Right Wing Extremism
Constitutional Originalist Marsha Blackburn Still Insists On Voting, Owning Property
She’s still not the sharpest knife in a drawer filled with dull knives.
October 15, 2020 09:10 AM
The race for the title of Senate's dumbest Republican continues. Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson remains undefeated, but Tennessee's Marsha Blackburn is young, scrappy, and hungry.Wednesday, during Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court Spa Week, Blackburn, who's on the Judiciary Committee because it's not like there's a test or anything, tweeted the following:
Hey, she's right! Blackburn probably had her staff comb through the pocket Constitutions she gives everyone as Christmas stocking stuffers. Or at the very least she just ran a quick edit > find on Google.
Of course, the word “AR-15" also doesn't appear in the Constitution. I checked! Our originalist gun nut senator would never support restricting legal gun ownership to the weapons available in the 18th Century. The gun lobby wouldn't make much bank pushing the sale of ye olde muskets. There'd also be significantly fewer school shootings, but you can't have everything.
<p>
Woman of faith and hardcore gun lover Amy Coney Barrett has <a href="https://apnews.com/article/race-and-ethnicity-donald-trump-confirmation-hearings-discrimination-amy-coney-barrett-4380ef16b3da79836151bcaaa7eda224" target="_blank">argued that the Second Amendment protects</a> "an individual's right to protect himself — not in his right to serve in a well-regulated militia." It's not some piddly-ass right that was "exercised for the benefit of the community (like voting and jury service)." Conservative white lady can white lady all she wants, but this Black man's not voting "for the community." I'm voting to protect myself from conservatives.
</p><p>
Gun toters are terrified that Cory Booker-led mobs are going to invade their homes. Rudy Giuliani has spread the baseless claim that protesters <a href="https://www.yc.news/2020/10/12/we-will-rape-your-wife-and-daughter-exclusive-details-about-why-the-st-louis-couple-feared-for-their-life/" target="_blank">threatened to violently assault Mark and Patricia McCloskey.</a>
</p><blockquote>
"This has never been heard before. I met with the McCloskeys and I have audio tape of the rioters chanting 'We will rape your daughter! We will murder your wife!'" Guiliani said.<br>
<br>
Their daughter was under the bed as her parents went to protect her—nobody knows that.<i>"</i></blockquote><p>
But ... how did the protesters know the McCloskeys had a daughter? This isn't information that appears in travel guides for angry mobs. The McCloskeys' story gets less credible the more they change it. They either overreacted to people walking past their fancy house or under-reacted when a <em>Straw Dogs</em> mob threatened to murder them. They should find the Goldilocks version and stick with it.</p><p>I get it, though. The gun-dependent want to feel secure in their homes, and SimpliSafe isn't good enough. However, most women want to feel secure in their persons, without fear of intrusion from the state. Yes, the word “abortion" literally doesn't appear in the Constitution, but <em>Roe v. Wade</em> ruled that the 14th Amendment protects a woman's <a href="https://www.pbs.org/tpt/constitution-usa-peter-sagal/equality/due-process-equal-protection-and-disenfranchisement/" target="_blank">right to privacy. </a> </p><p>Anti-choice conservatives mock this reading of the due process clause, even though there are ample “pro-life" options for self-defense that don't involve shooting someone: If genuinely afraid for their lives, the McCloskeys could've retreated into their home. It wasn't made of straw, so was reasonably “huff and puff" proof. They could've called the cops and waited for them to resolve the situation. However, guns emboldened them to confront the crowd and escalate the situation, because guns make everything worse. </p><p>Conservatives comprehend the right to privacy when defending the rights of Americans to choose <em>how</em> they wish to defend themselves, but they are suddenly very literal when a woman's bodily autonomy is concerned. Barrett claimed that the Second Amendment was too often treated as a “second-class right," but it's not guns that should worry about their rights with a Justice Barrett on the Supreme Court.</p><p>[<a href="https://apnews.com/article/race-and-ethnicity-donald-trump-confirmation-hearings-discrimination-amy-coney-barrett-4380ef16b3da79836151bcaaa7eda224" target="_blank">Associated Press</a>]<br></p><p>
<em><span></span>F</em><em>ollow Stephen Robinson on </em><em><a href="https://twitter.com/SER1897" target="_blank">Twitter.</a></em>
</p><p>
<a href="https://amzn.to/33mKzZe" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons</a>.
</p><p>
<strong>Yr Wonkette is 100 percent ad free and supported entirely by reader donations. Please click the clickie, if you are able!</strong>
</p>
Keep reading...
Show less
SCOTUS
If Justice Roberts Kills The Census, He Should Get Some New Coworkers
TRY IT.
October 14, 2020 11:16 AM
Okay, let's have that conversation about court packing. We'd been hoping to pull a Biden and punt for another three weeks [Liz means Liz specifically, the rest of us had been QUITE HAPPY TO YELL ABOUT IT — ed], but Chief Justice John Roberts has forced our hand by putting his dirty thumb on the scales to thwart majority rule. Again.
Yesterday the Supreme Court overruled lower courts and put an end to the Census count, despite mountains of evidence that COVID-19 has prevented collecting anything close to an accurate tabulation. Originally, the Commerce Department asked Congress to delay the final tabulation to allow it to finish the job. But then it reversed course when it became clear that there's likely to be a President Biden in January, dashing its hopes of certifying a count that excludes non-citizens for the purposes of congressional apportionment. This would result in whiter, older, more Republican districts being overcounted for the purpose of allocating voting clout and congressional dollars. And that is not a coincidence!
In plain English, they're racing to finish so Trump can cook the books before he gets fired. And the Supreme Court is going to let them do it. Then when President Biden tries to fix the problem, Chief Justice John Roberts and his henchmen will barf out some gobbledygook to prevent it, despite the Constitution's clear dictate that the Census count all "persons" within the country, regardless of citizenship.
<p>
This court doesn't care about "little d" democracy. It will bless every gerrymander, every infringement on voting rights, every absurd assertion that one drop box per county is entirely appropriate — whether it's Harris County, Texas, with 4.7 million people, or Loving County with 134 people. There will never be a polling place where the line is too long, or a congressional district too cravenly constructed to entrench minority rule, or a legislature too unrepresentative of the will of the American people. That is what we're dealing with, even before the Bony Carrot gets confirmed.
</p><p>
And speaking of that unspeakable woman, let's talk about how she got on the bench in the first place. Because it wasn't only Judge Merrick Garland whom the Republicans blocked, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/nov/01/republican-senators-oppose-clinton-supreme-court-nominee" target="_blank">promising</a> (out loud!) to shrink the Supreme Court to eight seats for the duration of a Clinton presidency. After the GOP took back the Senate in 2015, they simply stopped confirming Obama's judicial nominees. This was supposedly in response to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid getting rid of the filibuster rule for judicial nominees, the so-called nuclear option. The GOP conveniently ignores the fact that they themselves had massively abused the filibuster to block Obama's nominees, particularly for the all-important DC Circuit Court, leading to a huge backlog of unfilled seats. The same seats Trump <a href="https://www.statesman.com/news/20201005/fact-check-did-obama-leave-trump-with-128-judges-to-appoint" target="_blank">pretends</a> Obama was just too lazy to bother with.</p><p>
In 2013 Chuck Grassley went so far as to <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/chuck-grassley-dc-circuit_n_4311984" target="_blank">introduce a bill</a> to shrink that court by three judges, accusing Obama of trying to "pack" the court by filling vacancies!
</p><p>
In January of 2016, Obama nominated attorney Myra Selby to the Seventh Circuit. Mitch McConnell never acted on the nomination, just as he blocked dozens and dozens of others. That's the seat they gave to Amy Coney Barrett three years ago as a springboard to getting her on the Supreme Court where she will absolutely gut <em>Roe v. Wade</em>.
</p><p>
During his first four years, Obama had 160 judges confirmed, despite Democrats holding the Senate majority during that time. In the last two years of Obama's term, <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mitch-mcconnell-obama-trump-judges-supreme-court-conservative-biden-impeachment-a9245781.html" target="_blank">Mitch McConnell deigned to confirm</a> <em>28 percent</em> of the president's judicial nominees, holding the seats open for "Not Hillary Clinton." In Trump's first four years, he confirmed 208 judges, and counting! Because Mitch McConnell not only blew up the filibuster rule for the Supreme Court, he <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-10-11/mcconnell-to-end-senates-blue-slip-tradition" target="_blank">trashed the blue slip procedure</a> that gave home state senators a veto over nominees in their own back yards.
</p><p>
And now, having harvested all those gains and filled the bench with a bunch of 35-year-old hacks who will shape the judiciary for fifty years, <em>now</em> the GOP insists that it would be the grossest perfidy to increase the Supreme Court from the sacred number of nine seats?
</p><p>
FUCK. OFF.
</p><p>The entire Article III court system has been rigged by the GOP, <a href="https://twitter.com/StageLeft_NYC/status/1316026700178882560" target="_blank">exploiting the inherent advantages of the Electoral College</a> and Democrats' relative willingness to adhere to norms. The same norms that the GOP tramples the second they take back the gavel in a naked exercise of raw power.</p><p>This is a suckers' game, and we've played it for far, far too long.</p><p>Thirteen judges for thirteen federal circuits. Day one. Do it.</p><p>[<a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/10/13/921428056/supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-end-census-early" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">NPR</a>]</p><p><strong>Follow Liz Dye on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/5DollarFeminist" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">RIGHT HERE!</a></strong><br></p><p><strong>Please click here to support your Wonkette. And if you're ordering your quarantine goods on Amazon, <a href="https://amzn.to/2wbH77j" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">this is the link to do it.</a></strong></p><p></p><form name="donation" method="post" class="donation-form"><p class="subheadline">How often would you like to donate?</p><div class="form-row row--plan"><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="once" class="plan-type" required="" checked> Just once
</label><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="monthly" class="plan-type" required=""> Monthly
</label></div><div class="form-row row--amount"><p class="subheadline">Select an amount (USD)</p><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="200" data-value="2.00" data-amount="Two Dollars">$2</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2500" data-value="25.00" data-amount="Twenty Five Dollars">$25</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="500" data-value="5.00" data-amount="Five Dollars">$5</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="5000" data-value="50.00" data-amount="Fifty Dollars">$50</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1000" data-value="10.00" data-amount="Ten Dollars" checked>$10</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="10000" data-value="100.00" data-amount="One Hundred Dollars">$100</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1500" data-value="15.00" data-amount="Fifteen Dollars">$15</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="50000" data-value="500.00" data-amount="Five Hundred Dollars">$500</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2000" data-value="20.00" data-amount="Twenty Dollars">$20</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="100000" data-value="1000.00" data-amount="One Thousand Dollars">$1000</label></div><div class="row--buttons"><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="strip"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208879/2000x.png" alt="Credit cards" class="donate-button__img"></button><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="paypal"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208880/2000x.png" alt="PayPal" class="donate-button__img"></button></div></form><p></p>
Keep reading...
Show less
SCOTUS
How Can Amy Coney Barrett F*ck It Up Today? Liveblogging Day Three!
Yes, we have to do this again.
October 14, 2020 09:07 AM
What can we say about the first day of the Amy Coney Barrett hearings?
Well!
She can't answer any of your questions, because that would be improper, even when the question is "Should there be a peaceful transfer of power?" Will she recuse herself from any election-related cases, since she's only being fast-tracked to help steal Donald Trump the election? She can't say. Will she kill Obamacare and hurt millions of people? She's not telling. Will she fuck over people who have a "sexual preference" that is LGBT, because that is literally what she said? She can't say.
She can't say what she really thinks about Roe, even though we all know what she thinks about Roe. (It's just a precedent, but not a SUPER DUPER precedent, which would mean she'd have to respect it.) Is abortion a constitutional right? Well, these cases say it is, not that Amy Comet Ping-Ping is endorsing these cases. She's an originalist, except for when "original" doesn't comport with her personal bigoted feelings.
And so forth. She's a real asshat. Read yesterday's liveblog to catch up!
Today the senators will each have another 20 minutes to ask questions. And we're liveblogging it again! But as a treat afterward, we are VOTING AGAINST THESE FUCKERS TODAY.
Have you made your voting plan? Make your voting plan while you watch this garbage, which should give you more motivation to make your voting plan, to get rid of all the fuckers who made this happen.
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-youtube">
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a834113356b38ba8b2705392835bfcb1"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UgGxw9PlKtw?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption...">Live: Amy Coney Barrett Senate Confirmation Hearings | Day 3 | NBC News</small>
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgGxw9PlKtw" target="_blank">www.youtube.com</a>
</small>
</p><p><strong>9:04:</strong> As we begin today, Lindsey Graham is whining about Kamala Harris's questioning of ACB last night, which was awesome. Graham is upset that Harris was just TOO MEAN to ACB. <br></p><p>Also he says ACB is going to shatter barriers for conservative (white) women and that he's never been more proud of any nominee than he is of ACB. </p><p>Fuck off and go lose a Senate seat, Lindsey. </p><p><strong>9:12:</strong> Lindsey Graham says it is not ACB's fault the group who created the statement she signed about abortion being "barbaric" also thinks <em>in vitro </em>fertilization should be criminalized. All she did was endorse the group, by signing their thing! Gosh, you guys, what are you all being so unfair about?</p><p><strong>9:23:</strong> Lindsey concludes by saying he's just really glad all the little wingnut girls will finally have a grown wingnut lady to look up to, somebody who shows that you can be a white bigot lady who achieves great things, yadda yadda. Guess all those videos of Karens fucking up Walmarts and asking to see the manager weren't enough. <br></p><p>Feinstein now. </p><p><strong>9:27:</strong> Feinstein is VERY IMPRESSED with ACB's explanation of "severability," five gold stars and no abortions awarded! She says it is like a Jenga game -- if you pull these parts out of a law, will it still stand, or will it fall down and everybody will be like "WHOAAAA ALL FALL DOWN"? <br></p><p><strong>9:29:</strong> FEINSTEIN: Is Medicare constitutional? Some idiot says it's not.<br></p><p>ACB: I don't know! Just like I don't know if Donald Trump can unilaterally move the election!</p><p>FEINSTEIN: Cut the clip, MSNBC.</p><p><strong>9:32:</strong> FEINSTEIN: Whaddya think of the Voting Rights Act? Your dead pal Scalia didn't like it.<br></p><p>ACB: We're not THE SAME PERSON. I think it was pretty good, for the Civil Rights Movement. But I can't really say things about it, because I am not allowed to say things, because <em>Shelby County v. Holder </em>has been "controversial," and I can't talk about things that are "controversial." </p><p><strong>9:40:</strong> FEINSTEIN: Will you rule based on the Constitution, or on what you think Jesus is whispering in your ear? <br></p><p>ACB: Jesus he knows me and he knows I'm right, been talkin' to Jesus all my life.</p><p>(ACB is giving an explanation of when <em>stare decisis </em>matters and what it doesn't. She says her writings on the subject have been taken out of context.)</p><p>And Feinstein finishes by welcoming ACB's giant-ass family again.</p><p>Time for Chuck Grassley, who somehow was a better Judiciary chair than Lindsey Graham, that's how much Lindsey Graham sucks. </p><p><strong>9:46:</strong> Grassley says it's time to GET REAL, no more APPLESAUCE! Democrats are doing a charade, because they don't even care about Obamacare! They just want to do Medicare for All, even though Joe Biden did not run on that! <br></p><p>Speaking of, Grassley had some advice for Trump yesterday, and it was in English:</p><p><strong>9:48:</strong> Here is Lindsey Graham referring to the "good old days of segregation." He was trying to be sarcastic, but we'd hate for the Lincoln Project to cut it into an ad out of context, considering how Jaime Harrison is really close to beating him on November 3.<br></p><div id="e9986" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7678a046d403183c3e477b01bd788be5"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1316371707985190912" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Lindsay Graham just said, “You’re not aware of any effort to go back to the good old days of segregation by a legis… https://t.co/dN208BYG46</div> — Shannon Watts (@Shannon Watts)<a href="https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/statuses/1316371707985190912">1602682446.0</a></blockquote></div><p><strong>9:58:</strong> Today would be a good day for Democrats to stop talking about detailed crap about how ACB might or might not rule on Obamacare, and just to loudly start yelling "THIS IS ALL BULLSHIT." <br></p><p><strong>10:04:</strong> ACB has not heard about all this voter disenfranchisement and how they've been removing polling places and the long lines in predominantly Black areas, and if that relates to the Voting Rights Act, she can't comment on it, because it's a case. Judges are not allowed to talk about things that are cases. <br></p><p>PAT LEAHY: Can you even say that people of color face more trouble voting than anybody else?</p><p>ACB: I cannot say a thing.</p><p><strong>10:06:</strong> LEAHY: I understand not commenting on ongoing cases, but judges don't have to IGNORE REALITY. <br></p><p><strong>10:07:</strong> LEAHY: Do presidents have to obey the Supreme Court or can they just say fuck off?<br></p><p>ACB: I know Trump's other nominees said no man is above the law, but it's not like SCOTUS can do anything about it if they say fuck off. But if somebody else wants to enforce SCOTUS's rulings, I guess that's cool. </p><p><strong>10:12:</strong> LEAHY: If you're such an "originalist," why do you think the framers put the Emoluments Clause in there?<br></p><p>ACB: To prevent foreign influence on presidents, not that I can say anything about that as it relates to Donald Trump, that would be improper. Because it is under litigation! Somewhere!</p><p><strong>10:16:</strong> ACB says it is totally OK to overrule precedent sometimes, and to give some examples, she is going to list some really good liberal opinions like <em>Lawrence v. Texas</em>, in order to weasel you into thinking maybe ACB thinks those liberal opinions are good and she doesn't want to overturn them.</p><p>Now we have John Cornyn, so the next 20 minutes will be an absolute waste. He wants to "wax philosophical" with ACB for a few minutes. </p><p><strong>10:21:</strong> Cornyn is bitching that there was not "consensus" on Obamacare, without mentioning that the GOP has become a racist authoritarian obstructionist piece of shit un-American party with which there can never been "consensus," and it's been that way since Barack Obama was elected. <br></p><p>In other words, go fuck yourself, John Cornyn. </p><p><strong>10:41:</strong> As we said, Cornyn was boring.<br></p><p>In other news, Amy Coney Barrett is unable to say whether the president has the right to unilaterally deny a person of a certain race the vote, because that is a "hypothetical."</p><p>Christ, what an asshole. </p><p><strong>10:53:</strong> Oh boy, we are just really rehashing all of yesterday, aren't we? Democrats: Today should not feel like <em>deja vu</em>. <br></p><p>In case you missed Kamala Harris last night, it was awesome. She spoke directly to the American people for like the first 10 minutes before then hammering the shit out of that asshole. Yes, she is running for vice president, so that is why she talked directly to America, but that doesn't mean the other senators can't do that too.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-youtube">
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="09b9aef9b12b35d6f62f1f911ca6c9c2"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/j7hUb0uH6DM?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption...">WATCH: Sen. Kamala Harris questions Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett</small>
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7hUb0uH6DM" target="_blank">www.youtube.com</a>
</small>
</p><p><strong>10:57:</strong> Oh good, it is time for Mike Lee again. Yesterday, he whined about how NINE IS THE ONLY NUMBER OF JUDGES THAT IS GOOD, NINE, NOT ELEVEN, JUST NINE!<br></p><p>Today he wants to talk about religious freedom, because he is a Mormon, and he is persecuted. Indeed, Amy Comey Barrett probably thinks he is going to hell. Likewise, Mike Lee probably thinks Amy Coney Barrett isn't even getting her own planet to rule over when she dies. </p><p>What a pickle.</p><p><strong>11:07:</strong> Mike Lee's parlor trick today is to show a few times Amy Coney Barrett was <a href="http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-25/C:17-3163:J:PerCuriam:aut:T:npDp:N:2176287:S:0" target="_blank">presented with anti-abortion cases</a> SO STUPID she was required to rule on the side of the Constitution and sanity, in order to prove she is not BIASSSSS.<br></p><p>It is not a very good parlor trick. </p><p><strong>11:16:</strong> Sheldon Whitehouse is back to talk about dark money Federalist Society judicial incest that made ACB the nominee. He's doing this right after Mike Lee finished with some dumb crap about how nice ACB is to her law clerks. <br></p><p><strong>11:18:</strong> WHITEHOUSE: Brett Kavanaugh was under an ethics investigation when he was nominated to SCOTUS, and that stopped the investigation. You under any investigations like he was? Because he is a well-known BAD ETHICS guy.<br></p><p>ACB: I don't think so! </p><p>Whitehouse is such a dick, he just did that for fun. </p><p><strong>11:20:</strong> WHITEHOUSE: The Supreme Court doesn't have the same ethics standards as lower courts, and has the lowest requirements for disclosing emoluments. That's fucked up. You wanna fix that when you go to the Court, or are you a bad ethics and emoluments lady?<br></p><p>GRAHAM: Actually I like this question, sort of. How do you feel about that?</p><p>ACB: I am very good at ethics and emoluments! </p><p><strong>11:30:</strong> Whitehouse's questioning is long and winding, but it's about dark money, anti-union groups going through the courts at their own specifically chosen paces, literally picking and choosing the composition of the Court they want. Sometimes they wait until somebody dies and Donald Trump can make a replacement, sometimes they literally go into court and ask them to dismiss their case, because the Supreme Court isn't <em>just right</em>. <br></p><p>Interesting discussion. </p><p><strong>11:33:</strong> WHITEHOUSE: Do you meet with people who submit <em>amicus </em>briefs while cases are going? Is it possible to not even know who REALLY submitted or funded an <em>amicus</em> brief? These are all really easy yes or no questions that you can totally answer.<br></p><p>(He is still doing his master class on dark money influencing the Court, like we said.)</p><p><strong>11:37:</strong> Oh good, it is time for Ted Cruz to jerk off into soup cans. He says it is "good news" that ACB is going to be confirmed, because the Democrats haven't even asked any questions about her record. He says Democrats only have "political attacks." <br></p><p>Hey, so, in Memphis where we live, today is the first day of early voting, and we are seeing pictures on Facebook of early voting lines like we have NEVER SEEN BEFORE. Because ACB might not be able to answer questions, but the American voters sure are. Just thought you might like to know that.</p><p>Cruz now whining that the Democrats aren't even here for the hearing. Dick Durbin is like fuck you, all you Republicans have COVID, they're in their offices.</p><p>Also we'd note that this is a sham and we're going to be lobbying for Congress to add seats to the court starting November 4, if Kavanaugh and Barrett don't GTFO.</p><p><strong>11:41:</strong> Cruz GOTCHAS that Obamacare premiums have gone way up, without mentioning that they've gone up because the GOP has been skullfucking Obamacare and chipping away at it ever since it went into effect, which has had the intended result of making premiums go up, because when Republicans can't win by winning, they win by ratfucking things.<br></p><p><strong>11:43: </strong>LOL Ted Cruz DUMBOTCRATS LITRALLY WANT CHARLES MANSON TO VOTE!<br></p><p><strong>11:46:</strong> CRUZ: Does the Federalist Society even give you orders?<br></p><p>ACB: No, they launder their orders through other cut-out groups.</p><p>HAHAHAHA, she did not say that, that would be far more forthcoming than conservatives are willing to be. </p><p><strong>11:49:</strong> Ted Cruz says Democrats are the REAL dark money, and to prove it, he is showing that some judge who likes Planned Parenthood made some political donations in the past. Mmhmm. <br></p><p><strong>11:50:</strong> The point is that Ted Cruz, just like yesterday, is more concerned about Sheldon Whitehouse being mean to the Federalist Society than he is about even talking to Amy Coney Barrett. Does Whitehouse have a game going in his office to see how well he can laser pointer Ted Cruz off a cliff? <br></p><p><strong>11:52:</strong> LOL Ted Cruz "school choice" -- an issue that is on no real civil rights organization's agenda, because real civil rights organizations aren't about destroying public schools for all kids so that corporations and churches can take over schooling -- "is the civil rights issue of the next century." <br></p><p>Love it when white racist Republicans talk about what is the civil rights issue of the next century. </p><p><strong>11:55:</strong> And now Cruz is going to jerk off in soup cans by whining about so-called "court-packing." Whine whine whine whine whine. <br></p><p>As if the GOP hasn't spent the Trump administration packing the courts with 24-year-old Westboro Baptist protesters, because Mitch McConnell created all these vacancies for Trump by refusing to give Obama's nominees hearings. </p><p>Shouldn't Ted be off somewhere failing to defend his wife from <a href="https://www.wonkette.com/donald-trump-rules-out-banging-ted-cruzs-uggo-wife-ew-yuck" target="_blank">Trump calling her ugly?</a> </p><p>BREAK TIME THANK GOD.</p><p><strong>12:32:</strong> And we are back! Amy Klobuchar begins by reminding everyone that this is bullshit.<br></p><p><strong>12:38:</strong> Klobuchar reminds us again that we already know who this nominee is and what she hates:<br></p><p>HATES: Obamacare.</p><p>LOVES: Killing Obamacare.</p><p>HATES: <em>Roe</em>.</p><p>LOVES: Killing <em>Roe</em>.</p><p>HATES: marriage laws that let any old person with a "sexual preference" she doesn't like get married.</p><p>LOVES: killing <em>Obergefell</em> probably.</p><p>But ACB just insisted again she has no ANIMUS toward Obamacare! Scouts honor, officer!</p><p><strong>12:42:</strong> Klobuchar is not buying that ACB was not literally auditioning for the Supreme Court when she wrote several years ago a veritable screed against Obamacare.<br></p><p>KLOBUCHAR: Hey, didn't you ALSO write that it's bad when people litigate things in the Court because they keep losing them legislatively "fair and square"? </p><p>ACB: I did.</p><p>KLOBUCHAR: Well, these Republicans have tried to repeal Obamacare 70 times. So ... </p><p><strong>12:47:</strong> KLOBUCHAR: Hey, don't you think that if you have THREE JUSTICES on the Court nominated by Trump, if there is election litigation, especially in light of what happened in <em>Bush v. Gore</em>, would undermine the integrity of the Court?<br></p><p>ACB: I still will not commit to recuse myself from election litigation, that is not what people who bought me this nomination want to happen.</p><p><strong>12:51:</strong> Now ACB cannot even answer questions about whether it is OK for reporters to protect their sources, especially in this climate where Trump and Republicans attack journalists all day. You know, "ongoing litigation."<br></p><p>Of course, groups like the Federalist Society make sure that ALL things they don't like are "ongoing litigation," because they flood the courts with bullshit lawsuits. Indeed, it is a wonder they're not currently doing "ongoing litigation" to reverse <em>Brown v. Board of Education.</em></p><p>Anyway, now it is time for bullshit cutesy flirting from Ben Sasse, because that's what substance-free people do. </p><p><strong>12:59:</strong> Ben Sasse does not want cameras in the Supreme Court because he says that will make the Supreme Court like Michael Avenatti, which would be very bad. <br></p><p><strong>1:02:</strong> SASSE: What are the five freedoms of the First Amendment?<br></p><p>ACB: Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.</p><p>Just kidding, she got four of them, but forgot the one about freedom to petition the government, part of which includes ... oh nothing, just what ACB does for a living. </p><p><strong>1:15:</strong> Ben Sasse went off on his own tangent, sorry, we fell asleep.<br></p><p>CHRIS COONS; Do you think <em>Griswold</em> was wrongly decided? You know, the one that allowed contraception?</p><p>ACB: I cannot answer, but I will at least say that I think the chances of that coming into the court is pretty slim.</p><p>COONS: Other SCOTUS justices have felt free to talk about it. Seriously, you can answer this question. </p><p>ACB: Nope, I am the woman version of Clarence Thomas, therefore I do not talk. </p><p><strong>1:35:</strong> All that shit with Coons about "super-precedent," let us remind everybody that THE ONLY REASON THINGS ARE NOT "SUPER-PRECEDENTS" IS BECAUSE RIGHT-WING TROLL DARK MONEY ASSHOLES KEEP THIS SHIT IN THE COURTS, SO THAT EVERYTHING IS CONSTANTLY UP IN THE AIR.</p><p>Anyway, it is time for Commander Hawley to talk to Serena Joy again. He says we are trying to "Bork" Amy Coney Barrett, by reading words from her record.</p><p><strong>1:38: </strong>Commander Hawley says Serena Joy is an INDEPENDENT WOMAN!</p><p>Oh no, you guys, it is Amy Coney Barrett's theme song, because she is so independent!</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-youtube">
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="da115d2023ec4ef23073c730f5cf91b8"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dS1ZW0FdoIU?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption...">Kelly Clarkson - Miss Independent</small>
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS1ZW0FdoIU" target="_blank">www.youtube.com</a>
</small>
</p><p><strong>1:39:</strong> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Commander Hawley is doing HUNTER BIDEN BURISMAS! in the Amy Coney Barrett hearing.<br></p><p>She is not biting. </p><p><strong>1:41:</strong> Commander Hawley is VERY MAD TODAY that Facebook is censoring that stupid already-debunked <em>New York Post </em>story on HUNTER BIDEN'S EMAILS!11!1!! (You know, because the story <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-hunter-biden-new-york-post-story-fact-checkers-2020-10" target="_blank">came from Rudy Giuliani's laptop,</a> which means it's most likely Russian propaganda.)</p><div id="baf83" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9acbfe83d809ad527059cf27fd7ef4dd"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1316412214589501440" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">.@Facebook I want to know on what grounds you are actively censoring a news report about potentially illegal corrup… https://t.co/tJ6u7Lsfkr</div> — Josh Hawley (@Josh Hawley)<a href="https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/statuses/1316412214589501440">1602692104.0</a></blockquote></div><p>What a fucking clown. </p><p><strong>1:54:</strong> Haha, chortle, Amy Coney Barrett had a whole glass of wine last night, because yesterday was so hard, haha LOL giggle snort!<br></p><p><strong>1:57:</strong> God appears to have cut Amy Coney Barrett's mic. <br></p><p><strong>1:58:</strong> While we are on this unplanned break, two things: the <em>Griswold</em> case about contraception may not be likely to come before the Court again, but it is a DAMNED LIE to say anti-abortion assholes are not trying to ban birth control. They very much are.<br></p><p>Also, <a href="https://www.wonkette.com/a-modest-proposal-if-justice-roberts-kills-the-census-he-should-get-some-new-coworkers" target="_blank">Liz wrote you a great article today</a> on FUCK YEAH COURT-PACKING and you should read it. </p><p><strong>2:40:</strong> And we are back! <br></p><p>Richard Blumenthal is very disappointed that ACB cannot say out loud whether she thinks IVF should be criminalized.</p><p>BLUMENTHAL: Should the Courts decide the next election?</p><p>ACB: Elections are for voting. By people.</p><p>Wow, answers. Weird.</p><p><strong>2:43:</strong> ACB says <em>Brown v. Board</em> was correctly decided.<br></p><p>And that <em>Loving</em> was correctly decided, because it followed from Brown.</p><p>And that <em>Griswold </em>... OH DANGIT, SHE CANNOT ANSWER AGAIN ABOUT WHETHER PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE CONTRACEPTION. Blumenthal says he is "stunned" that she cannot just say yes and she would have been in the majority.</p><p><em>Lawrence v. Texas</em>, over whether gay sex could be criminalized? ACB cannot answer whether it was correctly decided. </p><p>She cannot express agreement or disagreement with precedents of the Supreme Court. At least not the two we just mentioned. Or <em>Obergefell</em>. Not that one. </p><p><strong>2:55:</strong> ACB can't say whether she thinks global warming is caused by humans, probably because global warming is an ONGOING CASE that is happening right now. <br></p><p>Also she does not know what Trump's views on climate change are. She just has no clue. Which leads us to wonder what asshole she lives up inside that she hasn't heard about this.</p><p><strong>3:00:</strong> Oh my god the sound is fucked up again and this time they're just going with it. MSNBC is like fuck this. Let us see if we can still get it on the goddamn livestream. <br></p><p>Anyway, Blumenthal's questioning was interesting and revelatory, just like it was yesterday. </p><p>Main idea: She will only say the cases that involve THE MOST RACISM, that mostly happened before she was born, are OK. Nothing else. </p><p><strong>3:15:</strong> And now we are back again, KILL THE MIC AGAIN, RUTH BADER GINSBURG!<br></p><p>Anyway, something something Thom Tillis, who is <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/us/politics/north-carolina-trump-polls.html" target="_blank">losing even more</a> in his Senate race than he was last month. </p><p><strong>3:20:</strong> LOL Thom Tillis just baselessly alleged that Amy Comet Ping-Pong's "constitutional rights" have been violated in this confirmation process, and asked why, after all, would she even want to do this?<br></p><p>Um, because she is a Federalist Society hack and she has been auditioning for this role for years? </p><p><strong>3:30:</strong> Tillis literally asking ACB if she is GOING to be judging whether people were able to cast valid ballots. Even she is being like "Um I don't know what kind of election disputes might come up, but ..."<br></p><p>Go lose your fucking election, asshole. </p><p><strong>3:41:</strong> We hope you are enjoying Mazie Hirono calling ACB a liar when she's like "judges can't just rule on things, cases have to happen!" Because of how literally just last week, Alito and Thomas signaled that they totally want to fuck over the gays and take away marriage equality. Judges do this shit all the time. <br></p><p><strong>3:43:</strong> HIRONO: Oh look, here is a time YOU sent a signal that you want to reconsider a precedent! In <em>Price v. Chicago</em>, which was about abortion clinic protesters, <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/17-2196/17-2196-2019-02-13.html" target="_blank">you signaled</a> that you REALLY don't think restrictions on abortion protesters are fair, even though you HAD to rule based on Supreme Court precedent. And now you are going to be on SCOTUS!<br></p><p><strong>3:53:</strong> Hirono with the mic drop on how no matter what, if ACB ruled on an election dispute, there would absolutely be the APPEARANCE of conflict, regardless of whether SHE felt there was, therefore asshole should recuse. But she won't, because that's not what they're hiring her to do. So she will continue to "not take a position."<br></p><p>Uh huh. </p><p>Anyway, Joni Ernst. MSNBC cut away, because nobody cares. </p><p><strong>4:02:</strong> We are not that far from the end, folks. Two more Democrats, one of whom is named Kamala Harris, and a few more Republican idiots. Then this shit will be over. At least this part of the shit. <br></p><p>Yawn. </p><p><strong>4:21:</strong> Should you take babies from their mommies at the border? Amy Coney Barrett cannot say!