Babbling Brooks

It’s always pretty hard these days to be the Republican saying the stupidest thing.  The competition is seriously high.  For instance, over the weekend, Lauren Boebert (R-CO) defended her caustic personality by comparing herself to Jesus Christ, noting that “Our Lord Jesus certainly didn’t tone it down.”  I assume therefore she’ll be fine with loud protestors trying to drown out her speeches.  (Her Lord Jesus also preached peace and love, railed against money lenders and said a woman should be stoned to death for adultery, but never mind all that.  If pointing to Jesus can justify being a crazy loon, whatever works for you, I guess.)  Or in the midst of yet another freezing storm in Texas, Ted Cruz (R-Cancun) put his focus on raising money for truckers in Canada.  Adding, "Let me say the Canadian truckers are heroes. They are patriots and they are marching for your freedom and for my freedom. They are -- those truck drivers -- God bless them.”  But who knows, maybe he’s just showing support for his native Canada.

But insurrectionist Mo Brooks (R-AL) wins the honors today by complaining that gerrymandering in Alabama got blocked because the court ruled it discriminated against black voters.

The three-panel judges said that “Alabama’s proposed congressional districting map dilutes voting power for Black Alabamians and that the map likely violates the Voting Rights Act.” And Mo Brooks has a problem with that.  Which isn’t terribly surprising for an insurrectionist, but still.

The problem for Brooks, though, wasn’t that he didn’t like the ruling – that’s a given – but his reasons.  And for that, he didn’t realize how he put his disappointment, saying that "skin pigmentation" should not be an issue when making such decisions.

“We’ve got to put the skin pigmentation issue behind us,’ he said.

Just to be clear, if the Republican Party actually followed the Brooks Standard, they might be swamped in the mid-terms.  Making decisions based on “skin pigmentation” is pretty much the foundation of so much of the GOP today.  “Skin pigmentation” is the very reason they’re using for slamming President Biden’s decision for a Supreme Court nominee…without there even being a nominee yet.

But insurrectionist Brooks even topped himself when taking his whining to the next level 

’These liberal activist judges have tried to segregate us based on race,” he said.  “I find that abominable, in order to elect people in certain parts of the state based on race, which I also think is abominable.”

For starters, I’m still trying to figure out when and how any liberal “activist” judge has tried to segregate us based on race.

But that aside, and even more to the point, is that two of the three judges on that panel were actually conservative appointees by Trump!

So, he got his smear in about liberals when liberals not only had literally zero to do with the majority decision, but it was actually conservatives he was mad at.

But hey, an insurrectionist's gotta do what an insurrectionist's gotta do.

On the other hand, no matter how hard he tried to hide it, how wonderful to know that right-wing fascist Mo Brooks was still able to let his small, but meaningful inner-liberal sneak out and so strongly supported putting "skin pigmentation" behind us and insisted we should not be prejudiced on behalf of race, that it didn't matter if a person is black or white or any color, and to think other was was "abominable" -- whether or not Brooks had the slightest clue he was saying that.

Ultimately, the convoluted, twisted “logic” in Brooks’ empty smear of "liberal activist judges" most likely comes from him running for the Alabama Senate seat, being vacated by Richard Shelby.  As such, he laid the blame on those two judges being on the court (never mind that they’re conservative) on the Alabama senators who lobbied for them, including the retiring Shelby. 

“You’ll notice that none of my remarks have ever criticized Donald Trump in that process,” Brooks said. “And if you’ll look into it a little bit further, you will discover that is actually the senators who control who those judges are going to be. There is a deference that the White House has to senators from a state. Those two senators in the state are the ones who select the judges.”

As long as we’re throwing around the world “actually,” then actually it was Trump who actually made the nomination. And no matter how far you want to turn yourself into a pretzel to avoid criticizing your fascist insurrectionist leader, in the end the buck actually stops actually at the desk of the person who actually makes the nomination. 

And in the end, what I notice is that it was Trump who nominated two conservative judges who ruled to uphold the Voting Rights Act against discrimination -- not liberal activist judges changing the law -- and Mo Brooks, insurrectionist, doesn’t like that.

Actually.