Scroll down to read this post.


Please consider supporting my work here at Behind The Black by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, in any one of the following ways:


1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.


2. Donate through Gabpay, using my email address zimmerman @ nasw dot org.

3. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.

4. A Paypal Donation:

4. A Paypal subscription:

5. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

Ginsberg extols Kavanaugh for hiring female law clerks

Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg yesterday extolled fellow justice Brett Kavanaugh for hiring the most female law clerks of any previous justice.

Ginsburg, in prepared remarks to a conference for judges in New York, noted that while women have made progress towards equal representation among the court’s clerks there are areas where improvements are still needed. “Justice Kavanaugh made history by bringing on board an all-female law clerk crew. Thanks to his selections, the Court has this Term, for the first time ever, more women than men serving as law clerks,” she said, according to remarks released by the court.

During Kavanaugh’s nomination hearing he promised to do this, and has followed through, putting the lie to all the evil slanders the Democrats accused him of during those hearings.

As I wrote on American Greatness in October,

Now is the time to look these bullies in the eyes, and tell them that we will not be intimidated, that we will stand for what we believe, and we will not bow to their smears and slanders and screaming protesters who know nothing of us, care nothing for us, and are increasingly willing to harm us and our children because we reject their oppressive and overbearing demands.

Kavanaugh has done this. And so has Ginsburg now. She is considered a hero by the same leftists that slandered Kavanaugh, and she is now telling those slanderers they were full of bunk. Good for her!

Conscious Choice cover

Now available in hardback and paperback as well as ebook!


From the press release: In this ground-breaking new history of early America, historian Robert Zimmerman not only exposes the lie behind The New York Times 1619 Project that falsely claims slavery is central to the history of the United States, he also provides profound lessons about the nature of human societies, lessons important for Americans today as well as for all future settlers on Mars and elsewhere in space.

Conscious Choice: The origins of slavery in America and why it matters today and for our future in outer space, is a riveting page-turning story that documents how slavery slowly became pervasive in the southern British colonies of North America, colonies founded by a people and culture that not only did not allow slavery but in every way were hostile to the practice.  
Conscious Choice does more however. In telling the tragic history of the Virginia colony and the rise of slavery there, Zimmerman lays out the proper path for creating healthy societies in places like the Moon and Mars.


“Zimmerman’s ground-breaking history provides every future generation the basic framework for establishing new societies on other worlds. We would be wise to heed what he says.” —Robert Zubrin, founder of founder of the Mars Society.


All editions are available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and all book vendors, with the ebook priced at $5.99 before discount. The ebook can also be purchased direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit, in which case you don't support the big tech companies and I get a bigger cut much sooner.


Autographed printed copies are also available at discount directly from me (hardback $24.95; paperback $14.95; Shipping cost for either: $5.00). Just email me at zimmerman @ nasw dot org.


  • Cotour

    Ultimately gender should not be the metric by which it is determined to hire or not hire someone, but it is and Kavanaugh proves my point. Kavanaugh is essentially pandering to women by his slanted hiring practices. Why does’t he hire all black women? Or all handicapped black women.

    I don’t like it.

    Some day the judicial AI overlords who will not be hindered by genitalia or politically correct pressures will make decisions based in objective reason and computer based compassion algorithms. Hiring a man as opposed to a woman comes with its complications as does conversely hiring a woman. Each bring their own brand of crazy and bias.

    No, I don’t like it one bit, political correctness is political correctness.

    Why does Kavanaugh feel the need to make happy Justice Ginsberg? A full blood Leftist operative from my perspective. Im keeping my eye on Justice Kavanaugh, I don’t particularly trust him.

    Remember who wrote Justice Roberts justification to allow Obama care?

    Thats right, it was Justice Kavanuagh.

    You approve of this Zman? I don’t.

  • Cotour

    PS: What else will Kavanaugh do to prove that he is not an abuser of women?

    Pander to some female oriented case that comes before the Supreme Court? Because that is exactly what he is doing here. He has modified his judgement in order to prove something to the general public. The Left as demonstrated by Kavanaughs actions now essentially owns him IMO.

    How far will he take this pandering? The Judge seems to have no Judgement.

    No I don’t like it one bit.

