The Photos That Prove They Don’t Care

Today, as the Senate Judiciary Committee convened to vote to advance Judge Barrett’s nomination to the full Senate, the Democrat members of the Committee did not show up.  Instead, they placed photos in their empty chairs.

The photos were of people they had previously used as campaign props during their (laughable) questioning of Judge Barrett.    These were the photos that they used as back drops while they called Judge Barrett a liar and a threat.  These were the photos to which they pointed when they claimed that Judge Barrett, if confirmed, would somehow and seemingly singlehandedly not only deny them and all of us any health care, but also return us to some sort of Dark Ages. 

These same photos were behind the Democrats when they refused to use their time during the Barrett questioning to actually ask Judge Barrett questions relevant to her qualifications to become a Supreme Court Justice.  These were the photos that they pointed to as they recited campaign rhetoric about healthcare and abortion and civil rights.  These were the photos that the Democrats used to try to instill fear into the American people.

While claiming that they cared about the people in the photos, the Democrats pointed to them as part of their theater of fear mongering.  Do the Democrats really care about these people?  I don’t know.  What I do know is that they tend to use individual stories to prop up their own sweeping and misleading rhetoric.

What I do know is that despite the pretty and perhaps emotion invoking photos and personal stories behind them, the Democrats have contempt for the American people, for the Constitution of the United States of America, and for our form of government.

Today, the Democrat Senators had a job for which the American people elected them and for which we the taxpayers pay them.  That was to show up at the Committee meeting of the Judiciary when they are members of that Committee.  

Contrary to what they would have the American people believe, this meeting and indeed this entire nomination process is not a sham.  It is a constitutionally mandated part of our government.   The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is serious business that these Senators were elected to conduct.  Let them grandstand on their own time.

The Democrats can present all the political theater that they want.  The bottom line is that they are shirking their duties.  (And if you want to understand the facts about why this nomination is not a sham and is perfectly in line with our history, our Constitution, and the will of the people, you can read my previous 3 blog posts about the hearings)

The Democrat stunts during this nomination process present one example of the Democrat contempt for the American people and the rule of law, but, while this process displays in high definition the Democrats’ true colors, it is not by any means the only example.

If you have been reading this blog for the past three and three-fourth years you are aware of example after example of the Democrats' refusal to accept the will of the people when it is not what they want.  It began with their refusal to accept Donald Trump as the legitimate President of the United States.  That has continued throughout his presidency as they try one after another means of removing him from office and hence overturning the will of the people. 

The Democrats have shown us that they do not care about the will of the people and will not think twice about thwarting it if it stands in the way of their power.  They do not respect the institutions and offices of our government.  They are willing to ignore, indeed shred, the Constitution if that is what it takes.  They are also willing to use people and their photos as props if that is what it takes.

The Democrats have shown us that they believe that those with whom they disagree, those who do not fit their preconceived mold for women or Blacks or any of their many identity groups as well as those who hold value systems or beliefs that they disdain such as conservatives (and especially conservative people of color and women)  do not deserve our Constitutional freedoms such as speech or worship.  To Democrats it is acceptable to silence and hate those with diverse views.

If you have read my blog for the past few years you have read about various forms of governments including socialism and its failures.  You have read about how socialist programs, programs that sound laudable and may actually be intended to help one or another group, how those programs actually harm the individual by creating a dependent subclass.  Such subclasses are used by those in power as a means of retaining their own power.

You have read about how the progressive programs of the Left will actually deny us the freedoms that we hold dear.  They will severely weaken if not remove our right to think for ourselves and each determine our own destiny.  They show a disregard for the individual humanity of each of us.

The Democrats’ rhetoric about Judge Barrett and her nomination process is based on lies, misinformation, and mistruths.  This should not surprise us since that pretty much describes everything that comes from the Democrats these days. 

The Democrats build narratives on facts that are at best incomplete and more likely do not even exist.  They along with their media handmaidens suppress information and facts that are harmful to their narrative.  The list is long, beginning with the Russian hoax and its falsified FISA warrents and continuing to the present with the suppression of credible facts about Joe Biden’s use of his vice presidency for personal and family gain.  (NPR justifies not reporting the story as “not wanting to waste viewer’s time”; I still believe that viewers can and should decide for themselves what is a waste of their time.)

Politicians of course always try to make a case for their policies.  But that case should not be based on mistruth.  Yet, this approach of denying the truth about our system of government is on full display by the Democrats in the Barrett hearings. 

I suspect that the Democrats who did not show up today actually do know what their responsibilities are, that they do know that the Supreme Court is not a political branch (at least not unless/until they succeed in making it so by their Court-packing scheme). 

I suspect that the Democrats know that our form of government requires, and our freedoms depend upon a judiciary that is not political.  Justice requires the ability to put one’s personal agenda aside.  That is what the Democrat Senators should do when considering a new Justice.  Yet, their goal seems to not be justice, but rather a political ally dressed in the black robe.

The empty seats this morning, the photos intended to pull on our heartstrings, the lies about Judge Barrett and the nomination processes, these all show a callous contempt and disrespect on the part of the Democrats for the American people.  Those of us who are not bamboozled by their rhetoric need to put an end to it the one way that we still can – by casting our vote on November 3.

This is an important election.  The status of our democracy and with it our individual freedoms are on the ballot.  See this morning’s photos for what they really are – a picture of the Democrat disdain for America and Americans.

***

As I have said before, I am not a member of any political party and have voted for both Republican and Democrat candidates in the past.  But this year I believe that America’s future is fully dependent on our vote and because I believe in our Constitution and our Democratic Republic, because I value our democracy and how it allows every individual to determine his or her own beliefs and values and allows each of us to speak freely those beliefs while requiring tolerance of those who hold different views, because I believe that Democrat policies will truly weaken if not destroy many of the crucial foundations of our society, for those reasons and more I am voting Republican this year, and I urge everyone who holds America dear to do the same.

 

 

Judge Barrett Hearing, Days 3 & 4

Days 3 and 4 of these hearings followed in the same mode as the previous days. 

Judge Barrett continued to display an exceptional knowledge of the law and also continued to follow both precedent and ethical requirements that she not comment on  policy or on any case or hypothetical that might come before her, either in her current position on the 7^th Circuit or if confirmed to SCOTUS.

The Democrats continued to ignore the purpose of the hearing – to determine Judge Barrett’s qualifications for justice of SCOTUS – and instead continued to present policy, fear mongering, and campaign rhetoric.  This was true for both the questioning that occurred on Day 3 and the witness presentations on Day 4. 

Day 4 began with political maneuvering by Democrats in an attempt to stop or stall the nomination proceedings.  This failed, and the committee vote is scheduled for 6 days forward (as is standard for all such nominations).  This time allows the Senators time to review all documents put into evidence (or, in the case of Justice Kavanaugh’s hearing, to seek or try to manufacture damning evidence; hopefully they will not repeat this here).

Day 4 also included presentations from outside witnesses.  First came the American Bar Association which gave Judge Barrett the highest rating possible.  This followed review of her writings, both academic and judicial on the 7^th Circuit as well as interviews with members of the legal profession and others who have some relevant information about this nomination. 

The ABA found Judge Barrett’s integrity impeccable.  I note this because of the many implications from Democrats that she is either a liar or some sinister plant by the President or by right-wing organizations.

Following the ABA's presentation, each side provided 4 witnesses  These followed the same mold as the actual senators' questioning on Days 2 and 3.  The Republicans presented legal professionals including a retired judge, a law professor, one of Judge Barrett's former law clerks, and a clerk to the Supreme Court who related her own interactions with Judge Barrett while a student a Notre Dame.  All spoke to Judge Barrett’s qualifications as a justice.  The former student, a blind woman, also spoke to Judge Barrett’s compassion.

The Democrats, in typical form, presented witnesses who did not speak to judicial qualifications but instead furthered the fear mongering of what would  allegedly happen if Judge Barrett is confirmed.  Their witnesses were activists – for expansion of Medicare, for civil rights, for abortion rights and for Obamacare.  Their consistent message was that Judge Barrett is somehow a threat to “the vulnerable.”

I would note that really no one, even a judge himself or herself, can predict how they will rule in a particular case.  Judges, at least good ones, are not partisans or activists when they put on the black robe.  Rather, they will consider the specific facts of the case before them, apply the law as it exists at the time of the dispute, and through a solid legal reasoning process will arrive at their conclusion.  Because cases that come before courts, and especially before the Supreme Court, are highly contested and policy charged, there is often more than one reasonable position, and justices with differing judicial philosophies will often arrive at the same conclusion in a particular case.

What offends me is not that the Democrats have their policy views or that they prefer an activist judiciary.  It is that they attempt to distort a hearing on the nomination of a justice to the Supreme Court of the United States of America into arguments about the policy and issues that the legislative body should be addressing.  The members of this committee know full well that they should be looking at the prospective judge’s judicial qualifications, not whether or not she holds their policy views.

Judge Barrett’s qualifications are impeccable.  Unattackable.  So, the Democrats are trying to present to the American people a fully false picture of her and of what a judge does.  They are campaigning. And as a taxpayer and a voter and a citizen, I am offended by this.

A few things require particular note.  First is the term “originalism” as it refers to a judicial philosophy.  Judicial philosophies range from more activist to more restrained.  These terms - various judicial philosophies - do not necessarily correspond to political philosophies such as liberal or conservative.

The Democrats would have the people believe that originalism is some sort of draconian horror.  Originalism like textualism simply means giving primary weight to the text and structure of a document – Constitution or statute; the idea is that the Constitution means no more or less than what it meant to those who originally wrote and ratified it.  With that context in mind, it will be interpreted and applied to a current situation.  

"Originalism" is not some hyperliteralism which will not recognize the evolution of society along with judicial precedent.   Despite what the Democrats might want you to believe, the term “originalism” does not signify an intent to return the country to the 18^th or 19^th or even the 20^th century.

Like the Constitution, enacted laws are general – they do not refer to a specific case but to general rules that govern our behavior.  They represent the will of the people.  A judge deals with a specific case in controversy.  That is, in simple terms, there are particular people on each side of dispute.  When the dispute comes before the judge, the judge must decide that case, and can only decide that case.  The judge does not make general policy but applies the existing law to the specific facts of the case and resolves the dispute between the existing and specific parties.

An easy example:  If a statute says it is a crime to drive a motor vehicle while intoxicated, that addresses a general circumstance.   The prohibition, written by the legislature, reflects the will of the people who voted for the legislators who enacted the law.  Now assume that one day Mr. X, who is undisputedly intoxicated, is sitting in his green Subaru on the side of the freeway with his engine running.  That is a specific situation which might fall under the general law. 

If the police cite Mr. X he might come to court and argue that he was not "driving" because he was stopped on the side of the road.  The statute does not define driving, so the judge faced with this dispute will have to read the statute and determine if sitting on a roadway with a car running but not moving constitutes driving under the statute. That part of the general rule is ambiguous in this situation.  The judge must decide this to decide Mr. X’s case.  The judge however cannot rewrite the statute, cannot say  that driving intoxicated should not be illegal, or that Subaru drivers should be exempt, or that the statute also includes bicycles and Segways.    

The judge will look at the statute and its intent and apply it to this specific fact situation.  If the judge decides that these specific facts constitute driving then that will become precedent for future specific cases.  When Ms. Y is intoxicated and stopped on the side of a busy roadway in her red Mustang with the engine running, this precedent will now guide us to the conclusion that she was driving for purposes of the statute.  If the legislature does not like this decision, if they think an unmoving but running car should not be seen as driving under this statute, it is they who can amend the statute.

Judges look at the law relevant to a particular situation and apply that law to the specific facts of a specific case.  Obviously Supreme Court cases involve far more complex issues and policy concerns than the simple example above.  But the principle is the same.  A judge takes the existing law which is general in its language and applies it to specific facts involved in a specific controversy between specific people.  

Often the general language of a statute or of the Constitution must be interpreted to determine if or how a provision applies to the specific case. Different judicial philosophies will determine how a judge goes about this process. But there is a difference between interpretation and actually creating new law.  Judges should not make policy or create new law if for no other reason than that they, unlike the other two branches of government, are not elected and therefore not accountable to the people.

The Democrats also keep returning to their old saw of how this hearing is illegitimate, a sham, and somehow betraying the will of the people.  It is not.  This is just another of their histrionic scare tactics.  One more time let me explain the obvious.

In 2016 the people elected a President whose term of office began in January of 2017 and runs until January of 2021.  In 2018 (notably after the Kavanaugh hearings and his confirmation to SCOTUS) the people in the midterm elections created the current makeup of the Senate.  The current Senate is in place until January of 2021.  The current SCOTUS vacancy occurred in 2020, within these terms of office.  It is these people who are responsible to react to the vacancy and that is what they are doing. 

The Garland vacancy occurred within different circumstances but is entirely consistent with what is happening now and what has happened throughout history. The Garland nomination occurred when the Senate majority was Republican but the President was a Democrat.  Responding to their electorate, that Senate did not move forward with a nomination made by the executive of the opposing party. 

Historically there have been 29 SCOTUS openings in an election year.  Of those, 19 were when the President and the Senate were of the same party.  Of those 19, 17 were confirmed.  The other 10 openings occurred when the President and Senate were of differing parties.  Of those 10, only 2 were confirmed.  What this tells us is that both the failure of the Garland nomination to move forward and the holding of the Coney Barrett hearings this week are consistent with the mainstream of our nation’s history and with the concept of the elected officials responding to the will of those who elected them. 

The Democrats don’t want Judge Barrett on the court.  That does not mean that they can cut short the legitimate term of the President and of the currently serving senators. Perhaps the people will elect Democrats for the next term (which does not begin until January 2021).  If they are elected, I suspect they will not want their terms cut short.

Elections have consequences.  This is so even if the Democrats would prefer they didn’t and even though they seem to spend most of their time trying to overturn the will of the people.

It is clear the Democrats do not like Judge Barrett’s personal beliefs,   But beyond that I find especially demeaning their repeated implications that she cannot possibly have a mind of her own but rather will simply do as told.  I don’t know if this is their view of conservatives, or of women, or of both, but whatever it is, it is certainly offensive.

Judge Barrett is imminently qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.  There is truly no question on that. A review of her opinions and judgements while serving on the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals reveals that she is actually quite mainstream while proving to be a deep and thorough researcher and thinker and a clear and thorough writer.  She is not the crazy person out to single handedly return us to the Dark Ages that the Democrats would have us believe she is.

The Democrats want to attach Judge Barrett’s personal conservative views with which they disagree to how she would rule as a judge. As I noted above, I don’t think anyone can begin to guess how a judge would rule.  Both originalist/textualist and more liberal justices with other judicial philosophies often come to the same conclusion in a case. But the Democrats seem to be interviewing for an activist, not a justice.

Unlike the Democrats, I don’t really care about Judge Barrett’s personal life.  What little I know of it I respect; I also suspect that while she and I would have some things in common there are also many things about which we would disagree.  But she is not nominated to be my friend just as she is not nominated to be a policy advocate. 

Judge Amy Coney Barrett is nominated to be a Justice.  While I fully anticipate that she will reach some conclusions and write some opinions with which I disagree, I also expect that her legal reasoning behind her judgments will be impeccable.  And it is just that which we all should ask for and expect from a justice.

 

 

What the Kavanaugh Hearings Tell Us About America

Looking at the Kavanaugh nomination circus, anyone who has half a brain knows the process is broken, though sadly many choose not to see what they know.  So, what does this tell us – not only about the Kavanaugh hearings, but about America itself?  Let me suggest a few things.

We are losing America as we know it.   The original motto of our Country, adopted by act of Congress, in 1782, is “E pluribus Unum.”  That means “From many, one.”  Even though changed to "In God we trust" in 1956, "e pluribus unum" has been for 200+ years a perfect description of our country:  many diverse people with diverse views come together under one rule of law, set forth in the Constitution.  That Constitution’s guidelines allow us to hold our individual beliefs yet bind us together as one people who believe in liberty and justice for all.  It sets forth principles of due process which provide for fair and equal treatment and which are essential for any form of democracy.   Because we held our Constitution and the rule of law in high esteem, we were able to disagree, sometimes heatedly, about policy and actions of the country while at the same time all believing in and hoping for the success and vitality of our democracy and our country.

We have lost this.  With the rise of identity politics we have devolved into tribes, each concerned primarily with their own interests and not with the good of the country or of the individuals who make up one or another tribe.  We have become willing to ignore the rule of law and the Constitution as tribe fights against tribe.

The Kavanaugh hearing has become about women and the MeToo movement.  Dr. Ford has lost her individual identity to become simply a representative of the tribe of MeToo women.  That tribe seems to be at war with the tribe of white, conservative men as represented by Judge Kavanaugh, or simply the tribe of non-activist judges that one would anticipate a non-liberal president to appoint. 

Dr. Ford is not all women; she is one woman, one individual and this is one alleged event.  This is not a trial of all women vs. all men.  Yet that is what it seems to have become.  And, in so becoming we have thrown out the core democratic principles of due process.  Now, rather than evidence, what matters is who puts on the best show – who is the most “compelling” witness, who cries or does not cry, who is the most sympathetic.  We ask “should a man be brought to tears by what he claims is an unfounded allegation?”  Does that mean he is weak?  What we are doing is painting all men with one brush, not seeing each person as the individual he or she is.  We are one tribe against another.

We see the rise of tribes playing out in our elections as well.  We are told to vote for someone because they are a woman or a Native American or a Black or an Hispanic or an Immigrant or a Republican or a Democrat or a veteran or a Muslim or – the list goes on.  We no longer look for the candidate who is best for America, but the one who will represent the tribe that we may happen to favor.  Similarly, in the Kavanaugh nomination, we have forgotten about the Constitution and the qualifications of a Justice.  It has become nothing more than a battle for tribal power.

Looking at the Kavanaugh hearings, we should be alarmed by how little the Constitution means to so many.  We should be alarmed at how the media, rather than present facts objectively and fully to the people, participate as propaganda machines for one or another tribal interest.  It has almost become a game – whom do you believe?   It is little more than a reality show; I’m surprised they haven’t asked people to call in with their judgment – text 1 for Kavanaugh, 2 for Ford.  This is not justice, this is not due process, this is not representative of what the Constitution and this Country stand for.

The Kavanaugh circus, which has turned into a Show Trial and which ignores the rule of law demonstrates how easily we are able to ignore the Constitution.  This ignoring of process began when the Democrats sat on Dr. Ford’s allegation when they could have brought it forth in closed session during the original hearing.  The Democrats chose not to do so, but instead held it as a weapon, meanwhile finding a lawyer and Democrat operative to advise Ford.  Only when it seemed that Kavanaugh would be confirmed did the Democrats bring the allegation forward – not for Ford, but as a weapon against Kavanaugh.  At that point I wish Sen. Grassley had said, “too bad, too late, hearing closed.  Go bring your allegation in court.”  But he did not.  Because of fear of the MeToo coalition he put the rules aside and reopened the hearing.  Then, when the Democrats weren’t yet ready to present Ford we had delay upon delay upon delay as hearing deadlines came and went for things like her “fear of flying” which we learned from her own testimony is bogus.  Her lawyers wouldn’t agree to the committee's offer to come to Dr. Ford when they were under the impression she feared flying, but again, from Ford’s testimony it appears she was never told this was a possibility.  This all reeks of stall tactics not for justice or concern for Dr. Ford, but as part of the attack on Judge Kavanaugh and the tribe he represents, a tribe which has been declared the enemy of the Democrats.

This ease with which we ignore the rule of law that once held us together sets a very dangerous precedent.  In the Kavanaugh circus we have thrown out the rules because of fear of various tribal interests and emotional hysteria.  There is no due process for either party and the Constitution and rule of law have become a casualty as people justify the use of any means necessary to achieve their end goal of victory for their tribe.   This has become an example of mob rule, not rule of law.  In this case, by following the precedent that the rules don't matter, the vote on Kavanaugh could be delayed forever as the Kavanaugh opponents parade out allegation after allegation and demand investigation after investigation. Like Stalin's Beria, they have their victim, they will continue to search for the crime.  This case is especially troubling because of the way the Democrats have used Ford, demonstrating that they care less about the individual and her anguish than about their own political power.

But, beyond this case, we are seeing a precedent where we are willing to ignore the rule of law – the constitution – to serve political ends.  If we are willing to do that here, then really that document, the Constitution, that binds us all together with rights and responsibilities that apply to all, has lost its meaning.  And when it has lost its meaning then we as a country have lost our meaning – we are no longer one people, but a bunch of tribes each fighting for our own interests. 

This crisis of America did not begin with the Kavanaugh hearing.  It has been building for years – years long before Donald Trump even became a politician.  It is fueled by lack of education about the fundamentals of our government and objective history of our country and its place in the world.  It is fueled by a media that cares less about truth than about ratings and that is more than willing to become a propaganda machine for one or another group.  And, it is boosted by the use of identity politics that raise a tribal identity over the individual and then foment the hatred of one tribe against another.

America is now, however, at a true and important crossroad.  Will we continue on the path of tribalism, or will we stand against it and for the unified America that holds the Constitution and the rule of law as its unifying and guiding principle?  Will we assume that all people of a particular tribe think and act the same, or will we recognize people as the individuals that they are?  Are we willing to sacrifice our individual voices and the reason and fairness of the rule of law to a world where tribe fights tribe by suppressing all opposing voices?  Or, are we able to accept our imperfect democracy and work to save it?  Are we still able to welcome diverse voices and viewpoints all with a common cause of protecting and defending the Constitutional freedoms, rights, and responsibilities that have made America a shining example to the world for over 200 years? 

Now is the time to decide, because once we throw out our common purpose and its guiding principle, then it will be very hard, if not impossible, to get it back.   I truly believe that anyone who cares about this country and the freedom, justice, and fairness for which it stands needs to stand up and speak out now or I really fear what we will become.