Home | About | Donate

'What Goes Around, Comes Around': Kavanaugh's Snarl Takes on New Meaning Now That He's a U.S. Supreme Court Justice


TV –

Whether or not a 17 year old attempts to rape a 15 year old girl is a matter of CHARACTER.

Kavanaugh was unfit for the SC because what we suspect and what was being made clear
by witnesses to his general behavior – and specific sexual behavior – and specific use of
alcohol (including throwing a beer in the face of another patron in a bar) makes clear – as
his work in government where he was likely involved in moving the “W” administration to

And where he was involved in keeping a young female in detention until she passed the
point where she could have a simple abortion because of his anti-abortion sentiments …
is likely a criminal and liar and at his current age, most likely on a rather grand scale.

No one but you is saying “Believe all survivors.” What people are saying is LISTEN to the
survivors and hear their stories.

And your suggestion that “anyone is programmed to always believe the victim” makes you sound
like you’re claiming victimhood for yourself of some kind. But what you’re saying is wrong because
even now only 33% of sexual abuse is being reported by women. And in earlier times very much
lower percentages were reported. If you need to ask WHY you haven’t been listening to the stories
of survivors where they are further abused, humiliated and not believed when they do report them.

What do you think would have happened to this 15 year old Christine Blasey had she immediately
gone to the police to report the attempted rape in 1991? Reason it out and you understand that she
would have been dismissed. There are rarely witnesses to sexual abuse or rape.
Would Mark Judge have told the truth?
No, he would have been a witness against her.

All of the accusations and truths about Kavanaugh are either self-confessed or confirmed by
classmates; the majority of which do not support him. They told truths about him I’m sure he
hoped no one would ever hear. Christine Blasey has evidence that this accusation was not
political and that she still suffers the TRAUMA of the attempted rape.

Is this the punch line that you came to deliver?

At the same time, we should always hold off on the lynch-mobbing of the accused until there is concrete evidence.

If you ever get to actually view ALL of the Clarence Thomas Hearing, you will see “a lynch mob” after
Prof. Anita Hill – not after Clarence Thomas. And you will see how the GOP came to put their first
sexual pervert on the Supreme Court.

Think you need to review some history of the persecution of women, and face the reality that the
“United Nations has made clear that RAPE is a WEAPON OF WAR everywhere” … and I will add
everywhere where men dominate in patriarchal societies.

And even after all of that, there are now empty buildings in many states where files of these reports
lie dormant, never having been prosecuted because states never have the manpower nor the funds,
allegedly, to take these rapists off the streets.


I too fell for the false message of hope in 2008, but left the party after being betrayed by O’Bummer &
P’Loser in 2009 with their failure to even try to hold the War Criminals and the Banksters accountable.
The nomination of Her Arrogant Highness in 2016 only confirmed the rightness of my decision.


It is not a court case where proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard. It is a job interview, where red flags should be looked at. There are plenty of conservative judges that could be put forth that don’t have credible accusations against them. When Kavanaugh pulled his screed about the Democrats and the Clintons, he showed he doesn’t have the right stuff. Congress did not learn their lesson from the Thomas hearings, and now we have four nit wits on the court…(giving Roberts the benefit of the doubt).


This was not what i was discussing. I was discussing the immediate jump to conclusion that Kavanaugh must be guilty of a sex crime and that we should automatically believe Ford.

Kavanaugh’s demeanor, humility, non-partisanship, etc. is an important, but separate matter.


Happiness is a warm


Hi bkswrites,

When you find a cartoonist, please ask her or him to draw & publish my “vision” of the Supreme Court too:

I strongly believe that the 5 pro-corporatocracy-plutocracy-oligarchy & anti-democracy - anti-common-people judges on the Supreme Court should be required to wear black masks & black hoods to match their black robes & their black hearts & their black intentions!

And they should be required to hold long scythes on long black poles (like the Reaper of Death) – and be required to hold signs that openly warn:

"Behold, We bring the Death of Democracy! All who enter here – Tremble with Fear & Despair!"


What about O’Bush for war crimes and thievery during his first term?


Agree. This is what the far right did in taking over the Republican Party fifty years ago.