  • mpthompson

    Cotour, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with hiring women to balance past gender imbalances on courts. I mean, look how well it worked out with Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor. Oh, wait…

  • Stephen T

    Cotour – “A majority of the law clerks he has hired throughout his career have been women, and he goes to bat for them with things like getting Supreme Court clerkships and every job thereafter.”

    “More than 50 percent of his law clerks have been women,” said Jennifer Mascott, a law clerk for Kavanaugh in 2006-2007 who is now assistant professor of law at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.

    “There was at least one term where I believe all four of his law clerks were women. He has support from all corners and all walks of life,” Mascott said in an interview with The Daily Signal.

    Supporting women in the workplace is who he is, and has been his entire career – perhaps a broader perspective is in order?

  • As usual, it seems that everyone here is missing my point. Kavanaugh was slandered during his nomination hearings by the left, accused of doing the most horrible things to women throughout his life. It was a lie, and here Ginsberg, a supposed leftist icon, points that lie out.

    Noting the vicious dishonesty and slanderous attacks by the left is my point. They need to be exposed for what are in almost every aspect of our modern political life: lies by people who should be defeated in every election to come for the next century.

  • Cotour

    No, I don’t think so.

    He was pandering then and is pandering now.

    Why else would someone purposefully seek to only hire women? He is transmitting a message. It is a manipulation, a judicial magic trick. And if that was his MO before then where do you think he will take it in his roll as a Supreme Court Justice? What are his real thoughts on any subject as it relates to women?

    We may never know because he will be cloaked and pandering.

    No, I do not like it one bit.

  • Cotour

    If you were using sarcasm or some form of reverse psychology I did not detect it.

  • commodude

    Cotour, he doesn’t seem to be the type to pander in the least. Look at the demographics for law school and you can see how this can happen, women have, IIRC, become the majority of people seeking law degrees.

  • Cotour

    If the man is only interested in hiring women then he is making a political statement. Supreme Court Justices should not be making political statements.

  • pzatchok

    Nothing says he is only interested in hiring women. For political or any other reason.

    I guess he just found this group to be the best qualified this year. Next year it could be all men. Who knows.

    Just because someone thinks he did it for political/social reasons and then extols his virtues for it means nothing. Unless he comes out and says he did it for that reason I would not worry about it.

  • Foxbat

    Maybe we are missing the hope that this will create a new generation of conservative women to someday nominate for their own judge positions

  • wayne

    —except that Kavanaugh is not a Conservative, he’s a progressive RINO.

    The Kavanaugh Song

    Tangentially– we need term-limits on supreme court justices. One proposal on tap with the Convention of States Project, would be 12 years and gone.

  • wayne

    Nail, on the head.

    “Sounds of Social Justice”
    Frog Rock/Free Press of Kekistan
    >Contains Adult content<

  • Cotour

    Kavanaugh himself makes my point for me:

    “Kavanaugh said during his Senate confirmation hearings that he has made a special effort to hire women after reading a story years ago about the unequal balance between men and woman hired for prestigious clerkships at the Supreme Court and for other federal judges.

    During his 12 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, a majority of the clerks he hired were women, which he said should be an indicator of his views about women in the workplace.

    “My women law clerks said I was one of the strongest advocates in the federal judiciary for women lawyers,” Kavanaugh said at the hearing. “And they wrote that the legal profession is fairer and more equal because of me.”

    Kavanaugh, like Comey, like Mueller has chosen to become a politician in order to make a point or push an agenda all while patting themselves on the back and telling everyone how wonderful and “Progressive” they are. None are good signs, when you are hired to do an objective job especially within these heights of government at these levels it is your duty, it is essential to remain objective.

    All of those I have listed above are similar in that respect, think about that as we near the judicial system I.E. the Supreme Court possibly having to rule on the activities of two out of the three listed and what looks like their criminal if not treasonous activities. Surely you all have not lost your minds and now implicitly trust these people.

    Remember how optimistic you were when Roberts was made Chief Justice?

    You all can not be that short sighted.

    And while Wayne can be a bit over the top at times with his insistence on changing the air pressure at key points on the global map, he is exactly correct to be doubtful of Kavanaughs motives here. Two thumbs up Wayne.

  • John

    I think everyone is missing the real point. Remember all that hoopla from that woman who talked weirdly and vaguely remembered something bad happening 30 years ago? Seemed legit. He obviously wants to rape all the female law clerks. Duh! Ginsberg is sending out a warning.

