Category Archive 'Brett Kavanaugh'
18 Sep 2019
John Kass explains, in the Chicago Tribune, now that Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s pancreatic cancer is back in the news, the Left is panicking that its loss of control of the Supreme Court will be lengthened and reinforced, and some of its stolen culture war victories may be reversed.
The strategy of the left is undeniable and clear. It is about the use of force, about relentless pressure and shame, using media as both handmaiden and the lash. It is about those who virtue signal most often about due process, demanding it, yet denying those same due process considerations to those with whom they disagree.
The leftâ€™s end game is the delegitimization of the Supreme Court, if justices donâ€™t give them the political outcomes they canâ€™t achieve through legislation.
One way to accomplish this is to sear into the American mind the idea that Kavanaugh is personally illegitimate, and therefore, his reasoning and decisions are illegitimate. Though the allegations against him remain uncorroborated, and most are incredible and fall apart in embarrassing fashion, like the one most recently in the Times, the assault continues.
And not only against Kavanaugh, but also against other justices and future nominees. They are warned that destruction and humiliation await.
So, the left would hang upon his neck an asterisk like some medal of shame, a reminder to future history that everything he accomplishes is illegitimate.
10 Oct 2018
Nathanael Blake is another NeverTrump-er who’s been forcibly converted by democrat outrageous behavior toward Brett Kavanaugh.
I have been radicalized. The enormity of the efforts by the Democrats and their media allies to destroy Brett Kavanaugh forced me to reconsider my views. The concerns I have about Trumpâ€™s character, temperament, and propensity to damage Americaâ€™s cultural and political institutions are still there, but I am supporting him anyway.
It is not just that the Democrats have vitiated any claim to possess superior character or temperament (though they have), or that Trumpâ€™s policies have been better than I expected. I now support Trump because the Democratic Party and its media allies are controlled by people who view conservatives not as political opponents to be voted down, but as enemies to be personally destroyed.
Trump will say anything, but Democrats will do anything. They and their media allies smeared a universally respected judge with an impeccable record as a serial sexual predator on evidence that would not have justified an indictment. They repeatedly lied and hid evidence in order to create delay (e.g., Christine Blasey Fordâ€™s supposed fear of flying).
In the end, the evidence against Kavanaugh consisted only of the dubious testimony of a woman who could not recall basic details like a time or a place, whose story changed repeatedly, and whose witnesses remembered nothing of what she claimed. But Democrats did their best to forever brand him as a sexual predator anyway. They did not want a serious, confidential investigation; they wanted to publicly grind him into the dirt while the mob howled for his head.
They wanted the circus, the smears, the insane rumors and allegations from cranks. They wanted the tabloid journalism from formerly respectable outlets like The New Yorker. If Kavanaugh refused to withdraw, then they wanted Ford on national television. They even wanted the lunatic claims from a nutcase dredged up by a creepy porn lawyer, alleging that Kavanaugh ran a gang-rape ring as a teen. Even as the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh collapsed, they switched to smears about his high school yearbook and college drinking.
With rare exceptions, the national media repeated every smear and Democratic talking point. They spent weeks trying to destroy Kavanaughâ€™s life and reputation with lies, then had the effrontery to sneer at his anger when he took umbrage at being labeled a gang-rape mastermind. Lushes from the soused D.C. media lectured Kavanaugh about his teenage drinking. They earned every bit of Trumpâ€™s â€œenemy of the peopleâ€ and â€œfake newsâ€ epithets.
Kavanaugh was a normal establishment Republican pick. Destroying him had nothing to do with opposing Trumpâ€™s particular flaws. This was about annihilating anyone who gets in the Democratsâ€™ way, especially anyone who threatens their illegitimate Supreme Court policy wins. It was a declaration of war on every conservative, no matter how respected, reasonable, and mainstream.
There is no refuge from this sort of totalizing, destructive politics. The Republican rejection of Merrick Garland was political hardball; the sliming of Kavanaugh was categorically different and much worse. The Democrats crossed the line from policy disagreement to personal destruction, and in doing so they nuked any middle ground between themselves and conservative Trump skeptics. And they put every conservative on notice: You could be next.
If the Democrats will do this to a man as respected and mainstream as Kavanaugh, they will do it to anyone who gets in their way.
I don’t see how Jennifer Rubin, Bill Kristol, Ron Radosh, Max Boot, and the like can possibly still deny the inevitable.
The United States is a two-party system. You’re either on one side, or you’re on the other. Besides which, even Donald Trump deserves a fair-minded approach to judgment. He’s made a lot of excellent appointments. He’s gotten through a tax cut. And he’s restored economic confidence, ending the Great Recession after eight long years. Trump may not deserve your full-throated enthusiasm, but he does deserve your support.
09 Oct 2018
Wesley Pruden hears democrats singing their sad old songs.
The Democrats and the liberals were winning for so long that it never occurred to any of them that the good old days wouldnâ€™t last forever. But the good old days didnâ€™t, and now theyâ€™re as ill-tempered as the alligator the day the creek went dry.
05 Oct 2018
Joel Kaplan sat at the left, two rows back, during the Kavanaugh hearing.
The NY Times reports that a Facebook VP being a friend of Brett Kavanaugh’s has led to outrage at the California company.
â€œI want to apologize,â€ the Facebook executive wrote last Friday in a note to staff. â€œI recognize this moment is a deeply painful one â€” internally and externally.â€
The apology came from Joel Kaplan, Facebookâ€™s vice president for global public policy. A day earlier, Mr. Kaplan had sat behind his friend, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trumpâ€™s nominee for the Supreme Court, when the judge testified in Congress about allegations he had sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford in high school. Mr. Kaplanâ€™s surprise appearance prompted anger and shock among many Facebook employees, some of whom said they took his action as a tacit show of support for Judge Kavanaugh â€” as if it were an endorsement from Facebook itself.
The unrest quickly spilled over onto Facebookâ€™s internal message boards, where hundreds of workers have since posted about their concerns, according to current and former employees. To quell the hubbub, Facebookâ€™s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, last Friday explained in a widely attended staff meeting that Mr. Kaplan was a close friend of Judge Kavanaughâ€™s and had broken no company rules, these people said.
Yet the disquiet within the company has not subsided. This week, Facebook employees kept flooding internal forums with comments about Mr. Kaplanâ€™s appearance at the hearing. In a post on Wednesday, Andrew Bosworth, a Facebook executive, appeared to dismiss the concerns when he wrote to employees that â€œit is your responsibility to choose a path, not that of the company you work for.â€ Facebook plans to hold another staff meeting on Friday to contain the damage, said the current and former employees. …
The internal turmoil at Facebook â€” described by six current and former employees and a review of internal posts â€” illustrates how divisions over Judge Kavanaughâ€™s nomination to the Supreme Court have cascaded into unexpected places and split one of the worldâ€™s biggest tech companies.
Mr. Kaplanâ€™s show of support for Judge Kavanaugh hits a particularly sensitive spot for Facebook. It has been weathering claims from conservatives and Mr. Trump that Facebook is biased against right-wing websites and opinions. The company has denied this, saying it is a neutral platform that welcomes all perspectives. By showing up at Judge Kavanaughâ€™s side, Mr. Kaplan essentially appeared to choose a political side that goes against the views of Facebookâ€™s largely liberal work force.
Many employees also viewed it as a statement: Mr. Kaplan believed Mr. Kavanaughâ€™s side of the story rather than Dr. Blaseyâ€™s testimony. That felt especially hurtful to Facebook employees who were also sexual assault survivors, many of whom began sharing their own #MeToo stories internally.
The tensions add to a litany of other issues that have sapped employee morale. In the past few weeks alone, the company, based in Silicon Valley, has grappled with the departures of the co-founders of Instagram, the photo-sharing app owned by Facebook, plus the disclosure of its largest-ever data breach and continued scrutiny of disinformation across its network before the midterm elections.
â€œOur leadership team recognizes that theyâ€™ve made mistakes handling the events of the last week and weâ€™re grateful for all the feedback from our employees,â€ Roberta Thomson, a Facebook spokeswoman, said in a statement on Thursday.
Western Society has reached the interesting point at which fashionable class solidarity within capitalist organizations will punish ideological deviationism with as much alacrity as last century’s totalitarian regimes.
03 Oct 2018
My old entryway, left of the Dining Hall, in the South Court of Berkeley College. I lived on the top floor for two years.
Say Rich Lowry. Unfortunately, he does not mean we’re living in linenfold panelled rooms inside granite and sandstone Gothic and Tudor architecture furnished luxuriously in oak and leather, where they cook our meals for us, and wash our dishes, and a janitor arrives every morning at our door to empty our wastebasket.
No, what he means is we’re all living in an environment filled with ideologically-deranged fanatics whose heads are full of irrational grievances and unappeasable ethnic and class-based animosities who are ready to form lynch mobs or create star chamber proceedings to punish the sane and normal for deviation from the religion of Intersectionality at the drop of a hat.
Brett Kavanaugh was a very good boy, with better report card ratings in Deportment than you or me, and that has not saved him. If they can take out Brett, they can get to anybody.
HT: Bird Dog.
02 Oct 2018
Bill McGurn, in the WSJ, explains why the democrats are determined at any cost to destroy this man.
As malignant as were the campaigns against Supreme Court nominees Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, even they didnâ€™t face accusations as vile and unrelenting as the unsubstantiated charges against Brett Kavanaugh. Adding to the injustice is that the frenzy surrounding his nomination isnâ€™t really about him.
Itâ€™s about Roe v. Wade. The 1973 Supreme Court decision upended the laws of all 50 states on behalf of a constitutional right to abortion the Constitution somehow neglects to mention. Since then, the advocates of a living Constitution posit that while our Founding document is infinitely malleable, this one ruling is fixed and sacred.
Judge Kavanaughâ€™s great misfortune is to have been nominated at a moment when the party in opposition frets this fixed and sacred ruling could be overturned.
Never mind that Chief Justice John Roberts is unlikely to acquiesce to a move that would bring down the furies on his court. Or that itâ€™s not clear Judge Kavanaugh would be any different, having assured senators that he regards Roe as â€œsettledâ€ and â€œan important precedentâ€ whose central holding had been reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Or that overturning Roe still wouldnâ€™t make abortion illegal.
The problem is that even Roeâ€™s most ardent champions know it is devoid of legal and constitutional substance. So they know it is vulnerable to a closer look by any serious jurist, including those who are themselves pro-choice. No wonder Sen. Dianne Feinstein tweeted, â€œItâ€™s not enough for Brett Kavanaugh to say that Roe v. Wade is â€˜settled law.â€™ â€
Let me translate: Nothing personal, judge. But if you wonâ€™t declare that a decision laid down by seven unelected men in robes is untouchable, we have no choice but to do whatever it takes to keep you off the high court. This is what Democrats do when they see a possible fifth vote against Roe in play.
Itâ€™s what they did in 1987 when they transformed â€œBorkâ€ into a verb. Itâ€™s what they are now doing to Judge Kavanaugh. They do it with the eager help of a press that has abandoned even the pretense of objectivity, and institutions such as the American Bar Association and American Civil Liberties Union, which have betrayed their own principles in the effort to bring this man down.
In this cause, there is no room for fairness and decency. When CNNâ€™s Jake Tapper asked Sen. Mazie Hirono if Judge Kavanaugh deserved â€œthe same presumption of innocence as anyone elseâ€ about the sexual-assault accusations against him, the Hawaii Democrat gave the game away.
â€œI put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases,â€ she replied, noting he â€œvery much is against womenâ€™s reproductive choice.â€
Mr. Tapper understood instantly. â€œIt sounds to me like youâ€™re saying, because you donâ€™t trust him on policy and because you donâ€™t believe him when he says, for instance, that he does not have an opinion on Roe v. Wade, you donâ€™t believe him about this allegation about what happened at this party in 1982â€ he asked.
01 Oct 2018
Victor Davis Hanson sees the old American norms transformed in the Kavanaugh process, and he sees all this as a major milestone on the road of American decline.
The Kavanaugh confirmation hearings and their endless sequelae have ended up as an epitaph for a spent culture for which its remedies are felt to be worse than its diseases. Think 338 B.C., A.D. 476, 1453, or 1939.
The coordinated effort to destroy Brett Kavanaughâ€™s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court required the systematic refutation of the entire notion of Western jurisprudence by senators and much of the American legal establishment. And there was no hesitation in doing just that on the part of Senate Democrats, the #MeToo movement, and the press. And I write this at a moment in which conservatives and Republicans still control the majority of governorships, state legislatures, the U.S. Senate, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court and the presidencyâ€”a reminder that culture so often is far more powerful than politics.
So, here we were to be left with a new legal and cultural standard in adjudicating future disagreements and disputes, an utterly anti-Western standard quite befitting for our new relativist age:
The veracity of accusations will hinge on the particular identity, emotions, and ideology of the accuser;
Evidence, or lack of it, will be tangential, given the supposed unimpeachable motives of the ideologically correct accuser;
The burden of proof and evidence will rest with the accused to disprove the preordained assumption of guilt;
Hearsay will be a valuable narrative and constitute legitimate evidence;
Truth is not universal, but individualized. Fordâ€™s â€œtruthâ€ is as valid as the â€œTruth,â€ given that competing narratives are adjudicated only by access to power. Ford is a victim, therefore her truth trumps â€œtheirâ€ truth based on evidence and testimony.
Questionable and inconsistent testimony are proof of trauma and therefore exactitude; recalling an accusation to someone is proof that the action in the accusation took place.
Statutes of limitations do not exist; any allegation of decades prior is as valid as any in the present. All of us are subject at any moment to unsubstantiated accusations from decades past that will destroy lives.
Assertion of an alleged crime is unimpeachable proof. Recall of where, when, why, and how it took place is irrelevant.
Individual accusations will always be subservient to cosmic causes; individuals are irrelevant if they do not serve ideological aims. All accusations fit universal stereotypes whose rules of finding guilt or innocence trump those of individual cases.
The accuser establishes the conditions under which charges are investigated; the accused nods assent.
Our cultural traditions are being insidiously rewritten in this new Dark Age. We know now that Euripidesâ€™s Phaedra should have been believed, as a female accuser of rape. Perhaps university presses can either reissue properly corrected editions or ban the Hippolytus entirely. No doubt we will ban Racineâ€™s PhÃ¨dre as well. Harper Leeâ€™s Tom Robinson deserved his fate because his female accuser should have been believedâ€”and perhaps To Kill a Mockingbird should be rewritten as well. In our time, we have finally and only now belatedly realized that Tawana Brawleyâ€™s voice was stifled.
VDH is not wrong.
01 Oct 2018
Jonah Goldberg tries to figure out why Brett Kavanaugh has caused the Left to pull out all the stops.
I want to be open-minded. So I will concede that the allegation is not theoretically impossible, given the depths of depravity that humans in every generation and every civilization and at all strata of class and privilege are capable of.
But it would be highly unlikely, to say the least. I say this having some insight, however imperfect, into the social milieu from which Kavanaugh hails. I didnâ€™t grow up in Washington, but I did technically go to a prep school.
(My school was not as prestigious as Georgetown Prep. There was always a raging debate about my alma mater: Was it the best school on the B-List or the worst school of the A-list? But it was a prep school.)
I knew kids at various schools like Kavanaughâ€™s. They could be, to borrow a term from social science, dicks. Iâ€™m not saying he was. But even if he was, that doesnâ€™t mean he was a rapist. Though, to listen to various liberals, youâ€™d think stereotypes about sex, race, and class are always true so long as youâ€™re talking about white preppy Christians.
Still, I will confess I have my own biases. I never took high school too seriously, so I had a certain amount of resentment towards those who did. The kids who constantly worried about their permanent record; the kids who did everything they could to please teachers or gussy-up their college applications; the kids who seemingly without much effort checked boxes as both jocks and academic grinds; the kids who were always worried about getting in trouble for fear of having to go to a state school: These were kids that I didnâ€™t gravitate towards precisely because I couldnâ€™t be one of them. But I will grant them this: They seemed really unlikely to organize rape gangs if for no other reason than that such things look really bad on your application to Yale.
Again, I donâ€™t mean to be unfair to Brett Kavanaugh. I have no doubt that a regular churchgoing kid had other reasons not to do the logistical heavy-lifting of drugging and raping teenage girls on a regular basis. Iâ€™m just assuming the worst while still employing Occamâ€™s Razor. And I just have a hard time believing that the Rapey McRapeFace who Avenatti and his fans describe is the real Brett Kavanaugh.
30 Sep 2018
Judiciary Committee democrats.
John Hinderaker has an explanation that works.
One question I have pondered over the last few weeks is, why are the Democrats so determined to block Judge Brett Kavanaughâ€™s nomination to the Supreme Court? Realistically, he is the most moderate nominee they are likely to see from the Trump administration. If his nomination fails, the president will most likely appoint Amy Barrett, who is secure against #MeToo allegations and is both more conservative and younger than Kavanaugh. So what is the point?
To some extent, the Democratsâ€™ bizarre smear campaign against Kavanaugh is explicable on short-term political grounds. The Democratsâ€™ crazed base demands that they #Resist, so resist they will, whether it does any good or not. But I think there is something deeper and more sinister at work.
Brett Kavanaugh enjoys one of the most spotless reputations of anyone in American public life. He has been enthusiastically endorsed by those who have known him all his lifeâ€“by girls he knew in high school and college, by judges he has served with, by professors and students and Harvard and Yale law schools, by judges who have worked with him, by his judicial clerksâ€“most of whom have been womenâ€“by the American Bar Association, by sitting Supreme Court justices. In short, everyone who has ever known or dealt with Brett Kavanaugh endorses him.
I think that Judge Kavanaughâ€™s pristine reputation is one reason why the Democrats have unleashed against him a smear campaign unparalleled in American history. This is the message they are trying to send: If we can do this to the Boy Scout Brett Kavanaugh, we can do it to anyone. Are you thinking of serving in a Republican administration? Or accepting an appointment to the federal judiciary from a Republican president? Think twice, and then think again.
Your are browsing
the Archives of Never Yet Melted
in the 'Brett Kavanaugh' Category.