</p><p>Also Joni Ernst says her daughter has a Black friend. Please go back to Iowa and lose your election, Ernst. </p><p><strong>4:23:</strong> Also ACB will not say out loud if poll taxes are unconstitutional. So there is that. <br></p><p><strong>4:32:</strong> Mike Crapo is just VERY UPSET that anybody might suggest that a mother of Black children might not be committed to racial equality, VERY UPSET!<br></p><p>Fuck off. </p><p><strong>4:51:</strong> Finally, KAMALA!<br></p><p>Harris begins by explaining to the white woman all the things they used to do to Black people who tried to vote. Poll taxes, tests, people beaten and bruised. Segueing into the Voting Rights Act. This way, ACB has an opportunity to refuse to say whether or not she really liked it when the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. </p><p><strong>4:55:</strong> The big question, which should be SOOOOOO simple, is whether ACB agrees with Chief Justice John Roberts that voting discrimination still exists. ACB is unclear on the question and is trying to punt it to being Congress's responsibility. <br></p><p>HARRIS: DO YOU AGREE, DAMMIT?</p><p>ACB: "I will not comment on [that]" FUCKING FUCK YOU, FUCK!</p><p><strong>5:00:</strong> HARRIS: Do you believe there is an imbalance of power between corporations and worker?<br></p><p>ACB: I cannot tell a lie, so I will just say no words. </p><p>Harris notes that ACB pretty much always rules against workers, literally 85 percent of the time, because of how ACB is a piece of shit. Harris just listing off the cases, including the time she ruled against a worker who was <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/amy-coney-barrett-ruled-n-131146289.html" target="_blank">called the "N"-word</a> by his supervisor. </p><p><strong>5:05:</strong> HARRIS: Is COVID a disease?<br></p><p>ACB: I guess.</p><p>HARRIS: Does smoking cause cancer?</p><p>ACB: I don't like this line of questioning but I suppose so, it is on the cigarette pack.</p><p>HARRIS: Is climate change real?</p><p>ACB: I am an asshole. </p><p><strong>5:08:</strong> Whew! And Kamala Harris is done. And we don't feel like listening to John Kennedy and Marsha Blackburn yap, so we're going to take a break, at which point it will be over, at which point we will continue taking a break.<br></p><p>But you should stay and watch! And hit the donate buttons below, because you love Wonkette, and you love our liveblogs, and you love us personally, and you know that Wonkette does not exist without reader donations. </p><p>Thank you we love you goodbye, unless we come back. </p><p><strong>Follow Evan Hurst on Twitter <a href="http://twitter.com/evanhurst" target="_blank">RIGHT HERE, DO IT RIGHT HERE!</a></strong><br></p><p><strong>Wonkette is fully funded by readers like YOU. If you love Wonkette, WE NEED YOUR LOVE GIFTS TO KEEP US GOING.</strong><br></p><p></p><p><a href="https://amzn.to/33mKzZe" target="_blank">Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons</a>.</p><p></p><p></p><form name="donation" method="post" class="donation-form"><p class="subheadline">How often would you like to donate?</p><div class="form-row row--plan"><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="once" class="plan-type" required="" checked> Just once
</label><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="monthly" class="plan-type" required=""> Monthly
</label></div><div class="form-row row--amount"><p class="subheadline">Select an amount (USD)</p><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="200" data-value="2.00" data-amount="Two Dollars">$2</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2500" data-value="25.00" data-amount="Twenty Five Dollars">$25</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="500" data-value="5.00" data-amount="Five Dollars">$5</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="5000" data-value="50.00" data-amount="Fifty Dollars">$50</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1000" data-value="10.00" data-amount="Ten Dollars" checked>$10</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="10000" data-value="100.00" data-amount="One Hundred Dollars">$100</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1500" data-value="15.00" data-amount="Fifteen Dollars">$15</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="50000" data-value="500.00" data-amount="Five Hundred Dollars">$500</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2000" data-value="20.00" data-amount="Twenty Dollars">$20</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="100000" data-value="1000.00" data-amount="One Thousand Dollars">$1000</label></div><div class="row--buttons"><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="strip"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208879/2000x.png" alt="Credit cards" class="donate-button__img"></button><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="paypal"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208880/2000x.png" alt="PayPal" class="donate-button__img"></button></div></form><p></p>
Keep reading...
Show less
SCOTUS
How Many People Will Senate GOP Infect With COVID-19 To Confirm Amy Coney Barrett?
Shameless display is shameless.
October 13, 2020 10:10 AM
Amy Coney Barrett's sham confirmation hearing kicked off Monday (join Evan's liveblog here!), and Senate Republicans valiantly pretended to care about the health and safety of others during a pandemic.
The nominee herself, Ms. Say Goodbye To Your Healthcare from the great state of Gilead, wore a mask to the hearings, a stark change from her superspreader garden party at the White House. Wearing masks was optional but leaving with COVID-19 wasn't. She's learned so much after the needless infection of others! Let's hurry up and put her on the Supreme Court!
Utah Senator Mike Lee was one of many guests at the Red Death ball who later tested positive for the coronavirus. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is very clear about what people should do if they have the 'rona: Keep their asses home and only leave the house for medical care.
But Lee is a very busy and important man who Mitch McConnell needs to help ram through a new Supreme Court justice on a party-line vote. Don't worry, though, Lee showed up in person for the hearing wearing a flimsy surgical mask that barely covered his face. He was within six feet of Lindsey Graham, who refused to get tested at all despite repeated exposure to people with the virus, and Chuck Grassley, who is 1,000 years old.
