Featured Post

Lost in Translation, Right Might Not Mean Right

I have written before about how the left sees words as important and tries to redefine them in ways that benefit the left, Words evolve. ...

Saturday, October 6, 2018

Justice

With a vote of 50-48, Judge Kavanaugh will become Justice Kavanaugh.  As you all know--so, of course, I will repeat it--Kavanaugh had to endure a thoroughly disgusting gauntlet to become a Justice. One thing is to have open political and ideological differences and disagreements on legal interpretations, those are legitimate issues to explore and discuss--Have at it!--it's another thing to try to destroy a person's reputation and career, and put him and his family in physical danger. The loons in the Democratic Party aided by the media echo-chamber and the cesspool that our academic institutions have become tried to do precisely that.

Let's be up front: Dr. Ford lied.

She lied. She became a tool for the loons, and was willing to lie to stop Kavanaugh. Why has she, according to her lefty lawyers, now decided not to pursue the accusations against Kavanaugh? Why did she only pursue them once Kavanaugh become Trump's choice for a seat on the Supreme Court? Why doesn't she go to the police in Maryland, where there is no statute of limitations on sexual assault, and make a formal presentation of what she says happened to her in Maryland however many years ago she decides it happened? Because . . . drum roll . . . it's not true. I really hope her perjury is not simply forgotten; she needs to pay for it. She, at least, should be sued for every penny she has made in her GOFUNDME effort. The loons must know there is a cost to being a loon, to being an instigator of a lynch mob. No more lynch mobs, please.

Bottom line: Trump wins; Kavanaugh wins; justice wins; America, a bit battered, also wins.

Just in: My son and his wife went to the protests in front of the Supreme Court today. Here's a thoughtful protestor reacting to the singing of "God Bess America" by some folks celebrating Kavanaugh's win.


Notice the wit and intelligence on display



51 comments:

  1. If the Highway patrol finds a crumpled up middle age woman, well dressed and completely dazed about what happened to her...they will know Ford was tossed from a moving car called Democrat Motors. When they have no more use for a 'victim', they toss them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just don't eat her yellow cake!
      If'n you know whats good for ya!
      OW~~~

      Delete
    2. Frequently the tossing is under the bus

      Delete
  2. Democrats idea of justice

    https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/abc-news-tweet-meme-christine-ford.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. I saw earlier but couldn't find it again.

      Delete
    2. Oh so you were the 1st responder,
      got any ID sonny?
      Sgt OW 78pct
      PS 142

      Delete
  3. “It has been a damned nice thing”

    ReplyDelete
  4. Knew you would post tonight, not tired of winning yet

    ReplyDelete
  5. Reason has prevailed; but from this the only lesson that the Progs /Dems will take is that they need to up the ante next time. They are down the rabbit hole and there is no way back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is it that wise and careful farmers do with rabbit holes?

      Delete
    2. Then there needs to be some kind of pointed but legal retaliation for the character assassination they attempted,to keep them from trying anything like it again.

      Make the *rubble* bounce.

      Delete

    3. What is it that wise and careful farmers do with rabbit holes?

      SCOTTtheBADGEROctober 7, 2018 at 4:52 AM

      Send in a badger!

      LOL
      Fire in the Hole!
      ~~~ ow ~~~

      Delete
  6. I don't like Brett Kavanaugh much, and never really did. He would not have been anywhere near my top ten of the list of candidates to replace Justice Kennedy. For the record, I would have picked Thomas Lee, Senator Lee's brother (look at his Wikipedia page) - he is simply outstanding (yes, I have some bias because he earned his JD at Chicago).

    Regarding the "job interview" analogy (which I don't believe is very apt) - the purpose of most hiring filters is simply to eliminate candidates for just about any reason (there are usually, and certainly were in this instance, a number of people fully capable of performing the duties of the position at a very high level). It was obvious before Kavanaugh's nomination that the political work that he did would provide an armory of ammunition for his opponents, and Trump simply could have simply chosen someone else equally qualified and easier to confirm (I don't agree at all with Trump's requirement that the person has to "look like a Supreme Court justice").

    Once he was selected though, he certainly had my support, and I felt it was important not to let the Democrats defeat his nomination. I give full credit to President Trump for not backing down (I can't imagine anyone else who wouldn't folded), and also to Mr. Kavanaugh for not withdrawing his nomination under all of the pressure (although I am not sure whether that quality is a good thing or not :) ).

    I don't believe any of sexual assault allegations. The accusers were extreme activists (which negates the "they had nothing to gain" narrative on its face), and the supposed MO (assaulting women at parties where there a lot of other people around, yet not a single person could come forward and say "yes, I saw him do that"). Notably no one came forward to challenge his claim of virginity, either.

    I feel much less comfortable with his testimony about his alcohol use (which, in my opinion, was clearly abuse) at that time. He gave misleading testimony regarding the legal drinking age (don't know why the Democrats didn't press him to admit that he drank while underage - I certainly would have if I were a hostile questioner, just to tarnish his image as far as not following the law), and I believe he perjured himself during the recent hearing regarding his condition following his drinking episodes. There are just too many people (credible people in this case) with accounts that contradict his testimony. This could come back to bite him in the form of impeachment by the House (assuming the Republicans lose the House). Of course, the Senate will never convict, and all an impeachment would accomplish is to keep the Republican base fired up and remind everyone of the zealotry of the Democrats.

    If the process were slightly different (imagine, although there would be a lot of problems with this, where the President had to send up multiple candidates, and the one who received the most Senate votes were elevated to the Supreme Court), I would have voted for any other Trump nominee (except for Thomas Hardiman, whom I simply don't trust because he married into a family of prominent Democrats) over Brett Kavanaugh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It wouldn't have mattered whether it was Justice Kavenaugh (I do like the ring of that!) or Solomon hisself.

      Come to think of it it probably wouldn't have mattered if it'd been Chairman Mao either simply for the fact that it was first, President Donald Trump nominated him (and credit must be accorded to Leonard Leo and Mitch McConnell writ large and the Republican Party to a somewhat lesser degree).

      That was all that mattered. The Gerasene Legion was gonna show up no matter what.

      JK

      Delete
    2. Had either Trump or Kavanaugh backed down the Democrats would have gained a weapon they could use against ANY future nominee for any Office in the Government. A simple accusation from any source and the precedent is set to kill the nomination. Trump and Kavanaugh knew they could not give the Left such a weapon, so had to stick it out to the bitter end.

      Delete
    3. "Had either Trump or Kavanaugh backed down"...

      Ho Ho Ho , No way HoSay!
      Both of them, for the same reasons,
      'rats and kids,
      Real Dads don't have quit
      in their Heads or HEARTS!
      ~~~OW~~~

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Do you swear to preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America?
      I do and I further promise to piss off progressives for the next thirty plus years.

      Delete
    6. ..."piss off progressives for the next thirty plus years."

      Let it be WRITTEN Let it be SAID, JP

      Delete
    7. The previous 8 years had a coke and pot using unvetted Muslin in the WH, and to be fair the previous 8 to that had a reformed alcoholic and coke user.... and one worries about beer alone when speaking of justice... with a blind eye.

      Delete
  7. Downside: Next time a libel/slander case reaches the Supreme Court, Kavanaigh will have to recuse himself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The more interesting issue that might appear before the Court concerns liable law. Currently, public figures are open targets, where they have to prove malice and such to prevail. How would Thomas and Kavanaugh view this now?

      Green Bear

      Delete
    2. Recuse my ass!
      Who is gonna appeal it, and to whom?
      "Let's Roll"

      Delete
  8. What's the odds that 90 percent of the protestors are government workers?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Your bottom line, " Trump wins; Kavanaugh wins; justice wins; America, a bit battered, also wins" should go to the top because it, too, wins!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Once the nonsense began Kav had to be pushed through even though there might have been a decent rational case against him, had anyone bothered to make it.

    I hope he spends his SCOTUS years buggering up the Dem party to the best of his ability.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dearieme, that's the problem they have, no ability to make a rational case anymore. It's either political positions and not Constitutional applications, or, it's what we got here and with Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork.

      Delete
  11. i agree with anonymous above regarding skepticism of kavanaugh before, but not during, the nomination fight: witness intimidation in the vince foster case, support of warrantless searches and most importantly his inside-the-beltway/1%er/prep school/yale pedigree. can we not find qualified nominees from some other parts of our great, wide nation? don’t get me wrong, i’m ecstatic that trump won the fight for kavanaugh, but going forward can we please wean ourselves from the ivies? full disclosure here: my ba is from a little-three college and masters is from a big-ten university. i vote for the latter seven days per week.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mighty short on particulars Boyz!
      Care to expand or digress/
      OW~~~

      Delete
    2. I think that was Scalia's point a fair while back... about how scotus was beginning to decide cultural questions for the people... and that it didn't make sense for nine people consisting of entirely of jews and catholics, all educated at two schools (at the time), to be making those decisions for all americans.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  12. Setting aside Lying Chrissie's poor recollection of what, if true, was no more than a clumsy teenage groping when she had stupidly drunk alcohol illegally (only 1 beer! -- the only thing she could remember for sure) and even more foolishly gone to an unsupervised party with older boys, and yet more stupidly than that gone upstairs to a bedroom with 2 boys …

    Where was I? Yes, Lying Chrissie clearly lied to Congress about her inability to fly and about the reason for putting a second door on her home. Congress should prosecute the liar to the fullest extent of the law for those clear, provable, recent lies.

    Congress (even the Democrats) need to demonstrate that lying to Congress carries severe penalties. Otherwise, they will be drowned in lies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Drowned in incoming lies, you mean. Presumably they're entirely happy with self-generated lies.

      Delete
  13. while noting my skepticism regarding kavanaugh, i am wondering if trump’s larger wins are: 1. having the bolsheviks, formerly known as the democrats, hatch three republican fire dragons: kavanaugh, graham and collins; 2. awakening many establishment republican voters to the left’s existential threat just before the midterm elections. add: 3. the upcoming rosenstein denouement; 4. full release of all fisa documents, and trump may be a political genius.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3. the upcoming rosenstein denouement
      I'd pay in rubles to hear that,
      in closed door sessions.
      ~~~mystery guest~~~

      Delete
  14. The injustice that Justice Kavanaugh will carry from the left’s rotten politics of character assassination will be with him through the rest of his life. I think that Brett Kavanaugh was a slightly right leaning constitutionalist, and really would not be the threat he is portrayed by the left but was three weeks ago.

    Now, because of what they did to him, and will continue to jeer and scream at him, and never accept that he really is not guilty of any of these accusations. He cannot possibly be able to remain unbiased toward the left. He knows all the sitting justices, and who do you think he is going to find common ground with? Justice Kagan, who hired him to teach law at Harvard? Chief Justice Roberts? Who he knows from the D.C. Circuit court on which he served. Justice Gorsuch who he went to school with? No, he is going to find common ground with the most conservative justice on the court, Justice Thomas. Who also had his life destroyed by the very same people in the very same way, for the same reason.

    So now, there is a new justice who is going to be a lot harsher to the left now. If the Democrats simply would have kept the allegations inside the Senate, and conducted their own investigations, and voted accordingly. Even if the vote came out the same as it did today, the left would have a new justice who would have been more like Justice Kennedy, who he clerked for, and would be very aware of Justice Kennedy’s judicial philosophy, and likely followed that. Now they have a very good chance that Justice Kavanaugh is going to turn into what they were afraid he was going to be, before they destroyed his life and introduced him to a full time U.S. Marshall protection detail, for him, his wife, and his children, for these rest of their lives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OR....Kavanaugh will spend his years bending over backwards to appear non-partisan and The Dems win anyway?

      Delete
  15. Said: Anonymous October 6, 2018 at 10:41 PM
    I don't like Brett Kavanaugh much, and never really did...."Trump simply could have simply chosen someone else ...don't agree at all with >>Trump's requirement that the person has to "look like a Supreme Court justice")<<. Anon

    Well 'non'ie, no one said that comprehending New Yorker's speak was an easy 'A'. Here's a clue for ya, in order to "look like" a 'justice', or a cop, or a housewife, a bartender, or a window wiper, in NY NY THEY ALL HAVE TO ACT THEIR ROLE, before they actually get the part! Thataway, likewise, the Donald won't be floored as have so many other poser POTUSes by alleged CONSERVATIVE justices! Remember Sandra O'Connar, (a leaky wet nurse) Kennedy,( a shiftless shyster) etc etc etc! Obvious to even the most casual observer, Kid KAV, is a SUPREME! Donald the SCOTUS' corner & cut-man, now knows for sure, the KID can take a punch and deliver a counterpunch! Bodes well for the bouts he'll get to weigh in on! I'd just suggest, he take his tongue out of his cheek, and get fitted for a mouthpiece!
    On Watch~~~
    "Let's Roll"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Uhm, I believe you are blowing off (again) without knowing the facts. There is a nice list of vetted Supreme Court candidates, many of whom were predicted (from statistical models based on their past decisions) to vote more conservatively on the Supreme Court than Judge Kavanaugh (I would not apply those models now after the confirmation battle though - it seems quite possible now that Justice Kavanaugh will move solidly right, and stay there). Read the biographies of (and decisions written by) some of the other candidates, particularly Thomas Lee (mentioned above), Don Willett, and Amul Thapar.

      I don't think a Supreme Court Justice needs to look like he just came from central casting (that probably precludes the vast majority of women right there). And I don't believe we need nine Supreme Court justices who all attended Harvard or Yale (Ginsburg transferred to Columbia, and graduated from there). There are plenty of other excellent law schools (Chicago, Stanford, Pennsylvania, Berkeley, Duke).

      I wouldn't be crowing about this "victory." I feel more relieved that anything (not a great outcome, but better than the alternative). Kavanaugh's political work was always going to lead to a more rancorous confirmation that other candidates would have had (and McConnell told Trump that Kavanaugh would be the most difficult to confirm of the candidates on Trump's final "short list").

      I would gladly have taken another candidate from the big list who would have had at least a slightly easier confirmation (how much easier, of course, remains uncertain). I don't believe the Democrats would have been able to damage other candidates to the same degree, and as much as I enjoyed Kavanaugh's attack on the Democrats during the supplemental hearing, it certainly hurt his reputation for impartiality, even among those in the middle (and led to many editorials calling for his rejection solely on those grounds).

      And I am convinced that we haven't seen the last of the Democrats using Kavanaugh to score political points.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous October 8, 2018 at 11:50 AM

      ..."Kavanaugh's attack on the Democrats ...certainly hurt his reputation for impartiality...and led to many editorials calling for his rejection...

      Ah Jeez, I'm sure there are enough long-winded self-stroking saps, such as your own dear self 'nonny, who'll blow on the 'Rats butt-hurt boo boos and make it all feel better, give yourself some credit, tush!
      On Watch~~~

      Delete
  16. I have to admit, I really thought Feinstein had him there.
    But as Collins said, if a lone, uncorroborated allegation from a partisan actor is all that's required to nix a nomination, then we will have no more nominations.

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ..."I really thought Feinstein had him there."

      Too True numero..82, Ms.'walking dead' can be a scary old crow especially when she doesn't get her nap before the cameras light her up and spook the Chinese office boy... No worries tho, Sens. Booger, Harass, and Schemer have had the Dragon lady rebranded as expired chop suey.

      Not so, Senator Sue Collins! Therein dwells an Eagle with the prose of an American Poet Laureate... Bless her dear heart! At least this week! ;)
      On Watch~~~

      Delete
  17. These types of insane tactics from the left will continue until such time as there are actual, real, lasting consequences handed down to the perpetrators of such nonsense. Felony indictments and jail time, for starters.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The interesting twist to this is that "Fine" may have just lost her election to a far leftist this November. She was counting on Republicans to support her (as the "moderate"), and not her opponent. This bitter taste can lead to many California Republicans voting for her opponent, figuring to move the democrats as left as possible. Now that Di Fi has shown she is evil, we have nothing to lose by voting for her crazyevil opponent. We may as well have an incompetent enemy rather than an old competent one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Worse, from the Dem viewpoint, is that de Leon wouldn't have her seniority, so he wouldn't be in a position to get those plum committee positions that DiFi gets courtesy of how often she's been reelected.

      While it's true that the seniority thing is internal Senate rules that can be changed on the fly and not written law, if the Dems decided to jump up a hypothetical Senator de Leon in spite of his lack of seniority both parties would be howling about it, in self-defense by others with seniority if nothing else.

      Delete
  19. Sir:
    It is my understanding that Maryland law at the time would have classified the described incident as simple misdemeanor assault, and that there *was* an appropriate Statute of Limitations at the time. It was sometime later that the laws were changed to loosen the definition of sexual assault and remove the limitations on time. Additionally, even if accused, tried and convicted on the charge, Mr. (now Justice) Kavanaugh would have had his record sealed at the time he turned 18...and likely expunged there after.

    Thank you for your pithy ponderings!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct on Statute of Limitations. The SoL (ahem) of one year for that lesser charge was finally removed in 1996, long after even the most recent end of the stretch of years that Ford cited as when the claimed incident supposedly occurred.

      Delete