their side. They, especially the so called "historians" should read their Lincoln.


anon: That would be Glenn Greenwald last seen slobbering over Trump and Putin on Russia Today? Who appeared on a Fake News Panel in Moscow last week? Glenn Greenwald, the self described constitutional lawyer whose only significant case was his disastrous representation of Matthew Hale, a white supremacist - which he lost severely? That Glenn Greenwald is the authority you cite?

Bozhe moi as they'd say in Moscow even....

Scott Pruitt Edndowed Chair in Enviconmental Justice

What's the big deal here? The guy was excited. He got the gig of a life time for a lawyer. He doesn't have to hustle three bill retail theft clients anymore. He has good health insurance, a check every two weeks that will not BOUNCE, a pension. Although, who wants to be a government attorney all their life drinking from the public trough?


These posts are hilarious. But seriously, somebody should let these esteemed faculty members that are named on various posts on this thread know that someone has hacked into their accounts and are posting stupid stuff.


Smearing someone by evoking McCarthy is not even close to being relevant or persuasive.

RT? Oh my! You need say nothing more. Moscow? Oh well, that cinches it! You've torn him apart! ANd, the bit about the ACLU's representation of free speech rights for Nazis ... oh, wait, you support the ACLU right?

I love people who hate people based on the exercise of their right to associate with dreaded "Russians" because, as we all know, "Russians" have Jedi-like mind control over American voters and "Russians" must be feared and silenced. People who can appreciate this "truth" are really special.

With 100K for Facebook ads (in the wrong states, btw) and some kids posting online, these amazing "Russians" were able to sway 120M people: people who ignored the BILLION or so spent by the Dems. These Russians: they are EFFECTIVE!

But, of course, the entire argument is completely irrelevant. Greenwald stated: "Chris Matthews is the most vivid example of all that is wrong with political coverage. He's endlessly obsessed with personality-based politics ..." Matthews is just one example of the many slobbering over the past president, which the author above seems to think is unusual in politics. If you disagree, tell us!!! Ranting about Greenwald associating with RT and who he has represented is just not an argument.

BTW, watched Rachel Maddow tonight, and watched as much of her "explanation" of the "news" re: Peter the Great, who will appear before Congress tomorrow.

Dems are predicting he will tear the Repub apart, and vice versa. Should be an interesting hearing. What I heard of Maddow's report was just about the most dishonest "news" *by omission) ever heard on television, IMHO. It was like hearing an argument in court by a very unskilled lawyer who has no regard for how the judge will perceive her "argument."

Maybe, if things go well for Peter, a blogger on this site will write something about it. If things don't go well for him, or, if there are parts of the hearing that don't, don't expect anyone in this crowd to even learn of it, though.

And, the new slam on the nominee? Listen up, FL bloggers, here's the topic of your next post:

His NAME suggests that he is a FRAT BOY. What kind of person is named Brett??? Discuss ...

Remember, when they go low, we try to inch up just a little tiny bit from our usual daily dose of hate, and make it just a little bit more hateful.

Just stop it

The typical hollow name-calling projection from our favorite Breitbart fan, anon. I forgot that Dear Leader and the GOP had a monopoly on virtue.


Just Stop It

Perfect! You admit your own accusation applies to you in your own comment "name calling = bad"

"projection ... Breitbart fan ... Dear Leader ... " etc.

This commentator said NOTHING about ANYONE having a monopoly on virtue. Precisely to the contrary.

The point is that a single minded focus on one's political enemies is, per se, intellectually dishonest.

Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Eric, as you probably know, the nomination of Judge Scalia to be Associate Justice was made jointly with the nomination of Justice Rehnquist to be Chief Justice. So far as I know, neither Judge Scalia nor Justice Rehnquist gave prepared remarks after President Reagan made his announcement in the White House Press Briefing Room. However, in response to questions about how they felt to be nominated, here's how they responded.

Justice Rehnquist: Well, I'm deeply gratified by the confidence that the President has shown in me by making the nomination. I'll do my best to deserve that confidence.

Judge Scalia: My personal thoughts are -- for somebody who spent his whole professional life in the law -- getting nominated to the Supreme Court is the culmination of a dream, of course. And I'm greatly honored that the President would have such confidence in me and hope that the Senate will do so as well. And I'll certainly do whatever I can to live up to it.

Here is the full transcript:


Scott Pruitt Edndowed Chair in Enviconmental Justice

I figured it out. He had to talk about diversity and backgrounds because deep down he knows his nomination is stained and tainted by blood. He got nominated by Cadet Bone Spurs not a President who follows democratic norms and values. He is trying to rehabilitate his nomination, like trying to put a good spin on kissing your grandmother. A kiss yes, but icky.


democratic norms and values = "I've got a pen and a phone."

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad