The Many Faces of US Politics...

[J70]

Intentionally seeking to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court of the United States is exactly the same if not worse than Fox News seeking to delegitimize President Obama.

If you can't see that then you need to examine how partisan you have become

I'm not defending their f**k-up on that story or claiming that they never make mistakes. Every news organization that has ever existed has screwed up.

I'm disagreeing with your lazy allegation that this somehow makes them the equivalent of Fox News or, even more ludicrously, OAN.

Like I said, I seriously doubt how much you actually read the Times.

As for the Supreme Court's, its legitimacy went down the toilet with Merritt Garland. Now its just a rubber stamp for the Federalist Society "vision" of America and will be for a generation.

Someday you'll explain to us why you think that is a good thing.

[whitey]

Intentionally seeking to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court of the United States is exactly the same if not worse than Fox News seeking to delegitimize President Obama.

If you can't see that then you need to examine how partisan you have become

I'm not defending their f**k-up on that story or claiming that they never make mistakes. Every news organization that has ever existed has screwed up.

I'm disagreeing with your lazy allegation that this somehow makes them the equivalent of Fox News or, even more ludicrously, OAN.

Like I said, I seriously doubt how much you actually read the Times.

As for the Supreme Court's, its legitimacy went down the toilet with Merritt Garland. Now its just a rubber stamp for the Federalist Society "vision" of America and will be for a generation.

Someday you'll explain to us why you think that is a good thing.

I am on the record as saying that the Garland decision was an absolute disgrace, but the Democrats only have themselves to blame for that by advocating doing essentially the same during several prior election cycles

Conveniently the "fvck ups" and "mistakes" The NY Times make almost always seem to benefit Democrats

If they want to  engage in repeated character assassination of decent people for political ends, well shame on them but that's the type of behavior I expect from Fox or OAN

You trying to brush their bias under the carpet is very sad

[Gabriel_Hurl]

Intentionally seeking to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court of the United States is exactly the same if not worse than Fox News seeking to delegitimize President Obama.

If you can't see that then you need to examine how partisan you have become

[whitey]

Intentionally seeking to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court of the United States is exactly the same if not worse than Fox News seeking to delegitimize President Obama.

If you can't see that then you need to examine how partisan you have become

Correct and I've said 1000 times on here that it was disgrace

But I expect no more from rabid partisans-and that's what The NY Times are

Just as bad as McConnell and OAN and Fox News

[J70]

Intentionally seeking to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court of the United States is exactly the same if not worse than Fox News seeking to delegitimize President Obama.

If you can't see that then you need to examine how partisan you have become

I'm not defending their f**k-up on that story or claiming that they never make mistakes. Every news organization that has ever existed has screwed up.

I'm disagreeing with your lazy allegation that this somehow makes them the equivalent of Fox News or, even more ludicrously, OAN.

Like I said, I seriously doubt how much you actually read the Times.

As for the Supreme Court's, its legitimacy went down the toilet with Merritt Garland. Now its just a rubber stamp for the Federalist Society "vision" of America and will be for a generation.

Someday you'll explain to us why you think that is a good thing.

I am on the record as saying that the Garland decision was an absolute disgrace, but the Democrats only have themselves to blame for that by advocating doing essentially the same during several prior election cycles

Conveniently the "fvck ups" and "mistakes" The NY Times make almost always seem to benefit Democrats

If they want to  engage in repeated character assassination of decent people for political ends, well shame on them but that's the type of behavior I expect from Fox or OAN

You trying to brush their bias under the carpet is very sad

I'm not.

I disagreeing with your assertion that they're no better than Fox News (I'm going to leave OAN out of this, as they're on a plane of their own).

Fox News is GOP propaganda for most of their line-up, with the exception of a couple of hours of hard news (and even then, Shep Smith quit). There is a whole host of GOP players who cycle between Congress and Fox News and Republican administrations. Trump personally calls into many of the Fox News shows himself. So do loads of other GOP politicians. They feed off each other.

There is nothing like that going on at the Times, even if their opinion and editorial pages have, like most papers, a political bias. Most of their content is either hard news, local or non-political anyway. To suggest that they're the equivalent of Fox News is not supported by any evidence.

[Gmac]

Intentionally seeking to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court of the United States is exactly the same if not worse than Fox News seeking to delegitimize President Obama.

If you can't see that then you need to examine how partisan you have become

I'm not defending their f**k-up on that story or claiming that they never make mistakes. Every news organization that has ever existed has screwed up.

I'm disagreeing with your lazy allegation that this somehow makes them the equivalent of Fox News or, even more ludicrously, OAN.

Like I said, I seriously doubt how much you actually read the Times.

As for the Supreme Court's, its legitimacy went down the toilet with Merritt Garland. Now its just a rubber stamp for the Federalist Society "vision" of America and will be for a generation.

Someday you'll explain to us why you think that is a good thing.

the tactics were a little different wouldn't you say , McConnell just blocked it the dems called old Brett a rapist , gang rapist , piss head with no basis for it and never apologized to him or his family big difference

[J70]

Intentionally seeking to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court of the United States is exactly the same if not worse than Fox News seeking to delegitimize President Obama.

If you can't see that then you need to examine how partisan you have become

I'm not defending their f**k-up on that story or claiming that they never make mistakes. Every news organization that has ever existed has screwed up.

I'm disagreeing with your lazy allegation that this somehow makes them the equivalent of Fox News or, even more ludicrously, OAN.

Like I said, I seriously doubt how much you actually read the Times.

As for the Supreme Court's, its legitimacy went down the toilet with Merritt Garland. Now its just a rubber stamp for the Federalist Society "vision" of America and will be for a generation.

Someday you'll explain to us why you think that is a good thing.

the tactics were a little different wouldn't you say , McConnell just blocked it the dems called old Brett a rapist , gang rapist , piss head with no basis for it and never apologized to him or his family big difference

No basis apart from a woman staking her life and career and reputation on making the allegation in full view of the public in front of Congress.

[RadioGAAGAA]

So now the story is that The_Donald wants to force an adjournment of both houses so he can appoint whomever he wants to whatever role he desires without any oversight.

[whitey]

So The NY Times ran a piece that was so inflammatory that several Democratic presidential candidates came out that very day and called for the impeachment of a sitting Supreme Court Justice.

A prominent Democratic Congresswoman announced the same day that she would be introducing a resolution to begin an impeachment inquiry of Kavanaugh.

And it was all based on a bunch of BS fed to them by a former Clinton attorney, a fact they also conveniently omitted

And no one lost their jobs

[Eamonnca1]

Intentionally seeking to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court of the United States is exactly the same if not worse than Fox News seeking to delegitimize President Obama.

If you can't see that then you need to examine how partisan you have become

Kavanaugh is illegitimate. He's squatting on a seat that should have been filled by Obama. I hope that if the Dems take back the White House and senate, they expand the supreme court to make up for the illegitimate justices put there by two illegitimate presidents, Bush and Trump.

[whitey]

Intentionally seeking to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court of the United States is exactly the same if not worse than Fox News seeking to delegitimize President Obama.

If you can't see that then you need to examine how partisan you have become

Kavanaugh is illegitimate. He's squatting on a seat that should have been filled by Obama. I hope that if the Dems take back the White House and senate, they expand the supreme court to make up for the illegitimate justices put there by two illegitimate presidents, Bush and Trump.

Lol.....won't happen

[RedHand88]

Intentionally seeking to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court of the United States is exactly the same if not worse than Fox News seeking to delegitimize President Obama.

If you can't see that then you need to examine how partisan you have become

Kavanaugh is illegitimate. He's squatting on a seat that should have been filled by Obama. I hope that if the Dems take back the White House and senate, they expand the supreme court to make up for the illegitimate justices put there by two illegitimate presidents, Bush and Trump.

Hold on, why are those two presidents illegitimate? Don't tell me the Democrats are still pushing that popular vote argument. Can't complain about the rules after you've lost.

[J70]

So The NY Times ran a piece that was so inflammatory that several Democratic presidential candidates came out that very day and called for the impeachment of a sitting Supreme Court Justice.

A prominent Democratic Congresswoman announced the same day that she would be introducing a resolution to begin an impeachment inquiry of Kavanaugh.

And it was all based on a bunch of BS fed to them by a former Clinton attorney, a fact they also conveniently omitted

And no one lost their jobs

1. The man you so sneeringly dismiss as a "Clinton lawyer", a reference replete with implications of dishonesty and dirt, feeding BS to the authors, was a member of Bill Clinton's impeachment defense team, back in the late 90s, when the firm he worked for was hired for the job. Trump's great public legal defender during the impeachment, Alan Dershowitz, was a member of OJ's defense team, back around the same tome. Is his entire, distinguished career and motivation defined by that particular job, in your eyes?
I would add that Stier has also worked for Republicans in the past and has in recent years professionally advised transition teams of both parties during presidential elections. So much so that he features prominently on the topic in the Michael Lewis book that you yourself recommended here on this very thread.
Partisan hack he is not.

2. I agree that James Dao and the Times did not satisfactorily address why they left out the info that Harmon Joyce didn't remember what Stier alleged. The authors suggest that it was somehow deleted when they removed Harmon Joyce's name from the article. Maybe, but it sounds weak.

3. I also, however, do not see how this could be part of some odious conspiracy on the part of the Times as the book from which the article was drawn was coming out a couple of days later and DID have both Harmon Joyce's name and the fact that she didn't recall what Stier alleged. What would be the point?

4. Especially when the (long) article was buried in the Sunday supplement section in the first place and NOT, as you claim, an editorial piece. And more especially when everyone knows that every piece of any article with political implications is picked apart with a fine toothcomb for inconsistencies, weaknesses and lies. This is the Times, not Alex Jones or the Gateway Pundit or other such non-mainstream outlet where most people aren't going to hear or read about it. The only outcome is every going to be the story and the outlet losing credibility.

[J70]

Intentionally seeking to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court of the United States is exactly the same if not worse than Fox News seeking to delegitimize President Obama.

If you can't see that then you need to examine how partisan you have become

Kavanaugh is illegitimate. He's squatting on a seat that should have been filled by Obama. I hope that if the Dems take back the White House and senate, they expand the supreme court to make up for the illegitimate justices put there by two illegitimate presidents, Bush and Trump.

Hold on, why are those two presidents illegitimate? Don't tell me the Democrats are still pushing that popular vote argument. Can't complain about the rules after you've lost.

Of course not.

You should tell that to those who claim Bernie was robbed in 2016 also.

The popular vote or electoral college reform does have merit though. Why should my NY vote carry less weight in both the Senate and Presidential elections than the votes of my in-laws out in a sparsely populated western state?

Shit will probably hit the fan again next year when the census comes out and the electoral votes are reallocated.

[J70]

Intentionally seeking to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court of the United States is exactly the same if not worse than Fox News seeking to delegitimize President Obama.

If you can't see that then you need to examine how partisan you have become

Kavanaugh is illegitimate. He's squatting on a seat that should have been filled by Obama. I hope that if the Dems take back the White House and senate, they expand the supreme court to make up for the illegitimate justices put there by two illegitimate presidents, Bush and Trump.

But then the GOP does the same when they're next in control.

Where does it end?