Clarence Thomas Blasted for Declaring SCOTUS Can’t Be ‘Bullied’ Into Giving ‘Outcomes You Want’ After Spouse’s Actions
Clarence Thomas Drones On About Trust In The Court
Clarence Thomas is one of the ‘most corrupt justices in American history,’ MSNBC guest declares

But there’s another reason the media pundits went off on Thomas and it’s the part they’re NOT reporting….

Ya gotta love the laugh.

Mic drop, Justice Thomas!

Republicans say the White House did not include in materials given to the Judiciary Committee a grisly child porn case in which Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson departed significantly below probation office recommendation – and are raising questions of whether the White House “intentionally left it out,” which the White House disputes.

“Committee Republicans only just got the sentencing transcript for this case on Friday, after the hearing had ended,” the GOP Judiciary Committee aide said. “Clearly, the White House either didn’t thoroughly vet the nominee, or were aware of the record and the intentionally left it out in hopes that the nominee would be confirmed before the full record could be uncovered and reviewed.”
— Fox News, 3/29/22

It obviously comes off as disingenuous when inconvenient, if not outright damaging, information is withheld from the opposition party (thus the American people) prior to Senate confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court vacancy. But where Democrats are concerned, negative information about nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson did not break new ground.

As it turns out, it was a successful strategy deployed 84 years ago. Seeing how it didn’t happen within the last five, too many of today’s so-called journalists who are gushing over Jackson have failed to see the irony; that is, if they’d even provide the connected dots to the public.

Hugo Black secured the democratic primary and cleared the way for an easy Alabama Senate win against his Republican opponent in 1926. And while he had provided his letter of resignation from the Klan the year prior in 1925, his time as a member of the Ku Klux Klan would eventually come back to haunt him.

Just a few weeks after getting confirmed for the Supreme Court, a report in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette revealed Black’s history with the Klan. The Pulitzer Prize-winning report by journalist Ray Sprigle featured Black’s 1925 resignation letter from the Klan as proof.

Outrage erupted. Senators who voted for his confirmation argued they would have voted differently had they known Black was a Klan member. Even Black’s strongest supporter, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, claimed to have had no knowledge of his KKK roots before nominating him to the highest court in the land.
— History Channel, 10/10/18

As Bill Clinton would later put it during his eulogy at Senator Robert Byrd’s memorial, it was yet another “fleeting” Klan association a Democrat needed in order to get elected.

Funny how Democrat presidents claim to know little about those they nominate to the highest court in the land; those with information that had to be hidden before confirmation….

…
Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black went on to ruling in a rather Constitutional, thus positive manner. It would be purposefully naïve to assume Brown Jackson will uphold an oath to defend it.

In the eight child-porn cases that came before her court, former D.C. District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson heard horrifying details of “sadomasochistic” torture of young kids — including “infants and toddlers” — yet challenged the disturbing evidence presented by prosecutors and disregarded their prison recommendations to give the lightest possible punishments in each case, according to transcripts of sentencing hearings obtained by the Post. In some cases, she even apologized to some of the kiddie-porn perverts for having to follow the statutes, which she called “substantially flawed.”
— New York Post, 4/2/22

She’s clearly a liberal activist who’s been installed to subvert it and that’s probably why Democrats aimed to withhold as much information from the Senate and American people as possible.

This applies not to just those on social media. You can also apply this to the elected and unelected bureaucrats in local, state, and federal government; specifically those who have direct control over our Constitutionally-protected freedoms. More dangerous are those who have their taxpayer-funded jobs (with no legislative oversight or accountability) for life.

During oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court regarding vaccine mandates in businesses, Justice Sonya Sotomayor showed all just how perilous our freedoms are it this time.

One would think Sotomayor would be a tad more prepared before opening her “wise Latina” mouth.

Omicron Variant Isn’t Deadly, South African Medical Chair Claims
First real-world study suggests Omicron less severe than earlier variants
New Studies Suggest Omicron Infections Are Less Severe Than Delta Ones
Omicron variant leads to less severe symptoms, deaths, new study says
Infectious Omicron could be 99 per cent LESS deadly than other strains, daily cases fall for third day in a row
Could Omicron be even LESS deadly than seasonal flu? Scientists believe ultra-infectious strain may kill 100 TIMES fewer people than Delta (and mortality rates were ALREADY similar to influenza before the variant emerged)

It kinda’ makes you wonder how many SCOTUS decisions were botched due to the arrogant ignorance of some of the justices….

While millions of Americans are removed from social media and or harassed by the intellectually intolerant because of their views, Sotomayor is allowed to spew clearly incorrect information she probably consumed from MSNBC, NPR, The New York Times, and maybe even Democracy Now! One would think her opinions would be guided by an even-tempered approach, but we also know she’s also led by a “wise Latina” arrogance where what she believes is truth can be used to inflict generational damage to the country.

The left is in hysterics because Kavanaugh could be a deciding vote on the SCOTUS bench should abortion reappear on the docket, and he was smeared with false rape accusations. What does that have in common with the abortion topic? Because the only reason why abortion made it to the Supreme Court was because a woman, who claimed to be “gang raped”, wanted and couldn’t get one easily.

The year was 1969. Norma McCorvey was 22, pregnant and unwed when she approached an attorney about wanting an abortion. The Dallas woman didn’t get one, but four years later, her lawsuit fighting Texas’ ban on abortion reached the Supreme Court and made the procedure legal across the United States.

“Miss Norma” was a complicated figure in the abortion debate. McCorvey, who once identified as lesbian, admitted that she had lied about being gang-raped so she could end her pregnancy.
— Dallas Morning News, 2/19/17

It sure was “complicated”.

During those times, there were morals and standards in the United States. Being unmarried and knocked-up was not as socially acceptable and enabled as it is today. There was a stigma and using the “rape” card provided the appropriate cover and absolution from personal responsibility.

It’s not clear who specifically McCorvey accused but the aftermath is now well known. The Supreme Court found the existing anti-abortion laws to be unconstitutional, women subsequently got the right to have abortions on demand, and millions of babies are killed in the womb to this day… all because of a lie.

Sarah Weddington, the Austin, Texas, lawyer who represented McCorvey, told United Press International Tuesday, ‘The issue of how Jane Roe became pregnant is irrelevant to the case. There was nothing in any of the papers filed with the court or in any of the oral arguments made that related to the cause of the pregnancy.’
— United Press International, 9/8/87

A woman lies about a rape. A political goal is met.

McCorvey told syndicated newspaper columnist Carl T. Rowan that she had fabricated her account of being raped by three men and a woman in 1969 because she had hoped to circumvent a 100-year-old Texas law that banned abortions except when the woman’s life was in danger. The transcript of the interview doesn’t make clear why Ms. McCorvey thought that an account of rape would necessarily help win exemption from, or overturn, a law that allowed abortion only to protect a woman’s life.

“I don’t know” is probably the most overused response when someone is asked why they made a false rape accusation.

According to a news release issued by WUSA about the interview, Sarah Weddington, one of the two lawyers who took the case to the Supreme Court, said she had never “touched the issue of rape and only emphasized the question of whether the Constitution gives to the state or leaves to a woman the questions of what she can or must do with her body.”

Telling the truth, heaven forbid, might have poked an ethical hole in the case.

Kate Michelman, executive director of the National Abortion Rights Action League, said in an interview today that Ms. McCorvey’s disclosure ”should not cloud the discussion about the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy. “It was her life circumstances that created the conditions that mitigated against her being straightforward….”
— New York Times, 9/9/87

McCorvey was the “anonymous plaintiff” in the landmark case that made it to the Supreme Court and there was no written mention of her being “raped” in the lawsuit. That aided in her not having to testify under oath.

How convenient and, again, familiar.

While rape was never an issue in the case, public opinion was considered swayed by the media accounts detailing what McCorvey claimed was a gang rape by three men and a woman while she worked for a circus in Georgia.

Imagine the public opinion had there been a 24-hour media and Internet oh-so ready to repeat her lie. McCorvey would be ready with tears-on-cue, playing on the emotions of the public, invoking the horrors of rape, and getting a high court to create a “right” superseding and thus denying “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” to millions of children who never made it out of their mothers alive.

Yes, there are those today who forgave Norma McCorvey. She was baptized and went on a crusade, mostly ignored by the liberal media, to inform the American people of the lie that created “Roe vs. Wade”. But the damage was done and a false rape accusation sanctioned the wholesale slaughter of millions of American children.

Being Jane Roe has been a heavy burden. I remember 10 years ago driving past a school playground and seeing these empty swings. I freaked out. I thought: ‘All the playgrounds are empty, all the children are dead and it’s because of me.’
— Norma McCorvey, 1995

McCorvey may have sought some semblance of redemption before her judgment day, but she is no hero and today another false accusation of rape has been used as abortion-on-demand could soon be at risk for the left and all the nonprofits that have made millions of dollars promoting the killing of more than 60 million babies in the United States alone, almost a third (18 million) alone black.

Norma McCorvey was quietly eulogized by the left when she died in 2017; she was a heroine because of her abortion achievement while the lie that got her there was omitted for convenience.

She was also a heroine, eulogized by the right, as she turned on the pro-choice movement.

The Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation process has brought two very evil topics into the public light. One being abortion and the other false rape accusations.

And in both cases, liberal Democrats would have you believe neither are big deals at all.

Three Reasons Why You Can’t Find a Guy
Ask Anna: Why can’t I find a man?
It Really Is You & Not Him: 10 Reasons You Can’t Find a Good Man
20 Reasons You Don’t Have a Boyfriend
Why You Can’t Find A Boyfriend Even When You’re Trying Really Hard

One of the main contributors was the loud feminist mantra, “I don’t need a man” that left some women with a fist held high in one hand and a smoldering bra in the other, while other women just threw up their hands in the frustration of self-inflicted sabotage.

We can only imagine the conversations that were had between parents and their young male sons who just left the nest for a college campus. How many responsible parents warned those sons to be VERY careful with any female student they would come in contact with, all the precautions that would need to be considered before having any contact with one that could possibly be a love interest, and the possible negative ramifications of such an interest that could follow them for the rest of their lives.

Suppose a woman wakes up in the morning after a sexual encounter and then labels it sexual assault, to the surprise of her sexual partner. Did this woman regret having sex and then say she was a victim so she doesn’t have to come to terms with her actions? Is she lying about being sexually assaulted so people don’t think she is a slut?
— UNC Healthy Heels, 11/7/13

If you have to pose this as a defensive scenario, there’s an inconvenient element of truth that needed to be initially acknowledged.

But we’re told we must #BelieveWomen….

After the stigma placed on men with the implementation of Title IX on campus and more recently the #MeToo movement, how long before women (again) start whining because fewer men are giving them the time of day, let alone a date or assistance in a workplace. Men are now rightfully being very careful.

Women, as portrayed by Democrats, their media and activists, are not looking very attractive and we don’t just mean physically. They’re coming off as unhinged and few men find that kind of potential drama as a positive draw. A lot of these women also appear to be on a revenge mission which leaves any man in contact with them in potential jeopardy, which also translates to the workplace or any space that men and women cohabitate.

Prior to #MeToo, cautious male supervisors would always leave an office door open when talking to a female, equal or subordinate. How many employers have had to absorb the expense of creating really cool offices with glass walls; not because of the attractive aesthetics but to protect themselves from potential accusations of what may or may not have been said or done behind an opaque wall or closed door?

As in most movements that are not well-thought through, there are serious ramifications for impulsive action. Sure, some of these women will find solace within the sisterhood, declare themselves bisexual so they can achieve immediate gratification, but for those who don’t swing that way, the isolation will grow and the frustration will again become a vocal rallying cry.

This time, it’s a different world.

During the Gloria Steinem days of feminist empowerment, it was all about recognition and independence. She and others also claimed to be speaking for all women. Today, #MeToo is all about payback and they claim to be speaking for all women. The problem this time is that some of these women have husbands, brothers, sons and others who are potential targets of those who have agendas and personal issues, mixed with that nasty lack of conscience. They’ll punish any man who rejects them, didn’t reward them as they saw fit, and in the case of a potential Supreme Court justice who could potentially hamper their ability to do what they want with their bodies (and babies within).

Again, things involving the human condition tend to be cyclical. #MeToo women are using their movement to punish men who they claim abused them. They’ve also cast a wide net and have indicted all men as potential sexual abusers. Democrats are using the Kavanaugh confirmation as midterm election topic, many in the electorate are being justifiably repulsed, and fewer men will hold a door open for a woman, let alone vote for one and her offending political party.

The “Why can’t I find a man?” public whining will begin again. This time, there will be a response because of everything #MeToo.

“No, thanks.”

UPDATE

It took exactly two months.

An infrastructure-investing manager says he won’t meet with a female employee in rooms that don’t have windows; in addition, he “keeps his distance in elevators.” Another man, in private equity, has a new, self-imposed rule that says he’s not allowed to have a business dinner with any women who are 35 or younger. (Apparently, after 35, there’s no risk of doing anything appropriate, as women turn into old hags.)

I think Bess Levin meant “doing anything inappropriate” but correcting a woman’s grammar is probably a bad thing.

The horror stories continue. An investment adviser who oversees roughly 100 employees said he started to reconsider having one-on-ones with junior females. Others are refusing to sit next to female colleagues on flights and booking hotel rooms on different floors during work trips. #MeToo, according to David Bahnsen, a former managing director at Morgan Stanley, is “creating a sense of walking on eggshells.” Men, employment attorney Stephen Zweig told Bloomberg, are concerned about “a false accusation,” and “fear what they cannot control.”

Remember how many times we were all told false accusations are “rare”?

Well, it looks like men have been listening and are now responding accordingly.

Avoiding women at all costs doesn’t just make the men of Wall Street look like weird Mike Pences who apparently can’t control themselves in the presence of the devil sex. It also has a damaging effect on the careers of the women they’re shunning for fear of being accused of sexual harassment.
— Vanity Fair, 12/3/18

Women celebrated sticking it to the men and now men are looking to avoid them like the plague.

Happy now?