Login

It's As If Liberal Journalists Have Coordinated Their Anti-Kavanaugh Screeds

The talking point of the day is "anti-democracy." It's almost as if there is a journalist email list coordinating.

Yesterday, Ezra Klein of Vox, who supported the US Supreme Court invalidating the referenda of half the states approved by a majority of voters in each of those states on marriage, declared the Court was becoming anti-democratic. Today, the Editorial Board of the New York Times went with this screed.

In short, Senate Democrats need to use the confirmation process to explain to Americans how their Constitution is about to be hijacked by a small group of conservative radicals well funded by ideological and corporate interests, and what that means in terms of the rights they will lose and the laws that will be invalidated over the next several decades. We’re witnessing right now a global movement against the idea of liberal democracy and, in places like Hungary and Poland, its grounding in an independent judiciary. Mr. Trump and Senate Republicans appear happy to ride this wave to unlimited power. They will almost certainly win this latest battle, but it’s a victory that will come at great cost to the nation, and to the court’s remaining legitimacy. Americans who care about the court’s future and its role in the American system of government need to turn to the political process to restore the protections the new majority will take away, and to create an environment where radical judges can’t be nominated or confirmed. As those tireless conservative activists would be the first to tell you, winning the future depends on deliberate, long-term organizing in the present, even when — especially when — things appear most bleak.

It's only two so far, but the thematic underbelly is the same -- the Supreme Court is suddenly a threat to democracy. Why exactly? Because a conservative majority might actually allow state legislatures to pass laws that have majority support and then stop progressives from going to court to block those democratic actions.

That's what this is about. It is all very Orwellian. The left actually believes it is anti-democratic to have judges who allow the democratic processes to work. They believe it is anti-democratic to have judges who uphold the free exercise and free speech clauses of the first amendment. Let's not forget that last week the New York Times argued the right was weaponizing free speech.

Klein, the New York Times, and more of the left are suddenly singing from the same disingenuous page that the Supreme Court is a threat to democracy if the progressive left cannot control it. It's all very Soviet. And it seems all very coordinated. It's as if there is a list of journalists coordinating their talking points.

"as if". AS IF ???

Rush has done many stories in which he plays cut after cut of talking heads using the same terminology, the same buzz words. It's been obvious for years that they all read from the same script.

Once the Left succeeded so well in its strategy of dumbing down America through its "educational" takeover, Americans became vulnerable any such nonsense as that you outline in the article, because they simply don't know any better.

They don't know what political system they are supporting and enabling, much less its sordid history of oppression, murder and misery. All they "know" is that there is an Evil Other out there, and their minders will tell them who this is and what to say and provide them signs and media attention. They are nothing but little meat robots, programmed and sent out onto the streets to act out all their impotent rage.

But much of the programming is done by the various media, and yes, they ARE coordinated, reading from the same scripts, using the same terms and imagery.

We used to have a free press, now we have a puppet press, and to know who is pulling the strings all we have to do is listen to what they say. They get away with it because so few graduates of our educational system know enough to recognize fascist tactics used by group wearing stick-on labels that say they are anti-fascist, or tactics used to crush democracy masquerading as defending democracy.

1

Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right that the political right is using to the fullest … sometimes clumsily, sometimes admirably.

Conversely, the progressive left, using that same guaranteed right, seems powerless to change the mind of anyone who views their causes unfavorably, for the simple reason that they lack the skill to do so. At almost every turn they’re made to look foolish … sometimes almost childish. They know they can’t win by using the same means as their opponents, so they demand a change. Thus, the complaint that the right has an unfair advantage because they’re “weaponizing free speech”. The irony is that speech is THE weapon of social discourse.

They can’t win in this contest of ideas, so they cry foul and insist the rules be changed so they can.

And the obvious hypocrisy of the NYT editorial board should have them hiding their collective head in shame … but, of course, it won’t.

@Jules* How cute, you still listen to that drug addict and Dominican sex tourist?

Stories