The Lying Son-of-a-Bush & his henchmen (or puppeteers) Cheney, Prince, Rummy et al) are the War Crim-
inals to whom I was referring — including torture-justifier John Yoo and his right-hand-man Brat Kavanaugh.   O’Bummer’s greatest sin is his – and P’Loser’s – failure to even attempt to hold the War Criminals account­able.  Their second greatest sin was allowing the Banksters responsible for the Son-of-a-Bush’s Recession
in 2008 to not only get off Scot-free, but to be bailed out with OUR money!!!


Of course he’s a hater. He hates anyone without a bank account with a balance of anything less than 9 zeros.


I may be mistaken but I think that there were witnesses that collaborated Ford’s testimony, three of them. Oh and I highly recommend you don’t get involved in our “legal system” as a defendant if you can possibly do so which is difficult in our current police state. Yes, it is said that there is the presumption of innocence that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty but it rarely works that way in practice. Jurors typically assume the accused is guilty until they can prove with evidence they are innocent. Both cops and prosecutors do lie and jurors almost always take the word of law enforcement over testimony by the defendant. Then there are the trumped up charges prosecutors file for which they seek the most severe punishment possible. Then they offer a plea bargain that provides for a less severe sentence and most of the time the accused accepts whether guilty or innocent out of fear of being found guilty if they fight the charges and receiving the more severe sentence.


I think you meant “corroborated,” but “collaborated” could be a nice Freudian slip lol.

But doesn’t the rest of your response point to the need to soberly review the Kavanaugh situation and assume innocence until proof of guilt? That’s all I’m saying. The evidence is minimal, at best. I’m not saying he’s innocent. I have no idea. I’m not accusing the accuser, either. I just think it’s much healthier to take a step back and wait for more evidence, if any, to come out before immediately jumping to the conclusion that Kavanaugh is guilty, solely because of the fallacious belief that we should automatically “believe all victims.” Certainly if Kavanaugh was your family member or friend, you wouldn’t take that stance. And liberals didn’t take that stance on Clinton.


Thank you for the clarification.


The real crazies are claiming that since Chuck Schumer has a niece who is an actress, Dr. Ford did not actually testify at the Senate Hearing about Kavanaugh, but rather it was actress Amy Schumer. That is not true. However, it is theoretically possible, in that it does not violate any laws of physics nor require time travel. No laws of science would be violated if Hollywood make-up experts were able to make Amy Schumer look like Dr. Ford.

What is not possible is that Dr. Ford misidentified Kavenaugh, Judge, Gaudette and J.C. as the people she was with on July 1, 1982 at Timmy Gaudette’s house in Rockville, MD. Once Ford’s account included three other people she said were there and his calendar also had them all at Tim’s house on July 1, 1982, the only way that Kavanaugh is not lying is either: Ford somehow previously obtained access to his 1982 diary/calendar, or Ford has a time machine or Ford stalked Kavanaugh in 1982 and planned to do this, if and when he was nominated to the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh is a classic textbook case of a repressed homosexual. The incident at Tim Gaudette’s house in Rockville, MD on July 1, 1982, where Kavanaugh and Mark Judge attempted to “have sex together” in the same bed as Christine Ford, was typical repressed homosexual behavior. Some heterosexual men fantasize or even obsess with having sex with two women at the same time. In contrast, many repressed homosexual men fantasize or even obsess with having sex with another man with a women at the same time as a conduit. This is the “devil’s triangle” that Kavanaugh has in his yearbook.

Kavanaugh was probably being truthful when he claimed that he did not have intercourse with a woman until much later in life than would be normal, given the opportunities available in the 1980s and 1990s for a star school athlete and wealthy Yale attendee. Some men born homosexual into socially conservative households and environments, where they feel they must repress what nature selected for them, turn to alcohol. Some blame their unfortunate plight on women and exhibit hostile behavior or attitudes towards women. Mark Judge’s year book tellingly contains the quote “women should be struck regularly, like gongs”. Both Kavanaugh and Mark Judge have been described by many as exhibiting aggressive hostile behavior towards women especially when drunk.

Possibly the curious slack that the media is giving Kavenaugh, given the overwhelming evidence that he is lying, could be due to sympathy for his plight as a repressed homosexual. Once Ford’s account included three people she said were there AND his calendar had them all at Tim’s house on July 1, 1982, the only way that Kavanaugh is not lying is either: Ford somehow obtained access to his 1982 diary/calendar, or Ford has a time machine or Ford stalked Kavanaugh in 1982 and planned to do this, if and when he was nominated to the Supreme Court. Ford’s description of the interior of Gaudette’s house in Rockville, MD exactly matches.