NY Times Is Hot To Pack The Supreme Court

Hardcore Leftist Jamelle Bouie is super excited about this, but, only if a Democrat wins the White House

To Balance the Scales of Justice, Don’t Be Afraid to Pack the Court

President Trump bragged on Twitter recently about his success filling up the federal judiciary. “I want to congratulate” Senate majority leader “Mitch McConnell and all Republicans,” Trump wrote: “Today I signed the 160th Federal Judge to the Bench. Within a short period of time we will be at over 200 Federal Judges, including many in the Appellate Courts & two great new U.S. Supreme Court Justices!”

This is just a slight exaggeration. After 32 months in office, Trump has made 209 nominations to the federal judiciary, with 152 judges confirmed by the Senate, including two Supreme Court justices. That’s nearly half the total confirmed during President Barack Obama’s eight years in office.

(lots of whining)

Democrats are left in an unenviable position. Should they win a federal “trifecta” — the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives — they’ll still have to deal with a Trump-branded judiciary. It’s entirely possible that a future Democratic agenda would be circumscribed and unraveled by a Supreme Court whose slim conservative majority owes itself to minority government and constitutional hardball.

So what should Democrats do? They should play hardball back. Congress, according to the Judiciary Act of 1789, decides the number of judges. It’s been 150 years since it changed the size of the Supreme Court. I think it’s time to revisit the issue. Should Democrats win that trifecta, they should expand and yes, pack, the Supreme Court. Add two additional seats to account for the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh nominations. Likewise, expand and pack the entire federal judiciary to neutralize Trump and McConnell’s attempt to cement Republican ideological preferences into the constitutional order.

Modern (whiny-assed) Socialists like Bouie should be careful what they wish for, lest Trump packs the Court himself.

The reasoning underpinning this proposal isn’t just about the future; it’s about the past. We have had two rounds of minority government in under two decades — two occasions where executive power went to the popular-vote loser. Rather than moderate their aims and ambitions, both presidents have empowered ideologues and aggressively spread their influence. We are due for a course correction.

Told you he was whiny-assed. And utterly illiterate about our Constitutional Republic. But, ready for a really hot take?

The goal isn’t to make the courts a vehicle for progressive policy, (yes it is) but to make sure elected majorities can govern — to keep the United States a democratic republic and not a judge-ocracy. Yes, there are genuine constitutional disputes, questions about individual rights and the scope of federal power. At the same time, there are broad readings of the Constitution — ones that give our elected officials the necessary power to act and to solve problems — and narrow readings, which handcuff and restrict the range of our government.

Do I need to mention that our system is set up to protect the minority from the mob rule of the majority? And that these rules are baked into our founding documents? Jamelle also seems unhappy that those rules restrain Governmental power.

Read: NY Times Is Hot To Pack The Supreme Court »

If All You See…

…is a wonderful low carbon sailboat saving us from carbon pollution caused brightness, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Chicks On The Right, with a post on a Christian wedding invitation company winning in court against the usual haters.

Read: If All You See… »

LA Times: 2020 Could Be Our Last Change To Stop The Climate Apocalypse

I highlighted one of the unhinged pieces by the LA Times editorial board on climate change yesterday. Here’s the other

Editorial: Climate change is already here. 2020 could be your last chance to stop an apocalypse

The world is drifting steadily toward a climate catastrophe. For many of us, that’s been clear for a few years or maybe a decade or even a few decades.

But others have known that a reckoning was coming for much longer. A Swedish scientist first calculated in 1896 that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere could lead to warmer global temperatures. By the 1930s, scientists were measuring the increase, and in the late 1960s, they had documented the impact of melting ice in Antarctica. By 1977, Exxon-Mobil had recognized its own role in the warming of the ocean, the polar ice melt and the rising sea level.

What caused the previous Holocene warm periods, some of which were much warmer than today? Why is sea rise exactly average, when it should be much higher during a warm period? Why have there been numerous pauses, and even a slight cooling period, during this Modern Warm Period? Why are most areas of Antarctica not warming? Really, nothing else they offer further in the article proves anthropogenic causation, just that there has been slight warming since 1850.

Anyhow, it’s a good thing that this is all about science, not politics

For three years, Americans have been living under the willfully blind, anti-scientific, business-coddling rule of President Trump, who has stubbornly chosen climate denial over rationality. We now have an opportunity to resoundingly reject his policies by voting him out of office, along with congressional Republicans who enable him. There are plenty of reasons to fight for Trump’s defeat in November 2020, but his deeply irresponsible climate policies — including moving to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement, roll back Barack Obama’s emission limits on coal-fired plants, rescind rules governing methane emissions and relax national fuel emission standards — are among the strongest.

Nope, no politics.

All that burning of carbon fuels needs to end; yet unless policies and politics change dramatically, it won’t end. Even in this time of heightened clarity, two-thirds of new passenger vehicles bought in the U.S. last year were gas-guzzling pickup trucks and SUVs. Those SUVs will be on the road an average of eight years, and the pickups for more than 13 years, as the time to address the climate problem slips away. Blame for this falls not just on consumers, but also on the manufacturers and the government, which has done too little to disincentivize the driving of gas-powered cars.

See, in Warmist World, it’s the government’s job to tell you how to live your life.

Fighting the rise in temperature and sea levels will be tough. Our democracy doesn’t encourage politicians to take bold stances; our economic system doesn’t encourage companies to sacrifice profits for the common good. And we humans are understandably disinclined to live differently or to make sacrifices. But we must stop dawdling and forge ahead if we are to protect ourselves and our planet.

Damned democracy!

Read: LA Times: 2020 Could Be Our Last Change To Stop The Climate Apocalypse »

Only A Green Deal Can Douse The Flames Of Eco-Fascism Or Something

This article by anti-capitalist and big time climate cultist Naomi Klein is so loony it’s almost impossible to give you the idea how nutty it is in a post

Just look at the text in The Intercept tweet. From the screed, in which she attempts to say that eco-fascism is a right leaning thing

But this week’s strike will be different. This time, young organizers have called on adults from all walks of life to join them in the streets. So in addition to schools in over 150 countries, almost 1,000 workers at Amazon’s headquarters in Seattle have pledged to walk out, as have some faculty unions, Britain’s Trades Union Congress, and many others. There is a plan to shut down Washington, D.C. on September 23.

This diversity of the groups involved may well prove to be a new stage in the climate movement, with many more movements and constituencies seeing themselves in the struggle against climate breakdown — as well as in the emerging vision for an intersectional justice-based Green New Deal.

And it’s a good thing too, because as Donald Trump spews racist hate at Bahamian refugees fleeing the wreckage of Hurricane Dorian and growing numbers of far-right killers cite environmental damage as a justification for their rampages, there is a pressing need to confront the ways in which the fires of climate breakdown are already intersecting with the fires of white supremacy and surging xenophobia globally.

These are themes I explore in-depth in my new book, “On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal,” from which this essay is excerpted.

Go that all? Yeah, I know, it’s hard to take in this amount on insanity all at once. She actually says that the Christchurch killer was a far right person, which technically, he was, but way, way far left, into Authoritarianism, the same place the Cult of Climastrology resides

When intense events happen in close proximity to one another, the human mind often tries to draw connections that are not there, a phenomenon known as apophenia. But in this case, there were connections. In fact, the strike and the massacre can be understood as mirror opposite reactions to some of the same historical forces. And this relates to the other way that the Christchurch killer is distinct from the white supremacist mass murderers from whom he openly drew inspiration. Unlike them, he identifies explicitly as an “ethno-nationalist eco-fascist.” In his rambling manifesto, he framed his actions as a twisted kind of environmentalism, railing against population growth and asserting that “Continued immigration into Europe is environmental warfare.”

Interestingly, these “eco” themes are propagated by many, many Warmists. Naomi forgot to mention that.

To be clear, the killer was not driven by environmental concern — his motivation was unadulterated racist hate — but ecological breakdown was one of the forces that seemed to be stoking that hatred, much as we are seeing it act as an accelerant for hatred and violence in armed conflicts around the world. My fear is that, unless something significant changes in how our societies rise to the ecological crisis, we are going to see this kind of white power eco-fascism emerge with much greater frequency, as a ferocious rationalization for refusing to live up to our collective climate responsibilities.

This line of “thought” by Klein doesn’t get any better or less insane, but, hey, we can fix this by passing the Green New Deal, which would control your life, tell you what you can buy, who you can interact with, where you can live, how big your home can be, what you can drive, where you can go, what foods you can eat, and what you’re allowed to think, while also controlling the energy sector and the economy, and you can only vote for certain Approved people, which is rather known as…….Fascism! Amazing, eh? Seriously, we’ll have to change everything about our lives, as Klein writes in a different piece

Pulling off this high-speed pollution phaseout, the report establishes, is not possible with singular technocratic approaches like carbon taxes, though those tools must play a part. Rather, it requires deliberately and immediately changing how our societies produce energy, how we grow our food, how we move around, and how our buildings are constructed. What is needed, the report’s summary states in its first sentence, is “rapid, far-reaching, and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.”

As powerful a motivator as the IPCC report is, perhaps even more important are the calls from many different quarters in the United States and around the world for governments to respond to the climate crisis with a sweeping Green New Deal. The idea is a simple one: in the process of transforming the infrastructure of our societies at the speed and scale that scientists have called for, humanity has a once-in-a-century chance to fix an economic model that is failing the majority of people on multiple fronts. In tackling the climate crisis, we can create hundreds of millions of good jobs around the world, invest in the most systematically excluded communities and nations, guarantee health care and child care, and much more: a Green New Deal could instill a sense of collective, higher purpose—a set of concrete goals that we are all working toward together. 

Again, this is a very, very long piece by Klein, who likes to spread out her points, rather than really providing one central assertion (which could scare off people from her anti-capitalist, pro-Authoritarian views)

“Who is society?” demanded then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1987 to justify her relentless attacks on social services. “There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families.” That bleak view of humanity—that we are nothing more than a collection of atomized individuals and nuclear families, unable to do anything of value together except wage war—has had a stranglehold over the public imagination for a long time. No wonder so many of us believed we could never rise to the climate challenge. 

In other words, you’re all the same and should be controlled by government. Also, it’s rather funny that these articles by Klein are all about selling her book via capitalism.

Read: Only A Green Deal Can Douse The Flames Of Eco-Fascism Or Something »

Criminal Who Shot Houston Cop Was Previously Released For Gun Offense Without Bail

See, this is what Democrats want. If you’re a lawful firearms owner, they want to take away your guns. If you’re a criminal, especially a minority criminal, they want you released with no bond after committing multiple violent felonies

Teen Who Shot Houston Cop Was Released Without Paying Bail After Carjacking

The gunman who shot a Houston police officer multiple times during a violent crime spree on Sept. 12 had been released from jail on his own recognizance just days before the attack.

Brandon Bell, 17, and two other teens were arrested for allegedly carjacking a woman at gunpoint at she was passing out campaign fliers on Sept. 2, KPRC reported.

“‘Get out of the car,” he said, according to victim Tina Kingshill. “I got this gun and I will shoot you.”

Bell also allegedly pointed the gun at another volunteer who was with Kingshill at the time.

Those are all felonies, right?

The Harris County District Attorney’s Office subsequently charged Bell with a misdemeanor count of criminal trespass to a motor vehicle, and he was released on a no-cost, “personal bond,” according to KPRC.

According to the Houston Police Union, Bell failed to show up at court on Sept. 10, but he was not penalized and his bail was never revoked, KPRC reported.

Two days later, he and three accomplices embarked on a violent crime spree beginning at a Valero gas station on Griggs Road, according to KTRK.

And crime spree it was, ending with the shooting of a police officer. After jacking a few cars, attempting to murder a priest, and much more (worth reading). The Harris County District Attorney’s office is run by DA Kim Ogg, unsurprisingly a Democrat, who’s major theme for election was “bail reform.” Her office has seen almost 150 members leave, forcibly and not forcibly, most of whom aren’t taking the line that this has something to do with post-Hurricane Harvey, but the policies Ogg put in place which are soft on crime.

And this is exactly what Democrats nationally want. You have the Democrat contenders, especially Kamala Harris, yammering about doing away with bail. They’re all excited about taking away guns from the law abiding, but, say nothing about cracking down on criminals that use them and shouldn’t lawfully have them in the first place.

Read: Criminal Who Shot Houston Cop Was Previously Released For Gun Offense Without Bail »

We Have To Deal With Over-Consumption And Give Up Our Modern Lives To Stop ‘Climate Change’

See, Warmists think it’s totally crazy that Skeptics will say that the Cult of Climastrology is trying to drag us back to 1499. Silly Skeptics

Opinion: We must confront the real climate foe: Overconsumption

In August, Bernie Sanders released the most ambitious green new deal yet, a proposed $16.3 trillion investment in clean energy, sustainable agriculture, global climate justice and green-collar jobs.

Just weeks later, Elizabeth Warren released her own climate plan, which would focus several trillion dollars on research, green manufacturing and clean energy.

Unsurprisingly, the two leading progressives in the Democratic presidential field have embraced bold action on climate change. Along with the original Green New Deal, Warren and Sanders’ plans represent the most appropriately ambitious American proposals to date.

And yet, they still miss the mark.

Missing the mark, eh?

The underlying assumption of these proposals is that we can stave off climate change while maintaining our modern way of life. The green economy envisioned by Sanders and Warren relies on exchanging dirty modes of production for cleaner ones. Rather than driving gas-powered cars, we’ll drive electric cars. Rather than heating our homes with dirty power plants, we’ll plug into the solar grid.

But we’ll still enjoy our modern comforts. We’ll maintain our place in the complex web of global trade, which relies on polluting ships, trucks and planes to connect us with our products. We’ll maintain our suburban, siloed residential living patterns which require us to drive to work, to school, to the grocery store and to the pharmacy.

Because massive governmental control of everything isn’t good enough

We must return to traditional urban development patterns which lead to compact, walkable cities and easy access to necessary services like grocery stores and schools. Instead of highways, our communities must be connected with public high-speed rail. Isolated communities must be relatively self-sufficient. We must scale back our energy demand and power our homes through decentralized renewables like solar. We must grow our food locally, as we have for most of human history. And we must undertake a titanic cultural shift towards low-consumption local living.

Funny how the same Warmists won’t do this themselves

Without this vision, we will maintain the status quo of overconsumption and environmental degradation until civilization devolves into a Mad Max-esque dystopia. There is no solution but that which fundamentally reorganizes our society around low-consumption living.

Read: We Have To Deal With Over-Consumption And Give Up Our Modern Lives To Stop ‘Climate Change’ »

If All You See…

…is an island that will soon be swamped by the sea, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post on telling the truth being illegal.

Read: If All You See… »

New Jersey Has A Hot New Gun Grabbing Scheme Or Something

With all the other gun grabbing news coming out, I never got around to NJ governor Phil Murphy’s hot new gun grabbing scheme, but, it’s really excited the Star Ledger editorial board

N.J. has a bold new gun strategy. Let’s hope other states bite | Editorial

When it comes to our own gun laws, New Jersey is already pushing the envelope. We’re among the strictest states in the nation.

It’s not for nothing: States like ours, with tough laws, have fewer deaths. But it’s not enough, either. It’s a relatively marginal impact, given the loose rules in other states.

In the absence of federal action, Gov. Murphy and his gun czar, Bill Castner, have an innovative idea: Why not use our buying power, and try to build a coalition of states to pressure retailers, manufacturers and even banks for common sense reform?

Taxpayers are the biggest buyers of guns and accessories in New Jersey, to arm cops and troopers – we spent $70 million in recent years. Now, we will leverage that purchasing power, with an eye toward incentivizing retailers to behave responsibly, and invite other states to join us.

Perhaps the gun manufacturers and other legal dealers will just refuse to sell to the state of NJ, along with the counties and municipalities, using their selling power. Especially when it comes to ammo. Because this scheme pretty much only effects the law abiding, not the criminals.

Murphy’s plan starts with this fact: Most guns used in New Jersey crimes come from laxer states, like Pennsylvania, the Carolinas, Georgia or Virginia. Traffickers buy from unscrupulous dealers who sell them a cache of guns on the spot, and look the other way when they use straw purchasers with clean records, like the girlfriend of a felon.

Almost no federally authorized firearms dealer will do the above, as they face massive fines and jail time. The vast majority of federally licensed firearms dealers are a hell of a lot more scrupulous than politicians like Murphy.

They should use electronic records and surveillance video to record all sales, train employees to identify obvious straw purchasers and search all available state court and criminal databases – things most retailers here already do.

In New Jersey, if you’re on the terrorism watch list, you can’t buy a gun. But we’re one of the only states that checks this. We want to make sure vendors aren’t selling to domestic violence abusers, either, because their background checks miss certain crimes. It’s like cracking down on bars that sell to minors.

That’s why they run a federal background check. It’s not their fault of law enforcement and the judicial system do not report properly. If you’re on the terrorism watch list, you’re more than likely not a U.S. citizen, so you can’t purchase legally anyway.

Now for a really hot take

Right now, this is a statement about our values. Where it really catches fire is if other states join forces with us. Imagine if, all together, we declared: There are more gun retailers than gas stations in America. Want to do business with us? Then do the right thing.

There are about 168,000 gas stations in the U.S. There are about 58,000 federal permits to sell firearms. But, not all have an actual store or are a full dealer. I can think of 2 firearms stores in Raleigh. I can think of a mass of gas stations within 5 miles of where I live and where I work.

Again, though, for the most part, this means nothing to the criminals.

Read: New Jersey Has A Hot New Gun Grabbing Scheme Or Something »

LA Times Says We Must Get Rid Of All Fossil Fuels, And Prepare For Sacrifice

I’m assuming that the editorial board of the LA Times isn’t referring to actual sacrifices, but, this being the Cult of Climastrology, you can never be sure

Editorial: Surviving climate change means an end to burning fossil fuels. Prepare yourself for sacrifices

The evidence, the expert advice, common sense — they all point to a single unavoidable conclusion: Humankind has dragged its feet for so long on the looming crisis of climate change that it is no longer looming but is upon us, and will be impossible to undo.

It would be foolish, of course, to rule out nascent or not-as-yet conceived technological advances that could claw back some of the carbon and other greenhouse gases we’ve already emitted. But it would be equally foolhardy to count on them. What is required, at a minimum, is a radical change, as quickly as possible, in the way the world produces and consumes energy. The goal is to eliminate most future emissions, especially of carbon, and to “capture” the carbon that is emitted so that it does not enter the atmosphere.

So, see, even though there’s nothing to actually replace fossil fuels at this time, we need to get rid of them. I wonder when the LA Times will give up its own use to gather and disseminate their paper? Anyhow, after lots of meaningless yapping

The Los Angeles Times editorial board has written about climate change for years. Here’s why we thought this was the right moment for a bigger, broader series of editorials on the subject.

What will our world look like in 15 years if we begin to do what we have to do? Charging stations for motor vehicles as plentiful as gas stations are now. A significant drop in gas-powered vehicles through phased-out production, and government-funded buyback programs to get older cars off the road. Millions of people working to create new power systems; the world needs cheaper and more efficient solar panels, bigger and more efficient energy storage systems, more utility-scale renewable production facilities and more efficient hydro and geothermal technologies. Oil companies will no longer have such disproportionate influence on government policy. Perhaps they will have become energy companies, transitioning away from fossil fuels — or perhaps they will have been superseded by new energy providers.

So, YOU will be forced from your fossil fueled vehicle and into, well, unless you can easily plunk down $40k or more (that’s about an $800 payment per month with excellent credit), you won’t have a vehicle. But, here’s where it really breaks down

Sacrifice will be a part of this too. Doing the right thing will require shifts in employment, changes in consumer habits (cutting way back on meat consumption, for instance, reduces global carbon emissions). We will drive less, ride more public transit, use less air conditioning. Costs will undoubtedly rise for goods we’ve taken for granted.

That’s interesting, considering most Warmists aren’t willing to sacrifice for their beliefs now. Nowhere in the opinion piece are we told what the members of the editorial board are doing to sacrifice in their own lives, nor what the LA Times is doing. But, you will have to sacrifice. And Nanny Government will be there to make you do it.

Read: LA Times Says We Must Get Rid Of All Fossil Fuels, And Prepare For Sacrifice »

Hot Takes Abound On Impeaching Kavanaugh For Something That Never Happened

Democrats are in high apoplexy over the accusations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh yet again, per the Washington Post, which forgets some very important information

2020 candidates demand Kavanaugh impeachment after new allegation

Democrats called Sunday for a new investigation of Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh in response to a New York Times piece that said Kavanaugh was seen sexually harassing a female student while at Yale.

Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and former housing and urban development secretary Julián Castro, Democratic presidential candidates, pushed for Kavanaugh’s impeachment. (snip)

“He was put on the Court through a sham process and his place on the Court is an insult to the pursuit of truth and justice,” Harris said in a tweet. “He must be impeached.” (snip)

The (New York) Times piece was adapted from the upcoming book “The Education of Brett M. Kavanaugh: An Investigation.” In it, the reporters said they had corroborated a prior claim of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh, and that they found the FBI interviewed none of the potential witnesses they spoke to.

Deborah Ramirez, a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh’s, had alleged during his confirmation process that he had exposed himself to her in college. Her account had received less attention than Ford’s at the time of his confirmation. Ford had testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“During his Senate testimony, Mr. Kavanaugh said that if the incident Ms. Ramirez described had occurred, it would have been ‘the talk of campus.’ Our reporting suggests that it was,” Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly wrote in the Times essay.

Then you have E.J. Dionne losing it in the opinion section

The Kavanaugh revelations: Why the Supreme Court is broken

We focus, rightly, on the damage President Trump is doing to our institutions. But the wreckage goes beyond Trump and involves the other two branches of government as well. The right wing’s determination to control the Supreme Court is undermining its legitimacy as well as confidence in the U.S. Senate’s approach to confirming nominees.

For the GOP, nothing will be allowed to derail its effort to create a generation-long conservative majority on the court. And that helps to explain why Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh was railroaded through his confirmation hearings last year after what amounted to a pretend inquiry into the various charges against him.

The costs of this approach were underscored this weekend by a New York Times report that offers new corroboration for charges by Deborah Ramirez that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her when both were undergraduates at Yale. In denying the charge, Kavanaugh told the Senate that had it been true, the incident would have been “the talk of the campus.” Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly — drawing on their new book, “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation” — write tellingly: “Our reporting suggests that it was.”

So, see, the whole thing was a sham! Horrible! Hollywood folks have joined the chorus for impeachment. But, see, here’s where a tiny detail derails the whole thing

NYT updates Kavanaugh ‘bombshell’ to note accuser doesn’t recall alleged assault

The New York Times suddenly made a major revision to a supposed bombshell piece late Sunday concerning a resurfaced allegation of sexual assault by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh — hours after virtually all 2020 Democratic presidential candidates had cited the original article as a reason to impeach Kavanaugh.

The update included the significant detail that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the supposed sexual assault in question at all. The Times also stated for the first time that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed, and has made no comment about the episode.

The Times’ revision says: “Editors’ Note: An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book’s account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.”

Huh. That’s rather relevant, is it not, and rather destroys any article written in support of the Times’ story, and the calls for impeachment. If Democrats want to go with this, Ramirez will have to be put on the stand under oath. Thinks she wants to do that, when she won’t even be interviewed for the book?

However, the Times’ article also conspicuously did not mention that Pogrebin and Kelly’s book found that the female student in question had denied any knowledge of the alleged episode.

“The book notes, quietly, that the woman Max Stier named as having been supposedly victimized by Kavanaugh and friends denies any memory of the alleged event,” observed Mollie Hemingway. “Seems, I don’t know, significant.”

Democrats should probably move on before they make themselves look even more stupid and just plain sore losers.

Read: Hot Takes Abound On Impeaching Kavanaugh For Something That Never Happened »

Pirate's Cove