Trump nominates Brett Kavanaugh to Supreme Court

Trump nominates Brett Kavanaugh to Supreme Court

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 9, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Brett Kavanaugh is Donald Trump’s choice to succeed the pro-abortion, pro-gay Justice Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court, the president announced Monday night.

Trump praised Kavanaugh’s committment to “equal justice under the law” and called him a “brilliant jurist with a clear and effective writing style.” He is “universally regarded as…one of the finest legal minds of our time.”

Kavanaugh formerly clerked for Kennedy.

“Justice Kennedy devoted his career to protecting liberty,” Kavanaugh said. In his speech he also mentioned “equality for all Americans.”

Trump noted that nominating a Supreme Court justice is “one of the most profound responsibilities of the president of the United States.”

Trump thanked Kennedy for “a lifetime of distinguished service.” He also paid tribute to “the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia” and his successor, Neil Gorsuch, who he said is a “faithful servant of our Constitution.”

Scalia’s wife Maureen was at the White House tonight, and Trump mentioned her.

“In keeping with president Reagan’s legacy, I do not ask about a nominee’s personal opinions,” said Trump. Rather, he wanted to know “whether they can set aside [their] views to do what the law and Constitution require.”

Kavanaugh has the enthusiastic support of many conservative legal commentators and a reputation for rooting his decisions in the plain text and original understanding of the Constitution. However, some pro-lifers remain wary.

As a D.C. Court of Appeals judge, Kavanaugh sided with Priests for Lifewhen it fought the Obama administration over being forced to fund its employees’ contraception.

However, he also suggested the government has a “compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception for the employees of…religious organizations” who do not want to be involved in assisting with contraception.

“Unlike other dissenters, who maintained that there is no compelling government interest in facilitating access to contraception, Kavanaugh would have ruled that a compelling interest does exist, but the government can achieve it in other ways,” Edith Roberts at SCOTUS blog explained.

(The case was eventually settled and the Trump administration has been dismantling and ending the anti-conscience rules imposed by the Obama administration.)

White House sources told the Washington Examiner that pro-life advocates had expressed concern over Kavanaugh’s nomination.

Ed Wheelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and Kelly Shackleford of First Liberty Institute maintain that Kavanaugh has a strong record on religious liberty.

Kavanaugh “volunteered his time almost 20 years ago to work on a religious liberty case at the [U.S.] Supreme Court with me and Jay Sekulow,” according to Shackleford. “He has been committed to the Constitution and religious liberty for a long time.”

As Vox reported, Kavanaugh “represented Cuban child Elian Gonzalez pro bono during the conservative battle to keep him from returning to Cuba.”

Roberts called Kavanaugh’s position in Garza v. Hargan, about whether illegal immigrant minors have the right to a government-facilitated abortion on U.S. soil, “conservative” but noted he “did not go as far as one of his colleagues.”

She further explained:

In Garza v. Hargan, a pregnant undocumented teen in immigration custody wanted to obtain an abortion, but was prevented by her government custodians from doing so. Kavanaugh wrote a panel decision vacating a district-court order that required the government to allow the teen to leave the detention facility to obtain the abortion; the panel imposed an additional waiting period to give the government time to obtain a sponsor. The en banc court reversed. Kavanaugh dissented, arguing that the en banc ruling was “ultimately based on a constitutional principle as novel as it is wrong: a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. Government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand.” In a separate dissent, Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson maintained that as a noncitizen, the teen had no due-process right to the abortion. Kavanaugh, in contrast, noted that the government had conceded the teen’s right to an abortion. He went on to assert that delaying the procedure while the government sought a sponsor was permissible under the Supreme Court’s precedent because it did not impose an undue burden on that right. At the government’s request, the Supreme Court vacated the D.C. Circuit’s decision this month in a per curiam decision in Azar v. Garza, ruling that the case became moot through no fault of the government’s when the teen obtained the abortion.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the Senate will vote on his confirmation this fall.

Kavanaugh faces an uncertain path to confirmation. With Sen. John McCain indefinitely absent from the Senate for cancer treatment, Republicans have a razor-thin majority of 50 to 49. Pro-abortion GOP Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski have signaled that they would oppose any nominee hostile to Roe v. Wade, and Democrat activists and left-wing media voices have begun a campaign to pressure them to do so.

The two voted for all of Trump’s judicial nominees so far, includingnow-Justice Neil Gorsuch. Gorsuch did not have an anti-Roe paper trail and spoke favorably of respecting precedent.

Under the Senate’s current makeup, Vice President Mike Pence could still break the tie with just one GOP defection, but two would be enough to torpedo the nomination. However, if both Collins and Murkowski defect, some Republicans believe they could win over Democrat Sens. Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly, or Heidi Heitkamp to compensate. All three supported Gorsuch, and all three face re-election in Republican states this fall.

Trump invited those three senators to join him as he announced the nominee, but they declined. Just after 6:05 p.m. EST, Fox News reported that Trump had also invited Sen. Doug Jones, D-AL, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, began leading Senate Democrats in opposition to potential appointees before the nomination, fretting the new justice could be the deciding vote to end or restrict abortion on demand in the U.S.

Get AQ Email Updates

17 comments on “Trump nominates Brett Kavanaugh to Supreme Court

  1. I’m already opposed and so are many Catholics. The American Family Assoc. immediately called for lobbying in opposition to this Bushite, Karl Rovean Beltway insider who called Roe “sterling,” untouchable.
    Trump is not what cultural conservatives hoped he would be. He has a GOP Congress and powerful prolife support.
    But he, once again, gave the Dems just what they most want.

    • Here is the link to the American Family Association piece, which I was going to post.

      I cannot yet find any quote by Judge Kavanagh calling Roe v. Wade “sterling,” but I did find this about his opinion of Roe in general and his dissent in a specific case before the federal court of which he a member acknowledging Roe and PP v. Casey as precedents in that case before that court, but IMHO it could be a different ballgame before SCOTUS:

      Kavanaugh has not expressed outright opposition to Roe v. Wade.

      One of his opinions likely to draw scrutiny from senators is a his dissent from a ruling of the DC Circuit last October that an undocumented immigrant teen in detention was entitled to seek an abortion.

      In his dissent, Kavanaugh wrote the Supreme Court has held that “the government has permissible interests in favoring fetal life, protecting the best interests of a minor, and refraining from facilitating abortion.” He wrote that the high court has “held that the government may further those interests so long as it does not impose an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion.” He said the majority opinion was “based on a constitutional principle as novel as it is wrong: a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in US government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand.” He added, however, that “all parties to this case recognize Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey as precedents we must follow.”

    • [The latest from the American Family Association]

      Statement on Kavanaugh nomination to SCOTUS

      TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2018

      AFA has opposed the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S Supreme Court for some very valid reasons. We are deeply concerned about how he might ultimately rule on issues related to abortion and religious liberty. For these reasons, we consider this nomination to represent a four-star appointment when it could have been five-star.

      However, after hearing the concerns of some of our supporters, and after hearing the passionate defense of Judge Kavanaugh by many we consider to be friends in the pro-life movement, we are willing to let this process play out. We eagerly await the confirmation hearings when we hope to get clarification from Judge Kavanaugh on aspects related to our concerns.

      At this time, we have no plans to fight President Trump on this nomination. He has appointed a lot of good federal judges already and we look forward to many more. We hope that our concerns prove to be unfounded.

  2. Kavanaugh is a Vatican II Catholic. ‘Nuff said. Trump had a chance to appoint someone who upholds Traditional Catholic teaching but he fumbled the ball.

    • Not only Judge Kavanagh but some of the other candidates are V2 Catholics (although of a “conservative” or neo-Catholic type), and one of them was connected with some sort of Catholic charismaniac group.

      Nonetheless, this situation is politics as the “art of the possible.” I would desire for President Trump to appoint a SCOTUS justice who would uphold traditional Catholic teaching – in fact for him by an exective order or SCOTUS by a majority decision to declare the Catholicism the established religion of the United States (with toleration for other ones) – as I have argued elsewhere that while the Constitution explicitly forbids Congress aswell as state and local goverments from “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” it does not explicitly forbid the federal exexcutive or judiciary from doing such.

      The President took an oath to uphold not traditional Catholic teaching but the Constitution and implicitly the natural law foundation (especially moral) behind it and thus against socio-immorality especially that of the culture of sterility and death. IMHO that is the best that we can get in this situation and at this time.

  3. OK, here’s what I’d do. First, I’d fire Mueller, Strzok, amd Page; Then, I’d issue pardons to Flynn and Monaforte and finally I’d fire Sessions and appoint Alan Dershowitz as Attorney General. No doubt this would create a firestorm but, so what, it would clear the landscape of some notable buffoons.

  4. Trump Train: Meet The Kavanaugh Express

    JUL 10, 2018 – Posted by Mundabor

    You wouldn’t want to be Chuck Schumer right now. I mean, you wouldn’t want to be Chuck Schumer ever, but particularly now.

    Let us play the scenarios here.

    1. Schumer launches a savage fight against Kavanaugh, and manages to block his appointment. This enrages the MAGA people, and he wakes up after the Mid-Term with three or five Senators lost. After which, Trump proceeds to box in either Kavanaugh himself, or someone else more conservative than him. Plus, the increased majority puts Trump in an excellent position if RBG or Breyer die or resign in the next two years.

    2. Schumer launches a savage fight against Kavanaugh, and loses it. He probably still loses several Senators in November, and he shows that he cannot stop Trump’s appointments anyway. The Dems zealots lead to more #walkaway.

    3. Schumer decides not to play hardball on Kavanaugh, who gets appointed without savage fight. He limits the loss of senators in November, but he only manages defeat. The activists on his grassroots drift more and more into socialist positions.

    4. Schumer decides to put on a fake fight and achieve that Kavanaugh is confirmed within, say, August. He tries to keep the Supreme Court as far away from November as possible, then plays his cards on other leftist issues that are not linked to abortion or second amendment. Thus, he keeps his endangered Senators as far away from the line of fire as he can; but this comes at the price of waving a big white flag.

    I do not see any other scenarios, and think the first two the most probable. If any of them come to pass , we will com out of the battle stronger. In fact, 54 or even 55 Republican senators will make the death of Roe vs Wade more probable in time.

    Join me in wishing RBG (age), Sotomayor (diabetes) and Breyer (age) a long and happy retirement and, hopefully, conversion.

    But honestly, this Trump train is now running at full speed and it won’t be easy to stop it.

  5. Would Brett Kavanaugh overturn Roe? Supreme Court pick’s record offers mixed clues

    Calvin Freiburger

    WASHINGTON, D.C., July 10, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – With President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee revealed, pro-life activists are now turning their attention to attempting to discern Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s likelihood of voting to overturn Roe v. Wade, which made America one of the most liberal abortion regimes in the world.

    Trump announced Monday night that the District of Columbia circuit judge was his choice to replace the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, hailing Kavanaugh as a “brilliant jurist” who “can set aside [his] views to do what the law and Constitution require[s].”

    Kavanaugh quickly won the endorsements of several pro-life groups, including the National Right to Life Committee and Susan B. Anthony List, which already announced plans to mobilize grassroots activists to “urge the Senate to swiftly confirm Judge Kavanaugh.”

    Others took a more cautiously hopeful tone, with Live Action president Lila Rose simply “encourag[ing] Brett Kavanaugh to uphold the Constitution and support the most basic human right — the right to life — for all people.”

    Before the president’s announcement, the Washington Examiner relayed a quote from an unnamed source close to the White House that “there are concerns in the pro-life community that his decisions in some cases mean he’s not as solidly pro-life as we would like him to be.” Critics have pointed to cases in which he arrived at the pro-life outcome, but his reasoning arguably suggested openness to other pro-abortion legal claims.

    On the D.C. Court of Appeals, Kavanaugh sided with Priests for Life against the Obama administration’s contraception mandate, but also suggested the government has a “compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception for the employees of…religious organizations.” (Since then, the case has been settled and the Trump administration has worked to dismantle the mandate and other anti-conscience rules.)

    Kavanaugh also ruled that there was no “right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. Government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand,” although he based his decision in part on the theory that the delay in obtaining an abortion didn’t constitute an “undue burden” whereas his colleague Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson recognized the illegal immigrant had no right to abortion at all. Critics argue Kavanaugh should have joined the stronger opinion; defenders say he was merely operating within the framework that both sides of the suit agreed on.

    Kavanaugh has also touched on the subject of Roe itself on a couple of occasions, but without presenting clear-cut proof of his legal position.

    During his 2006 confirmation hearings to the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh testified that he “would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully. That would be binding precedent of the court, it’s been decided by the Supreme Court.” He added that “it’s been reaffirmed many times, including in Planned Parenthood v. Casey,” and, “I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to give a personal view.”

    Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative legal analyst who favors overturning Roe, defended Kavanaugh on this point Tuesday by stressing that his comments “related entirely to” the role of a lower court judge bound to defer to higher courts, and “do not speak to [the] role of” a Supreme Court Justice.

    As how Kavanaugh would rule on the highest court, perhaps the most encouraging evidence comes from a speech he delivered last year to the American Enterprise Institute on the legal philosophy of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, whom he called “my first judicial hero.”

    “Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion [in Roe…] stated that under the Court’s precedents, any such unenumerated right had to be rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people,” Kavanaugh summarized. “Given the prevalence of abortion regulations both historically and at the time, Rehnquist said he could not reach such a conclusion about abortion.”

    “Justice Rehnquist was not successful in convincing a majority of the justices in the context of abortion either in Roe itself or in the later cases such as Casey, in the latter case perhaps because of stare decisis,” he continued. “But he was successful in stemming the general tide of freewheeling judicial creation of unenumerated rights that were not rooted in the nation’s history and tradition.”

    While Kavanaugh was summarizing Rehnquist’s thinking and not explicitly adopting it as his own (nor did he say whether he interprets stare decisis to mean Roe should survive regardless of that critique), his summary of Roe as “freewheeling judicial creation of unenumerated rights” may be the clearest indicator yet that he thinks the case was wrongly decided.

    While many in pro-life and conservative circles are celebrating Kavanaugh’s nomination, some suggest now is the time to scrutinize these and other ambiguities.

    “I look forward to the process in the Senate, getting to know Judge Kavanaugh and his family better in coming months, and, hopefully, voting to confirm him to the Supreme Court in the fall,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-UT, said Monday evening, hopeful but not yet committing to confirmation.

    “I’ll keep an open mind,” conservative commentator and former Reagan administration advisor Mark Levin wrote. “But the conservative senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee must use the confirmation hearing to ask him legitimate questions to verify his backers’ claims that he’s a textualist and originalist.”

  6. ‘Another strong nominee’? Conservatives, pro-life activists react to Trump picking Kavanaugh

    Lisa Bourne

    WASHINGTON, D.C., July 10, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Reaction to President Donald Trump’s nomination Monday of D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court remained mixed among conservatives Tuesday, ranging from disappointment for some to others saying they will wait and see.

    Kavanaugh will fill the soon-to-be-vacant seat of pro-gay, pro-abortion Justice Anthony Kennedy, who announced his retirement last month. Kavanaugh is one of Kennedy’s former clerks.

    After Trump announced his nomination, Kavanaugh said his judicial philosophy was straightforward.

    “A judge must be independent and must interpret the law, not make the law,” he stated. “A judge must interpret statutes as written, and a judge must interpret the Constitution as written, informed by history and tradition and precedent.”

    Democrats have promised a fight over his nomination and reports say the U.S. Senate will have a lot to review with Kavanaugh’s lengthy history in Washington.

    If Kavanaugh is confirmed, he will be the fifth Catholic on the nine-justice Supreme Court.

    During his comments on being nominated, Kavanaugh discussed his Catholic faith and his Jesuit ties, the latter providing a potential red flag for orthodox Catholics.

    “I am part of the vibrant Catholic community in the D.C. area,” he said. “The members of that community disagree about many things, but we are united by a commitment to serve. Father John Ensler is here. 40 years ago I was an altar boy for Father John. These days I help him serve meals to the homeless at Catholic Charities.”

    Many social conservatives had hoped Trump would nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett is the Catholic mother of seven nominated last fall by Trump for the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. She famously faced attack for her Catholic faith from California Senator Dianne Feinstein and other Democrats in the confirmation process.

    Feinstein’s grilling of Barrett netted criticism for anti-Catholic bigotry. Barrett was later confirmed a U.S. Court of Appeals judge and has remained for many a standout among the SCOTUS judicial nominee contenders, for her credentials, Catholic and otherwise.

    ‘Four-star appointment when it could have been five-star’
    While many reports say that Kavanaugh has been strong on free speech and religious liberty, others disagree. Similarly, while many pro-life advocates are praising the pick, some within the pro-life community have been concerned that his previous rulings signal he’s not as reliably pro-life as they would like him to be.

    The American Family Association (AFA) released a statement Tuesday afternoon addressing concerns the group holds over how Kavanaugh would rule in cases concerning religious freedom and the right to life.

    “AFA has opposed the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S Supreme Court for some very valid reasons,” AFA President Tim Wildmon said. “We are deeply concerned about how he might ultimately rule on issues related to abortion and religious liberty. For these reasons, we consider this nomination to represent a four-star appointment when it could have been five-star.”

    Wildmon went on to say that after hearing concerns from some supporters along with hearing the “passionate defense” of Kavanaugh by many in the pro-life movement, AFA is “willing to let this process play out.”

    “We eagerly await the confirmation hearings when we hope to get clarification from Judge Kavanaugh on aspects related to our concerns,” said Wildmon. “At this time, we have no plans to fight President Trump on this nomination. He has appointed a lot of good federal judges already and we look forward to many more. We hope that our concerns prove to be unfounded.”

    ‘Strong record of protecting life’
    Among the conservative and pro-life groups welcoming the nomination are the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List), the March for Life, and Concerned Women for America (CWA).

    SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser called Kavanaugh an “outstanding choice” and “an experienced, principled jurist with a strong record of protecting life and constitutional rights.”

    March for Life President Jeanne Mancini said Trump chose “another strong nominee” in Kavanaugh.

    “In addition to Kavanaugh’s excellent professional qualifications, he is a man of faith, a family man, and a girls’ basketball coach,” Mancini said. “He is exceptionally qualified for the role and will no doubt serve as a fair, independent judge who will remain faithful to the Constitution.”

    “Judge Brett Kavanaugh is abundantly qualified to sit on the bench of the United States Supreme Court,” said Penny Nance, president and CEO, Concerned Women for America. “He is among the best and brightest jurists on the appellate courts with a reputation of being fair and impartial in his decisions. Judge Kavanaugh is known as a judge who respects the Constitution as written, refusing to legislate from the bench.”

    ‘We trust the president’ on Kavanaugh
    Some statements of welcome came with tepid or reserved remarks.

    There is a sense of focus on taking both Trump and Kavanaugh at their word – in Trump’s case, that he would nominate conservative, pro-life Supreme Court judges, and with Kavanaugh, in his saying his job on the SCOTUS bench would be to interpret, rather than make the law. There is also some emphasis on taking stock in the fact Trump chose someone from his proposed list.

    “President Trump promised a constitutionalist – someone who will call balls and strikes according to the Constitution,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said. “We trust the president that Judge Kavanaugh will fit this mold as a justice. Judge Kavanaugh has a long and praiseworthy history of judging as an originalist, and we look forward to having a justice with his philosophical approach on the Court.”

    American Principles Project Executive Director Terry Schilling said Trump had chosen “a very qualified judge in Brett Kavanaugh to nominate for the Supreme Court,” and that Kavanaugh was “a principled constitutionalist who will interpret our nation’s laws as written.”

    “I support the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” said Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver. “As he has repeatedly stated, his judicial philosophy is simple – judges must interpret the law, not make it. It is the right of the people, not judges, to amend the Constitution and the laws.”

    “The President has conducted this nomination process with transparency, having shared his list of potential nominees with the American people in advance,” said Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life. “We trust him and those who have advised him in this selection.”

    Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, said Kavanaugh was “a bold choice for the high court” and that he will “bring balance to the court in background and in judicial temperament.”

    “This is no surprise selection,” Hawkins said. “President Trump’s list of potential nominees has been available for all to examine, and in choosing Brett Kavanaugh, he is keeping a promise to the American people.”

    Trump ‘went establishment’
    National Review Senior Writer David French was among those hoping for Barrett.

    “The president blinked” in nominating Kavanaugh, French wrote at The Washington Post. And while conservatives will ultimately rally around the choice, he said that on Monday night, “There was, for the first time in Trump’s judicial wars, a palpable sense of an opportunity lost.”

    Trump “went establishment,” French said, “made the best safe choice he could,” and “chose a man that any Republican president would have nominated.”

    “The best version of Trump would have nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court,” he said.

    As a mother of seven kids, an outspoken Christian and a graduate from a “normal” non-Ivy League law school, Barrett was the nominee to shatter the GOP mold and inflame the culture wars.

    “The base-motivating, electrifying pick was right there, in the palm of his hand,” French said.

    French said that conservative Christians view Barrett as both qualified and a person they feel like they know.

    “Trump had — right in front of him — the judge who could be populist and principled,” said French, “the person who could galvanize the base and be an originalist judicial bedrock for the next 30 years.”

  7. So, he’ll concentrate on interpreting the law rather than making law from the bench. The question is which law will he interpret – God’s law in the form of the Fifth Commandment: “Thou shalt not kill” or that of Man in the form of the “right to Abortion is settled law.” No amount of “Vatican II Catholicism” can obscure the fact that our so-called “Supreme Court” is following the law of Man, not God, and Kavanaugh knows it.

  8. “Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one’s culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another.” Credit to Santa Clara University
    This is the theory practiced by many Vatican II Catholics – IMO.

  9. One theory I saw was Trump may be anticipating a GOP Senate pick up in November, easing off some of the pressure against Barrett later on, when RBG retires. If so, such a plan “could” help overturn RvW but certainly wouldn’t guarantee such.
    This situation extends well beyond the US of A and it is a known fact that jurists study international decisions so Leftists in the UN/EU cabal will likely not refrain from exercising aggressive influence, as well.

  10. Archie Bunker: Well, what do you think of that, Meathead. Trump’s got another conservative on the Supreme Court there.

    The Meathead: Oh, my God! Trump’s got another judge on the Supreme Court! Vladimir Putin will control the Supreme Court! I think I may faint. The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Liberal beta male Never Trumper meltdown!

    Take it easy over there, Meathead. Can’t you see Trump is makin’ this country great again? You should be enjoyin’ this and celebratin’. Not havin’ some liberal beta male estrogen meltdown. Jeez, the president is makin’ this country great and you can’t enjoy it!

    Meathead: But the Russians are taking over, Arch’. They hacked the election.
    Putin controls Trump like a puppet and Trump is crazy!

    Archie: It’s just my luck to have a liberal son-in-law livin’ here, freeloadin’ off my salary and fridge, screamin’ this liberal nutjob nonsense like he’s on MSNBC.

    Meathead: But the Russians are taking over, Arch’. They control Trump. They control virtually the whole country now. Oh, my God! I can’t believe this is happening! The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!

    Lieutenant Yuri Rozanov : Very funny. I think your son has been smoking too many reefers and watching old movies!

    Carl Reiner: You mean you’re not a bunch of Russian GRU hackers covering up Hillary’s Uranium One scandal?

    Lieutenant Yuri Rozanov: We are Norwegians. Tourists who come to Martha’s Vineyard for the quiche.

    Carl Reiner: Well, then, we’ve got to get into town to warn them about the bad weed that’s going around on Martha’s Vineyard. Everyone’s turning paranoid crazy lately.

    Archie: Oh, the Russians are takin’ over now? Well, whup-dee-doo! Listen to Joe McCarthy over there! Where were you when the Cold War was really going on???

    Meathead: But the Russians are taking over, Arch’. The Special Counsel said so! And whatever the Deep State says is true or becomes true.

    Lieutenant Yuri Rozanov: But why does your bourgeoiski Hollywood liberal son go so crazy from bad weed? He sound like John Birch Society now!

    Carl Reiner: The Russians don’t really want to take over. Meathead just got hold of some bad weed and has gone paranoid!

    Chief Mattocks: There’s bad weed on Martha’s Vineyard making aging liberal hippies see Russians everywhere?

    Officer Norman Jonas: That’s what we’ve been tryin’ to tell ya, Chief!

    Chief Mattocks: Well, we’ll just have to send out arrest warrants for Meathead, Fusion GPS, and this cocky FBI agent who squirms in his chair.

    Natasha Fatale: Now that whole island has gone crazy with Russian collusion hoax, what is next part of plan to keep crazy bourgeoiskis’ heads spinning in all directions?

    Boris Badenov: Is funny, no?

    Maxwell Smart: You’ll never believe this, Chief.

    The Chief: Max, you’ve got to get up to Martha’s Vineyard to check out that bad weed.

    Max: Do I have to wear a funny costume?

    Siegfried: Schmart is getting much too close for the truth. He has discovered the acid-laced weed on Martha’s Vineyard that is making liberal go crazy with paranoia!

    General Turgidson: Well, it has been known to work before.

    Doctor Strangelove: Ja, ja, I vuz thinking ze same thing!

    General Ripper: Mandrake, have you ever considered the potential of paranoia-inducing hallucinogenic chemicals for Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy?

    Columbo: Oh….I do remember somethin’ about that.

    Robin: Holy mind control, Batman!

    Batman: Yes, Robin, criminal and deviant minds have been known to go there.

    Archie: It’s right there, Meathead. If you’d just look carefully….

  11. Ditto on the LOL!! Howl is having a great season and we aren’t even at the All Star break! He’s leading the League in home runs, already. BE is still working on his inside fastball but count on Howl to just keep drivin’ anything that Brit tries to throw at him right outta the park!

  12. Super 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣!

Leave a Reply