  • wayne

    I learned to quit worrying and love the Bomb. (Our commie problem is best resolved with prompt, hard-radiation.)


    “is there a Doctor in the house?”

    “Dr. Trump”
    April 2019
    Louder With Crowder

    >contains brief Adult references<

  • Phill O

    Prejudicial treatment is just plain prejudice! On this matter, Kavanaugh, I believe is showing poor judgement. One can not change the past. To make decisions based on the past is just wrong!

    Bob makes the point that Ginsberg is commending him. If indeed it was her wish (not the party’s idea) it is still prejudicial treatment which is always wrong!

    Mt thought and question has to do with Cotour’s comments: What other issues has Kavanaugh been bought?

  • Cotour

    Becoming a Supreme Court Justice should come with the freedom to not be worried about what anyone or history may or may not think about you and the judgments that you are charged to make.

    When someone at that level becomes more concerned about their legacy, like what it appears Justice Roberts is concerned about, then they are not doing the job they were hired to do and are more concerned with someones perception of them.

    People, specifically Supreme Court Justices, worried about how history will remember them, or who praise the likes of the South African Constitution over our own American Constitution which is the Constitution that they pledge their fidelity to and swear to up hold, need to resign their positions or be removed if and when they surrender their fiduciary responsibilities to what they have pledged to uphold.

    The proper way to see ones position related to such things: Bill Barr responding to the thoughts about his legacy and history, “Everyone dies”. Barr seems to get it, we shall see.

    A subjectively / ego oriented Supreme Court Justice is a threat to our system. Kavanaugh may be in this class of subjectively oriented Supreme’s, Ginsberg and Roberts round out that club IMO.

  • Why is it so hard for people to see the point here? Why is it that even conservatives seem compelled to attack their own side while ignoring those who committed the real evil.

    Kavanaugh is a decent human being whose judgment in all matters certainly might not line up with ideal conservative thought. The key is that this decent human being was treated like slime by the Democratic Party, the mainstream press, and the leftist radicals that now permeate our country, spreading lies and slanders about him that were patently false.

    Why is there so little interest in underlining their behavior? Are you afraid? Have they so successfully intimidated you that you’d rather criticize and attack Kavanaugh so as to not draw their ire?

    The dark age is coming, and it will be our own fault for allowing evil to prosper.

  • nora barton

    Those “slanderous lies” that Zimmerman alludes to were about the man’s distant past. Which is certainly murky but hardly representative of the man today.

    The promise that Kavanaugh made was about a FUTURE action.

    The approval of the female Justices of Kavanaugh’s hiring record reflected his actions AFTER COMING TO THE COURT.

    Can Zimmerman not understand the temporal shift there?

    Seems pretty obvious that those “slanderous lies” had NOTHING TO DO with Kavanaugh fulfilling a PROMISE.

  • Cotour

    Zman, your point has been eclipsed.

    The larger and more significant point is that a Supreme Court Justice is acting overtly in a politically pandering way. He is pandering to women. I have no tolerance for it.

    The despicable actions of the desperate Democrats and the deadly and oppressive Leftist strategic doctrine that directs them is a separate issue that stands alone and flows in its own despicable political sewer.

  • wayne

    Mr. Z.,
    To answer your query — I don’t think it’s a matter of some of us, not getting your point, but rather we sorta take it as a given that the democrat’s + Manufactured Media always do/did/and will keep on doing, exactly what they did to Kavanaugh, relentlessly.
    -I watched a bit of those Hearing’s and the man was absolutely slimed. A repeat of the Thomas & Bork Shows orchestrated by the usual suspects & the Fake Media. (and the whacky psychologist)
    -I would apologize if I went totally tangential and or negative (although that’s sorta what-I-do,) on Kavanaugh the Individual. I just don’t trust him to deliver on key decisions going forward and he has the job for Life.

  • Cotour, and everyone: Kavanaugh was only one battle. The left continues its slanders and McCarthyite tactics everywhere, to anyone that threatens them. Their vile behavior has gotten so egregious (because you and others prefer to not hold them to account) that they are now willing to threaten imprisoning the present president, merely because they don’t like him. And if they can’t do it while he is in office, they are discussing doing it after he leaves office.

