There Are No Boundaries': Liberal Artist Criticized for Depicting Kavanaugh's Daughter in Cartoon


I totally unreservedly support the cartoonists rights to free speech and the rights of everyone else to criticize him or praise him for it.

It doesn’t, not even a little.

It’s amazing the number of people who simply accept his guilt.

And in Christian circles is not even a little unusual or surprising, which is why the following for many folks:

I guess you could say the same of all the folks screaming, “guilty!” It’s normal for men to rape or attempt to rape women in their minds. They keep going on about this “rape culture,” in a nation where rape is outlawed and reports of it are investigated and prosecuted when police investigators can find enough evidence to prove a case.

Also, I pretty much agree with your last post.


We KNOW who “started it.” No Republican has trashed any Democrat nominee to the SCOTUS to the extent that Bork, Thomas or Kavanaugh were trashed BY Democrats. Not EVER. When 20% of all “journalists” live either in New York City, Washington D.C. or Los Angeles, all bastions of “progressive” lunacies, it’s no wonder that much of what they report is just as loony as they are. The problem is, they wield great influence, and they don’t do it impartially. When 90+% of the coverage of President Trump by the national media is negative, that should tell ALL of us that something is radically WRONG…not with the President, but with the media itself.

Justice Kavanaugh had no reason to lie. Ms Ford and every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee did. The very idea of a conservative SCOTUS scares the bejeebers out of the left because they’ve relied on unconstitutional decisions FROM that court to accomplish what they could NEVER get done legislatively. They CLAIM to believe in “one man, one vote”–but ONLY if that vote is theirs or one of their sycophant’s. They could NEVER have gotten unfettered abortion on demand past the American people, so did an end run around the Legislation and got it instituted by an UNconstitutional decision by a liberal-minded SCOTUS.


No, because Kavanaugh said it and no one in a position to know claimed otherwise, I take it at face value. That isn’t extraordinary. No compelling case has been made that Kavanaugh has lied about anything. Why should I start thinking he did in this case? You can cite motivations, but that hardly proves that it wasn’t the truth. The only testimony as to what his daughter said was that she did indeed say it.

Kavanaugh said she did; no one who was there said she didn’t.


Rebuttals and the circumstances surrounding the accusation stand to challenge Ford’s claim. Nothing sound stands to dispute what his daughter said.


That’s really not the point I was making. I just find it interesting that people on either political side take things at face value when it agrees with what they believe (e.g. Dems and Dr. Fords claim) and Kavanaugh and his statements, but neither side realizes they are doing the same thing the other side is doing, but just on different claims.


If there had been any concrete support for this rape story, Feinstein would have brought up in July. She didn’t because she knew the story was full of holes, and would have fallen apart under longer term scrutiny. It was presented as a “Hail Mary” when it because clear that the Democrats didn’t have the votes to block the nomination.

The other stories they came up with, exposing himself and the gang rape, were even less credible. They were just, “jello thrown up on the wall,” to see if any of it would stick. It didn’t, and it made their Ford story look even less credible.

The point is, it’s damn poor taste to bring a nominee’s ten year old daughter into the discussion, but the Democrats are desperate and have a scorched earth policy. They are ready to grab power any way they can. It’s in the revolutionary’s handbook of dirty tricks. The trouble is, it does not sell well to decent minded people. To make it work, more brainwashed millennials will be needed in the voting booth.


I think there is some evidence he lied…Kavanaugh “claimed that his beer consumption in high school was legal because the drinking age in Maryland was 18.” Kavanaugh’s exact words were: “The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school, people were legal to drink, and we—yeah, we drank beer.”

Now looking at the statement, he’s crafted his answer very carefully and if taken literally, isn’t a lie, but it is intentionally misleading to the point, in the context it was spoken, is a lie.

The fact is Kavanaugh was born in 1965. In Maryland, the age to drink beer and wine was raised to 21 with a grandfather clause for those born June 30, 1964, or earlier.

Fact is, Kavanaugh was 17. However, interestingly, he avoided saying the words “I was 18 when I drank”, rather " so the seniors were legal [when they drank]. Implying that he was legal, without actually using those words. Given the context of the question, it was misleading and IMO, a lie.

Is the fact that he drank at 17 in 1982 a big deal? No, not so much. But in a job interview for the Supreme Court, the truth is a big deal.

Several people he went to school with have tried to come forward to share their experiences of Kavanaugh’s behavior when he drank. As I understand it, several people tried to reach the FBI to share their stories and insights but were given the runaround or took statements but never asked any questions.

There was a question about what a “Devils Triangle” is. I seriously doubt his explanation, however, it is strange that a Wikipedia edit was submitted from the U.S. House of Representatives shortly after Kavanaugh’s testimony, ostensibly to corroborate his explanation.

Kavanaugh claimed at least 8 times that
“Dr. Ford’s allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a longtime friend of hers”. Another lie…

Two of the witnesses—Leland Ingham Keyser and Patrick J. Smyth—whom Blasey Ford named, couldn’t remember the night in question, which would make sense given that it was an uneventful gathering for them dating back several decades. Mark Judge, the only witness in the room, refused to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Keyser, the longtime friend, previously told The Washington Post she believes Ford’s allegation. After the hearing, Keyser released another statement through her lawyer reiterating that she “does not refute Dr. Ford’s account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford’s account.”

Now, one might forgive a layperson for confusing what was said here as an exoneration, but Kavanaugh is a judge and he knows (or should know) that his claims are false in the context they were given.

There are several other examples, but they are too easily refuted with a hand wave and honestly would require a real investigation to uncover the truth.

For my part, I can’t stand him as a judge and I think his behavior alone disqualified him as a judge for the SC, but for what it’s worth I think the way this was handled was awful, for both Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh and while I support a real investigation to uncover the truth, not only of the allegations, but to find out if he purged himself.

I believe that Democrats played this out and turned this into a political sideshow, but I think they did it because they feared that if they tried to handle this behind closed doors, Republicans would have ignored it, something I wholeheartedly agree with.

I think the Dems feel that the Republicans denial of Garland was the worst of dirty politics and is just another step down the proverbial stairs that are the race to the bottom.

Honesly, the change to confirm by a simple majority is, IMO what has made this such a mess.

I suspect that if Dems ever get both houses back they will conduct another investigation and impeachment of Kavanaugh might be a thing…

If that happens and Dems get to approve a justice, expect this all to be played out all over again, except the big issue won’t be abortion but guns. I’ll be (slightly) amused as all of this plays itself out all over but the table is flipped…

In the end, NO ONE wins when we get hard right and hard left Supreme Court Justices. I really wonder if this moment will be looked back as the seed for a cultural or literal civil war that will begin in earnest once this court starts reversing old decisions…

Am I being an alarmist? Perhaps. Time will tell.


No, you are being a liberal.


Ooo, nice one…


What you forget, csbrown, is that what Judge Kavanaugh said has the ring of truth to it for ANYONE who is paying the least attention and Ms Ford’s claim is so full of holes it’s simply unbelievable for those same people. Lefties don’t believe Kavanaugh because they don’t WANT to believe him, and they believe Ford’s cock and bull story because they WANT it to be true to justify their hatred of anyone President Trump might nominate. There is no evidence that Justice Kavanaugh (still hurts, huh?) will try to overturn Roe v. Wade, even though it WAS wrongly decided. They KNOW that no Democrat nominee would ever do that, but they are simply unsure about any GOP nominee and the feminists have tied their entire existence to the supposed “right” to kill unborn babies for convenience.


Can you hear yourself? Seriously?


When can you can write about what is wrong with Hillary Clinton, and why she was the worse major party presidential candidate since perhaps Horace Greeley in 1872, you don’t have any credibility. Oh, I forgot. You guys tell us that history before 1900 is irrelevant.


This is true as far as it goes, but I don’t think you’ve made a case for me doing it, or that I’m wrong with the replies I have made in this thread on this subject.

I don’t know about the specifics of a lot of what you talked about in your longer post. I do think that some of it sounds like nit picking (not all, and again, I don’t know a lot of the details). But I wonder how well any sitting Supreme Court Justice would respond to a big fat accusation out of the blue. Perhaps you’ll say: “But he lied!” (If he did.) But it’s common to get jumbled in answering high-pressure questions- even for one who is articulate- when faced with the hostility, vitriol, and hatred that Kavanaugh has endured. That’s not dishonesty; that’s being frazzled by an unprecedented political hit job that was so clearly a political hit job that never saw the light of day until it became a political hit job that it’s no wonder to thoughtful people that the accusation is rendered suspect at best and a lying crock at worst.


Whoa . . . whoa . . . back up a second.

Just where in the heck are you getting this?

Just who CORROBORATED her story, and was that corroboration made in a statement to the Committee?
Please expand.

Was not Mark Judge interviewed by the FBI? Did he not make a sworn statement that was submitted to the Committee?

And those examples would be . . . ?

Well, then, we know where YOUR bias is.

Revealing your bias again.

Since one can only be impeached for acts committed while serving in the office . . . just how could Kavanaugh be impeached for acts committed PRIOR to serving on the Supreme Court?

What would you propose to do with the hard left Ginsburgh?

Since “old decisions” form precedents, and Kavanaugh has said that he holds precedents in high regard, just exactly what makes you think anything will be “reversed”? WHAT will be reversed? Evidence for Kavanaugh ignoring precedent in a majority of his past decisions?


What in my post was incorrect, csbrown? The fact is, Democrats don’t have any REASON to believe Ford except that they WANT to believe her. She offers no proof for her claims and even her own “witnesses” wouldn’t confirm her story. So what about her story is compelling and has the ring of truth about it? Nothing that I can see and I am a trained criminal investigator with dozens of such cases under my belt. She can’t recall WHEN she was attacked, WHERE it happened, HOW she got there or how she got home FROM there. She doesn’t know WHOSE house it was and how she found out there was supposed to be a “party” there. She said she never told her therapist the NAME of the boys who attacked her and then claimed she “remembered” who they were when she saw Kavanaugh’s name on a list of potential SCOTUS nominees…which would have been IMPOSSIBLE before President Trump was nominated in 2016 because no such list existed before then. That’s 34 or 35 YEARS after she claims this all happened, and she couldn’t even remember when she took her so-called “polygraph” exam a mere 45-60 DAYS before her testimony. Speaking of which, she claims she cried throughout the exam but then says that she “passed” it, which in itself is impossible. ANY competent polygraph examiner will tell you that crying makes the polygraph results “inconclusive” because the polygraph measures and detects EMOTIONAL reactions to key questions; sweating, increased heartbeat, changes in breathing patterns, etc. So can you explain just WHAT it is about her story that you find “compellingly truthful?” Can you explain why she would go to the trouble to scrub her social media accounts BEFORE her name was made public??? Can you explain why she would make her accusations ONLY to Feinstein and then hide her therapist’s notes from the rest of the committee? There are a multitude of suspicious gaps in her story that no “investigation” will ever resolve because they are unresolvable and that’s by DESIGN. She CANNOT afford to have the truth come out because that puts her in legal jeopardy herself.


Why so you can dismiss it because it’s not being reported by a source you trust?

That wasn’t the point I was addressing in what you quoted.

So now all we need is a few sentences written and signed by a lawyer and not testimony by witnesses where they are asked specific questions where their answers have specific consequences?

Give me a break. People are willing to go to the ends of the earth to investigate Clinton (justified or not), but if witnesses of potential behavior simply submit a few sentences says they know nothing (when you support the person in question), that’s enough for you?

Not interested. We need to get past this stuff first.

LOL…We all have bias’. I can dislike Kavanaugh, mostly for his behavior at the confirmation hearings. Having said that, I can dislike his behavior and even some of his past decisions, but be objective about the process that he’s endured during his confirmation.

That’s interesting, I didn’t realize that if it’s shown he committed perjury as part of his interview for his job, he can’t be impeached? If that’s true, the process should be amended.

The same thing I’d do with Kavanaugh.

Time will tell. I’m certainly not going to argue what Kavanaugh might do. But to be 100% clear, I don’t believe that Kavanagh should have been disqualified because of his judicial record, even if I disagree with some of his decisions. I thought he was as partisan as any Justice has ever been during his confirmation (at least that I know if) and I thought his belligerence was intolerable, something that completely and totally disqualified him IMO.

Something the ABA agrees with:

Several thousand law professors have also written a letter opposing Kavanaugh on the same grounds…Temperament: (Undoubtedly all 2,400 professors are die-hard liberals, right?)

Now, I’ll finish this by saying that I don’t like Kavanaugh as a judge, I can separate my personal feelings from the process as it’s played out.

The process, as it played out on TV was broken. I freely admit that if the situation were reversed and I supported the judge in question, I wouldn’t like to see it play out this way.

Public allegations are extremely damaging and we shouldn’t see it play out like this. The problem is the distrust that is growing between the political right and the political left. THese arguments are rarely based in fact and rather end up being appeals to emotion played out as a political process rather than one interested in establishing facts. Both sides use the same tools when the situation suits them (no bias here).

I suspect the Dems will soon have control of the House and when they abuse their power I will be happy to field questions and admit when they’ve done so…


It doesn’t look like the Democrats WILL take control of the House and are likely to lose even MORE Senate seats. According to what Hillary said yesterday, the left’s viciousness and violence is going to continue until Americans “give” them what they want…political power. That’s like a kid saying, “Mommy, I’ll be good if you’ll just let me have one more piece of candy.”



I wish I could think of a fun friendly wager we could place on that…Can you think of something?

My prediction is that Dems will, assuming no outside interference, will take back the House. The Senate is a much taller order and I suspect the best Dems can hope for is to keep things the way they are, though it wouldn’t surpise me if they lose a seat or two given they have 29 seats to defend to the Republicans…6? (if I remember correctly).


Democrats are for certain to lose their seats in N. Dakota and Indiana and MAYBE even New Jersey. I seriously doubt that they’ll win in either Florida OR Texas–both States without State Income Taxes who don’t want to risk having their Federal taxes raised, which the Dimwits WILL do if they take over in D.C.


Are you talking about the Senate or the House?

Yes, that’s unfortunate about raising taxes.