Why Kavanaugh is Dangerous

Why Kavanaugh is Dangerous September 4, 2018

I don’t like calling anyone dangerous but a Supreme Court justice who threatens our civil rights instead of championing them is just that.

Kavanaugh at hearing Tasos Katopodis/EPA via Shutterstock

Today Brett Kavanaugh takes his seat before the Senate Judiciary Committee and the American people to tell us how he would serve on the Supreme Court. He has already told us he thinks the President shouldn’t face questioning or criminal charges while in office and he has already made it clear that he does not seek to defend voting rights.

That is why Kavanaugh would be dangerous to democracy. Can you join me and hundreds of others of faith leaders to tell the Senate to reject his nomination? Together we are powerful and are able to stop this.

With the range of allegations against President Trump – including his recent implication as an unindicted co-conspirator in crimes impacting the 2016 election – we can’t let him select a judge that will rule on his case. That is completely unfair.

Our courts must defend democracy by holding our elected officials accountable. That is why we must oppose Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination – and why the Senate should not vote to confirm him.

I believe in a God of justice. Not one who prefers the rights of the wealthy and the powerful but who hears the cry of the poor and the marginalized. In the Hebrew Bible, Amos longs for a day when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream. We need to ask if President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, will hasten this day or pervert justice by ruling with the powerful and privileged.

America deserves a Supreme Court that will rule with justice and fairness. Not one which will limit our ability to select our leaders and enable them in their corruption and double-dealing.

"Progressive Liberalism is destroying the world sadly"

Trump’s Nationalism is Incompatible with Christianity
"I agree nationalist does not mean racist. In the UK it is not racist although ..."

Trump’s Nationalism is Incompatible with Christianity
"The Christians allegiance is to God not a nation.However the Trump Administration is doing many ..."

Trump’s Nationalism is Incompatible with Christianity
"Rev. loves his religion. Is he a Christian? I doubt. Whose religion is Christianity?"

Trump’s Nationalism is Incompatible with Christianity

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Scott

    From the source you cited:
    “During a 1998 Georgetown Law School conference on what would turn out to be the dim prospects of renewing the independent counsel law, moderator Mark Tuohey (who hired Kavanaugh onto the staff of independent counsel Ken Starr) put a question to the panel:
    “How many of you believe, as a matter of law, that a sitting president cannot be indicted during the term of office?” Tuohey asked. Kavanaugh’s hand went up, as did more than half of the experts on the panel, including some with liberal political outlooks.
    Kavanaugh’s stance—or his stance at that time— is not an unusual or outlandish one. In fact, it’s the official position of the Justice Department, formally articulated in a 1973 opinion under President Richard Nixon and reaffirmed in 2000 under President Bill Clinton.”
    It is irrelevant who Trump was going to nominate. Democrats and progressives were going to pitch a fit about any candidate. Kavanaugh’s biggest flaw is that he was nominated by a republican president, which infers he probably is a republican. Which means he must be a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe (the lefts description of anyone with a conservative sensibility).

  • Rudy Schellekens

    Please be fair in your comments! “He has already told us he thinks the President shouldn’t face questioning or criminal charges while in office…” This is showing that you seem to have ignored what has been done for the last 42 years – by the DOJ. It is not Kavanaugh’s OPINION, but active behavior of the DOJ.
    I’ve been listening on and off to the hearing, and I find it disturbing that the Democrats find ways to make him commit to answers they did not ask the two judges confirmed under the previous president. They were not pushed again and again to answer questions on issues that Republicans wondered about…

  • Hold onto your britches Scottie…Liberals know where Kavanaugh stands and when it comes to Republicans, along with their apex in Trump…Liberals know all too well where they stand in voting rights, ethics, morals, corruption, homophobia, degradation of the poor instead of poverty, always arguing for the rich and corporate policies and not just lying, but extensive lying.

    Now, in considering the Republican denial that Merrick couldn’t even have a hearing or even speak to senators with the premise nearly a year away from the 2016 elections that folks have a right to have their voices heard, then rush to judgment with the Kavanaugh process that is only a couple of months away from the 2018 elections, then make his documents secret and confidential…no, its not necessarily that he is a Republican, but the unethical betrayal of Republicans in this democracy of ours and Kavanaugh’s immoral previous stances…you’re dad-burned straight that Dems are going to punch back…

    …And yepper sportsfan…this article does a right fair portrayal of what is going on in American politics today…

  • Abbygosh

    Your seemingly logical deductive reasoning in this opinion piece lacks intellectual thought. The operative word here is CONTEXT. I’m watching Senators ask questions and then Senators (in their anger and frustration) are cutting him off before he can fully answer because the reply isn’t going with what they want to hear. The other operative word is INCOHERENT. Are you being incoherent by writing this brief blip of emotional panic in the desperate hope someone will just take your advice as truth? Between Senators not listening and sudden annoying and staged shouts, it’s really hard to concentrate. Get out of special interest panic mode, pull yourself together, listen well and get back with us. Praying may help.

  • Scott

    Thanks for the reply. While I appreciate your monologue, I do have a couple of issues with it. First and foremost, just so you know where I’m coming from, I think Trump may be the anti-Christ. ‘Nough said.
    My issues with your response are twofold. First, you didn’t really respond to my point. The blog authors thesis was that Kavanaugh should be rejected primarily because of his position that a sitting president should not be indicted. I provided quotes from the link she included. I’m really not sure why she used that source because it would appear that Kavanaugh’s position is rather mainstream in legal circles.
    Secondly, immaterial as to what happened in the past, democrats were going to take issue with anyone nominated that would be to the right of Marx. It’s just the way it is in our politics these days. Your description and view of republicans is hyperbole at best. I have no problem with democrats punching back. I personally think they got screwed with Garland not getting a hearing. My position was that they should have given him a hearing and then voted “No” as Obama did when he was in the senate for both of Bush’s appointments.

  • Appreciate much the report reply, Scottie, but wholeheartedly disagree with ya, although your point was well taken. Now my counter…

    No, indeed, it is an array of Kavanaugh’s past opinions from sitting presidents immune to indictments thru his stances on immigration, abortion rights and to inferred racism. I don’t see that as mainstream and it is totally in the Dems’ rights to have been able to at least been briefed on as to why Bill Burke, a former coworker of Kavanaugh’s and the Trump WH have excluded, whether by refusing to release or through executive order not handed over pertinent documents concerning Kavanaugh. Of course they claim under the premise of “national security,” when in fact those that were released have nothing to do with secret confidential or even personal aspects. Still though, senators were not allowed to make them public. In going back to Neil Gorsuch, if he were half the honorable man Republicans claimed he was, he would have bowed out insisting he can’t fill the Scalia seat that should have been filled by all intents and purposes by Merrick Garland. Now, we have to contend with Kavanaugh’s nomination.

    You seem quite reasonable, Scottie, but as far as hyperbole goes, if ya contend that Republicans do not suppress ethnic votes, partake in unethical attacks on the poor in degrading social welfare while pushing for corporate welfare, tirelessly fight against LGBTQ rights to have equality as much as any other citizen and now they are purporting to support healthcare when all they’ve ever done is attack it…who really is promoting hyperbole…

    As for myself, I am not a Dem and most certainly am not a Refib…just a liberal Independent and one redneck one at that…so maybe there is some hyperbole to me, but not in my stating of facts…

  • Scott

    Hey Coach, I want to respond to your reply but before I do I have to ask. Your first sentence reads that you disagree with me. What is it that you disagreed with?

  • Surely I will…in your first comment there is a section whereupon you state, “Democrats and progressives were going to pitch a fit about any candidate.” I disagree with that…yes, if it were a Trump nominee that was a bit more moderate, there would be some conjoling and bickering, but the hearing would have proceeded into the nomination process and with McConnell’s nuclear option of a 50 vote count, Kavanaugh would’ve squeaked by. But under these circumstances, I hope that Dems pull every plug they can get their hands on to disrupt this lopsided farce. Apparently they are, as in Senator Corker risking his senate career with the just made-up senate rules that committee confidentials cannot be released to the public.

    With my above second paragraph starting with, “No, indeed”…I do believe is in direct disagreement with your aforementioned quote that Kavanaugh’s opinions are rather mainstream.

    I must admit however, Scottie that after rereading a few more times there is some common ground, in particular when it comes to Trump. But ya see there Scott, as born and raised in West Texas, fairness and honesty is an attribute I cannot shake and if ya think there is a false scenario I am portraying, please point it out and if indeed I do feel it is in error, I will correct…

  • After the vote Kavanaugh will be appointed a an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court. He will also get a few Democrats to vote for him. What this means is that the Court will be able to protect our liberties from the ravages of Liberalism for 30 years. And with Kennedy gone the swing vote will be gone making it almost impossible for Liberal Circuit Judges to legislate from the bench. This is a good thing. And better at least one more judge may be appointed in Trump’s second term. Something to look forward to for sure.

  • Scott

    Lots to unpack but lets start with this. Per the Washington Post and NY Times.

    Senate Rule 29-5:

    “Any Senator, officer or employee of the Senate who shall disclose the secret or confidential business or proceedings of the Senate, including the business and proceedings …. ”

    Sorry, but there was not a “made-up senate rule that committee confidentials cannot be released to the public.”

  • Scott

    “Surely I will…in your first comment there is a section whereupon you state, “Democrats and progressives were going to pitch a fit about any candidate.” I disagree with that…”
    C’mon man! You know better than that. There is no way in hell the dems wouldn’t pitch a fit regarding any republican nominee, immaterial who the republican president was. Here’s some history. See if you see a trend.

    Democratic Nominees and Confirmation Vote.
    Ginsberg 96-3
    Breyer 87-9
    Sotomayor 68-31
    Kagen . 63-37

    Republican Nominees
    Alito 58-42
    Thomas 52-48
    Roberts 68-32
    Gorsuch 54-45

    My guess is Kav will be 51-49

  • How they voted is not saying they raised a fit. This time is more comparable to Reagan’s Bork pick and yes they’d better raise a fit. With W’s Miers pick, it was more the Republican side claiming she was too moderate, so much so W had to go with another choice in Roberts. So, both sides do whine…

    ..and what about the nuclear option…your list vividly illustrates and points that out with Dem choices abiding by the standard 60 vote count rules and Republicans not…

  • Scott

    Well you gotta be honest a give blame (or credit) to who started it. Harry Reid, and that’s well documented.

  • That is not entirely “honest” there, Scottie…

    Due to more filibustering of Obama judicial picks for the bench than all of filibustering going back to the early 60s, Reid did invoke it, but not for SCOTUS…McConnell did that…

  • Scott

    Of course it’s honest. Reid did start it (Sort of. The real culprit was old Teddy and the Bork fiasco) Here’s the damn truth. No ones hands are clean. Everyone has become the other side of the same coin they bitch about. There are no saints on the left or right side of the aisle. If democrats were in control they’d be shutting out republicans just the same. We have history as proof.

  • Surely there was, Senator Cornyn, after making his snide remark about Booker maybe trying to run for president even read it off to Senator Booker. But yes, nowhere in the original senate procedures is it cited…

  • I’m tired of that old line of: so what…everyone does it…no they don’t, at least not to the level of what Republicans do and Trump is merely the apex of Republican lying, corruption and dishonesty, the crowning achievement of Republicanism…

  • Scott

    Man, you’re living in a liberal bubble. But if it’s warm and fuzzy, enjoy! I never said “so what..everybody does it.” In fact the exact opposite. It’s not a so what to me. I could recite one despicable lie after another from Democrats but what would be the point? You are invested in your tribe and so there you have it. I’m just not that invested in any political ideology.

  • Recite one…Ill give three Republican lies for every recent Democrat one…

    A little bit of news Scottie, I invest in the country, not any party or tribe. There are issues with Dems, but they pale in comparison of what Republican do and act…

    Some curiosity here…how did you vote in 2016, if you’re proud of it, it should be no problem in broadcasting it, with your warm and fuzzed self…

  • Hold it there cowpunch, how in your ever loving mind do ya think that Teddy Kennedy started it…he was never the senate majority leader to impose it…

    Now in sincere reply…which party truly works more for the common American in deed and policy and which party truly works for the rich and corporate in deed and policy.

    In the past 50 years, which party has actually raised the national debt and deficit overall and which party has actually lowered the debt and deficit overall…

    Truthfully answer those and well see who is leaning on the tribal totem pole…

  • Scott

    Gary Johnson

  • Scott

    “Recite one…Ill give three Republican lies for every recent Democrat one”
    You know that’s called justifying bad behavior with bad behavior.

  • Scott

    “Sen. Kennedy’s rhetorical ruthlessness was perhaps most famously displayed within minutes of the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. The world now knows that Bob Bork is one of the most intelligent, witty, reasonable, and civilized men in America. But at the time, few knew anything about him. Kennedy rushed to the Senate floor to introduce a grotesque bogeyman: “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

    Democrats, with the will help of the press, have been impugning, maligning, and lying about conservatives for decades. Yeah, the supreme court issues go back to Ted. This isn’t even debatable.

  • Richard B

    In many instances he shows complete ignorance. We don’t need another doofus yes-man on this Court.

  • Ya know…you are exactly at play with that bad behavior theme of yours. The right are the ones fully conjoined in tribalism with their fear and division tactics of separating Americans out due to social standing, religion or ethnicity…..fear the ones in poverty, the Latino, the Middle Easterner, the refugee…This is the rights’ most heralded rhetoric, but yet actually throw that blame off onto all others. You just did it…

    Why else do ya think the national separatists, KKK and American Nazi party always vote Republican…

  • Originally a Republican and almost as dumb as Trump.
    Still haven’t given any say on how ya voted or given a recent Democrat lie… aren’t up to it…

  • Scott

    Are you trying to be obtuse? I clearly said i voted for Gary Johnson. And who cares if he used to be a Republican. Trump use to be a Democrat. Should I make judgements based on that? As I said, I could list a plethora of lies from Democrats but what’s the point? What does it accomplish? I list a Democrat lie and then you list a Republican. What in Gods name is the point? Continue to think Republicans are vile sexists, bigots, homophobes. Have your party continue to preach from the mountain top. You’ll enjoy a 2nd term Trump.

  • jekylldoc

    Well, I would like to see Kavanaugh rejected, but it doesn’t look very likely. I am pretty sure the republic, and our freedoms, will survive. But I think we might want to take to heart the necessity of appealing to our fellow citizens, rather than to political machinations, in order to achieve the agenda of empowerment. Short-cuts and maneuvers are not how you build consensus and transform society. Imposition by the levers of government may be vital to help protect people, but they are not as transformative as dialogue and persuasion.

  • Nothing obtuse, ya merely wrote Gary Johnson, nothing else to explain, I actually thought you were being obtuse…

    Oh, there’s point there cowpunch, it states a lot of conviction in opinionated beliefs…plus ya flat out laid out a statement that needs factual back-up. I’m definitely ready to state my Refib lies with substance, so fire away…

    There will be no 2nd term Trump nor a first term for another Repub…

  • Everett Kier Jr

    Well said….why is it progressives seem to have a hard time listening and assume anyone who disagrees with them is dangerous. I thought the fundamentalists were supposed to be closed minded!

  • Everett Kier Jr

    well said!

  • jekylldoc

    Clearly he will help protect us from the ravages of liberalism, like weekends off work, a 40 hour work week, and a minimum wage that a full-time worker can actually live on.

  • Doofus yes: Gore, Swalwall, Kerry, Schiff; are a few Democrat examples.

  • Associate Justices decide cases brought before them. They should not try to Legislate. Liberals Judges like the 9th Circuit have made a stench of their decisions.

  • jekylldoc

    And yet associate justices do get involved. The recent Janus vs. AFSCME decision was a travesty, and fits Kavanaugh’s M.O. perfectly: decide which side you want to win, find an excuse, don’t worry about consensus or precedent. I feel protected already.

  • Janus was a landmark decision for Conservatism and a big slap in the face of Liberalism.
    Unions have no inherent right to collect dues in order to feed the coffers of the Democrats.And that is what they do. The teachers union is another disgrace. In fact, Unions should be prevented from contributing to political campaigns.The members can vote. That is enough.

    When I mentioned we are safe from a Liberal influence on the high court for 30 years I meant it. After Trump gets re-elected in a landslide in 2020 Ginsburg will retire and we will get another Justice; Liberals beware.

  • jekylldoc

    Dues to support political lobbying or campaign support were already exempted from compulsion before Janus. That is a legitimate use of First Amendment protections. Janus said that anyone can free ride if they want to: get the benefit of collective bargaining and refuse to pay the costs of it. That is a whole different thing, and invoking the First Amendment to justify free riding is like inviting people to refuse to pay the part of their taxes that they don’t like the benefits of.

  • At the end of the day the “agency fees” are used to support the DNC. If someone objects to that there was no option. Now there is. It’s not free-riding. It is freedom of choice.
    Janus v. AFSCME is a very, very big deal.
    By Dylan Matthews@dylanmattdylan@vox.com Jun 27, 2018, 11:48am EDT
    “On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued what is probably its single most consequential ruling of the year. Janus v. AFSCME is a devastating blow against public sector unions, barring them from charging “agency fees” to the public employees for whom they negotiate pay increases and benefit bumps if those employees decline to join the union as full members.

    Now, teachers unions, police unions, and more will be forced to lobby public employees to pay full union dues, even though those employees will get the same benefits from the union if they pay nothing at all.”

  • jekylldoc

    You have misunderstood what the article was saying.

    From Wikipedia.

    “Within the public sector
    (unions that include members working for state and local governments),
    which are governed by individual state laws, the use of such agreements
    had been previously allowed by the Supreme Court in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S.
    209 (1977), which determined that as long as such dues collected from
    non-members was used only for the union’s purposes of collective
    bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment, it did
    not violate the non-members’ First Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

    “Since about 2006, with the appointment of Justice Samuel Alito which gave the Court a conservative advantage, groups opposing agency fees, such as the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, have brought cases challenging Abood.
    These groups contended that within the public sector, all union
    activities could be considered political since they ultimately seek to
    influence government policy, and thus violate the First Amendment.”

    Did you catch that? The argument was that since the employer was the government, the use of fees to bargain with them was a use for “infuencing government policy.” But the decision did not give an opt-out for people who thought the government should pay them less than the union was asking, as a matter of “government policy.” That would be a consistent interpretation of their First Amendment rights. They could then choose to support the government paying them less as a matter of government policy. But no, they are just allowed to keep the union dues. That is, they have the right to free ride. This was well understood by the majority, I assure you. They just didn’t care.

    There is no reason to suppose any of that agency fee money goes to support the DNC. The workers already had the right under Abood to be exempt from their share of any costs of political activity.

  • Yeah, concerning Robert Bork; just guessing here since it is irrelevant, but Bork would have been a conservative activist very much in the manner of Scalia, a loud and consistent vote to roll back precedent not just to pre-Warren Court positions but to the Lochner-era sensibilities of over a century ago. So, yes, Teddy as a more Liberal thinker wanted someone more moderate and it happened in Reagan picking Kennedy. But ya most certainly cant blame Republican actions today during their Gorsuch and Kavanaugh actions onto Teddy.

    Teddy did say those things ya mention and even more; it was a tad Orwellian for sure, but he most certainly wasn’t the first senator to start this nuclear option ball thing rolling. As well, Reagan picked Kennedy who was still conservative, but more mainstream and got the nomination.

    There ya go…instituting the Republican whining about the media being oh, so liberal. In fact the national media has made it a point to not look so liberal and ya cannot argue when they state facts no matter how often it goes against your opinion. Heck, the media even helped promote Trump to his loss of the popular vote win.

    Republican lies: “the 47 percent are lazy bums,” are the problem, and not interested in working. Fact: This is Repub justification in cutting out $40 billion from the SNAP (food stamps). 64% of those folks receiving SNAP are children the elderly and the disabled. Most of the rest are the working poor with less than 1% filing fraudulent claims.

    Eliminating women rights benefits them. Really…do I even need to expound on that…

    We must suppress the vote due to fraud. With numerous voter fraud laws already on the books, Repubs want to suppress voters without any proof of voter fraud, it is the only way they feel they can win on what they promote…

  • The top three categories of the stimulus package money were tax cuts, health care and education.You are now in the weeds a bit. But Kavanaugh would probably have voted as you suggested.
    The Democrat machine is partly Unions.
    “The 2009 stimulus package, formally called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, cost around $800 billion.
    The top three categories of the stimulus package money were tax cuts, health care and education.” Did you catch that? A massive infusion of our money went to education that increased Dues and then went where? Back to the DNC is my opinion. That’s how it works…

  • jekylldoc

    Can I get this straight? Are you actually alleging that the 2009 stimulus package fed union dues? More than a little bit paranoid.

    But is it your position that the people in education unions who will opt out of paying union dues are doing so because they believe the government should pay them less? And if not, then in what sense are they being compelled by collective bargaining to go against their own political preferences?

  • The Mouse Avenger

    OMG, will you please just stop it?! D: You’re really scaring me with all of your talk… 🙁

  • Gary Miles
  • Barros Serrano

    Closed-minded… let’s see, would that be like Christians who pertain to the Party of Family Values supporting an Orange admitted sex offender with documented liaisons with porn stars, a long history of dubious business practices, and so much more which you know about if you’re paying attention…

    What would Jesus do? He wouldn’t be voting for the Party of Racism & Misogyny, that’s for sure.

  • Barros Serrano

    To you connedservatives, any judicial application of the Constitution to the modern circumstance is “legislating”. That is simply because you wish for the status of human rights in this country to remain as it was in 1836.

    But… society and the world have evolved. You should try to keep up.

  • Barros Serrano

    Yes, you prefer for the employer to have all rights, not unlike the feudal Lord, while the workers are prohibited from organizing.

    This means no Union power, inability to negotiate collectively, and all power remains with the employers.

    WHY do so many who work for wages and salaries support all this anti-worker nonsense from the GOP?

    You do know what this pattern of thinking and behavior indicates…

    1. insanity
    2. demon possession
    3. treason

  • Barros Serrano

    This would only be just if the workers not paying Union dues had to work for the pre-Union wages under pre-Union conditions.

    They’re getting a free ride if they don’t pay Union dues.

  • Barros Serrano

    The difference is that GOP policies are uniformly reprehensible and favor only corporate hegemony.

    The Democrats, for all their faults, at least vote to give people healthcare access, food to the hungry, protect the environment, protect women’s rights, and so on.

    No comparison: the GOP is pure evil.

  • Scott

    You’re a caricature of a liberal talking point. First off, there’s a hell of a lot of people doing pretty damn good the past few years with a house, senate, and Whitehouse under republican control (Keep in mind I think Trump is the anti-christ, I’m just trying to be intellectually honest, something few progressives can do). Obviously policies don’t ONLY favor corporations as you wrote.
    Secondly, since the house and senate are under republican control, there’s also a ridiculous amount of money that is being directed to all the areas you think republicans aren’t funding.

  • Barros Serrano

    Lots of insults there, boy, but no substance.

    Oh some of your white suburban friends are doing alright so on problem, eh? Well, in fact the rural towns are dying, the working class is in poverty, and the country is a mess. Perhaps Rush Limbaugh forgot to mention that to you.

    You’re a caricature of a duped brainwashed dumbed-down piece of fascist fodder.

    It’s been downhill since 1981. We’ll fix this country by reversing everything done by Reagan and the Republicans since. Make the rich pay their taxes, end corporate hegemony, make this system work BY FOR and OF the people as the first Republican President advocated.

    What a pile of dung the GOP has become since then!!!

  • Barros Serrano

    Let me guess, you think Ann Coulter is a great intellect, right?

  • Scott

    The top 10% pay 70.88% of all income taxes. I’d say they pay their fair share.

  • Barros Serrano

    Then you have not researched the issue well. First, the top 1% owns half the country. Think they’re paying enough in taxes? The extra wealth they’ve accumulated since Reagan’s misguided giveaways came from the reduced wages and other abuses visited upon the common people. The rich owe us all a lot, far more than they’ll ever pay.

    Look at the highest tax bracket in the 1950’s. Yes it was very high. Justifiably so, since the rich get rich by virtue of the infrastructure and the labor of their many workers. The rich control the system, buy Congress, and manipulate things to keep the workers poor and powerless. Nowadays, again thanks to the demonic Reagan, much of the labor is performed in 3rd world sweatshops, yet the profits keep flowing, prices don’t go down, and nothing has been done to replace the jobs lost by U$A workers.

    And you are defending the billionaires! What’s wrong with your brain, boy?

  • Scott

    Of course I’ve done my research. The top 10% pay 70.88% of all income taxes. The rich don’t owe you anything. When you freaking progressives start being as concerned about people who make less than you as much as you are concerned about people who make more than you, we’ll have a better country. I’ve never been able to understand why democrats are so obsessed with other peoples money.

  • Barros Serrano

    What a load of nonsense rhetoric. If the money was essentially stolen from the workers, then it is their money. The rich did not earn even a minority % of what they hold.

    The country functioned very well when the tax rates were much higher on the upper brackets. Since Reagan the country has been a 2nd-world craphole. Everything went to hell beginning in 1981. Trace anything, wealth disparity, gangs, schools… any of it. Chart it, and look at the lines turn sharply upward during the Reagan Administration. Former Secy of Labor Robt Reich has done a few good videos on this topic, which explains with plenty of facts (you know, those little things you Republicans hate) how the country has gone to hell since Reaganomics was implemented.

    The rich are already protected by Congress, whom they buy. Why would you protect them? What’s in it for you? You think you’ll be rich as trumpolini some day? LOL…

    You’re a dupe, a schlemiel, a chump and a tool. They’ve done a good job of propagandizing your under-informed brain. I’ll bet, though, it was not very difficult.

  • Scott

    You poor little person. Enjoy your rage filled life. Waste of my time.

  • Barros Serrano

    You cannot sustain an argument, little boy. So revert to snark whenever necessary.

    The fact is, your opinions are unsustainable, but you have neither the integrity nor the intelligence to recognize or adjust…

    Just another uninformed GOP-voting bigot with no understanding or concern for democracy, rights or freedom, just bitterness and anger based on your own insecurity and fears.

    You’d be a psychological nightmare, but lots of money for the therapists!

    Make an argument or cork it, little boy.

  • Scott

    As I said, you are a caricature. I made my point, which you couldn’t reply to. The top 10% pay 70.88% of all income taxes. I started three companies from nothing and have employed dozens of people. I probably pay more in taxes than you make. You are one of those pathetic progressives that always has their hand out. The sooner someone chops it off, there better our country will be. You’ll probably spend the rest of your life being a miserable human being thinking everyone owes you something. How’s that thinking benefited you? Enjoy your miserable bubble.

  • Everett Kier Jr

    Never thought in those terms BUT the longer I read the type of logic I find here the more I am inclined to consider the possibility Coulter is indeed a genius.

  • Barros Serrano

    A nasty racist name-caller. Genius. You likely think Trumpolini is a brilliant diplomat, too, eh?

    How about Alex Jones… is he also a genius?

  • Everett Kier Jr

    seems to me you are the “nasty racist name-caller” here. Don’t you get tired of being a jerk?

  • Barros Serrano

    Answer the question, coward boy.

    Or… you could come and talk crap to me in person…

    Meanwhile, against whom would I be racist? Typical white-right calling everyone racist when your ilk are the very racists who are now threatening this society.

    Lose YOUR treasonous racism and dysfunctional connedservative delusions or move to Russia, boy.