    You are all arguing points of law about Kavanaugh. Will he uphold the Constitution as you believe he should? You fear he might not.

    Your fears might be valid, but what you miss is that it won’t matter in the slightest if we do not fight back against the real villains here, the fascists who have taken over the Democratic Party and their allies in the press. These thugs don’t care one bit about the Constitution and the law, and will dump it the second they get the power to do it. It then won’t matter how pure a conservative Kavanaugh or anyone is. He, and you will likely be arrested.

  • Cotour

    No one is “missing” anything here.

    To Waynes point, everyone, especially those who you are focusing your point on, US, knows exactly and have endlessly written about the depraved and desperate nature of the Left and the Democrats and the power that they seek to further co opt in order to erase the Constitution.

    We all get your point, but the more important more immediate point is that a Supreme Court Justice is pandering and acting on that pandering. It does not matter whether it is pandering to women, or Blacks or one legged pirates.

    No Supreme Court Justice need be concerned with their legacy, just do your damn job in an objective, fair and balanced manner as it relates to the Constitution.

    The Left is dangerous! Yeah, we all get that.

    Are you planning to die on this hill?

  • Phill O

    ” Kavanaugh was only one battle. The left continues its slanders and McCarthyite tactics everywhere, to anyone that threatens them.”


    The actions of the honorable Kavanaugh makes me worry that the vile side has somehow bought him. Maybee Ginsberg did honestly applaud him, but it is for the wrong reason. Decisions should not be made on gender. That is prejudice.

    The antics of the left and the democrat party in particular, makes me skeptical of anything they come out with; maybee unfairly.

  • Cotour

    ALL Democrats, particularly now at this moment in time MUST lie about EVERYTHING they say, propose and do.

    You can plainly see it in how for example, Joe Bite Me tap dances about his positions. He is a fool who is looking exactly as he is, a fool. He believes his own PR, has his entire life. And the general population of America is watching it all play out (as they are watching the actions of our Supreme Court Justices as they enjoy their lifetime appointments).

    And that is the beauty of our system and the political warfare that is generated from it. The public soaks it all in as the battle rages and intensifies and then will determine who deserves their proxy and political empowerment.

    The more that the Democrats attempt to draw some rational distinction between what they say they believe and desire to do and the clearly sane and rational American oriented policies rarely if ever seen in American politics of the Trump administration the more insane that they continue to appear to the general public.

    I have endlessly pointed out the desperation and dangerous nature of the Democrats. I have also pointed out that the Democrats are in an existential death spiral that they are unable to pull out of and must crash and burn and emerge from the ashes of their desperation and anti American beliefs. To emerge in what form is at this point is unknowable.

    We are all witnesses to history and from my point of view and in my opinion our country is making the correct moves at the moment do to our current leadership. Even though there exists a faction in our country that for some reason, because of their indoctrination by superior minds, do not fully understand. The Democrat leadership in America has gone insane in their desperation.

    The Democrats are in very serious trouble today, they are faced with the existential death spiral of their own creation because they have lost their way. A political flat spin that will result in the near future in a land slide victory never before seen in American history. (You heard it here today, 15 months before the election. This is not rocket science)

    And this land slide will be inversely related to the level of insanity that the Democrats insist the American people believe. So if the Democrats do not at some point come up with a serious person to represent them and abandon their insane anti American policies they are toast.

    The Zmans problem will be solved, in the short term anyway, in the 2020 presidential election.

  • eddie willers

    but the more important more immediate point is that a Supreme Court Justice is pandering and acting on that pandering.

    You cannot possibly know that unless you are a mind reader. We get enough of that from the left.

  • Cotour

    You, and a Supreme Court Justice, should know better.

    Even the appearance of pandering or favoring a group of people should be avoided. And a prospective, not to mention and existing Supreme Court Justice should know the difference and know better.

  • Cotour

    You do not have to be a mind reader, you just have to be conscious.

  • Phill O

    pandering = prejudicial

    by any other name

  • Should a Supreme Court Justice show such gender bias? And so WHAT if he has a lot of women? SO what if he has ALL MEN? When did America become a place where MERIT doesn’t matter? This is awful on so many levels. Thanks, Mr. Zimmerman, for calling it out.

  • Tom Biggar

    Kavanaugh has a history of hiring female clerks. Perhaps he sees an issue there that he can address. I seriously doubt that he was pandering to RBG. Her recognition of his efforts was to her credit, not his detriment.

    We hire judges for their legal minds and I want them to be free to use their abilities and knowledge. If the legal foundation we are building on is unsound, I want to know it now. Building higher on a flawed foundation only leads to a bigger crash on the day of reckoning. Kavanaugh did not write Roberts opinion on Obamacare. He was the dissenting vote of a 3 judge panel that approved Obamacare. He noted in dissent that, as presented, that the case failed, but could possibly succeed on other grounds. Judges do that all the time in dissents. It was Roberts who took that possibility to a higher level, not Kavanaugh. In doing so, he also gave a roadmap to how to do away with Obamacare. That the congress lacked the will to follow through is not Kavanaugh’s fault.

    Someone wrote, “The problem with socialism is socialism. The problem with capitalism is capitalists.” I think the same can be said of conservatives. The hard right seems to spend a lot of time pandering to itself. There is a competition to be the most conservative that is Taliban like in its intensity. The slightest deviation is met with carpet bombing. Ideological purity becomes the end all and be all. The fact is that no judge will get it right (ie, agree with me) on every issue. If I condemn left wing judges for always voting the party line, don’t I have to do the same for right wing judges?

    The perfect is the enemy of the good. We have to stop eating our own because they aren’t 110%. Trump has achieved good things despite his lack of impeccable conservative credentials. Let’s let Kavanaugh have his day in court.

  • Cotour

    “Kavanaugh spends the better part of 50 pages—longer than the majority opinion justifying the mandate as constitutional—analyzing the Internal Revenue Code, and the Anti-Injunction Act, to support his belief that the mandate qualified as a tax under the act, forestalling any legal or constitutional challenge until after individuals had paid it. He cautions “the reader that some of the following is not for the faint of heart”—a true enough warning, as much of the opinion devolves into tedium that only a tax lawyer could love.”

    My main point is that no Supreme Court Justice should not overtly be favoring any one particular group of people over another particular group of people. In this case women in the work place over men in the work place and who he will or will not employ.

    If there is related law before the court being tested and the goal of the law is some kind of attempt at coming to some balance related to some harmed or discriminated against party or group of people then it may be arguable that some remedy may be provided.

    But IMO a Supreme Court Justice who plainly comes out and makes a politically controversial statement and takes actions to further that statement, like ONLY hiring women, then that is offensive to his or her position. Especially given the fact that this particular Justice has just been through what he went through and can be seen as pandering to that particular group of Americans (women).

    Why is it that we have FBI directors making public statements when they should be quiet, and we have former CIA directors making public statements when they should be quiet, and we have DNI directors making public statements when they should be quiet and banned from speaking about anything that they were involved in or could be involved in.

    And now we have Supreme Court Justices overtly hiring ONLY women to make some political / cultural point, a self appointed Supreme Court Justice cultural warrior defending and favoring women in the work place when he will sit on the ultimate court in the country being presented with having to make decisions on related issues.

    Just does not make sense to me.

  • Tom Biggar

    A December 11, 2017 article in National Law Journal reports:

    “Since 2005 twice as many men as women have been hired as law clerks, even though as of last year, more than half of all law students are female.
    The court’s 2016 law clerk class came closest to gender parity with 42 percent women clerks. This term, the court’s 38 law clerks—14 women 24 men—are 36 percent women.”

    Obviously, other members are hiring a disproportionate number of men. Is that a concern? Did Kavanaugh hire any unqualified women in filling the positions? Are qualifications based solely on legal ability or is there a threshold level of legal ability above which other factors can be considered? If other justices can hire disproportionately male clerks (and they do), why can’t K hire disproportionately female clerks? It seems a lot of assumptions have to be made to those questions to call it pandering and not an honest attempt at balance (or something else).

  • pzatchok

    If Trump came out and said that the KKK has a right to state their opinions in any public forum, then the KKK came out and said that they would be voting for him, would that make Trump a KKK member?

    No it would not. The left thinks it does though.

    So if the honorable Mr.K comes out and says he is willing to hire more woman, then just happens to hire ALL women, and the Honorable Mrs. Ginsberg mentions it, does that mean he is pandering to anyone? Especially Ginsberg?

    No it would not.

    Don’t think a simple coincidence is proof of a nefarious action.

    The left thinks that Trump saying “Hey Putin if Russia has any of those emails lets see them” and then J. Esange lets them out, is proof of collusion with the Russian state.

  • wayne

    I’ll back up a step—
    This (current) Ginsburg/Kavanaugh stuff— contrived, constructed, synthesized, and manufactured event. Mark Levin would classify this as a “pseudo news event.”

    I don’t care how many X chromosomes his law clerks have.


    V for Vendetta –
    “Ideas are bulletproof.”
    >Contains Violence<

  • Cotour

    1. Kavanaugh wrote the opinion, the road map, the legal justification that allowed Roberts to allow Obamacare. And it took him 50 pages to do it. Wew!

    2. Everyone knows that Trump is a member of the 3 K’s.

    3. I am confident that in time it will be demonstrated that the Russians had nothing to do with obtaining the DNC’s emails, Mueller says they did but the FBI was never allowed to examine the DNC servers. I find that potentially nefarious. The down load rate from what tech experts have said was too fast and so it had to be done by someone on the inside, namely probably Seth Rich who appears to have paid for his actions with his life.

    4. If a seated Supreme Court Justice chooses to take a public position on just about any subject and then publicly acts upon that position in his or her hiring practices to effect the public’s perceptions and “make right” any perceived or actual inequities then they are being political. What about the inequities effecting trans gender law students? Where is their savior? (Get my point? No? Keep reading)

    Supreme Court Justices, just like FBI directors, just like the head of the CIA, just like the head of the DNI should be seen and hardly ever heard.

  • Cotour

    A little more:

    “The gambit worked. Roberts ultimately relied upon that argument from Verilli by way of Kavanaugh to uphold the mandate as a constitutional exercise of the taxing power. That Kavanaugh, like Roberts, used the last few pages of his opinion to decry the “unprecedented” nature of a mandate upheld via the Commerce Clause power does not mitigate his favorable analysis of a mandate upheld via the Taxing Clause power.

    Other analysts with more experience in constitutional and legal jurisprudence (and perhaps less experience in health policy) can opine on other parts of Kavanaugh’s record. But his opinion on Obamacare, while starting out with an admirable nod toward judicial restraint, unfortunately veered in an activist direction that gives this conservative serious pause.”

  • Tom Biggar

    The number of pages it took to explain his position is irrelevant. It takes what it takes. His position was well known before the case went to the Supreme Court. Those who thought it wrong had plenty of time to formulate arguments against it. If Roberts was looking for an excuse to vote in favor he didn’t need Kavanaugh, he only had to agree with the opinion of RBG et al. If Roberts bought the argument then he fulfilled his duty and voted honorably.

    Kavanaugh was seen but unheard on the subject (clerks). He quietly and without fanfare or press releases hired his clerks. It was RBG whose praised him for his choices, making it an issue. Should Alito stopped hunting because guns are controversial? Should Catholic judges stop going to church because abortion is controversial? I agree that judges should not be advocates, but asking them to withdraw from society into a monkish existence is unrealistic.

  • I’m going to say it again. While you guys argue about how perfect a conservative Kavanaugh is or is not, you ignore the true villains in the story, the Democrats and press who slandered this decent man for the sake of power, and power only.

    Unfortunately, our country today has many uninformed people who are unaware of the depth of corruption and lust-for-power exhibited by the Democrats in recent years. They need to be educated and persuaded to stop voting for Democrats. Arguing about Kavanaugh here and ignoring the big elephant in the room is a perfect way to fail at that task.

    Cotour is very confident the Democrats will lose big in 2020. Cotour was also very confident the Democrats would lose big in 2018. Instead, they retook the House. The political landscape in the Senate in 2020 is not as favorable to the Republicans as it was in 2018. By ignoring the real problem, the corrupt Democratic Party, you risk helping them win again in 2020.

  • Cotour

    No one is ignoring the depravity and corruption of the Democrat party, I have written endlessly about it and have provided an on going list of evidence to back it up. Much if not all of it the Zman agrees with.

    This is just a side conversation about what is appropriate for a Supreme Court Justice, who will be ruling on related issues should and should not do. They must never be construed as being political.

    And no one is suggesting or suggested that anyone live Monk like or seclude themselves from the public, but they should know, as should anyone reading this, that they are now held to a higher standard because of their position. Not a big deal to understand.

    I provide one more piece of evidence here in an email that I sent out today, the contents are written by Victor Davis Hansen. Maybe the article could be posted in its own panel.


    Be confused no more. Biden claims “Trump is an existential threat to America”. And Trump is an existential threat, unfortunately he is a direct existential threat to the Democrat party and its leadership, not America as a whole.

    Why is Trump such a threat to the Democrats? What lengths will the desperate Democrats go to in order to keep the status quo intact where they continue their Left leaning drive to retain or acquire power? Read this article that lays out the documented and soon to be indictments in the lengths the leadership of the FBI was willing to go to those ends.

    Victor Davis Hansen article in National Review:

    After decades in the FBI, the top brass came to believe they could flout the law and pursue their own political agendas.

    “Mueller did not initially disclose why FBI employees Lisa Page and Peter Strozk were taken off his investigative team, and he staggered their departures to suggest that their reassignments were normal rather than a consequence of the couple’s unprofessional personal behavior and their textual record of rank Trump hatred. Mueller’s very appointment was finessed by former FBI director and Mueller friend James Comey and was largely due to the hysteria caused by Comey’s likely felonious leaks of confidential and classified FBI memos — a fact of no interest to Mueller’s soon-to-be-expanded investigation.”

    “Mueller’s team also deliberately edited a phone message from Trump counsel John Dowd to Robert Kelner, General Michael Flynn’s lawyer, to make it appear incriminating and possibly unethical or illegal. Only after a federal judge ordered the full release of the transcript did the public learn the extent of Mueller’s selective and misleading cut-and-paste of Dowd’s message.”

  • Cotour: Meanwhile, the point of my post was to illustrate how a Democratic icon, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, had put the lie to the Democratic attacks during Kavanaugh’s hearings. She proved they were lies, by noting the decency of Kavanaugh in his willingness to hire women to help their careers prosper.

    You however decided to focus on whether this action by Kavanaugh made him a traitor to the conservative cause. As far as I am concerned your decision on what you considered important here was a better help to the Democrats than anything Kavanaugh has or will ever do.

    What the Democrats did to Kavanaugh was beyond unacceptable, and when it is proven so by one of their own we must use that fact to highlight how unacceptable their behavior was, as loudly as possible. That you seem to want to distract us from this seems very counterproductive to everything you say you want or believe.

  • Cotour

    I do not think I ever called anyone a “traitor to the Conservative cause”, please don’t put words in my mouth.

    I have pointed out something about Kavanaugh that many here on BTB agreed with, and why you are willing to gloss over it is a bit of a mystery to me.

    Both observations are valid, the Democrats are void of most everything valuable in American politics and the Constitution, and Supreme Court Justices should not be so willing to overtly promote a political position favoring a particular class of people when they will be sitting and ruling on cases that without doubt will be related.

    Supreme Court Justices are held to a higher standard for a reason. Neither position gives room to the Democrats as you infer.

  • Edward

    Robert wrote: “What the Democrats did to Kavanaugh was beyond acceptable

    I think you meant “beyond unacceptable” or “beyond reprehensible!”

    I agree, no matter how conservative or not we think Kavanaugh is, he is a far better person than the left and their lying attack dogs said he was.

    The Borking of nominees for Supreme Court justice is a terrible thing, whether they are conservative or progressive (read: “regressive”). Treating someone that way, lying about their good character, should not be acceptable, and the fact that no one was punished for Borking Bork, Thomas, or Kavanaugh speaks volumes as to what Washington is willing to accept in today’s horrific political environment. What does it say about the characters of those who accept or use such tactics.

    Some people say that the problem is that no one will want to be nominated if it means going through the left’s evil gauntlet, but I think that the problem is that no one wants to live in a country that allows such an injustice to happen in the first place.

    Since it happened to one of us then it can happen to any of us, and they will come for you, if not next then soon. They have already gone after bakeries, florists, and pizza shops, and they have started going after individuals:
    Someone has to make it clear to these people that such behavior is unacceptable in a civilized society, and if it will take lawsuits to do it, so be it.

    This is why we need the swamp drained. We need something to replace the swamp that is good for We the People and good for the country at large.

  • Edward: Thank you for the copy-editing suggestion. My comment has been corrected.

Readers: the rules for commenting!


No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.


However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.


Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *