It's Payback Time by the GOP Against Senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris on

Senator Chuck Grassley, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, threw out the Senate’s blue slip tradition. The Chair of the Committee will send a blue slip to the two Senators from the state of residence of a Presidential nominee. The Senators can check aye or nay on it or not return it. The effect of the blue slip varied over the past century. Some chairs would veto a nominee unless two aye sips were returned. Others would forward it to a committee vote if only one aye were received. Some only treated it as an expression of how a Senator would vote when the nomination came to a floor vote. That’s about what it amounts to now. President Trump nominated three appointments to the liberal dominated Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. All three are conservatives, members of the Federalist Society. The Trump Administration had negotiated with Senator Feinstein into last summer over the open seats on the Ninth Circuit. The discussions broke down. Senator Feinstein was apoplectic in learning Thursday that President Trump nominated three she had opposed to the Ninth Circuit. She wrote: “The decision to move forward on Ninth Circuit nominees without consultation or responding to my acceptance of the White House’s offer reflects President Trump’s desire to stack the court. I expect my blue slips to be honored as I was acting in good faith.” The Senator said she repeatedly told the Trump Administration that she wanted to reach an agreement on the package of three appointees, but the President moved ahead without consulting her on these three. Senator Feinstein doesn’t get it. It is irrelevant how much “good faith” she has, she has to “goodwill” in the bank after her Kavanaugh machinations. Senators Feinstein and Harris said they sent a list od three appointees to the White House, to which they were, of course, unacceptable. Conservatives are equally fed up with both Senators and the Ninth Circuit, the radical Ninth Circuit stacked with progressive judges. The court is known as the “Nutty Ninth Circus.” The Ninth Circuit includes nine states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington consistently have 2 highly progressive Senators. The blue slip gave them the power to stack the federal district courts in the Ninth Circuit and the Court of Appeals with progressive judges. Thus, the district and appellate judges have led the judicial resistance to the Trump Administration. Even if the three new appointees are confirmed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Democratic appointees will still be 16 judges compared to 10 for the Republicans. It’s a start. President Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Charles Grassley are committed to reforming the federal judiciary. A major reason for the President’s election was the control over appointments to the Supreme Court. President Trump responded with the appointment of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. The Republican Senators have further confirmed 29 appellate judges and 53 district court judges. Another 7 appellate judges and 48 district court judges are pending before Congress. Senator McConnell pushed through 15 judicial appointments last Thursday by threatening to keep the Senate in session through the election season unless they acted on the judges. The Democrats capitulated on the 15. Another 57 confirmations are pending. Several will be confirmed before 2019. Senator McConnell said Saturday “We’ll keep confirming them.” President Obama had two Supreme Court justices, 55 court of appeals judges, 268 district court judges and 4 United States Court of International Trade confirmed in 8 years. President Trump is on pace to surpass President Obama. The Democrats have then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to blame. The democrats under Senator Reid marched in lockstep in 2012 to eliminate th efillibuster on district and appellate judges. The intent was to pack the judiciary, especially the D.C. Circuit, with progressive Obama appointees. What goes around, comes around. The Republicans are engaged in payback. The November 2018 Senate elections are for control of the judiciary.

J'Accuse the Democrats

J’Accuse Democrats on Kavanaugh Have the Democrats no shame? Emile Zola published an open letter, J’Accuse on January 13, 1898, accusing the French military of framing Captain Alfred Dreyfus. J’Accuse Democrats for Lowering the Discourse The Senate Democrats Dianne Feinstein for demanding a FBI investigation after sitting on Dr. Ford’s letter for six weeks. Senator Cory Booker: I am Spartacus groped a girl in high school, and urged activists to “get up in the face of some congresspeople.” Senator Richard Blumenthal who, after mispresenting his military past for years, attacked Judge Kavanaugh’s credibility. “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.” Senator Mazie Hirono, who used the hearings to send out a fundraiser letter. Ten women were allegedly assaulted by Senator Daniel Inouye, her mentor. She stood by him 100%. Representative Keith Ellison for domestic violence. Senator Sherrod Brown for domestic violence. President Bill Clinton Res Ipsa Loquiter Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Res Ipsa Loquiter Senator Ted Kennedy both for Chappaquiddick and Borking. Senator Elizabeth Warren for lying about Indian ancestry on job applications. Ronan Farrow, Jane Mayer, and the New Yorker for publishing unverified claims by Deborah Ramirez. Michael Avenatti and Julie Swetnick The main stream media for collusion with the Democrats in the Trump Derangement Syndrome. The Harvard and Yale faculty members, students, and alumni who immediately assumed Justice Kavanaugh was guilty of the unverifiable accusations. Ariel Dumas, writer for the Late Show With Stephen Colbert, who tweeted: “Whatever happens, I’m just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s life.” Samantha Ness, Minnesota Special Education teacher, who tweeted Saturday “So whose (sic) going to take one for the team and kill Kavanaugh?” Cartoonist Chris Britt for two cartoons, 1) Brett Kavanaugh jumping on the Predator Bus with Clarence Thomas and Roy Moore, and 2) Justice Kavanaugh’s 10 year old daughter praying by her bed: “Dear God, Forgive My Angry, Lying, Alcoholic Father for Sexually Assaulting Dr. Ford.” Erik Brady, sportswriter for USA Today, for writing “The U.S. Senate may yet confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, but he should stay off basketball courts for now when kids are around.” Sarah Silverman for tweeting about President Trump “I hope you someday understand what it is to be held down against your will and violated.” Dave Hogue, Google’s UX Design Head, tweeting “You are finished, @GOP. You polished the final nails for your own coffins. F—K You. All. TO HELL” and “I hope the last images burned into your slimy, evil, treasonous retinas are millions of women laughing and clapping and celebrating as your souls descend into the flames.” Eric Holder, former Attorney General, “When they go low, we kick ‘em. That’s what this new Democratic Party is about.” Hillary Clinton, again: “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.” Representative Maxime Waters who urged supporters to harass Trump Administration officials: “Tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” Antifa. Tell me again, who’s taking the low road?

Did the Democratic Senators miss the Class on Due Process?

Senator Dianne Feinstein is the Ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. She is the only one of the ten Democrats who is not a lawyer. The other nine Democrats are all graduates of the nation’s most elite law schools: Richard Blumenthal (Yale) Cory Booker (Yale) Chris Coons (Yale) Richard Durbin (Georgetown) Kamala Harris (Hastings) Mazie Hirono (Georgetown) Amy Klobucher (Chicago) Patrick Leahy (Georgetown) Sheldon Whitehouse (Virginia) These elite law schools have outstanding faculties. They teach courses in Constitutional Law and Criminal law. They teach due process and the presumption of innocence. Due process traces back to the Magna Carta. It is the bedrock of the Anglo-American legal system and the human rights of the people. Due process is the essence of the Fifth Amendment. Citizens would be subject to the whim of the sovereign (king, emperor, sultan, shah, sheik, emir, president, prime minister, dictator) without due process and the presumption of innocence. These Democratic Senators are turning the #MeToo Movement into today’s McCarthyism – guilt by accusation. Proof is unnecessary. The Democrats’ statements and actions show a blatant disregard of due process, the presumption of innocence, and the rights of Judge Kavanaugh. They start and end with the presumption of guilt on the part of the judge because it suits their political goals. Trashing the Rule of Law for political advantage, if successful, can be the death knell for our democracy and republic. Once the abusers taste success through unbridled power, they can find it addictive and intoxicating. Many believe Judge Kavanaugh is guilty through association because he is a white male. White males sexually assault women. Thus the judge must be, is guilty as charged. Cory Booker uttered the ultimate denial of due process: “It doesn’t matter if Judge Brett Kavanaugh is innocent or guilty. He should be voted down: Ultimately, not whether he’s innocent or guilty – this is not a trial –but ultimately, have enough questions been raised that we should now move on to another candidate?” It’s enough “that his credibility has been challenged by intimates ….” By this reasoning, if enough charges, no matter how spurious, are hurled at a nominee, then the nominee is unqualified for office. Of course, the Senator said in July that it would be “evil” to support the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh. Senator Hirono doesn’t believe in the presumption of innocence for conservatives. She said the judge has no presumption of innocence because of “how he approaches his cases – He’s very outcome-driven, he has an ideological agenda.” She attacked Judge Kavanaugh’s “lack of credibility” and “inability to be fair” because “I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases.” She responded when asked if she were open to voting for Judge Kavanaugh: “Maybe if he turns miraculously into a Sotomayor.” The irony is that she asserted Judge Kavanaugh is suspect because he “doesn’t even get the basics of the law.” Senator Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is also a Harvard Law School graduate as is Congressman Adam Schiff. Senator Schumer vowed to stop the nomination with everything in his power. Some Democrats are threatening impeachment of Justice Kavanaugh if he is confirmed and they gain control of the House. Representative Jerrold Nadler (Fordham Law School), ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee said: “If he is on the Supreme Court and the Senate hasn’t investigated, then the House will have to.” Justice Kavanaugh was subject to intensive investigations. The problem for the Democrats is that they found nothing to corroborate unverifiable claims from 3½ decades ago. A Nancy Pelosi led House of Representatives will ignore due process. Representative Nadler warned “We would have to investigate any credible allegation, certainly of perjury and other things that haven’t been properly looked into before.” He also said about the FBI investigation if not a “free hand” investigation: “If they don’t , that’s a real problem. It would call into validity the entire Senate process. I would hope that Senator Flake and others would make clear that their votes will not be for the nominee unless there is a free hand for proper investigation of these very serious allegations of sexual assaults.” Does Representative Nadler really want to drag Dr. Ford back to D.C. for what could well be a brutal cross-examination that could emotionally crush her? Senator Whitehouse said: “As soon as Democrats get gavels,” they will further investigate the allegations. Representative Eric Swalwell (Maryland Law) said: “If the Republicans rush through a nominee where you have unanswered sexual assault allegations, I can promise you that Democratic senators will be interested in going and looking and those allegations, and if Judge Kavanaugh lied under oath, you could see a judicial impeachment, and that’s not good for anybody, so we should try and avoid that.” The Democrats already believe Judge Kavanaugh has lied. If the Democratic lawyers are unconcerned about due process and the presumption of innocence now, why will they worry about evidence or proof in the future? The dilemma for the Democrats is who should be impeached first: President Trump or Justice Kavanaugh? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Haven't the Democrats learnt that what goes around, comes around? Justices Grouch and Kavanaugh are on the Supreme Court because then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid eliminated the filibuster on federal district and appellate court judges? Impeaching a judge for political reasons is incredibly dangerous. If it occurs, the Republicans would love to toss the liberals off the Court.

Justice Kavanaugh Was Confirmed: Now Investigate 'em All

Justice Kavanaugh was confirmed 50-48 earlier today. Democrats have threatened impeachment. Let the Republicans play the same game. Perhaps at some point both sides will come to their senses for the good of the Republic and adhere to recognized mores of behavior. The Democrats unleashed furies in the Kavanaugh political battle. Until then let the FBI, Republicans and the Administration initiate investigations of all those who transgressed during the confirmation process. Illegal conduct should be punished. . First start with all those on social media who threatened the justice and his family, Dr. Ford and her family, and members of Congress and their staffers through social media or the telephone. Death and other threats have sadly become the stock in trade of many in social media. They wrongly believe anonymity will protect them. Second, investigate all those who may have lied in providing affidavits under pain of perjury in the Kavanaugh confirmation. If they committed perjury, indict them. Remember that perjury requires intent. Third, investigate those who may have engaged in witness tampering. Fourth, investigate Dr. Ford’s lawyers for possible ethical violations. She indicated at the Thursday hearing that she was unaware the Judiciary Committee was willing to interview her in private in California. If true, her lawyers breached their ethical obligation to inform her, their client, of the offers. Fifth, investigate those who buttoned holed Senators and otherwise accosted them. Bullies and mobs should not physically threaten the nation’s elected representatives. Sixth, investigate Senator Feinstein for sitting on the accusation for over 6 weeks. Seven, also investigate who leaked the letter from the Senator’s office or wherever. Magnanimity in victory is usually desirable, but the Democrats’ scorched earth conduct should not go unpunished. Send a message, or see more of the same.

Now We Know: They Tell Us After Thursday That Judge Brett Kavanaugh Lacks the Judicial Temperament to Sit on the Supreme Court

Judge Brett Kavanaugh broke an unwritten rule Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He was not dutifully deferential to them. He talked back rather than appeasing the democrats on the Committee. Witnesses are not supposed to aggressively respond to the Congressional interlocutors. Witnesses are not supposed to upset the grandstanding bloviations of the Senators. The judge knew it wouldn’t be a reasoned discourse. Some Senators would act like bullies. He stood up to the bullies. He knew it was not a court of law. He would play to the court of public opinion. He had nothing to lose; he knew the ten Democrats on the Judiciary Committee would never vote to confirm him. He said to the Senators: “You have replaced advice and consent with search and destroy.” He called the proceedings a “national disgrace.” He showed anger. He cried. He showed defiance. He said “My family and my name have been totally and permanently destroyed by vicious and false additional allegations.” He was not going to sit back and placidly accept more of it from the Democrats. Yes, Judge Brett Kavanaugh was righteously defiant. He threw down the gauntlet: “You may defeat me in the final vote, but you will never get me to quit.” The New York Times editorialized: “Defiant fury … evidence of an unsettling temperament in a man trying to persuade the nation of a judicial demeanor.” Thus he lacked judicial composure and temperament. The New York Times labeled his presentation a “diatribe.” Rebecca Traister of the Times said Dr. Ford “trembled” while Judge Kavanaugh “bellowed.” A columnist wrote he is “an injudicious man, unfit for the Supreme Court.” Adam Liptak for the Times called his diatribe “angry and emotional, embracing the language of slashing partisanship.” Michelle Goldberg of the Times said Kavanaugh “was all snide, self-pitying fury.” The Boston Globe called him belligerent. Nothing subtle about the Boston Globe: “Make no mistake; Brett Kavanaugh’s a liar.” The Times’ Roger Cohen called him “an injudicious man, an angry brat.” Eric Thomas in Elle said he was “petulant and surly.” The judge “Gave a messy, angry performance ….” David Savage of the Los Angeles Times remarked “in tones that were by turns angry, mocking and scornful of the Democratic senators” He further opined “[H]is angry, partisan words …. also may have damaged his ability to be seen as a fair justice on the nation’s highest court.” Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of University of California Berkeley School of Law piped in “There will be damage to the court and its reputation.” CNN viewed his angry rhetoric as a divisive message. The Los Angeles Times called it “a raw combative defense.” Virginia Heffernan of the Los Angeles Times had several choice words for Judge Kavanaugh: “Kavanaugh would rob the court of its magic power” “Hurly-gurdy self-pity jamboree” “Insolent snot who snarls at members of the U.S. Senate” “Rabid far-right agent on the court” The New Yorker saw “not even a hint of the composure one would think a potential Supreme Court justice would have carefully cultivated.” The Star called him “Incensed and wounded, combative and partisan.” Nancy Pelosi called him hysterical and unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh did not question Dr. Ford’s belief, but called out the politically motivated attack by vengeful Democrats. The judge called the hearings a “circus.” He was not going to play the fool or clown (my words – not his). He knew, going into Thursday, that none of the ten Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee would ever vote to confirm him to the Supreme Court. He knew that they would do their best to politically crucify him. Senator Feinstein was stunned by his response: “Candidly, in my 25 years on this Committee, I have never seen a nominee for any position behave in that manner. She called him “angry and belligerent.” Of course, she was shocked. Appointees are supposed to be dutifully meek and mild, putting up with whatever abuse is hurled at them. The Senator had asked the judge why he wasn’t calling for an FBI investigation. He responded by saying she could have done it six weeks earlier if she had promptly released Dr. Ford’s letter rather than it being leaked at the last moment. The Senator was not used to being called out by at a Senate hearing. Judge Kavanaugh was not meek and mild. He was fighting not only for the appointment, but his honor and reputation. If we are going to talk about judicial temperament, let’s talk about the liberal’s favorite Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, affectionately referred to as RBG. Justice Ginsburg in July 2016 called Donald Trump a “fake” and couldn’t imagine what America would be like with Trump as president. A political comment of that nature is hardly showing a judicial temperament. She followed up in February 2017 by saying “We’re not experiencing the best of times.” Then we have her 2012 rejection of the United States Constitution. She told an Egyptian audience: “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012. I might look to the Constitution of South Africa.” She called our constitution “a rather old Constitution.” Our “old” Constitution is the fabric that built our great country and held it together. An update on the 100 plus page South Africa Constitution. The new South Africa government is seriously considering seizing without compensation the lands of White farmers and redistributing the lands to Blacks, thereby following the path of Zimbabwe. I’ll take Justice Kavanaugh’s judicial termperament any day over Justice Ginsburg.

University of Michigan Professor John Cheney-Lippold and the Denial of a Letter of Recommendation to a Student Who Wishes to Study Abroad in Israel

Professor Cheney-Lippold of the University of Michigan is caught up in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS) against Israel. He equates Israel with the Apartheid regime of South Africa. The professor agreed to write a letter of recommendation for a student who wished to study abroad for a semester. Oops! He sent a retraction letter two weeks later to the student. He hadn’t read that the study abroad would be at Tel Aviv University in Israel. He emailed her: “I am very sorry, but I only scanned your first email a couple of weeks ago and missed out on a key detail. As you may know, many universities and departments have pledged an economic boycott against Israel in support of Palestinians living in Palestine. This boycott includes writing letters of recommendation for students planning to study there.” The July 2014 Guidelines by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel included the refusal to write recommendations for students wishing to study in Israel. He was wrong. No University of Michigan department has pledged an academic boycott against Israel. It would be against university policy. Professor Cheney-Lippold told the Michigan daily that he is not anti-Semitic. He continued that he was “following a call by representatives of Palestinian civil society to boycott Israel in a very similar tactical frame as South Africa.” He’s against the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, viewing Israel as an occupying force. He said the purpose of BDS is to put pressure on an Israeli government that perpetuates “violence and dehumanization.” The BDS Movement proclaims itself to be against Israel and Zionism. It’s anti-Semitism masking under the guise of BDS. Anti-Semitism never disappeared, but it is growing in Europe and in higher education. He’s following the BDS guidelines, but not those of the University of Michigan. The University said it was “disappointed” in his action. It said it will engage “in deep discussions to clarify how the freedom of our shared values plays out in support of all our students.” The Central Student Government voted 23-17 with five abstentions last year to request the University to divest from companies that “violate” Palestinian human rights. The Board of Regents rejected the student resolution. The problem with the University is that the professor has tenure. Governor Snyder last year signed a statute that prohibits boycotts against individuals or a public entity of a foreign state. Professor Cheney-Lippold has the academic freedom and freedom of speech to support the BDS Movement against Israel. He can speak and write in support of it. What he can’t do is shove his political bias down the throats of his students. About 7,000 Michigan’s students are Jewish, 17% of undergrads and 11% of graduate students. UM President Marc Schlissel is Jewish. President Schlissel said at a Board of Regents meeting September 20 that a professor’s “personal views and politics should never interfere with our support of students.” He reiterated: “I will state again: the University of Michigan strongly opposes a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.” Regent Denise Ilitch called the professor’s remarks “anti-Semitic.” The University issued a statement on September 18: “Injecting personal politics into a decision regarding support for our students is counter to our values and expectations as an institution.” “While members of the University of Michigan community have a wide range of individual opinions on this and many topics, the university has consistently opposed any boycott of Israeli institutions of higher education” The professor has breached his obligation to his students. His obligation includes writing letters of recommendations for students. Students come to me for recommendations for employment, graduate programs and bar certification. They also seek recommendations to transfer. I hate those requests. I hate seeing good students transfer, but I have an obligation to write the best recommendations I can for them. I wish them the best in their careers as they move on. I will only refuse specific students if I cannot write a good recommendation for them, but they rarely come to me. Professor Cheney-Lippold is very selective in his outrage as are many of his leftish colleagues that populate the professoriate. He doesn’t say a word about the 600,000 Jews forced off their lands by the Arabs. What is their right of return? He doesn’t write about the Contemporeaneous oppression and terrorist attacks against Jews and Christians in many of the Arab countries. He doesn’t write about how the Palestinians in Israel have a better life than those in Gaza and the West Bank. He doesn’t write about how the Palestinians in Israel are treated better than the Christians and Jews in much of the Mideast. He doesn’t write about the continued forced exodus of Christians from the Mideast. What does he think about Turkey and first the Armenians and now the Kurds? Professor John Cheney-Lippold is proof that a Ph.D. does not necessarily bestow wisdom or tolerance. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By way of disclosure, I grew up the son of a single mom. My parents split about 3 months before I was born. My father stayed totally out of my life. He only gave me two things in life: my surname and half my DNA. My mom didn’t want to talk about him and I didn’t ask. 23andMe a few years ago reported I am 46.5% Ashkenazi. My dad was Jewish. I later went on Ancestry.com. His parents, my grandparents, emigrated from Romania in 1905 and spoke Yiddish. A second opinion from Ancestry.com said I was 40% European Jewish. The two companies analyze DNA differently. Ancestry.com a few weeks ago issued an updated report in light of 16,000 representatives compared to the earlier 3,000. It now says I am 57% European Jewish, which means my mom was right about my Swedish grandmother. My mom thought her mother, Grandma Rose, born in Sweden, might be Jewish as part of the Jewish diaspora fleeing pogroms in Russia. I am neither Jewish by religion nor culture, but I am obviously Jewish by ancestry. My ancestry from countries is 1/8 French, 1/8 Italian, ¼ Swedish and ½ Romanian. The Romanian is Ashkenazi.

The Ford - Kavanaugh Debate is Over the Supreme Court - Not Sexual Harassment

The Ford-Kavanaugh is not about domestic violence. The debate is neither about Dr. Ford nor Judge Kavanaugh. Sexual harassment is dominating the media coverage. The partisans recognize it’s about the future of the Supreme Court. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is a proxy or surrogate to stop the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh, a conservative jurist, to the Court. Her claims provide the leverage previously lacking to reject the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh. Women are widespread victims of sexual assaults, domestic violence, harassment, and a multitude of various forms of discrimination. Racism and sexism persist. The #MeToo Movement opened the door for many women to come forward. The accused in the entertainment, media, and academic sectors were often prominent. The cloak of silence was broken. But not every claim is valid or verifiable. The Duke Lacrosse Team, Rolling Stone Magazine and the University of Virginia, and several false claims of rape, racism and sexism illustrate this reality. Just because you believe it, or it’s believable, doesn’t make it true. Victims have several choices: 1) Report the crime to the authorities; 2) File a civil lawsuit; 3) Seek counseling; 4) Discuss it with family and friends; 5) Post on-line today 6) Stay silent and internalize it. Dr. Ford apparently chose to keep it in her until 2012 when she and her husband went to couples counseling. Contemporaneous corroboration is lacking in Dr. Ford’s story. The reality of Deborah Ramirez’s story is even doubtful. She came forward “After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney.” She admitted to being inebriated, on the “floor, foggy, and slurring her words.” There’s gaps in her memory. Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer in paragraph 10 of their New Yorker article admitted “has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was at the party.” The New York Times also failed to confirm the story. To quote Gertrude Stein: “There is no there, there.” Be that as it may, Dr. Ford is now the catalyst, proxy and representative of the multitudes of victims. Dr. Ford has become their symbol and exemplar. Harvey Weinstein was a sleaze bucket for decades. Brett Kavanaugh is a poster child of the elite, apparently perfect in every way. The judge was allegedly a spoiled preppie, reported to imbibe, in high school. Alcohol and drugs are all too common in our schools. That doesn’t make him guilty. Many times the facts unascertainable. That may well be the case with Dr. Ford’s allegations. To quote Sergeant Joe Friday in Dragnet: “Just the facts, ma’am.” We will not know without reliable corroboration or forensic evidence if the harassment occurred. Is it possible that the incident occurred as Dr. Ford has related? Yes. Is it possible that Judge Kavanaugh’s denials are accurate? Yes. Is it possible both are telling the truth, as they believe it? Yes Memories are both amazing and often unreliable over the passage of time. We cannot be certain if Dr. Ford’s recollection is accurate. She says she can’t remember many details of the incident, including the year, location, and how she got there and back. She may have misidentified her attacker. We cannot be certain if Judge Kavanaugh’s memory is accurate. The incident may have been clouded by alcohol or he has blocked it out. The memories of the other attendees at the house where the alleged incident occurred may also be unreliable. They have all denied it, often under penalty of perjury. She says she has gaps in her memory and told others she wasn't sure Brett Kavanaugh was the culprit. Both protagonists may legitimately believe themselves. Judge Ford may have been a saint most of his life, but he is human. It is possible that he engaged in such an act in high school while under the influence of alcohol. He may not remember if it had occurred. “Possible” is not evidence, proof, fact, or truth. Similarly, the memories of the others who were claimed to have been present may be flawed. The reality is that we will probably never know over the passage of time what may or may not have occurred 3½ decades ago. Yet we have to decide. Unverifiable, uncorroborated, witnessed, unreliable. Remember, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on July 10 on CBS that he would do everything in his power to block the nomination. Ignore the rhetoric and histrionics. The Senate Democrats don't really believe the accusations, but they believe in stopping the nomination. Those who abhor President Trump will believe the worst of Judge Kavanaugh. The fact that recent polls show most Americans now oppose his nomination is a sad statement of the Rule of Law upon which our nation depends. Many Democrats and progressives have jumped on the accusation to derail the nomination. It doesn’t matter to many if the charges are correct or incorrect, if Judge Kavanaugh is guilty or innocent. The Supreme Court is at stake. Wishing it were true doesn’t make it true. Hoping it is true doesn’t make it true. Projecting one’s own victimhood onto Dr. Ford doesn’t make it true. We have rules of evidence and concepts of due process and statutes of limitation that preclude judicial litigation in cases of this nature. This though is not a court of law, but the court of public opinion. It is a raw political battle over the future of the Supreme Court. Yes, it’s about Roe v. Wade and the future of abortion. It’s more though. It is about the continuation of 6½ decades of progressive judicial legislation, going back to the Warren Court continuing through Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Taylor and Obergefell v. Hodges. It’s about the Progressive Agenda which is pushed through activist courts when legislatures balk. The Constitution provides for amendments. They gave us the Bill of Rights, ended slavery, bestowed the right to vote on African Americans and women, lowered the voting age to 18, ended the Poll Tax and gave us the income tax. Judicial legislation negates the need to amend the Constitution. The current Court is split 4:4 with Justice Kennedy usually voting conservative but was the swing vote on environmental and social issues. It is believed that a Justice Kavanaugh will be solidly conservative on the bench. It’s more though; It’s the Rule of Law versus a Living Constitution, an evolving Constitution which negates some of the fundamental principles which protect our rights.