Sunday, September 30, 2018
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.
Thursday, September 27, 2018
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.
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
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.
Friday, September 21, 2018
Questions About Judge Kavanaugh, Professor Christine Blasey Ford, Senator Cory Booker and Congressman Keith Ellison
Questions About Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Professor Christine Blasey Ford, Senator Cory Booker and Senator Sherrod Brown What do we know about the night in question? NOTHING Do we even know the day or year? No – probably summer in the 1980’s Do we know the situs of the alleged assault? No Do we know who was there? 2? 4? 3? Was she even there? ???? Do we know how she got to the party or home? She doesn’t know Could she have been drunk? She said she only had one drink How does she know who was there? What if something happened? Is this a case of repressed memory? Is there any collaboration? The media’s trying to find someone to counter Judge Kavanaugh’s denial? They never found the missing ballots that meant Al Gore won the 2000 election What are the details of the polygraph? Polygraphs are notoriously unreliable. They are not a lie detector test. A person who believes a falsity will be reported as “truthful” Who paid for the polygraph? Who’s paying the legal fees of her two Democratic activist attorneys Debra Katz and Lisa Banks? If Professor Ford did not want to go public, why did she 1)Hire activist Democratic lawyers in August? 2) Do a polygraph test in August 3) Contact the Washington Post on a tip line last July? 4) Send the letter to Congresswoman Anna Eshoo last July? Did she really believe she could keep her story private and not public as well as her identity private? What about the presumption of innocence? That’s in a court of law, not the court of public opinion Shouldn’t the accused have a right to confront the accuser? Is this a replay of the Duke Lacrosse team? Is this a replay of the Rolling Stone article on the University of Virginia rape article? Who’s paying the legal fees of her attorneys, ? What will the temperature be next week in D.C.? Will she testify without conditions? Why are so many Senators quiet on her accusations? Why haven’t the Democratic staffers of the Senate Judiciary Committee participated in the investigation of her claims? Is there concern that if her accusations are false or unverified that it will hurt the #MeToo Movement? Why do they try to compare Judge Kavanaugh to Senator Al franken, who was doomed by a photo? What about Senator “I Am Spartacus” and his 1992 Stanford Daily column about groping a girl? Why are claims of sexual harassment inherently believable against conservatives and Republicans, but not against liberals and Democrats? What about the allegations by Congressman Keith Ellison’s ex-girlfriend about domestic violence? What about the court documents showing Senator Sherrod Brown engaged in spousal abuse on his wife? Why about Senator Tammy Baldwin scheduling a fundraiser in the office of Professor Ford’s attorneys? What about Senator Tom Carper who admits hitting his wife decades ago, giving her a black eye? Is Senator Dianne Feinstein worried she might lose reelection? What about the San Francisco Chronicle op-ed saying Senator Feinstein committed the worst possible timing on her disclosure? Why can’t Hillary Clinton just go away? Why can’t we muzzle social media’s scurrilous posters and death threats? Is this a replay of Justice Clarence Thomas? Is this a replay of Judge Ray Moore? Why now? What about the process? Even Justice Ginsburg thinks the process is flawed
Saturday, September 15, 2018
The Senate calls itself the “World’s Greatest Deliberative Body.” It may have been, but the hearings on Judge Kavanaugh have been an American disgrace, full of defamation, slander, and mud-slinging with little substance or deliberation, mirroring the tone of American politics today. Organized protests filled the hearing room. Absent a glaring faux pas or damaging disclosure, Judge Brett Kavanaugh was going to be confirmed to the Supreme Court thanks to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Senator Reid eliminated in 2013 the filibuster for federal district court and court of appeals judges to stack the lower judiciary with Obama appointees. The Republicans responded in 2017 with eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court appointees. As long as 50 Republicans voted as a bloc to confirm the Judge, his confirmation was assured. The Democrats knew it. They would have liked to block the nomination, but it wasn’t likely. Instead, many auditioned for the 2020 Democratic Presidential nomination. Senator Cory Booker had his “I Am Spartacus” moment when he disclosed classified, racist quotes by Judge Kavanaugh. The disclosures were neither classified nor damaging to the Judge. Indeed, the quote showed the opposite. Reminder to Senator Booker: Spartacus was crucified. Senator Kamala Harris released a clip showing the Judge saying “Filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objecting to.” That’s a great cite to show the Judge is pro-life and would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Senator tweeted: “Kavanaugh chooses his words very carefully, and this is a dog whistle for going after birth control. He was nominated for the purpose of taking away a woman’s constitutionally protected right to make her own health care decisions. Make no mistake – this is about punishing women.” The full, unedited clip is “They say filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objecting to.“ Judge Kavanaugh was quoting the argument of the Priests for Life, plaintiffs in the case. Even the Washington Post awarded Senator Harris Four Pinocchio’s. Hillary Clinton was quick to repeat the calumny. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand said “Women are going to die” if Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed. Senator Patrick Leahy, not running for President, accused the Judge of misleading the Senate under oath. Democrats learned they could defeat Republican Supreme Court nominees by attacking them. Clement Haynsworth and Harold Carswell were rejected in the Nixon Administration after being accused of being anti-civil rights. Democrats controlled the Senate. The first scurrilous, vicious attack was mounted by Senator Ted Kennedy against the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. The Senator led the charge in destroying Judge Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court. He went on the Senate floor 45 minutes after the nomination was announced, and uttered these vile words: “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, and schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censured at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.” His attack, followed by his supporters, created a new verb, “to Bork,” in the American lexicon. The Democratic Senate voted down Judge Bork. Then came the failed attempt on Justice Clarence Thomas’s nomination. He was accused, with graphic details, by Anita Hill of sexual harassment. He called the hearings a circus and a national disgrace. He labeled the hearings a “lynching:” “From my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in an way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the united States Senate rather than hung from a tree.” The hearings on Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Alito, and Gorsuch had their moments, but none of these four appointments would change the balance on the Supreme Court. Liberals are afraid that Justice Kavanagh will shift a 4½ (Justice Kennedy) conservative majority to a solid 5:4 conservative majority. In short, they view the judiciary as just another political branch of government. The American tragedy is that the judiciary is becoming a third, unelected political branch of government. That was not the intent of the framers of the Constitution and the American nation. The campaign to confirm or deny Judge Kavanaugh to the Court is reaching Apocalyptic proportions. USA Today yesterday reported over 16,200 ads have been run so far. The Kavanaugh supporters have aired over 11,300 ads, mostly in Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, and West Virginia, states with vulnerable Democratic incumbent Senators. Democrats are challenging Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine. Senator Collins of Maine is considered a possible no vote on the nomination. Her office has received about 3,000 coat hangers. Over $1 million has been raised to support her opponent in her next Senate campaign if she votes to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. Her office has been inundated with calls, petitions, letters, and emails. One call to a 25 year old staffer hoped the staffer would be raped and impregnated. Social media can bring out the worse in some nutjobs. The Democrats lack the votes to deny Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, but they can engage in character assassination and antics. Delay, delay, delay is the Democratic game, plan hoping to delay long enough to sabotage the nomination or drag it not only past the first day of the Court’s term, but past election day. Senator Dianne Feinstein disclosed on Thursday that she had received a letter: “I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.” She added: “That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.” Leaks show the gist of the claim is that two teenagers, Brett Kavanaugh and a friend, took a high school girl into a bedroom, locked the door and started sexually attacking her. She managed to escape. Judge Kavanaugh has “categorically and unequivocally” denied the charges while his friend has “no recollection” of the incident. The alleged victim may not want to come forward, but her identity is known to many. Inexorable pressure will be placed on her to come forward prior to September 20. Ronan Farrow has flown out to talk to her, urging her to come forward as part of the #MeToo Movement. The Committee vote is scheduled for September 20, followed by Senate debate, and then a final vote before October 1. Her story is already being used in attempting to delay the proceedings. Democrats and Progressives see her as their last chance to block the nomination. Senator Feinstein’s “I have information” echoes Senators Richard Nixon and especially Joe McCarthy and McCarthyism 7 decades ago: “I have here in my hand a list ….”. The last minute disclosure also echoes that of the Clarence Thomas hearings when Anita Hill came forward near the end. A Stanford professor sent the letter last summer to Representative Anna Eshoo , who forwarded it to Senator Feinstein. The Senator then sat on the letter. She did not ask the Judge about it, either in a private conference, or during the Committee hearings. It was not part of the 1,278 questions sent to the Judge after the Hearings. The Republicans may not have known the letter was coming, but they were prepared. They quickly obtained a letter from 65 women who knew the Judge in high school: “We are women who have known Brett Kavanaugh for more than 35 years and knew him while he attended high school between 1979 and 1983. For the entire time we have known Brett Kavanaugh, he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect. We strongly believe it is important to convey this information to the committee at this time.” Some of the judge’s former clerks sat behind him during his testimony at the Committee. The FBI’s response to the Senator’s referral was to place the letter in the background file and forward it to the White House, who then sent it to the Judiciary Committee. The FBI has conducted 6 background checks on Brett Kavanaugh since 1983. Nothing showed up in them. The Feinstein referral is not giving rise to number 7. Senator Feinstein’s act could be viewed as: 1) A last gasp Hail Mary; 2) A last gasp character assassination; or 3) A Senator worried about reelection, trying to solidify her Democratic base. Senator Feinstein is using momentum in her reelection campaign to a young, telegenic, radically liberal Hispanic. She had beaten Kevin De Leon 44.2% to 12.1% in the primary, but her age is catching up to her in this election year with young candidates often defeating long established incumbents. Senator Orrin Hatch said of Senator Feinstein’s ploy: “The claims are wholly unverifiable, and come at the end of a process that was already marred by ugly innuendo, dishonesty and the nastiest form of our politics. The American people deserve much better from the Senate as an institution.” Even Joe Scarborough, Morning Joe of MSNBC, thought poorly Friday morning of the disclosure: “This looks like a cheap last minute trick by Democrats – whether you’re for Kavanaugh or not.” Senator Mazie Hirono asked Judge Kavanaugh during the hearings if he “ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature? as an adult. Judge Kavanaugh answered he never faced discipline or entered into a settlement over such matters. High school attacks are not new for democrats. Governor Mitt Romney in the 2012 Presidential Election was accused of being a bully in high school. Again, a real cheap shot even if it sorta fit an image being portrayed of him. Perhaps a good rule for the Senate should go back to the Bible: Let he without sin cast the first stone. A question for America: How can we reasonably expect good people of integrity and accomplishment to go through these attacks upon themselves o their families?
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
We are uncertain how the judge will vote in specific cases on specific issues, but we have a fairly good idea, as we did with the recent nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Are you Pro Choice or Pro Life? Pro Life yea and Pro Choice no. Are you for or against environmental protection? If for, then no and if against yea. How about gun control? In favor, then no. If against, then yes. Illegal immigration? If in favor, then no. If against, then yes. The Chevron Doctrine? If in favor of keeping, then nay. If against, then aye. Are you in favor of capital punishment, or against it? If in favor, then yea and against, no. How about affirmative action? If in favor, then no. If against, then yes. Are you opposed to a nominee described as “friendly to big business or hostile to labor?” Then nay How about diversity in universities? Do you want diversity on the Supreme Court, or are you satisfied with Harvard and Yale? Do you want a liberal justice or conservative justice? Republican or Democrat? None of these are the right questions. Another round of ObamaCare? What about antitrust? Haven’t thought about that one? All these questions and answers mean you want a political justice who will ignore the Constitution and the Rule of Law. The question is if you believe in the Rule of Law or the Rule of Man? The Rule of Law means we are all equal under the law. The United States was founded on the Rule of Law. It’s called the Constitution The law, the Rule of Law, is the glue that holds society together. Faith to the Constitution has held our republic together for 229 years, but it’s starting to fray. The alternatives to the rule of law are anarchy, despotism, or mob rule, none of which follows the rule of law. Article 6, Clause 3 of the Constitution requires all federal and state judges to take an oath to support the Constitution. Members of Congress also take an oath to the Constitution. The oaths are to the rule of law – not to an individual or organization. Obviously some judges and justices ignore their oaths, believing the Constitution is a living constitution, which they can change as they deem fit to pursue their notions of social justice. Many progressives would like the Supreme Court to be a mirror image of the activist Ninth Circuit, which does feel bound by the Constitution or laws. A constitution which can be rewritten by activist judges is not a constitution or even a roadmap. It is meaningless. The Bill of Rights will no longer be a safeguard of the people against the government. We are experiencing a breakdown of the rule of law. Antifa often resorts to violence against those it disagrees with. Conservative speakers and voices are silenced on compass, often with the tacit agreement of administrators. Protestors against the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh attempted to break up the confirmation hearing, an example of mob rule. Would you prefer a Senate hearing on the merits and substance or one of theatrics, histrionics, talking points and hissy fits?
Tuesday, September 4, 2018
We are uncertain how the judge will vote in specific cases on specific issues, but we have a fairly good idea, as we did with the recent nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Are you Pro Choice or Pro Life? Pro Life yea and Pro Choice no. Are you for or against environmental protection? If for, then no and if against yea. How about gun control? In favor, then no. If against, then yes. Illegal immigration? If in favor, then no. If against, then yes. The Chevron Doctrine? If in favor of keeping, then nay. If against, then aye. Are you in favor of capital punishment, or against it? If in favor, then yea and against, no. How about affirmative action? If in favor, then no. If against, then yes. Are you opposed to a nominee described as “friendly to big business or hostile to labor?” Then nay How about diversity in universities? Do you want diversity on the Supreme Court, or are you satisfied with Harvard and Yale? Do you want a liberal justice or conservative justice? Republican or Democrat? None of these are the right questions. Another round of ObamaCare? What about antitrust? Haven’t thought about that one? All these questions and answers mean you want a political justice who will ignore the Constitution and the Rule of Law. The question is if you believe in the Rule of Law or the Rule of Man? The Rule of Law means we are all equal under the law. The United States was founded on the Rule of Law. It’s called the Constitution The law, the Rule of Law, is the glue that holds society together. Faith to the Constitution has held our republic together for 229 years, but it’s starting to fray. The alternatives to the rule of law are anarchy or despotism, neither of which follows the rule of law. Article 6, Clause 3 of the Constitution requires all federal and state judges to take an oath to support the Constitution. Members of Congress also take an oath to the Constitution. The oaths are to the rule of law – not to an individual or organization. Obviously some judges and justices ignore their oaths, believing the Constitution is a living constitution, which they can change as they deem fit to pursue their notions of social justice. A constitution which can be rewritten by activist judges is not a constitution or even a roadmap. It is meaningless. The Bill of Rights will no longer be a safeguard of the people against the government. We are experiencing a breakdown of the rule of law. Antifa often resorts to violence against those it disagrees with. Conservative speakers and voices are silenced on compass, often with the tacit agreement of administrators. Protestors against the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh attempted to break up the confirmation hearing. Would you prefer a Senate hearing on the merits and substance or one of theatrics, histrionics, talking points and hissy fits?