@igorbobic With his mask not fully covering his face, hovering over 80-something-year-old Grassley...🥴— Maya Harris (@Maya Harris)1602511087.0
<p>Graham started the hearing <a href="https://twitter.com/DemocratWin2020/status/1315719089076072448?s=20" target="_blank">with a pack of lies</a> about why the hearing wasn't yet another potential super spreader event. </p><blockquote><strong>GRAHAM:</strong> Millions of Americans are going to work today. Somebody may have tested positive ... You make it as safe as possible, you manage the risk, and you go to work.</blockquote><p>This is nonsense. From <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/general-business-faq.html" target="_blank">the CDC's own guidelines:</a></p><blockquote>Employees who test positive for COVID-19 (using a viral test, not an antibody test) should be excluded from work and <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/disposition-in-home-patients.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">remain in home isolation</a> if they do not need to be hospitalized. Employers should provide education to employees on <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/steps-when-sick.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">what to do if they are sick</a>.</blockquote><p>The CDC also advises workplaces to "instruct potentially exposed employees to stay home for 14 days, telework if possible, and self-monitor for symptoms." Telework “if possible" means you should work from home if you're physically capable. It doesn't mean that you should bring your infected self to your place of business if it's politically convenient.</p><div id="c4442" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c6213888f925fd8523a20007aec6c2eb"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1315709750596653057" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Lindsey Graham argues against testing https://t.co/0eRqUCjUf5</div> — Acyn Torabi (@Acyn Torabi)<a href="https://twitter.com/Acyn/statuses/1315709750596653057">1602524623.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Graham said he wouldn't permit “political opponents" (or any reputable medical professional) to tell him to get tested. He boasted that there's no other room in the country "that's been given more attention and detail to make sure it's CDC compliant." This is as big a lie as the one he's living (I'm not referring to rumors about his sexuality but the lie that he's an honorable man). A few extra Purell bottles won't change the fact that a sick person is in a closed room, shedding virus all over the place. This really can't wait? We guess it can't because Trump is losing and it's the GOP's last shot to deny millions healthcare during the middle of a public health crisis. But for God's sake, someone keep Lee and Graham away from Dianne Feinstein, who's 87! Rep. Katie Porter would make a great senator someday but NOT LIKE THIS!<br></p><p>Lee wouldn't reveal whether he'd tested negative before the hearing. He reserves a right to privacy about his personal health that he hopes a Justice Barrett will deny American women. Even worse, he refused to wear a mask while lecturing those assembled with his pocket Constitution. How many times do we have to tell these dummies that you must keep your mask on when talking, especially indoors? Researchers at the <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/19/coronavirus-spread-by-talking-can-remain-in-air-researchers-find.html" target="_blank">National Institutes of Health found</a> in fucking April that speech droplets emitted from even asymptomatic carriers can remain in the air for almost 15 minutes, or roughly half the time the GOP will spend confirming Barrett. This is considered the “most likely mode of disease transmission."</p><div id="e8d53" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="eb57a50b06e9bd7c74bc36fb1f0c2fee"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1315659313122283521" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">A maskless Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), who tested positive for COVID 10 days ago, is lecturing about his pocket Constitut… https://t.co/0LtiMxC0bb</div> — The Recount (@The Recount)<a href="https://twitter.com/therecount/statuses/1315659313122283521">1602512598.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Theatre is a major US industry that is dormant right now because mask-less people speaking loudly in a closed space before even a minimal audience just isn't safe. Barrett's hearing is distinctly bad theatre, with a predetermined, totally predictable outcome lacking any suspense or entertainment value. </p><p>Louisiana Senator John Kennedy is not much of a theatre person, so he was only able to make bizarre references to popular movies. He claimed the hearings for Justice Brett Kavanaugh were like the cantina scene in <em>Star Wars</em>, and while I wouldn't personally date any Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, I don't think they're quite that grotesque, at least not physically. Kennedy also suggested that anti-Catholic Democrats (who don't actually exist) might resort to calling Barrett “Rosemary's baby," who was a boy and probably Ted Cruz (allegedly).</p><p>Senate Republicans also couldn't stop touching their masks with their dirty hands. You'd think after all these months they'd have learned to just ignore the masks like they do with their consciences.</p><p><em>Follow Stephen Robinson on </em><em><a href="https://twitter.com/SER1897" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Twitter.</a></em></p><p><a href="https://amzn.to/33mKzZe" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons</a>.</p><p><strong>Yr Wonkette is 100 percent ad free and supported entirely by reader donations. Please click the clickie, if you are able!</strong></p><p></p><form name="donation" method="post" class="donation-form"><p class="subheadline">How often would you like to donate?</p><div class="form-row row--plan"><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="once" class="plan-type" required="" checked> Just once
</label><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="monthly" class="plan-type" required=""> Monthly
</label></div><div class="form-row row--amount"><p class="subheadline">Select an amount (USD)</p><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="200" data-value="2.00" data-amount="Two Dollars">$2</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2500" data-value="25.00" data-amount="Twenty Five Dollars">$25</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="500" data-value="5.00" data-amount="Five Dollars">$5</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="5000" data-value="50.00" data-amount="Fifty Dollars">$50</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1000" data-value="10.00" data-amount="Ten Dollars" checked>$10</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="10000" data-value="100.00" data-amount="One Hundred Dollars">$100</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1500" data-value="15.00" data-amount="Fifteen Dollars">$15</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="50000" data-value="500.00" data-amount="Five Hundred Dollars">$500</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2000" data-value="20.00" data-amount="Twenty Dollars">$20</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="100000" data-value="1000.00" data-amount="One Thousand Dollars">$1000</label></div><div class="row--buttons"><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="strip"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208879/2000x.png" alt="Credit cards" class="donate-button__img"></button><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="paypal"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208880/2000x.png" alt="PayPal" class="donate-button__img"></button></div></form><p></p>
Keep reading...
Show less
Newsletter
©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc
