Wednesday, June 27, 2018


Justice Kennedy retiring; Trump gets 2nd Supreme Court pick



and now for the rest of the news, this breaking news:

Poll: Trump approval rating ticks up to 47 percent


TJM said...

The Dems will demand an abortion drooler pro=illegal alien supporter. The most important decision today was the Supreme Court ruling that public employees could not longer be forced to pay union dues for the benefit of the Abortion Party.

Anonymous said...

Good ol Chucky Schumer does not want a nominee who will overturn Roe, which baffles me...if Americans overall are as "pro-choice" as the abortion party claims, why should they fear the issue returning to the states (where it was before Roe)? After all, if the states are so overwhelmingly pro-choice (and doubtless some are, like California, New York and all the New England states), what do Chuck and Nancy have to fear?!?!? All a reversal of ROE would do is send it back to the states---lets have the democratic process address the issue not judges making up law about abortion (which of course is not mentioned in the Constitution).

As for the question of illegal immigration, Republicans in the House have failed to pass a bill year after year after year and would probably rather "play politics" with the issue (as would the Democrats) than pass anything. A lot of the illegal immigration problem has to do with people overstaying their visas, which a big beautiful wall would not address (I mean, do we really want a wall down the middle of the Rio Grande?)

TJM said...

I'd like a wall down the middle of the Rio Grande. Of course anyone who wants to can sponsor a family to the US and pay their freight.

Ironically, Justice Ginsberg felt Roe v Wade was a disaster and it should have been handled via state governments. One never hears that comment today because Abortion has morphed into the left's principal "sacrament."

Anonymous said...

The party with the most to lose politically speaking - and Congress acts for political purposes 98% of the time these days - is the Republican party. They have been in control of White House, Senate, and House of Representatives for many, many years since Roe v Wad and have not acted to overturn it.


They lose their most substantial vote getting issue...

TJM said...

Kavanauagh, LOL! Thanks for exposing yourself. The evil forces in the Dem Party in concert with the national media labor night and day to preserve Satan's work!! FYI, the Republicans most potent voting issue this Fall is defending the country from being overrun by illegal aliens whom Democrats support over American citizens and taxpayers.

Anonymous said...

I don't know who Kavanaugh is.

Nevertheless, the Republican party does lose its most important vote-getting issue if Roe v Wade is overturned.

Anonymous said...

TJM, a wall in the middle of a river?! Uh, no....and of course there is the matter that building a wall along the Rio Grande involves condemnation of private property and going through difficult terrain.

As for overturning Roe v Wade (earlier question), passing a constitutional amendment is virtually impossible. First you have to get two-thirds of Congress, which is LOL---since few Democrats (if any) would go along, it would require Republicans to have majorities which they have never had in modern times (maybe a 70-30 margin in the Senate). Then, even if you met that high threshold, you would have to get 38 states to go along...any chance something like that would pass in the 6 New England states? California? New York? Nah.....which is why if ROE goes, it would require a state by state battle, with mixed results---the procedure would still be available in many states, while restricted in some of the southern and western/Midwestern states (Louisiana, Alabama, Utah come to mind). Georgia is hard to call as metro Atlanta, which holds over half the state's population, is getting more Democratic by the day...

TJM said...

Anonymous (whomever you are)

Roe v Wade is not, nor has been, the Republican Party's best vote getting issue. Because the Democratic Party is intrinsically evil and far to the left of where the American people are on such issues as immigration, defense, healthcare, jobs, etc., they will have plenty of fodder for years to come.

Anonymous said...

TJM. You are mstaken. If the Democratic party is so far to the left of where the American people are, why did Secty Clinton receive 3 million more votes than Businessman Trump n the general election?

Do you make such baseless assertions without any thought or reference to the facts, or are you convinced you are correct?

TJM said...

Anonymous Abortion Lover,

LOL. Well we have an electoral college for a reason, which the following substantiates:

If the election was decided by the popular vote, than we would be swearing in a President Hillary Clinton.

But that’s not how it works. And — as he has said many time — if Donald Trump was campaigning for the popular vote, rather than the electoral vote, he would have campaigned much differently.

But he didn’t and Hillary’s margin of victory in the state of California was 4.3 million votes — or 61.5 percent

And therein lies the rub.

The purpose of the Electoral College is to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections…

If you take California out of the total, Donald Trump won the popular vote by 1.4 million.

So you want crooked, bankrupt Kalifornia, which is loaded with millions of illegals, probably most of whom voting for Hillary deciding who is president, then you have a problem. By the way, isn't that the subject matter of the bogus Russia investigation? Keeping FOREIGN influences out of deciding who wins a US election?

Gene said...

Hey, it is the Electoral College, stupid...

Anonymous 2 said...

Two thoughts:

(1) Being a Republican nowadays, and particularly a Trumpian, is very different from being a conservative. David Brooks claims, and I agree, that today one cannot be both; one has to choose:

(2) I hope that President Trump and the Senate Republicans are wise enough to choose a conservative female Justice, preferably a mother, to replace Justice Kennedy on the Supreme Court. If Roe v. Wade is reversed, it would not be helpful to have five men lined up in the majority and the three women in dissent. None of the men, in fact not one man (including therefore me and most others who post here), has any direct experience of what it is like to carry a child within our bodies for nine months, and then to experience the pains of childbirth and the demands of nursing the baby. Nor can we even well imagine what it must be like. Indeed, our contribution to the entire process is, well, miniscule.

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

David Brooks of the “nice crease in his pants” to put it mildly, is a fraud.

I understand the political argument you are making which is firmly ground in identity pollitics. Proper jurisprudence or proper theological thought should be independent of gender concerns. Identity politics has Marxist roots which I am sure you are aware

Anonymous said...

TJM. - Your comment was not about the electoral college. You claimed, falsely, that "the Democratic Party is intrinsically evil and far to the left of where the American people are on such issues as immigration, defense, healthcare, jobs, etc.," Yet, the majority of VOTERS chose the person/party you said was too extreme. Go figure.

Gene said...

I agree with Anon 2. I think a conservative female justice would be a wise choice for several reasons, not the least of which is that it would really annoy the Left.

TJM said...


The Dem Party’s platform enshrines 2 intrinsic evils, abortion and gay marriage, ergo, it’s intrinsically evil

There is strong evidence that foreigners interfered in the elections via their illegal votes, primarily in California and Chicago where proof of citizenship is not required. In almost any poll, the issues I referenced are always at the top not the looney lefty ones like climate change or transgender bathrooms.

Anonymous said...

TJM - Neither were your comments about the Democratic Party or abortion. That you completely ignore your own comments about the popular support for Secretary Clinton and revert, bait-and-switch style, to the Democrat/Abortion rant is evasive.

There is no strong evidence that foreigners voted primarily in California. None.

No, California did not pass a law allowing foreigners to vote.

President Trump has falsely claimed, repeatedly, that California allows foreigners to vote. "In many places, like California, the same person votes many times — you've probably heard about that. They always like to say 'oh that's a conspiracy theory' — not a conspiracy theory folks. Millions and millions of people."

Trump has claimed there was, "...serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California,..."

Not once has he or his administration provided evidence to support these claims.

Those who HAVE done the research, who HAVE looked at the data, who HAVE done the investigation conclude, " after study has shown that voter fraud is vanishingly rare, and voter impersonation is nearly non-existent."

Anonymous 2 said...


(1) Please justify your assertion that David Brooks is a “fraud.” Did you read the article? Here is an extract:

“Market fundamentalism is an inhumane philosophy that makes economic growth society’s prime value and leaves people atomized and unattached. Republican voters eventually rejected market fundamentalism and went for the tribalism of Donald Trump because at least he gave them a sense of social belonging. At least he understood that there’s a social order under threat.

The problem is he doesn’t base his belonging on the bonds of affection conservatives hold dear. He doesn’t respect and obey those institutions, traditions and values that form morally decent individuals.

His tribalism is the evil twin of community. It is based on hatred, us/them thinking, conspiracy-mongering and distrust. It creates belonging, but on vicious grounds.

In 2018, the primary threat to the sacred order is no longer the state. It is a radical individualism that leads to vicious tribalism. The threat comes from those two main currents of the national Republican Party. At his essence Trump is an assault on the sacred order that conservatives hold dear — the habits and institutions that cultivate sympathy, honesty, faithfulness and friendship.”

(2) The label “identity politics” is not helpful in the present context. There is a much bigger battle to be fought over abortion than simply reversing or limiting the application of Roe v. Wade. It is the battle for “hearts and minds” that I have consistently maintained, on this blog and elsewhere, is the really important battle. Battles won by the use of naked political power are ephemeral, especially in the current era of hyper-partisan political tribalism and “identity politics” as you put it. You win today and then you lose tomorrow when the pendulum swings back the other way.

Rather than temporary Pyrrhic victories I am far more interested in seeking lasting solutions that heal, not aggravate, the wounds of the body politic. For me this begins with an understanding of true conservatism in the political and social sphere as informed by Faith. And this requires a rejection of the hyper-individualism that characterizes so much of what passes for conservatism today, which is really just another form of liberalism.

The central unifying idea is that of community and pursuit of the common good and as Brooks explains, central virtues include sympathy, honesty, faithfulness, and friendship. But note, this does not preclude disagreement and robust political conversation. We are not ants. But disagreement and conversation within such a community is vastly different from the street fighting and playground antics we have been witnessing for the last several years, brought to a new low in the era of Trump of course.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2:

Hoping for and counting on another Sandra Day O'Conner are you?

TJM said...

Anonymous fake catholic who adores abortion,

Unless you are braindead, you would know that Calfornia’s Motor Voter law was designed to permit foreigners to vote in US elections because they can no longer attract enough lawful voters to retain power. The same dynamic in Chicago. Since you represent the party of intrinsic evil, your comments have zero credibilty

Anonymous said...

Love seeing the Left go ballistic on the vacancy.

The Left keep saying that a "woman's right to choose" is in jeopardy. Really? Except in cases of rape/incest, is a woman "forced" to engage in the behavior that may result in pregnancy? You can't ever get the liberals to admit that most of the woman seeking abortions are not married---that ought to be a problem right there---but of course liberals believe you have the right to engage in such behavior, regardless of the consequences or moral questions. "My body, my choice"...right? I am not saying abortion is OK if a woman is married, but we would have far fewer abortions if men and women obeyed church law...heck, even just traditional Christian teaching...on that matter....

Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous at 5:32 p.m.:

I am hoping for a female Justice with the insight, wisdom, and credibility that a male Justice cannot bring to the issue of abortion and any effort to reverse or limit Roe v. Wade.

I understand that the USCCB opposes Roe v. Wade and calls for its reversal, and I submit to this call. However, the USCCB most emphatically does not call for the reversal of Roe v. Wade in isolation from other measures aimed at supporting pregnant women, children, and families, including governmental measures that some posting here might be inclined to dismiss as “socialism.” Indeed, the USCCB supported the Pregnant Women Support Act, several provisions of which became law as part of, wait for it, the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) as an initiative originated by the Democrats For Life:

I did not know much about this Democratic initiative and the resulting measures before researching the matter this evening. Does anyone here have any further information about these matters?

Moreover, I would caution anyone who assumes that the appointment of a Justice from President Trump’s “Federalist Society” wish list will necessarily result in the reversal or even the limitation of Roe v. Wade. I would also caution against euphoria even if it does. The reversal of Roe v. Wade most assuredly would not mean the end of abortion in this country. It would certainly change the battlefield but it would not end the war. As I indicate in my previous post, Roe v. Wade also serves as a political rhetorical tool and a distraction from the in many ways more important battle for hearts and minds that must be waged.

By the way, for those interested (including TJM?), here is a link for Democrats for Life:

Their diagnosis of the current malaise in the Democratic Party, and their prescriptions for addressing it, should also be of special interest to readers of this Blog and Catholics generally. It should also be heartening for those of us who seek to overcome the tribal and vicious nature of contemporary politics in the United States:

Anonymous said...

"Unless you are braindead, you would know that Calfornia’s Motor Voter law was designed to permit foreigners to vote"


"In reality, the California law that goes into effect in April 2018 will automatically register only those eligible to vote when they renew or obtain a driver’s license. Undocumented immigrants are excluded. The law does nothing to change the federal requirement that one must be a U.S. citizen to register to vote."

Anonymous said...


Here are links to problems in just one state-Wisconsin

and from Houston Texas (this is an eye-opener):

The problems above came to light because investigations were done, which takes time, people, and money and so in many areas this has not been done.

Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous (at 10:33 p.m. on June 30)

I think your comment should have been directed at someone else as I was not engaging in the voter fraud discussion.

However, since you have inadvertently brought me into it, and for FWIIW, I have little doubt that some voter fraud exists. Indeed, how could it be otherwise in a society so riddled with dishonesty and fraud as ours is in so many areas of activity? The real question, though, is about the extent of voter fraud. I consider it highly unlikely that the levels are anywhere close to the massive levels asserted by President Trump in his outlandish claims on this topic. Indeed, how could it be otherwise with a President so riddled with fraud and dishonesty as ours is? It is unfortunate, therefore, that the Advisory Commission that Trump set up to investigate the situation had to be disbanded. For more see: