

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"How is this not a blatant First Amendment violation?" asked one incredulous law professor.
In what critics are calling the latest attack on academic freedom by the administration of Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, the head of the state's public universities on Tuesday ordered the systemwide "deactivation" of a student group over its solidarity with the Palestinian people, who are suffering what many experts have described as a "genocidal" Israeli war.
State University System of Florida Chancellor Ray Rodrigues sent a letter to the presidents of the state's 12 public universities accusing Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) of condoning "terrorism" after the group's national body declared support for Palestinian "resistance" to Israel's war on Gaza and stated that "Palestinian students in exile are part of this movement, not in solidarity" with it.
The group also stated that the Hamas-led attack on Israel that killed 1,400 civilians and soldiers was "not unprovoked" and that Israeli "apartheid, ethnic cleansing, indiscriminate bombing, arbitrary detention, destruction of infrastructure, [and] 75 years of settler-colonialism are provocations."
Rodrigues noted that it is a felony under Florida law to "knowingly provide material support... to a designated foreign terrorist organization," an apparent reference to Hamas—which the U.S., Israel, and other nations consider a terror group. However, many Palestinians and people throughout the Muslim world—including Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan—view Hamas as a national liberation group.
While there is no mention of Hamas in National SJP's declaration, it does hail Operation al-Aqsa Flood—the name of the Hamas-led attack on Israel—as "a historic win for the Palestinian resistance" to Israeli oppression.
"Based on the National SJP's support of terrorism, in consultation with Gov. DeSantis, the student chapters must be deactivated,” Rodrigues wrote in his letter.
The chancellor said the State University System and DeSantis administration would continue working "to ensure we are all using all tools at our disposal to crack down on campus demonstrations that delve beyond protected First Amendment speech into harmful support for terrorist groups."
According to the Tampa Bay Times, there are at least five active SJP chapters at the state's public universities: University of Florida (UF), Florida State University, University of South Florida, Florida Atlantic University, and Florida International University.
The UF SJP chapter blasted Rodrigues' "disgraceful" order to deactivate the group.
"Gov. DeSantis continues to disrespect American values such as freedom of speech to extend his political power," the group said in a statement. "To bend the law in this manner shows the utmost disrespect not only to any pro-Palestinian organization, but also to anyone who truly cares for political freedom and freedom of speech."
The legal aid group Palestine Legal called the pending SJP deactivations "a blatant attack on students' First Amendment rights" that "will be challenged in court."
DeSantis' recent attacks on higher education include packing college boards of trustees with right-wing allies inimical to the interests of minority and marginalized students; banning state funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and critical race theory education; forcing tenured professors to undergo spot reviews; prohibiting courses that teach "identity politics" or that "systemic racism, sexism, oppression, and privilege" are inherent in U.S. society; and signing the so-called "Stop WOKE Act" in an effort to combat "wokeness as a form of cultural Marxism."
At the K-12 level, DeSantis has signed a so-called "Don't Say Gay or Trans" law to prohibit educators from discussing sexual orientation or gender identity; rejected an Advanced Placement African American Studies course for allegedly violating the Stop WOKE Act; backed a state history curriculum that teaches slavery was "beneficial" to Black people; and required that every book in public school classrooms be vetted by a state-trained "media specialist."
DeSantis—a longshot 2024 GOP presidential contender—stridently
touts Florida as "the freest state in these United States" and a place "where woke goes to die."
Florida's crackdown on SJP comes as Israeli forces ramp up airstrikes and artillery bombardment of the besieged Gaza Strip ahead of an expected major ground invasion. According to the Palestine Ministry of Health, Israeli attacks have killed at least 6,400 people—including more than 2,500 children—and wounded upward of 17,000 others while destroying over 177,000 homes and displacing around 1.4 million Gazans.
The ministry also said that 104 Palestinians have been killed and nearly 2,000 others wounded in attacks by Israeli soldiers and settler-colonists in the illegally occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.
One of Israel's leading Holocaust scholars has
called the relentless and indiscriminate Israeli assault on Gaza a "textbook case of genocide."
Earlier this month, UF president Ben Sasse—a former Republican U.S. senator representing Nebraska— lambasted students protesting Israeli crimes in Palestine as "abject idiots."
UF SJP retorted that "a campus where our students are insulted for standing against a genocide is a campus that facilitates an environment of racism, Islamophobia, and anti-Arab/Palestinian sentiment."
AA new proposal from four senators--two Democrats and two Republicans--to offer a tax credit for workers displaced by the coronavirus outbreak is under fire from progressive critics who warn the convoluted plan is both insufficient to the scale of the crisis and an affront to more simple and far-reaching alternatives.
"Give people money," tweeted journalist Anand Giridharadas. "Money is like a refundable tax credit except useful."
The proposal from Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) offers a $4,000 refundable tax credit for job retraining to those who lost their jobs due to the pandemic's effect on the U.S. economy.
"The workers could use it to offset costs of training such as apprenticeships, certificates, and two- and four-year programs, including online learning, through the end of 2021," reported CNBC.
Centrist think tank Third Way's co-founder and senior vice president for policy Jim Kessler celebrated the plan.
"We like it!" Kessler tweeted.
Progressives found that praise predictable--but not indicative of the proposal's benefit to working Americans.
JetPAC executive director Mohammed Missouri said on Twitter that the debt-focused payment schemes around higher education and training made the tax credit's prerequisites bad policy in and of themselves.
"In order to get $4,000 in a tax refund, people have to incur thousands more in debt," said Missouri. "That's moronic public policy."
"Just give people the money," tweeted New York magazine writer Sarah Jones.
At The Discourse, writer Paul Blest echoed that call, writing that "giving people a $4,000 tax credit for 'skills training' right now is solving the wrong problem."
As Blest wrote:
This is a crisis. Tax credits do nothing on a macroeconomic level and provide no immediate assistance to people in the short term. Instead of fucking around with these grand plans to remake the workforce by goading people into learning how to code or be HVAC mechanics or whatever, just focus on giving people money. Cut them monthly checks, cancel their rent and mortgages, cancel their student loans, give unemployment insurance to the people who need it and help states update their unemployment systems so those people can actually access it. All of these things would go exponentially further in helping to pull as many people as possible out of the despair brought on by the economic crisis.
There is a plan to do just that, as its architect Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) pointed out Wednesday evening.
"The problem is clear and so is the solution," wrote Blest. "Don't make this harder than it has to be."
Women's rights advocates were relieved late Monday when Senate Democrats blocked an extreme anti-choice bill from advancing to a floor debate--but were soon outraged by President Donald Trump's lies about abortion care, as well as the corporate media for enabling his blatantly false characterization of the bill to stand.
After Senate Republicans failed to meet the 60-vote threshold needed to push through the so-called "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act," introduced by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), Trump attacked Democrats for their rejection of a bill that would punish doctors for providing medical care to pregnant women and allow civil action against women themselves for making an often-painful, life-or-death decision about their health and family.
"The Ben Sasse bill was designed to be a part of Trump's playbook...to use fake boogeymen (remember the caravan?) to play to people's basest instincts and scare them into hating anyone other than Trump." --Ilyse Hogue, NARAL Pro-Choice America"Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children," Trump wrote on Twitter. "The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don't mind executing babies AFTER birth."
Sasse's proposal would require doctors to provide medical care to an infant after a late-term abortion, exercising "the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child" as he or she would for a healthy newborn baby.
The Republicans' narrative on late-term abortions has suggested that doctors, with the aim of "executing babies," routinely perform the procedure in the third trimester of pregnancy on women who are pregnant with healthy, viable babies and have simply decided several months into their pregnancies that they no longer wish to have a child.
In fact, only 1.3 percent of abortions happen after 21 weeks of pregnancy, and according to the National Abortion Federation, they are "generally limited to cases of severe fetal abnormalities or situations when the life or health of the pregnant woman is seriously threatened."
As NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue explained on Twitter, Trump's statement--and Sasse's claim that the bill is anti-"infanticide"--wildly misrepresent that facts about the legislation.
The bill was introduced weeks after Democratic state lawmaker Kathy Tran of Virginia was denounced by Republicans including the president for proposing an amendment to her state's current law allowing third-trimester abortions--permitting the procedure if carrying a pregnancy to term would damage a woman's health in any way.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) called Sasse's proposal "clearly anti-doctor, anti-woman and anti-family," with other Democrats joining her in condemning the bill.
On social media, Hogue also blamed the corporate media for permitting Trump's lies to frame the national discussion on the procedure, with the Washington Post headlining their story on the bill, "Senate Blocks Bill on Medical Care for Children Born Alive After Attempted Abortion." The headline by U.S. News & World Report also fell for the GOP's gimmick:"Dems Block Senate GOP Bill on Infants Surviving Abortions."
"The media is culpable with headlines like this one from the Washington Post," Hogue wrote, "which would require about 20 minutes of googling to understand how misinformed that frame is."
Comes now another test for Ben Sasse, and Susan Collins, and all the other Republicans who are terribly dismayed over the vandal in the White House, and what he is doing to our precious national dialogue and to our democratic institutions. How's about you all get together and fight like hell to keep this gombeen off the federal bench. It's bad enough that Mitch McConnell has made it his life's work to salt the federal judiciary with larval Scalias, but this guy, Thomas Farr, whose entire career has been as a kept Republican lawyer, and who was primarily responsible for a voter-suppression plan that a court said targeted minority voters "with almost surgical precision," should really be a hack too far, shouldn't he?
Ben?
Susie?
Anybody? Is this thing on? Hello?
In 2016, a federal appeals court struck down North Carolina's array of voting restrictions, finding that they "target[ed] African Americans with almost surgical precision... The only clear factor linking these various 'reforms' is their impact on African American voters." That was unprecedented language, and it was backed up with page after page of statistical evidence, legislative history, and data on the effects of the new rules.
The main author of the law was Thomas Farr. Farr also defended the law in court, disrespecting the circuit court by calling its landmark decision "ludicrous."...
In 1990, Farr was the lawyer defending longtime segregationist Helms in a lawsuit over 125,000 postcards Helms's campaign sent to predominantly African-American communities, falsely stating that they could be arrested for voter fraud at their polling stations. Ultimately the case was resolved by consent decree, which Farr signed. And though Farr later denied knowing about it, he was identified in a Justice Department memo as being present at the meeting when it was first discussed. The extent of Farr's involvement with the postcard campaign has never been conclusively established.
As is the case with Chief Justice John Roberts, Farr has been on the voter-suppression train for his entire public career. Naturally, this is gotten him sideways with the Rev. William Barber, the official preacherman of the shebeen, who left every word unminced, writing in Time:
President Donald Trump's pick for a lifetime seat on the federal bench in North Carolina is the latest sign of how our politics have descended. A white man with a 30-year record of white supremacy receiving the unqualified support of the President and our state's two U.S. senators, while two qualified African-American women cannot even get a hearing, is not merely bad politics. It is moral poison. More than 50 years after the passage of the now-defunct Voting Rights Act, how can North Carolina still be stuck in this moral ditch?
See, Ben? Sue? This is an easy one. You can vote no on this guy. (If that stalls a whole battalion of these guys, well, that's just the way it goes.) You can demonstrate your commitment to bipartisanship by making McConnell pick some other product of the Federalist Society greenhouse who doesn't have the noxious track record that Farr has. Then Ben can go back to lecturing us on community, and Susan can go back to furrowing her brow over whatever the next atrocity she will have to vote for will be. And it's not like you guys can't make a difference; the White House already has pulled a couple of conspicuous lemons off the shelf. From the News and Observer:
Brett Talley, who has never tried a case and reportedly wrote a 2011 blog comment defending the Ku Klux Klan, no longer is a candidate. Nor is Jeff Mateer, who called the 2015 Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage "disgusting" and has called transgender children proof that "Satan's plan is working."
I mean, there have to be standards, right?
Alas, the early indication is that the Troubled Republican caucus is going to fail this test as it has failed almost all the others. Politico reported a year ago that Sasse, who voted last January to advance Farr's nomination out of committee, had responded to the American Bar Association's having rated several members of this clutch of nominees "unqualified" by questioning the ABA's bona fides.
"The ABA is a liberal advocacy organization. That's not a bad thing. You can be a liberal advocacy organization," Sasse argued at a recent hearing. "What's not OK is being a liberal advocacy organization and be masquerading as a neutral, objective evaluator of these judicial candidates."
As for Collins, well, according to Politico again, she's once again Susan Collinsing the whole question in that ineffable Susan Collinsish way.
That leaves Republicans no margin for error in the narrowly divided Senate, since all 49 Democrats are opposed to the nomination. Democrats said privately they believed that Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) or Susan Collins (R-Maine) might be swayed to oppose Farr. A spokeswoman for Murkowski declined to comment, and Collins said she'd "given thought" to his nomination and was still deliberating.
How does this woman ever order lunch?
All it takes is one of you, since it looks like Jeff Flake is going to follow through on his threat to vote against all judicial nominees until the Senate passes a bill protecting the Mueller investigation. One of the two of you votes no and Mr. Surgical Precision goes back to the restricted country club bar and one small dose of "moral poison" gets leached out of the body politic. Consult St. James, if you don't believe me. Faith without works and all of that.
Update (3:23 p.m.): Susan Collins remains the most Susan Collins-est of all Susan Collinses. From CNN's Manu Raju:
The latest meme from the Davos elite set is that America is afflicted with "tribalism." We're splitting up into two irreconcilable tribes, so the argument goes, and politics is becoming more and more an all-out war to the death. People like Yale Law professor Amy Chua, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), Brookings Institution fellow Shadi Hamid, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, and many others have sounded the tribalism alarm.
The suggestion is that tribes are groups with a zealous, irrational attachment to their own group, and thus forever fight other groups for no reason. "When politics becomes a perpetual tribal war, ends justify almost any means and individuals are absolved from the constraints of normal decency," writes George Packer in The New Yorker.
This is garbage history and garbage analysis. Tribes do not behave as moronically as described, and the problem with American politics has more to do with modernity than Americans reverting to some imagined atavistic state.
For starters, what alarmists mean by the word "tribe" is unclear at best. Are we talking hunter-gatherers bands, which tended to be smaller, more peaceful, and more egalitarian? Or (bracketing enormous variation) are we talking chieftain-style groups, which tend to be larger, more hierarchical, and more aggressive?
The meaning appears to be just a vague notion of primitive societies and contains a giant whiff of cultural chauvinism. It suggests, as Packer writes in his article, a "primal" history--connoting a past when humans were more irrational, less intelligent, and more violent. Sometimes the subtext is extremely blatant: What "tribes" do in Africa, writes Daniel Emmons, is massacre each other for no reason, over and over. (You would not be surprised to learn that examples from recent history have a lot to do with European colonialism.)
Read the full article here.
As an ambitious young senator with plans for the future, Young Ben Sasse, Republican of Nebraska, has a brand to protect. In brief, Young Ben Sasse's brand is that we all should love each other more, send our kids to dairy-farm boot camp, and, by all means, don't take the politics that are inextricably bound up in our politics as seriously as we take our bowling leagues and our parent-teacher conferences. This, to Young Ben Sasse, is especially true of those politics inextricably bound up in the governing of the nation. If this sounds ridiculous to you, congratulations on passing ninth grade civics.
So, in the interest of protecting not only his brand, but also his plans for the future, Young Ben Sasse got up on the Senate floor Wednesday night and apparently delivered a lachrymose address on the terrible time it is these days in Washington, in which good people like Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and her accused attempted rapist are being ground up in the politics of our politics. From Talking Points Memo:
"I'm here to talk about the false choice that is being repeated hour after hour after hour on television that this confirmation vote about one vacant seat on the Supreme Court, in that vote we are somehow going to be making a giant binary choice about the much broader issue of whether we do or do not care about women. That is simply not true."
If you don't believe him, ask any one of the 11 other Republican men on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which never has had a Republican woman on it. Ever.
But Young Ben Sasse would like you to know that he tried his absolute hardest, and thats all that matters now.
"I urged the president to nominate a woman... Part of my argument then was that the very important #MeToo movement was also very new and that this Senate is not at all well prepared to handle allegations of sexual harassment and assault that might have come forward."
Especially not the 11 Republican men on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which never has had a Republican woman on it, ever. And, in passing, isn't Young Ben Sasse a very smart young Ben Sasse?
"In the interest of cautious prudence I urged a different path than the one that was chosen."
Not merely prudence, mind you, but cautious prudence, which is a more important kind of prudence because adjectives. And this cautious prudence has forced Young Ben Sasse to doubt the good faith of the president*, with whom he has voted a mere 95 percent of the time.
"We all know that the President cannot lead us through this time. We know that he's dispositionally unable to restrain his impulse to divide us."
The president*, of course, continues to ignore Young Ben Sasse and his cautious prudence, and he nominated Brett Kavanaugh anyway, and I will bet a shiny buffalo nickel that Young Ben Sasse's cautious prudence will force him to vote for the president*'s nominee, but that he will feel really, really conflicted about it. He might even take a few seconds to think about his vote, but only if he has to stifle a sneeze. And thus will end the Sorrowful Mysteries of Young Ben Sasse in this matter. Is this sufficiently nauseating for us yet? Given the choice between Young Ben Sasse and his cautious prudence and Mitch McConnell's outright cynicism and bulldozer politics, I'll take the latter every time, because at the very least it is free from what Mr. Lincoln once called "the base alloy of hypocrisy."
Not that it will matter much one way or the other, but Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont is regularly now bringing to the electric Twitter machine evidence that Kavanaugh hedged, fudged, and prevaricated on matters beyond his high school boofing expeditions. On Thursday morning, for example, Leahy tweeted out an email from Kavanaugh's time in the Avignon Presidency, in which the nominee seems to be coaching administration personnel on how to testify about torturing people without mentioning, you know, torture. Once again, we are presented with proof that Brett Kavanaugh is likely to be a Supreme Court justice without ever having been a lawyer who actually practiced law.
The sham FBI investigation has finished its exercise in shamitude and the results, as Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow point out (again) in The New Yorker, are as expected.
Kavanaugh and thirteen other Georgetown Prep boys described themselves in their high-school yearbook as "Renate Alumnius," which other classmates have told the Times was a crude sexual boast. During his Senate hearing, Kavanaugh said that the reference was an endearment, saying, "She was a great friend of ours. We--a bunch of us went to dances with her. She hung out with us as a group." He said that a "media circus that has been generated by this, though, and reported that it referred to sex. It did not."
But the classmate who submitted the statement said that he heard Kavanaugh "talk about Renate many times," and that "the impression I formed at the time from listening to these conversations where Brett Kavanaugh was present was that Renate was the girl that everyone passed around for sex." The classmate said that "Brett Kavanaugh had made up a rhyme using the REE NATE pronunciation of Renate's name" and sang it in the hallways on the way to class. He recalled the rhyme going, "REE NATE, REE NATE, if you want a date, can't get one until late, and you wanna get laid, you can make it with REE NATE." He said that, while he might not be remembering the rhyme word-for-word, "the substance is 100 percent accurate." He added, "I thought that this was sickening at the time I heard it, and it left an indelible mark in my memory."
This was somebody that the FBI declined to interview.
For all my cynicism, I think this nomination may still be up in the air. However, one thing I do know is that Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation, if it happens, will not be the end of things, the way Clarence Thomas's confirmation obliterated Anita Hill's testimony from history. There's too much in Kavanaugh's background that's worth excavating, and some very serious people are on the case. This would include a new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, if baby Jeebus and Jerold Nadler are still my amigos. This, of course, will make Young Ben Sasse sad, but I guess we'll all have to live with that.
At this point, my position on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination is quite simple: you cannot flagrantly violate a sworn oath and be placed on the Supreme Court. Someone who lies to the Senate in sworn testimony is not just unqualified to be a justice, but they should not be any kind of judge at all. Judges must take oaths seriously, because if they treat them as meaningless, then it's unclear why they should mean anything to anybody. If Brett Kavanaugh lied to the Senate in his testimony, his nomination must be withdrawn, and he must be impeached and removed from office. Alger Hiss was sent to prison when he lied to Congress, Roger Clemens was prosecuted just for allegedly lying to Congress about baseball. I do not think there is much room for disagreement about this principle. Here, from the transcript:
GRASSLEY: Do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
KAVANAUGH: I do.
We know Brett Kavanaugh violated this solemn oath. We know this definitively. We know that his sworn testimony was riddled with both outright falsehoods and deceptive half-truths. Kavanaugh said he never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford described. She described a small drinking evening with Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, PJ, and at least one other boy. Kavanaugh's attendance at such a gathering is proved by his own calendar. Kavanaugh said the witnesses Ford lists "all say it didn't happen." That's false. They didn't say that. I could go on here, but I've already produced 10,000 words on it and I don't think anybody is eager for more.
I want to draw particular attention, though, to a uniquely horrible thing Kavanaugh did that has only gotten more damning since my article was released. Kavanaugh and his buddies all listed themselves as "Renate Alumni" in the yearbook, a reference to a fellow student, and one printed a nasty poem suggesting she was easy to get into bed. The woman, Renate Dolphin, was so horrified when she found out that she removed her name from a letter supporting Kavanaugh. Yet instead of groveling for forgiveness, Kavanaugh lied under oath and said the cruel reference wasn't about sex and was being misconstrued by a dirty-minded media.
We already knew this was false, because the poem is impossible to misinterpret and classmates had already said that Kavanaugh's group used to objectify Renate. But in a new report for the New Yorker, Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow have produced even more evidence, including direct testimony from a classmate saying that Kavanaugh himself lewdly mocked Renate:
[T]he classmate who submitted the statement said that he heard Kavanaugh "talk about Renate many times," and that "the impression I formed at the time from listening to these conversations where Brett Kavanaugh was present was that Renate was the girl that everyone passed around for sex." The classmate said that "Brett Kavanaugh had made up a rhyme using the REE NATE pronunciation of Renate's name" and sang it in the hallways on the way to class. He recalled the rhyme going, "REE NATE, REE NATE, if you want a date, can't get one until late, and you wanna get laid, you can make it with REE NATE." He said that, while he might not be remembering the rhyme word-for-word, "the substance is 100 percent accurate." He added, "I thought that this was sickening at the time I heard it, and it left an indelible mark in my memory." [Dolphin commented] "I did nothing to deserve this. There is nothing affectionate or respectful in bragging about making sexual conquests that never happened. ... I would not have signed the letter if I had known about the yearbook references and this affidavit. It is heartbreaking if these guys who acted like my friends in high school were saying these nasty, false things about me behind my back." Angela Walker, who was in Dolphin's class at Stone Ridge, also submitted a declaration to the F.B.I... . "It's really horrifying what they did to her," Walker said, "it's a terrible betrayal." ... Walker's declaration described attending a large house party with Georgetown Prep boys, where, she wrote, "A friend from Prep warned me not to go upstairs, where the bedrooms were, cautioning me that it could be dangerous."
I am going to assume that there are one or two honest Republicans left. To them I'd ask: how do you not find this disturbing and despicable? It's one thing to do something like this in high school, and we can all agree that people are capable of atoning for their juvenile sins. But to lie about it in front of the whole country and under oath, as a judge, to refuse to take responsibility and instead manufacture a totally false alternate reality in which you simply wanted to celebrate this woman's friendship... what kind of person does this? Renate Dolphin is distraught and horrified, even though she herself was a Kavanaugh supporter. And yet nobody could care less what she thinks. Ben Sasse has said that the Kavanaugh confirmation isn't about how much the Senate cares about women. Because if it was, it would be clear that the Senate doesn't care at all about women, certainly not Renate Dolphin, who was despicably mistreated and misled by Brett Kavanaugh. (And not, of course, Christine Ford or Deborah Ramirez, delusional pawns who are in it for the death threats.) Dolphin herself commented "I pray their daughters are never treated this way." If the Senate confirms Kavanaugh, it will make clear that you can do this to anybody's daughter, lie about it under oath, and be appointed to one of the most powerful and respected offices in the world...
Read the full article at Current Affairs.
During his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the allegations of sexual assault made against him by Christine Blasey Ford, Kavanaugh harangued the committee in a plaintive squawk. He seemed perpetually on the verge of tears -- especially, for some inscrutable reason, when he lovingly recalled how well-organized his father's daily calendar was -- yet also incandescent with partisan fury and petulance about the injustice being done to him.
And Republican men, from pundits to the president, apparently reveled in it. Those in the room, such as Sens. Lindsey Graham, Orrin Hatch and Ben Sasse, used their questioning time to apologize fulsomely to the judge and to shout imprecations against government overreach, Democratic perfidy and the great cruelty being done to Kavanaugh by investigating credible assault allegations against him prior to confirming him to a lifetime seat on the highest court in the nation.
Kavanaugh's testimony stemmed from accusations of a male bonding session gone too far. On Thursday, the nation saw another one, of another kind, in progress.
The torrent of allegations and recollections about Kavanaugh's high school and college days has been a grim reminder of how cruelly girls and women suffer at the hands of boys and men who bond by laughing at their expense. During Kavanaugh's testimony, we saw an equally ugly mirror image: men bonding through performative anger and hostility -- again, at the expense of women.
Where Blasey, soft-spoken and gracious, assiduously courted the goodwill of both Republican and Democratic senators -- laughing at their jokes, patiently allowing them to complete questions and graciously asking for clarification when she didn't understand them, apologizing to them for any inconveniences or misunderstandings -- Kavanaugh burst into his testimony with a pout screwed to his flushed face, the look of a man who has just discovered his S-Class has been keyed. He was ready to brawl -- elementary-schoolyard style, with gratuitous sniffling and eye-rolling. He accused Democrats in his opening statement of executing "a calculated and orchestrated political hit," perhaps as "revenge on behalf of the Clintons."
When Democratic senators -- four of them women -- questioned Kavanaugh, his physical reactions were bizarrely juvenile; he squirmed and grimaced and made wounded eyes much like an aggrieved 8-year-old denied a long-awaited trip to Dairy Queen because he shoved his sister. He interrupted their questions to complain, in tones rising nearly to a shout, that these allegations were "sprung" on him at the last minute, or to ask them forlornly if they also liked beer.
In one particularly insolent exchange, he responded to Sen. Amy Klobuchar's question as to whether he'd ever drunk so much that he couldn't remember the next day what had happened by turning the question back on her -- twice. Needless to say, whether the Minnesota Democrat has ever been blackout drunk bears no relevance to Kavanaugh's Supreme Court appointment, nor was it Kavanaugh's place to ask her questions during the hearing. (After a brief break, having perhaps been informed that the optics on this were spectacularly poor, he reopened the hearing by apologizing to her.)
But Kavanaugh, like Blasey, was courting the goodwill of his audience -- at least of the audience that mattered to him. Where her anger would have irritated and alienated them, his braced them. Robin Lakoff, professor emerita of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, characterized his behavior as "hostile, angry, bullying, uncooperative," and noted in an email to HuffPost that "when a man, especially a powerful and entitled one, acts that way, it strengthens him in the eyes of many: he's manly, strong, and credible."
President Donald Trump, a summa cum laude graduate of this particular school of masculinity, reportedly disliked Kavanaugh's restrained, anodyne interview Monday on Fox News. The judge's little-boy-in-a-big-suit tantrum was transparently pitched toward the president, and reports indicate that it worked.
Meanwhile, from the hearing room, the men were whipped into a himpathetic fury. "What you want to do is destroy this guy's life, hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020," Graham hissed at his Democratic colleagues, his lip curling in a sneer. "This is the most unethical sham since I've been in politics. And if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn't have done what you've done to this guy."
"This is worse than Clarence Thomas. I didn't think it could get any worse than that," Hatch said to Kavanaugh. "This is a national disgrace, the way you're being treated."
It seemed that witnessing visible anger on his behalf from Republican senators was the only thing that could bring Kavanaugh any measure of equanimity. Afterward, he was able to briefly smile or even joke during questioning. Their anger validated his own quivering rage; it clarified his apparent conviction that he is a victim.
"You're right to be angry," Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told Kavanaugh repeatedly during his questioning.
The hearing was a celebration of male anger -- the power of anger to bring men together, to reinforce their certainty about what is owed to them as men and, of course, to sweep women's anger and pain to the side. Kavanaugh and the Republican senators rarely addressed Blasey or her credibility directly; rather confusingly, the party line was that she, too, was a victim, and that they bore no ill will toward her.
During Blasey's own testimony, she described in agonizing detail how she recalled Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge laughing as the future judge lay on top of her, covering her mouth with his hand and attempting to wrench off her clothes.
"You've never forgotten them laughing at you," Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said as he questioned her.
"They were laughing with each other," she replied, making a precise distinction. "I was underneath one of them while the two laughed. Two friends having a really good time with one another."
The assault and their laughter were indeed at her expense, but for those two boys, it wasn't about her. On Thursday, Kavanaugh and the Senate Republicans tried to get righteously angry without attacking a very sympathetic and credible accuser. Instead, they revealed that their anger, like that laughter 36 years ago, isn't even about her. Like everything else, it's all about them.
While Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) joined all his GOP senate colleagues in their tactical decision to not directly address or question Dr. Christine Blasey Ford during her testimony on Thursday--they instead hired an outside female prosecutor, Arizona Republican Rachel Mitchell, to do it for them--he evidently could not resist the temptation to drop that formulation during the afternoon questioning of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh by claiming his own time to defend the witness as a "victim" and then had "a full-blown tantrum" on the floor as he excoriating his Democratic colleagues.
"You've got nothing to apologize for," Graham said to Kavanaugh, as he then revealed where the order of his sympathies by declaring Ford, who has testified she remains "100 percent" positive that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted here, was "just as much a victim of this as I think Brett Kavanaugh."
Watch:
Graham's outburst did not go over well:
Ahead of the hearing, Republicans had argued they had hired the outside prosecutor, one who specialized in sexual assault cases, because such a topic was "complicated" and they didn't want to ask "insensitive" questions.
They had no problem asking a man about these issues, however.
After Graham ended the charade that the Republicans would not question the witnesses directly--at least the male witness--Sens. John Cornyn of Texas (R-Texas), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), and Ted Cruz (D-Texas) also followed suit.
Ahead of a 1pm national walkout on Monday to support Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez--who have accused U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault--and demand that lawmakers oppose him, hundreds of critics flooded Capitol Hill to target specific senators such as Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), whose responses to the women's claims have outraged advocates for survivors of sexual violence.
Dozens of demonstrators were arrested Monday morning outside Collins' office in Washington, D.C.
Those who weren't arrested then moved to the office of Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). Survivors who participated in the Capitol Hill protests shared their stories.
"The stories we're hearing from survivors are chilling. They're all too devastating and all too common," Women's March tweeted. "They're why we're here today. They're why we'll be back Thursday."
From Flake's office, they moved to the office of Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.). His staff, according to Women's March, refused to come out to meet with the hundreds of demonstrators, so some participants began making their way into the office.
Other protests planned for lawmakers' offices throughout the country on Monday include actions at Collins' Portland office; Flake's Tucson office; the Des Moines office of Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa); the Austin and Dallas offices of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas); the Denver office of Sen. Cory Gardner; and the Reno office of Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.).
Additional actions are planned for Thursday, when Ford is set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Women's March is tracking the scheduled events with an interactive map.