Here’s Today’s “Gee, It Would Be Nice If We Had Some Kind Of Profession That Would Objectively Inform Us About Important Events Without Lying, Spinning, And Manipulating” Note: The SCOTUS Security Bill

You’re on again, Dana…

Gee, Dana, I don’t know what’s happening, because “journalists” and the untrustworthy, irresponsible, incompetent news organizations they work for refuse to tell us without their own special sauce drowning its essence. The special sauce is arrogance and bias.

Today’s nauseating example: Are Nancy Pelosi and her House Democrats deliberately stalling the special SCOTUS protection measure that passed the Senate last month as part of an effort to intimidate the conservative justices and play politics with their lives?

The National Review reported,

[House Minority Leader] McCarthy has tried several times over the past week to advance the measure — which passed the Senate last month but has stalled in the Democrat-controlled House — after authorities foiled an alleged assassination attempt against Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday.

“For the 3rd time in a week, I’m calling for a vote for stronger security for Supreme Court Justices—ALL of them,” McCarthy said on Twitter. “This isn’t partisan. The threat is real. Why is Speaker Pelosi blocking something that the Senate has already passed unanimously?”

….McCarthy on Monday expressed frustration after House Democrats declined his third request for unanimous consent to quickly advance a bill to increase security for Supreme Court justices.

McCarthy has tried several times over the past week to advance the measure — which passed the Senate last month but has stalled in the Democrat-controlled House — after authorities foiled an alleged assassination attempt against Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday.

“For the 3rd time in a week, I’m calling for a vote for stronger security for Supreme Court Justices—ALL of them,” McCarthy said on Twitter. “This isn’t partisan. The threat is real. Why is Speaker Pelosi blocking something that the Senate has already passed unanimously?”

Conservative pundits think they know why. “It’s been more than a month since the Senate passed a new bill that would enhance safety and security for Supreme Court justices by unanimous consent,” wrote Jazz Shaw on Hot Air Media. “But Speaker Nancy Pelosi once again shot down the request….She’s sticking to the same excuse she’s used all along, but at this point, it has long since become obvious that the Speaker is engaging in a delaying tactic for political purposes.”

She adds,

The argument that Pelosi and the Democrats are sticking with is that the bill should also include the same level of protection for staff members who work for the justices. It’s an attempt at virtue signaling, implying that they care even more about the lives of everyone at the Supreme Court…. In the time since the bill first passed in the Senate, the number of threats received against the conservative justices has skyrocketed…who do you suppose is lurking out there thinking to themselves that they could somehow prevent the decision in Dobbs from being handed down if they murdered a clerk? Have any of the clerks and other staff members received any death threats? Here’s a better question. How many of you can even name one of the clerks at the Supreme Court unless you’re a personal friend or family member of one of them?

Seems reasonable, and yes, given Pelosi’s ethical void and demonstrated proclivities, plus the sentiments of her parties most extreme supporters, I can easily believe that she would do this for sinister purposes.

Then I checked the New York Times’ report from the end of last week. “Democratic aides said the delay would be brief as House and Senate negotiators work through the scope of the added protections and whether the families of clerks would be offered more security,” the Times explains. ‘We had hoped that we could do it today, but we certainly will do it at the beginning of next week,’ Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, told reporters.”

The Left’s propaganda mouthpiece didn’t think anything more recent concerning the measure was fit to print, and it’s still “the beginning of next week.” Pelosi’s statement makes it sound like the delay will be minimal. Is the conservative media spinning this to make the Democrats look even more diabolical than they are?

This story from the conservative New York Post suggests that it’s the Times that is spinning:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez self-hyped her effort to block a Senate-approved bill that would step up security protections for Supreme Court justices and their immediate family members Thursday — a day after an armed man was arrested for attempting to murder Justice Brett Kavanaugh…AOC told her followers that she would oppose the unanimous consent request until the Senate advances gun control measures…“Oh, so we can pass protections for us and here easily, right? But we can’t pass protections for everyday people? I think not,” she said. “I’m going to need a roll call vote on that.” 

The New York Times didn’t think AOC’s statements were worth revealing, and she’s a New York Congresswoman.

I’m so, so sick of this. Not only does it make my job more difficult, it is emblematic of how democracy is being strangled by deliberate efforts to keep voters in the dark while encouraging them to believe the worst about their elected officials.

What do I think is happening? The Biden Administration is already failing to enforce the law making the threatening demonstrations at the homes of the Justices illegal, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer placed targets on the conservative justices back by telling them,”You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you.” I think the Democrats want to do everything possible to threaten the Court in the hope that it can force it to back down from reversing Roe, and failing that, pander to its radical pro-abortion constituency by making the effort. But that reflects my own bias, though its a bias based on observation and analysis. Maybe the bill will be passed today as she appeared to promise last week.

The point is that I, and all of us, shouldn’t be fed such widely diverging versions of the episode that it is impossible to judge “what’s going on here.” Increasingly, however, this is the norm.

19 thoughts on “Here’s Today’s “Gee, It Would Be Nice If We Had Some Kind Of Profession That Would Objectively Inform Us About Important Events Without Lying, Spinning, And Manipulating” Note: The SCOTUS Security Bill

  1. Tell me Jack, did you watch pro wrestling when you were a kid? Remember how both sides, especially the heels (the designated bad guys) used to trash talk one another? It got really hammy later, with both sides saying the others were liars and if you thought otherwise, you misheard.

    This is that same mentality applied to politics, with both sides attacking one another and calling one another evil, and the media playing the part of the sycophantic, loud-mouthed managers, who always had to throw in their two cents’ worth.

    The thing is, apparently now we’re playing games with high officials’ lives and the lives of their families. That’s a bit different than entertaining gullible young men by trash talk and acting hyper-macho.

    • Boston was a big pro-wrestling town when I was a kid, and the matches were on TV every Saturday afternoon. I loved them: they were better than the cartoons. Of course I knew they were fake early on—my Dad made sure of that, but the characters! Killer Kowalski, Pepper Gomez, Haystacks Calhoun, Prof. Toru Tanaka, Bruno Sammartino, Gorilla Monsoon…what fun!

      • What about Tojo Yamamoto.

        I was never a fan but I did go to a match in the early 1970’s with a friend who was a big fan and watching the audience was a whole lot more fun than watching the ring. The cook in one of my Army Reserve units was a professional wrestler in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, he was huge guy but a riot to be around, I don’t remember what his stage name was.

          • Of course.Truthfully, I don’t watch the news much and when I do, it’s generally Fox. I know they are just as biased, but they also provide REAL information.

          • The link I provided must have somehow taken you to the wrong spot (it worked in my browser) because that has nothing to do with what I wrote about a sociopath personality disorder being a form of insanity.

            Here is the relevant part of the comment I linked to incase this NEW LINK doesn’t take you to the right place again…

            Personally I think a sociopath personality disorder is a form of insanity and the fact that the American Psychiatric Association has tried to separate them over the years and peel off a layer of social unacceptability and it’s a dumbing down “politically correct” bridge too far. I think it’s intentional skewed social justice public propaganda to brainwash the public. Just because some insane people can function better in society than others does not mean they are not “insane” simply because they choose to label them differently.

            I’d prefer to have your reply on the topic of that quote in that other thread where it’s relevant to that conversation that way we don’t hijack this thread any more than necessary.

            • Sorry SAteve. I sdidn’t read the link. UnderstAND THAT “SANE” AND “INSANE” ARE LEGAL TERMS, NOT TERMS USED BY PSYCHOLOGISTS. jACK IS RIGHT IN THAT ONE SYMPTON IS A LACK OF CONSCIENCE. bUT, THEY (SOCIOPATHS) HAVE NO PROBLEM IDENTIFYING RIGHT AND WRONG. tHWEY JUST DON’T CARE. Sorry about the caps. I wasn’t paying attention. So, yes, sociopathy is a disorder, but it is NOT a psychosis, and my feeling is that sociopaths should be held responsible for their behavior. I have known and dealt with many over the years and only one went off the rails. Research hasa shown us that self-preservation can be a powerful motivator, and sociopaths are quite capable of understanding that their survival depends on adhering to societal norms.

      • Oddly enough, the 06/05/1982 Johnny Carson Show rerun was on last night with none other than Hulk “Thunderlips” Hogan, fresh off his appearance in Rocky III, as a guest.

        Never saw Carson act so deferential, almost star-struck schoolboyish, before.

          • 320 pounds/61kgs with 24″/61cm biceps according to the figures he supplied to Carson’s inquiry, whom he positively dwarfed during the intro handshake. He also appeared taller than the 6’3″/1.91 meter Ed McMahon.

            Stallone was 5′ 10″/1.78 meters tall; when I saw the flick four decades ago I remember thinking that the shooting angle seemed to be trying to make Thunderlips looking menacingly larger, ergo, making Rocky’s “victory” appear all the more impressive.

            • In the film, he was supposed to be over 7 feet tall.
              I don’t believe for a second that Sly is 5’10” They claim Tom Cruise is 5’7″ too, which would make him the same size as Paul Newman. No way. As with athletes, heights and weights of stars are inflated and deflated with regularity.

      • I remember three things in particular:
        –the fact that the “world champion” on TV in upstate NY wasn’t the same guy as the “world champion” on TV in New Hampshire
        –the distinction between “cagey veterans” (guys who’d lose to big-name bad guys) and “wily veterans” (guys who’d lose to big-name good guys)
        –the relationship between ethnicity and who was a good guy or a bad guy. With the exception of Bruno Sammartino, Italian-Americans were bad guys in NH. Curiously, this was not the case in central NY, where I had a lot of classmates named Vangeli, Iorio, Natoli, D’Angelo, and such.

  2. Personally I don’t trust any narrative that comes out of Nancy Pelosi’s mouth as being the actual truth or anything close to the truth. Pelosi has proven to me that she’s a willful rationalizing liar and EVERYTHING she says and does is politically motivated to undermine and destroy anyone that she considers to be politically right.

  3. I wonder whether Nancy knows whose clerk leaked the draft opinion and wants that clerk protected. Why else would anyone be concerned about clerks and their families? Nan may have even been in on the leak. Don’t we need a Congressional hearing convened on the SCOTUS leak? If Congress can investigate goings on in the Executive Branch, can’t they investigate security issues at the Court? Their powers would be limited but wouldn’t such an investigation be in the best interests of the citizenry?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.