Basically, in spite of Democrats' urgent need to characterize this guy as The Devil, he turns out to be an ordinary justice who pretty much just follows the law. You'd think people (people who care about the country and doing the right thing, anyway) would be happy to be wrong in a case like that.
It's hard to get past the laughable dime store psychanalysis the authour loads this piece with. How the claim that because Kavanaugh like sports, he might have ended up in a cult or street gang made it past an editor is beyond me. I'm going to engage in my own silly analysis and opine that Mckay Coppins never played sports or had male friends.
Kavanaugh is exactly who was supposed to be. Despite the silly hysterics and end of the world hyperbole that every justice nominated by a Republican goes through (look at some of the fear mongering that surrounded Souter) Kavanaugh is pretty much a Roberts clone. Middle of the road and lacking the sort of fealty to textual analysis that characterizes Gorsuch and Barrett. He is certainly the most moderate of any justice the democrats could reasonably have hoped a Republican President with a Republican Senate would confirm.
The thing that is so tiresome about these political character attacks are the way writers take something totally ordinary and turn into something perverted and evil. Example:
Brett Michael Kavanaugh learned the virtues of partisanship long before he discovered politics. As a kid, he rooted fanatically for the teams he inherited, the Redskins and the Bullets; as a teen, he developed a close-knit group of friends at Georgetown Prep and performed his allegiance with try-hard zeal.
So . . . he liked sports and he had close friends in school when he was growing up. Yeah, he sounds like a real freak , doesn't he?! Watch out world! This has "serial killer" written all over it. /s
or this example:
“He’s very good in groups of male friends,” a former classmate told me.
Gee, how unusual. A male is good with male friends. That is suspicious. /s
The scandalizing continues by inventing terrible things that might have happened, but never did. Example:
If Kavanaugh had grown up somewhere else, he might have joined a cult or a street gang
Really? Why? Because anyone might join a gang? Or specifically Kavanaugh? Because he liked sports and had friends? This is so silly. There's no real reason to think Kavanaugh is a closet gangbanger, but the writer wants you to think of him like that.
I found this emphasis interesting:
he pledged a fraternity at Yale . The elite pedigree of Delta Kappa Epsilon—past members include five presidents and a handful of Supreme Court justices—belied its essential frattishness.
So, the writer wants you to focus on the fact that it's a frat (frats attract and breed evil people, after all) and not the fact that this particular frat turned out five presidents and a handful of Supreme Court justices . AKA quality public servants. A thing like that should impress , it seems to me, and not instill fear.
Next, it's time to diminish his accomplishments.
After Kavanaugh completed an unremarkable clerkship
He was a clerk for a judge the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals. That's a nice position.
Kavanaugh’s talent for picking the right mentors paid off . . . Kavanaugh remained staunchly nonpartisan in his schmoozing
So, it's not that he's any good at the work. We're supposed to believe he worked his way up just by kissing ass.
And we're supposed to condemn him for working his way up through the ranks of the legal profession.
But some who had closely followed Kavanaugh’s career remained suspicious. “He thinks very much as a partisan,” Garrett Epps, a law professor emeritus at the University of Baltimore, told me. “What has Kavanaugh ever been except the guy clutching onto the greasy pole?”
Other than being part of an aggressive prosecution of Bill Clinton (who brought that shit on himself, by the way) is there something immoral about the way Kavanaugh has climbed the pole of success? The story never says.
The author's obvious blatant hatred of Kavanaugh shines through the entire article. No matter what Kavanaugh does the author portrays it as being absolutely wrong.
Kavanaugh is either an incompetent frat boy opportunist that climbed the power ladder and was handed everything. Or; a socially inept moron that that is easily swayed into whatever group makes him feel the most comfortable; so desperate for acceptance that he has no moral convictions.
A strange irony of Brett Kavanaugh’s ruinous 2018 confirmation battle is that for all the attention it commanded—and all the certainty it instilled in both supporters and opponents—Kavanaugh remained more or less a mystery when it was over. What did he believe? Whose interests was he serving? And what exactly happened in that suburban-Maryland bedroom all those years ago? Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation that he’d sexually assaulted her in high school—and the judge’s denial—foregrounded debates over predation and privilege, even as Kavanaugh himself seemed to blur into abstraction. Nearly three years later, questions remain, not only about past behavior but about the future. The cold reality is that Kavanaugh is now on the bench. And there is reason to ask whether his bitter path to the Court might influence what he does with a lifetime appointment.
The only irony is why a woman who had ample opportunity to come out against Kavanaugh any time during his rise chose to do so when he was nominated? That she was believed when she could not clearly state when and where the alleged rape occurred ; and her key witness (her best friend at the time) vehemently denied it. She got the who nailed down; but she did that for political reasons. Democrats and the left did their normal when any Republican candidate comes up for the Supreme Court; and pulled a political smear job.
Maybe the author is upset that Kavanaugh is making judgements/rulings, (not voting like stated in the article- the author really needs to educate himself) based on Constitutional law; instead of some preset political agenda. That is his job; the left seem hell on demonizing him no matter what; so who the hell cares if some left wing douchebags get their panties in a twist?
Then one day, about six months after he was sworn in, Brett did something strange. It was Easter Sunday, and he had come to Blessed Sacrament for Mass with his family. When the service ended, he made his way outside, positioned himself at Father Foley’s elbow, and proceeded to greet parishioners as they filed out of the church—laughing and glad-handing and thanking them for coming, as though Brett were the priest and they were his flock.This odd little spectacle lent itself to multiple interpretations. Was he reaching out in fellowship to his enemies? Making a show of contrition (or forgiveness)? Or was he perhaps signaling something more ominous? “I read it as a flex,” says one parishioner who huffily steered his family away from the scene. “I read it asI’m right here, in the middle of everything, and I’m not going away. I won.”
The ever tolerant left rearing their ugly heads again.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
After 3 years it is hard to tell who might end up disliking Kavanaugh more … Democrats or Republicans.
Basically, in spite of Democrats' urgent need to characterize this guy as The Devil, he turns out to be an ordinary justice who pretty much just follows the law. You'd think people (people who care about the country and doing the right thing, anyway) would be happy to be wrong in a case like that.
It's hard to get past the laughable dime store psychanalysis the authour loads this piece with. How the claim that because Kavanaugh like sports, he might have ended up in a cult or street gang made it past an editor is beyond me. I'm going to engage in my own silly analysis and opine that Mckay Coppins never played sports or had male friends.
Kavanaugh is exactly who was supposed to be. Despite the silly hysterics and end of the world hyperbole that every justice nominated by a Republican goes through (look at some of the fear mongering that surrounded Souter) Kavanaugh is pretty much a Roberts clone. Middle of the road and lacking the sort of fealty to textual analysis that characterizes Gorsuch and Barrett. He is certainly the most moderate of any justice the democrats could reasonably have hoped a Republican President with a Republican Senate would confirm.
I'll accept Walter Russell Mead's take on Coppins before yours any day.
Aw, is your Google machine broken?
Neither of them is someone anyone would know or care about.
Gee, let me take a wild guess ... he wrote the piece?
Your ignorance of either is not my concern, but it is telling.
The thing that is so tiresome about these political character attacks are the way writers take something totally ordinary and turn into something perverted and evil. Example:
So . . . he liked sports and he had close friends in school when he was growing up. Yeah, he sounds like a real freak , doesn't he?! Watch out world! This has "serial killer" written all over it. /s
or this example:
Gee, how unusual. A male is good with male friends. That is suspicious. /s
The scandalizing continues by inventing terrible things that might have happened, but never did. Example:
Really? Why? Because anyone might join a gang? Or specifically Kavanaugh? Because he liked sports and had friends? This is so silly. There's no real reason to think Kavanaugh is a closet gangbanger, but the writer wants you to think of him like that.
I found this emphasis interesting:
So, the writer wants you to focus on the fact that it's a frat (frats attract and breed evil people, after all) and not the fact that this particular frat turned out five presidents and a handful of Supreme Court justices . AKA quality public servants. A thing like that should impress , it seems to me, and not instill fear.
Next, it's time to diminish his accomplishments.
He was a clerk for a judge the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals. That's a nice position.
So, it's not that he's any good at the work. We're supposed to believe he worked his way up just by kissing ass.
And we're supposed to condemn him for working his way up through the ranks of the legal profession.
Other than being part of an aggressive prosecution of Bill Clinton (who brought that shit on himself, by the way) is there something immoral about the way Kavanaugh has climbed the pole of success? The story never says.
The author's obvious blatant hatred of Kavanaugh shines through the entire article. No matter what Kavanaugh does the author portrays it as being absolutely wrong.
Kavanaugh is either an incompetent frat boy opportunist that climbed the power ladder and was handed everything. Or; a socially inept moron that that is easily swayed into whatever group makes him feel the most comfortable; so desperate for acceptance that he has no moral convictions.
The only irony is why a woman who had ample opportunity to come out against Kavanaugh any time during his rise chose to do so when he was nominated? That she was believed when she could not clearly state when and where the alleged rape occurred ; and her key witness (her best friend at the time) vehemently denied it. She got the who nailed down; but she did that for political reasons. Democrats and the left did their normal when any Republican candidate comes up for the Supreme Court; and pulled a political smear job.
Maybe the author is upset that Kavanaugh is making judgements/rulings, (not voting like stated in the article- the author really needs to educate himself) based on Constitutional law; instead of some preset political agenda. That is his job; the left seem hell on demonizing him no matter what; so who the hell cares if some left wing douchebags get their panties in a twist?
The ever tolerant left rearing their ugly heads again.