SCOTUS Leak - Part 2

 There are two distinct issues involved in the SCOTUS leak.  The first is the act of the leak itself.  I addressed that yesterday.   The act of leaking this document, regardless of what was leaked, is a direct attack on the Court itself, a core institution and bastion of our democracy.  The gravity of this act in and of itself should not be diminished.

The second issue relates to the actual leaked document and its substance.  That I will address today.

What was leaked

First, let’s be clear on what the leaked document is.  It is a draft opinion, written by Justice Alito, in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org.  The draft is not the final opinion but one intended for the Justices to review as they each decide how they will vote to decide this case.  The opinion indicates that the court may be on the verge of overturning Roe v. Wade.

What does it mean

The actual meaning of this draft opinion, if it were to become the final decision of the Court, is far different from much of the rhetoric being bandied about by the Left and the pro-abortion lobby. 

You may read the draft opinion for yourself here:  LINK TO OPINION 

Essentially this draft opinion explains the shaky base upon which Roe v. Wade has always stood.  Justice Ginsburg, a strong abortion advocate, warned about this when she said that Roe should not have gone beyond striking down the particular statute involved in that case.  She stated, “Suppose the court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force." 

It was this abuse of judicial authority, the unconstitutional removal of states’ rights, that has made Roe both controversial and unconstitutional from the start.  The draft opinion clearly explains the Constitutional basis and the logic behind the necessity of overturning Roe v. Wade.

The draft opinion does not outlaw abortion.  Rather, it returns the decisions about whether and to what extent to restrict or not restrict abortion to the states where these decisions and regulations properly and constitutionally lie.

The draft opinion specifically states that it does not apply to other rights that have been held to exist:  this opinion, if it becomes law, will not end the right to gay marriage, it will not end interracial marriage (yes, that is being asserted by the Left), nor will it affect any other aspects of the culture wars.

What this draft opinion will do, if adopted by the Court as the final opinion, will return abortion regulation to the states.  Some states will likely have very restrictive laws.  Others will have no restrictions whatsoever.  Most will be somewhere in between.  What that means is the less restrictive states will actually allow abortion well beyond that which Roe allowed.

Why now

So the pro-abortion activists are clearly upset that Roe may be overturned.  But why was this draft leaked now?

The draft was written in February.  Why not then? 

If this is to be the final opinion, or whatever the final decision of the Court is, it will be released by the end of the Court’s term in June.  Those unhappy with the decision could just as easily protest then. 

If the intent is to rile up the base before the midterms, that could just as easily be done once the opinion is released – June is still well before the midterms.

Clearly the opinion will serve as a distraction from Biden’s many other crises.  But his crises existed in February and there is no reason to believe they will disappear by June. Indeed,  Biden has needed distractions almost from day one of his presidency, so why now?

As I see it there are really only two clear possible answers, and actually they easily coalesce into one:  an attack on the Court and its rule of law.

First, this may be an attempt to influence the Justices’ final votes in this case.  The thought behind this would be that if the protesting voices are loud enough, perhaps they will sway the Justices away from their duty to decide based upon the law and instead decide upon popular opinion.  Essentially this is an effort to replace the rule of law with rule of the mob.

And this leads right into the second possible reason:  to inflict a hopefully fatal wound upon the Court and with it the rule of law, a basic necessity of our democratic and free society. 

The Court is the protector of our Constitution, our system of Justice, and the rule of law.  While various groups and individuals may be unhappy with aspects of these institutions, while we must all admit that none is perfect and that mistakes are made, they are the core of this country.  Anyone who would attack them either has no understanding of them or of the institution of the Court, or so hates this country that they would destroy its very core. 

So perhaps the individual or individuals or group that attacked the court simply would rather see an America of mob rule than one of law and justice.  Or perhaps they simply had no idea of what they were doing – perhaps their understanding of our democracy is so lacking that they allowed some need for a moment of personal gratification to overcome their rationality or sense of ethics.  I don’t know.  What I do know is that this act has created a breach of trust so deep that the Court may never recover.

Now what

There is a lot of rhetoric, much of it false and misleading, that is circulating as a result of the leak and that is being used by various entities for various purposes.

The pro abortionist lobby will do its best to stir up protests.  They hope these protests will not only change the minds of the Justices, but also encourage states to enact liberal abortion laws that allow abortion up to and even beyond birth.

The Democrats will use the rhetoric to campaign in a year in which their polls show they are losing badly.   They will use it to push for an end to the filibuster as a way to enact broad abortion statutes that deny the states their rights to enact their own laws. 

The Democrats will also use this as a reason to stack the court with enough justices so that the court becomes a political arm and rubber stamp for their policies rather than a protector of the Constitution and of the people whom that Constitution is designed to protect. (Note:  Stacking is not the same as appointing Judicial replacements who hold a particular judicial philosophy.  Stacking is increasing the number justices and then appointing a sufficient percentage of that new number with individuals/activist judges with a particular political point of view so that the Left’s policies will always be affirmed.)

The Republicans may use the Democrats’ reactions to point out what hypocrites the Democrats are.  The Democrats like to tell us how they are fighting to preserve our democracy and its institutions, yet they are calling the leaker a hero and do not seem to understand why anyone would be upset about the leak.  Rather, as they repeatedly tell us, not only does the end justify the means, but one should never let a crisis go to waste.  Hence, their ethics see the leak as perfectly OK and a way for them to fundraise based upon the leaked document.

 We the people should:

1.      Make sure we understand the role of the Court within our government and its 3-branch system;

2.      Understand the Roe v. Wade opinion, the flawed logic on which it is based and what it does and does not allow;

3.      Understand what overturning Roe v. Wade would and would not mean;

4.      Understand that, while uncommon, the Supreme Court properly overturns bad law (for example, the Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, the case allowing segregation and establishing the concept of “separate but equal” when it decided Brown v. Board of Education);

5.      Hear the current rhetoric with a critical ear and a critical mind, understanding what is fact and what is false.

Overturning Roe v. Wade, if that is the ultimate decision of the Court, is not the end of the world.  It is not even the end of abortion.  If you have a stand on abortion, be it pro or con, you can work within your state as it crafts its abortion laws. 

What would be the end of our rights and freedoms would be to turn the main protector of those freedoms into just another political body.  Outrage should be directed towards those who are trying to do so.

Nothing But Big Bullies

 We hear about bullying on the schoolyard and we hear about cyberbullying.  But beyond the schoolyard, bullying can be very sophisticated.  Adult bullies may engage in smear campaigns against their targets rather than insult them to their faces. They might also enlist others to bully a target on their behalf.  Such a bully’s end goal is to humiliate or harm other individuals with the intent of ruining their reputation or harming their self-worth.

Bullies victimize others by using tactics including:  Intimidation, threats, insults, intentional exclusion, spreading rumors and lies.  Cyberbullying is: the use of electronic communication to bully a person.  It includes sending, posting, or sharing negative, harmful, false, or mean content about someone else

Cyberbullying can lead to anxiety, depression and even suicide. Teenagers and young adults are especially vulnerable to cyberbullying.

Political, religions, educational, corporate, entertainment, and social and news media leaders all claim to oppose and attempt to educate against it.  The Federal Government via the Dept. of Health and Human services even has a web site (https://www.stopbullying.gov/) designed to prevent cyberbullying.  Teenagers and young adults are especially vulnerable to cyberbullying.

Yet, what else but cyberbullying are the lies, slander, and continuing harassment against Kyle Rittenhouse (and before him Niholas Sandmann). 

In August of 2020 in Kenosha Wisconsin there was a demonstration that turned into a riot.  Seventeen-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse had attended that protest to help keep the peace (there is no evidence to contradict that statement of his intention).  At some point he legally became armed with an AK-47 as he served as guard for some private property. 

Video tape shows that Rittenhouse was attacked by protestors/rioters – one chased and threw items at him, another grabbed his gun, one stomped and kicked Rittenhouse while he was on the ground and a fourth admitted under oath that he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot at him.  Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed two men and wounded a third.  He asserted that he did so in self-defense.  Worth noting is that the people whom Rittenhouse shot were not Black.  Prior to the shooting incident Rittenhouse had been seen, in addition to protecting the private property, to be cleaning up graffiti and debris caused by the protesters with whom those shot were in solidarity. 

Within hours, the Left and the media had decided that young Rittenhouse was guilty of murder, was a White supremacist and racist, was a right-wing fanatic and Trump supporter and should be destroyed.  They had no evidence of any of this and still do not.  Nonetheless, it fit the narrative to turn this boy into an evil scapegoat for all of their hate and anger.

Their rush to judgment was arrived at and as evidence came out that began to prove that judgment false, the media and the Left did not back off or apologize but instead doubled down.  The President called Rittenhouse a White Supremacist and to this moment has not withdrawn that unfounded and slanderous claim.  The narrative of the Left demanded guilt, not truth.

Once charged by an over-zealous prosecutor with several felonies that were not supportable with evidence, Kyle Rittenhouse, his family, his defense team and others associated with the case received numerous death threats.  Kyle was called names and threated on social media.  The news media referred to him as a murderer, and someone who should be put away – hopefully for life.  They named him as the poster boy for racism, hatred, white privilege and every other thing that they like to blame for victimhood. 

Again, let’s remember that those shot were not Black.  The Left’s reasoning apparently goes something like this:  The riot had been the eventual result of protests against a police shooting of a Black man.  The protest/riot was against the police who should be condemned for their systemic racism.  Therefore, anyone who was not protesting/rioting and especially anyone who was there to support calls for peace and/or to support law enforcement must of necessity be a White supremacist – the sort of person we need to get rid of.  Anyone with just a passing brush with logic will see the illogic of this thinking!

As the case worked its way through the slow and deliberative judicial system where actual facts were brought forth and actual laws reviewed the Left bullies tried to intimidate the jury into condemning Kyle Rittenhouse.  Then, even when the jury of citizens examined both facts and law (as opposed to narrative) and reached their verdict of not guilty on all counts, the press, the Left, and even the President continue their attacks on and harassment of Kyle Rittenhouse.  They seem determined to ruin his life for the rest of his days.  Many seek federal and civil actions against this young person. 

Why do they continue to bully Kyle Rittenhouse?  Not because there is any justification to do so.  Rather it is just because they did not get what they wanted; they cannot accept a verdict that did not go their way.  It is a threat to their power which they seem to believe is, or should be, absolute.

The attacks and bullying were similar in the case of Nicholas Sandmann whom you will recall stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in January 2019, wearing a MAGA hat while a native American activist stood in his path.  Nicholas, who was 16 at the time, did nothing but was immediately determined to be guilty of some sort of confrontation and of course of White Supremacy.  When video came out disproving the narrative of the Left and the media, again they did not apologize or back off but instead doubled down on their bullying of young Sandmann.

In an interview this past week discussing Kyle Rittenhouse, Sandmann stated that he has found it difficult to return to normal life after watching CNN, MSNBC and others report irresponsibly on his encounter with Native American elder Nathan Phillips.  "It was like a car crash you can't look away from, you are not able to look away. My eyes were glued to the TV watching my character get torn apart.”

He further described what bullying at a national level can do to a teen. “Well, it’s terrible, and I’ll tell you why. As a 17-year-old, in Kyle’s case, and mine 16, your mind is still developing, and so, to deal with an overload of stress where you have this feeling that half of the country, hundreds of millions of people hate you for something that you’re innocent of, but how you are painted, it can do a lot to you mentally. It takes a very strong will to be able to resist that and keep a level head. I know that Kyle is probably dealing with that right now.”

If this all isn’t bullying I don’t know what is.  Like school bullies, the media, the Left, the Democrat administration and leaders irresponsibly rush to judgment, condemn, bully, intimidate, and harass, with no concern for the young lives they are destroying.  It is about their power just as any bullying is about power. 

According to the mental health site verywellmind.com,  bullying is linked to power imbalances:  bullies target those with less power than they have.  “People who engage in this conduct: feel powerless, suffer from insecurity, need to control others, and enjoy the rewards they get from bullying.”

This is all about attacking positions and policies that contradict those put forward by the Left, its media, and its politicians.  They would do away with opposition and hence give themselves more power. 

The political bullying of the Left is, moreover, a bullying of our entire country.  We are a nation governed by law.  The refusal of the Left to accept the legal process, to assert a right to attack that very process when they do not get their way, is dangerous not only to those involved but for everyone of us who benefit from the freedoms we enjoy that are protected by that rule of law.

Bullying is wrong.  We all know it is wrong.  We teach school children not to bully.  And we tell those witnessing to speak up and stop the bullying.  Verywellmind states:

Bystanders can play important roles in ending the bullying they see, particularly if they are in positions of power or have the same rank as the bully. Rather than turning a blind eye to bullying, witnesses can call out the bully or report the bully’s behavior to others. Witnesses can also take the initiative by backing up the target’s accounts about the bully. Unfortunately, many bystanders don’t speak up because they’re afraid they’ll become the bully’s next target.

We are all bystanders to the horrendous bullying of the media and the Left.  Perhaps we are willing to tolerate it when the bullying is between politicians.  But when children are bullied because they stand by their values, follow the law, but take a position contrary to the Left narrative, we must speak up.  Yes, we may very well become the bully’s next target (personal experience tells me that will happen) but that should not stop us. 

We cannot turn a blind eye.  The Left has chosen to bully its way to power.  The media has joined that march, giving up any semblance of objective journalism.  It is up to we the people to call out the political bullying that is going on all around us.  Even if done by a party with whose policies you agree, bullying is not the way to support and enact those policies. 

We all know the saying “If you see something, say something.”  We must speak up or the bullies will destroy our country.

The Verdict

I am troubled by the Derek Chauvin verdict, though I will not second guess the jurors.  My concern is that the circus atmosphere of the trial puts our entire justice system at risk.

Let’s review a few facts about the circumstances surrounding and leading up to this trial which took place nearly a year after George Floyd’s death.  During that year we have had a continuing barrage of not just laments over Mr. Floyd’s death, but of Black deaths in general, and especially police shootings of Blacks.  There have been riots not only in Minneapolis, but across the country supportive of Black Lives Matter and Police Reform, Defunding of Police, and allegations of systemic racism in both policing and the justice system. 

The jurors, unless they were in a coma for the past year, had to have been subjected to the repeated assertions by the media that George Floyd was murdered by Derek Chauvin and subjected to showings and re-showings of a short but ugliest portion of the video of the entire somewhat lengthy event and incidents surrounding Mr. Floyd’s death.

The jury for the trial, once selected, were not sequestered though they were cautioned not to listen to or read stories about the Chauvin trial.  Well, these jurors left their homes each day and traveled through streets with protestors and national guardsmen, went through heightened security at the courthouse each day, and traveled home again.  There is a 24-hour news cycle that blasts around us daily.  That news cycle had for the most part already tried and convicted Derick Chauvin of murder.  If those jurors were not aware of the threats of violence surrounding the case they were hearing, then again, they must have been in a coma.

They were not sequestered when new riots broke out over a different police shooting with more assertions of police racism.  They were not sequestered when pig’s blood was smeared on the former home of a Chauvin defense witness.  They were not sequestered when threats were made of riots and worse if the verdict was not guilty.  They were not sequestered when the city settled the Floyd family case for $27 million during the trial with the surrounding narrative that this must mean Chauvin is guilty.  And they were not sequestered when Rep. Waters uttered what was essentially a threat for the rioters to “become even more confrontational” if the jurors did not return a guilty verdict. 

The jurors were sequestered at the end of the trial for their deliberation, so they did not hear the President’s admonition that the evidence was overwhelming, and he prayed they would get the verdict right, nor did they hear the news of his call to the Floyd family to support them.  But by then they had heard enough. 

The jurors had significant but limited knowledge about the events before they became actual jurors.  They swore to render their verdict only on the law and the evidence presented at the trial.  Much new evidence came out at trial that the media had not shared – evidence that might raise reasonable doubts about the narrative.  But was it, after a year of daily hearing the media’s narrative, too late to look at new and contrary evidence objectively?  Was it too late to honestly determine there might be reasonable doubt about that narrative?  We don’t know, and perhaps even the jurors themselves don’t know.

Was the threat of violence to their city, their hometown, even their own homes and their families a factor in the jurors’ deliberations?  We don’t know and they may not really know that either.

And that is the problem.  This trial was turned into some sort of proceeding on the state of social justice in America.  But a trial is not about a concept or a cause.  A trial is about a very specific incident and the facts and law that are exclusively relevant to that incident.  When one tries to make a trial about something else then those involved in that trial’s proceedings do not get justice.  And the irony here is that if you don’t have justice then you can’t have social justice.

We know that the jurors were bombarded with publicity that included information, misinformation, and disinformation about George Floyd and his death for close to a year before the trial began and that the publicity continued to surround them throughout the trial.  We know that they deliberated for only 10 and a half hours which did not provide much time to review three weeks’ worth of evidence and to make sure they were looking only at that evidence and not the year’s publicity. 

We know that despite the complexity of the laws involved and legal interpretations of terms therein, that the jurors asked no questions of the Judge during their 10 and a half hours of deliberation.  We know that it took the jury only 10 and a half hours to elect a foreperson, to review the law and evidence, and render unanimous guilty verdict on 3 counts, all requiring different criteria be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I said at the start, I will not second guess the jurors, but it is hard to have the confidence in this verdict that I usually have in jury verdicts.  My experience as a lawyer and a legal observer has generally been that jurors try their best to follow the law and the facts and reach a fair verdict and I will trust that is what the Chauvin jurors did.  But was that possible given the circus that surrounded them for the year prior to and then during this trial?  We will likely never know the definitive answer to that question. 

And that is why this is so troubling.

Because, if you cannot fully trust our legal and especially our jury system, then you cannot trust the law.  And if it even appears that a jury can be swayed by media narrative or by threats of violence then that is what we can look forward to in future litigation.

When we look again at the specific defendant in this trial, there is more to trouble us.  Derek Chauvin is a police officer.  I know that he is entitled to a jury of his peers, and apparently the lawyers and the court were satisfied with the jury, but I don’t know if there was even one police officer on the jury.  I do know that defendants who happen to fall within certain identity groups often demand that their juries consist of members of that same identity group.

The fact that this was the trial that resulted due to actions of a police officer during a criminal stop and detention means that the verdict here will have ramifications that will affect police behavior in the future, especially if there is the possibility or perception that this was not a just verdict.  If police feel that whenever someone is injured during a difficult arrest that they can be tried, possibly unfairly, then they will hold back on some actions that are necessary for them to do their job and keep the people of their jurisdictions safe.  This does not serve any of us well.

The ramifications of this verdict will also resonate with the social justice warriors.  We already have assertions that this trial has proven that systemic racism exists.  Just a note:  this was the trial of one police officer for one action; it was not the trial of whether or not systemic racism exists.  Yet apparently those calling for remaking or removal of police generally, see this verdict as a hefty bonus to their cause. 

Many believe that their demonstrations, rioting, and threats of violence are what resulted in this verdict.  Even the President suggests that it was the people coming to the streets that gave us this verdict (of which he approves).  Essentially this is a belief that the mob, not justice, won.  President Biden now calls on the country to continue to “listen to the activists” who have protested about police brutality since George Floyd’s death.  

But this was a trial.  It was not a judgement about the message of activists. Activists have their role.  But that role does not include swaying a jury trial.  Indeed, attempts to do that are usually considered to be jury tampering and subject to severe penalties.  Yet when even our President, with his encouragement of following narrative not fact, shows us that he does not understand the separate roles of activist and  juror, then we can certainly expect more demand for mob rule and less respect or support for the rule of law.

There were only 12 jurors at the Derek Chauvin trial, and I was not one of them.  Nor was the media or the President.  I did watch parts of the trial and I am left with some reasonable doubt.  The jurors have told us there is no such doubt and we must respect that verdict.  But no matter how seriously those jurors took their oaths of objectivity and to follow only the law and evidence presented at trial, given the year long circus leading up to and surrounding this trial, I question whether it could ever have been fair.

I will always wonder if Derek Chauvin was truly guilty of the crimes charged or if he was simply the sacrificial lamb that had to be slaughtered to assuage the guilt for the systemic racism that allegedly exists.  But anyone who thinks that with this verdict the anger and violence, the hatred and claims of racism will end is dreaming.  My fear is that this verdict will add to increased belief in and reliance on mob rule while justice and the rule of law become the ultimate victims. 

When Justice Disrupts the Narrative

"Justice is not often easy, does not fit the mold of public opinion, and it does not conform to shifting standards.  It answers only to the facts and to the law."                                                                                    -Daniel Cameron, Kentucky Attorney General

Breonna Taylor’s death was a tragedy.  In a way she was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron presented a detailed account of the facts of this case, found after a lengthy and thorough investigation, in a news conference Wednesday.  That transcript can be found HERE 

Essentially, police officers were executing a search warrant at Ms. Taylor’s residence.  Note that the purpose, validity, and obtainment of the warrant are separate issues from the actions of the officers who were actually carrying out the warrant.  This investigation addressed the events that actually took place within Ms. Taylor’s apartment. 

Verified facts establish that the officers knocked and announced their presence and, when there was no response, they breached the door.  They were met in the hallway by Ms. Taylor and Kenneth Walker.  Mr. Walker had a gun and fired at an officer who was hit in the leg with the bullet.  Mr. Walker admitted that he shot first.  The wounded officer returned fire as did another officer.  Ms. Taylor was struck by 6 bullets, one of which was fatal.

This evidence in far more detail was presented to a Grand Jury whose purpose it is to investigate allegations of criminal conduct and determine if there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and to protect the public against unfounded criminal prosecutions where probable cause is lacking.  The Grand Jury was comprised of fellow citizens of both Ms. Taylor and the officers.  The Grand Jury returned only an indictment against one officer for three counts of wanton endangerment for endangering the lives of three individuals in another apartment.   

No homicide charges were brought against any of the officers.  Such charges were found not to be applicable on the facts of the case because the officers were justified in the return of deadly fire after having been fired upon by Mr. Walker.

Those are the facts.  Yet some people are not willing to accept the facts or not willing to accept what the facts mean in our system of justice.  Justice requires that emotions be put aside and facts be examined objectively (often signified by blind lady justice holding the scales).  Justice is not achieved via emotion or mob rule.

I have no doubt that Ms. Taylor’s family, friends, and others are outraged by her death.  But that does not mean that they have the right to blame those officers who were only doing their job.  It does not mean that they have the right to seek revenge from those who are not responsible for her death.  It does not give them the right to act out their very real pain by destroying others.  And it certainly does not give anyone the right to form a destructive and riotous mob. 

This is an incident unique to itself.  It is not part of some institutional and calculated plan.  It has its own very unique facts which we now have before us.  To use this incident to justify a disregard of actual justice, to use it to justify a disregard of our Nation’s basis in the rule of law is wrong.  Yet the Left seems to have no problem doing this.

As soon as Ms. Taylor was pronounced dead the demonstrations began.  No facts yet, only raw emotion.  Stir up protests, some peaceful some not, around the country, claiming this death is one of many that are not seen as individual tragedies but simply as proving some point about some systemic failure.  That is not justice, not for Ms. Taylor and not for our country.

This evening the progressive Democrat mayor of Albuquerque made a statement about the case.  After saying he was not a lawyer and thus couldn’t comment he then went on to comment.  He asserted that the Brionna Taylor decision is “out of step with what we’re trying to do in America.”

What????  What exactly are "we" trying to do in this country?  If it is to follow the rule of law, let objective facts determine justice, then this case was absolutely in step.  It is not the decision that the mob wanted, it is not the decision that the Left would like to see, but it is the honest decision when one looks dispassionately at the facts.  That is justice.

So what does he mean when he says it is out of step with what we want to do?  And, who is “we”?  I hazard a guess that “we” is the progressive Left that is not interested in rule of law, but rather rule of passion or emotion.  The Left wanted the facts of this case to create a narrative of systemic police brutality against Blacks.  But the facts did not cooperate.

Perhaps the “we” is trying to create a new system governed not by equal justice for all, but rather one in which some people are excused or manufactured into victims based on race while others are condemned based on occupation (in this instance police officer).  Perhaps the decision here is out of step because it does not further the divisive identity group hatreds continually being fomented by the Left.

Real justice does not bend to political desires.  It does not bend to threats and violence.  It does not bend to the will of the mob.  It bends to the law and to the facts.  When the real and honest people of the Grand Jury reviewed the facts of this case, they returned their decision.  It is a just decision, regardless of what the Left would like or the mob demand. 

So now we will watch Kentucky burn as too many people act out their anger and their hurt that they did not get what they wanted, that the decision did not find the police or anyone else guilty for Ms. Taylor’s tragic death.  Justice is not always satisfying; it is not a means of revenge nor an antidote for the deep pain of seemingly senseless loss.  Justice is impartial.  It is based on law, fact, and reason. 

This decision represents a victory for justice, a victory for the rule of law, and as such it is a victory for America.  And when those unhappy with the decision finish acting out, I hope they will be able to objectively realize that it is very much in step with America and her ideal of equal justice for all.

 

It Ain't Over Til It's Over

And this will never be over.

(The Scream by Edvard Munch)

Some reflections on the Impeachment Show.

Here are some brief thoughts on the Impeachment Trial itself along with what it tells us about the Democrats.

1.  To those who keep asserting that if there is some personal motive or gain then that makes an otherwise legal/unimpeachable act illegal/impeachable: My guess is that every official act/vote by the senators is done in part for personal gain or other personal motive (most likely for better re-election chances).  The actions of senators may be done for other reasons as well (to further policy they believe in & on which they campaigned for example) and the acts then are constitutional but to follow the reasoning of the Schiff crew, the fact that a senator might also place him/herself in a better position for an upcoming election would make the acts impeachable.  Essentially, to follow their logic, the entire Congress, both chambers, should all be impeached.

2.  Does no one understand how our system of justice works?  In a trial the prosecution or plaintiff brings a complaint.  If that complaint is insufficient, the case will be dismissed.  If after discovery (investigations, depositions of witnesses, etc.) the case is still insufficient to state a claim, then it will be dismissed.  During the period of discovery, some subpoenas as well as other discovery requests and even specific questions may be challenged and decisions on those challenges may be appealed.    Asserting one’s right to question the legitimacy of a discovery request is not an obstruction against the body that made the request. It is not some sort of cover-up.

Justice requires time and patience; its goal is to get it right, not to meet some deadline favorable to an upcoming election.

It is not the duty of the deciding body to find the witnesses and do the investigation.   Some trials will be decided on the pleadings and discovery alone.  Contrary to Ms. Pelosi, witnesses are not required at the trial for it to be a “real” trial.  When a case reaches its conclusion, with or without witnesses, if there is a decision that the defendant is acquitted, then that is a valid decision.

In this case, the House did its investigation, called its witnesses, etc. and determined they had an “overwhelming case” for impeachment.  They brought that to the Senate where, for the first time, the President was able to present his position.  It became clear that the House did not have even an arguable case.  It further became clear that new witnesses, while they might dislike the President and have negative things to say about him or his policies, had no relevant information about the charges brought to the Senate by the House.  Their testimony would be nothing more than a waste of time.  This is not some sort of cover-up, much as the Democrats would like it to be, but is simply an appropriate decision about their case.

3.  It ain’t over til it’s over, and this will never be over.   The Democrats will refuse to accept the acquittal just as they refused to accept the very through investigation and conclusions of the Mueller report, just as they refused to acknowledge evidence that disproved their 11^th hour me-too assault on Justice Kavanaugh, just as they have refused, since November of 2016, to accept Donald J. Trump as the duly elected and legitimate President of the United States of America.  They have yet to understand that their hatred of President Trump does not make him illegitimate, just as it does not make his policies with which they disagree illegal or his manner and leadership style in effectuating those policies unconstitutional.   

Yet, it is clear from the Democrats and their supportive media that they will continue to dig and dig for dirt that will give them the opportunity to try once again to remove the people’s choice from office.  They would rather do that than the business that they were elected to conduct.

4.  In the end, it’s the People’s decision.  You cannot impeach a President just because you don’t like him and you fear that he will continue to act in a manner you don’t like.  The way to fix that is to present an alternate candidate at the next election and let the People decide.  The Democrats seem to think that they know better than the voters who should be president and they are willing to usurp the People’s voice in order to install their choice into the Oval Office.  That is simply un-American.  It is indeed a coup attempt. 

5.  For this country to work, we must both understand and respect our Constitution and our laws.   As a lawyer I have been and continue to be appalled by the Democrats’ continuing disregard for our Constitution, our legal system, and this country’s core principles of justice.  They, of course, are doing it for very political reasons, all of which extend from their desire for power.  But even more appalling is that so many are willing to accept their distortions about our core principles and values, to accept their contempt for our Constitution and system of justice.  In part I blame this on a lack of education about these things; that, combined with a mainstream media that presents and supports the Democrat agenda rather than objective facts places our democracy in a precarious position indeed. 

I can only hope that as the dust from this ridiculous impeachment settles that the People will begin to realize what a farce it really was.  I can only hope that the People will begin to demand that their representatives begin doing their business rather than continuing to pursue their jihad of hate against the President as they seek to grab for themselves what is the People’s power.

Social Justice or Actual Justice For All?

Social Justice is not actual Justice.  It should not replace actual justice and the media should not take sides in helping it to do so.

What is social justice?  It is a concept that involves fair relations between various classes of society and usually involves the distribution of wealth, opportunity, property, and privileges within that society.  Social justice causes often fall into sociological categories that easily correlate to those involved in identity politics: race, gender, age, sexual orientation, religion, nationality. 

Justice is that which allows for fair adjudication between competing claims.  Decisions are based on rules such as the law and the Constitution that provide for fair and equal adjudication between parties without regard to a party’s identity categorization.  Hence, the concept of “blind justice”:  justice will treat all individuals equally.

Justice cares about facts; social justice cares about causes.  Here are some examples of social justice warriors bringing their cause to a case where there are facts not supporting their cause:

• The #MeToo Warriors sought to advance their cause using the allegations of sexual misconduct against then nominee and now Justice Kavanaugh.  The facts did not support their cause.  The warriors chose to deny the facts and/or find them not important.
• The anti-Conservative/anti-Trump Warriors sought to attack and silence a group of high-school boys wearing MAGA hats by claiming that the boys had instigated a racist incident on the steps of the Lincoln memorial.  When video tapes and other information did not support their claims, they ignored those facts and continued to fault and attack the boys. 
• The Social Justice Warriors who believe that Trump is the antithesis of all their causes are supportive of any actions against him.  Thus, they support the Mueller investigation in the hopes that it will destroy the President and remove him from office.  Hence, they applaud tactics used by that investigation that at a minimum push the envelope towards denial of 4^th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure in the repeated use of gestapo-like tactics whenever someone closely related to Trump and his campaign are arrested.
• When a Black child was shot in her car and there was a White man in a pickup known to be nearby, without more the Warriors began demonstrations and claims against the White man whom they claimed was a racist and white supremacist and whom they immediately found guilty of the murder.  When facts proved that the White man was nothing more than a by-stander and that the child had been murdered by a Black man in a case of mistaken identity, the facts were again ignored. 
• The Warriors claim that Donald Trump is not qualified to be president, seemingly making one of the qualifications that the president be someone of whom they approve.  Again, they ignore the facts of our Constitution which clearly sets forth the qualifications: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”  Clearly, President Trump meets these qualifications, yet the Social Justice Warriors continue to claim he does not.

These are just of few of the more recent incidents that demonstrate that not only is social justice not the equivalent of justice, it is actually often its antithesis.  Social Justice will support lying to further its cause.  It accepts bearing false witness and accepts manufacturing facts that support its narrative and its causes.  It accepts and supports violation of our Constitution and our protected rights if those rights stand in the way of furthering the causes of the Social Justice Warriors.

This approach of the Social Justice Warriors goes hand-in-hand with identity politics that try to pit one identifiable group against another for political gain.  Identity politicians often try to pit a group that is less well-off in some way against another group with more of what the less well-off group lacks.  Socialists and Communists have long pitted the “workers” against the “bosses,” promising a better life to the workers if they will support the Socialist/Communist leaders. 

Identity politicians also pit one group against another; they convince one group that all their problems are due to another group and promise the first group that their life will be better if they support the identity politicians in their fight against the second group.   Look again at the list of social justice causes and see how they compare to identity political hatred:  race – fomenting minority anger against alleged White privilege; sexual orientation – fomenting LGBTQ anger against those whose religious beliefs, while demanding tolerance of diverse orientations do not condone such practices among their believers; nationality – fomenting anger of immigrants and especially illegal immigrants against all those who seek to contain illegal immigration regardless of their views on how broadly or narrowly the legal immigration laws should be drawn. 

Identity politics have always been with us to some extent, though I would argue that beginning with the previous administration they became a much more prevalent tactic, especially of the political Left.  But now, we have that Left using those tactics along with their claims of social justice as a way to negate a legitimate election and silence all who do not fully accept their views.  And the real victims in all of this are facts and the rule of law – the two things that are necessary for justice to prevail.

True Justice, true Fairness, requires that all be treated equally and that the rights of all, not just those of this or that favored group, be protected.  For rights to be protected, facts must be heard, verified, and accepted.  Partisans can argue over what the facts mean and what is their significance, but they cannot deny or make up facts to suit their purposes. 

The problem currently is that the partisans, with the help of the 24-hour news cycle and a partisan press, rile up their appropriate identity groups first.  Then, when facts are revealed, those facts no longer matter as the mobs scream for their latest social justice cause.  Worked into a frenzy, rationality is lost.  That is just the state that the Social Justice Warriors need their supporters to be in – a state where feelings can be used and manipulated, a state where specific identity groups can be characterized as enemies not entitled to basic rights, or to fair treatment under law, a state where the chosen identity group will believe the promises that they will have all their wants as well as needs fulfilled if they only support their social justice warriors. 

The problem with social justice and its identity political practices today is that it is by its very nature unfair.  The Social Justice Warriors believe that their chosen groups should have all that they demand while at the same time believing that it is appropriate and acceptable to silence and deny even basic rights to the groups they have designated as enemies and those not in line with their “social justice” positions.  Thus, for example, the Left assert their free speech rights, while seeking to deny free speech to those supporting the opposition – it is acceptable to silence and destroy those wearing MAGA hats, while supporting threats and attacks (both verbal and physical) by those on the Left against those on the Right.

Blacks Law Dictionary, defining law in jurisprudence, states that justice is “The constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due.”  This is very different from rendering every person, or every person on your side only, their every desire.  Justice is fairness – to all, not just to one favored group over another.  It takes into account the actions of the individual as a person, not as a mere identity caricature.  And, it requires a respect for the facts and the law. 

Social Justice may be based on high ideals; it can be simply a partisan political tactic.  In either event, it is not a synonym for Justice.    And while Justice allows for Social Justice to push its causes, Social Justice as currently practiced does not allow Justice for all.

Kavanagh – Today’s Thoughts.

So, now the Thursday hearing is in jeopardy and suddenly more accusers have discovered their memories.  Just a few points:

1. Ms. Ford has received far too many concessions already.  If this accusation had been brought in a court of law (as it should have been if the goal was justice and not political gain), a hearing date would have been set, Ford would have had to appear or her claim would be dismissed, and she would have no choice about who would question her or the format of the questions or of the hearing.  Fairness and due process would have been afforded to both parties.

2. This is not about justice for what Ms. Ford alleges happened.  This is about destroying a man whose views are not in accord with those who are now using Ms. Ford and a smear campaign to keep a qualified jurist from the bench.  They are willing to throw out rules of fairness, justice, democracy in order to further their own power.  They don’t care about Ms. Ford or the American people.  They just want to destroy their opposition.

3. The question before the Senate is whether or not Judge Kavanaugh should become Justice Kavanaugh, not whether rules of fairness and justice, including the concept of innocent until proven guilty, should be waived for any woman with an unsubstantiated accusation.

4. Nor should this one alleged incident be the sole criteria for the nomination.  Even if this were proven true, it would be one event – one teenage act of poor judgment – to be weighed with 30+ years of adulthood, and with especial emphasis on his proven abilities as a judge.  If one incident during the teen years when the mind is not fully developed is enough to destroy one’s life forever, than there are few people on earth whose lives should not be ruined.  In a court of law, crimes, including murder, that take place before adulthood are usually tried and sentenced in juvenile courts with likely expungement of records when adulthood is reached.  The law recognizes the difference between a teen indiscretion and an intentional adult act.

5. Women are not victims as the MeToo movement would have us believe.  Giving a MeToo accuser everything she wants simply because she brings forth an accusation does nothing for women’s rights.    We all know that not all accusations are true and that there are many reasons for bringing an accusation forward.  But to treat all accusations, especially those with no supporting evidence, as true cheapens those that are true and provable and in a way makes them more suspect.  Additionally, demanding that a woman be believed without more, without the due process that justice demands, in a way makes all women victims – they are apparently unable to stand up for themselves but instead must be coddled and believed with nothing more.  This is unfair to both men and women and horribly contrary to the justice that we all should demand.

6. I think women are strong – stronger than the treatment of Ms. Ford would have us believe.  When she decided to come forward (and especially because she had hired legal counsel) she knew what she was getting into.  She is a well educated woman; it is time we stopped babying her.   While she may or may not be emotionally distraught, this is America; we do not let any type of accuser (even those who represent some cause or identity group that many support) destroy another human being without far more than an accusation.  I suspect that Ms. Ford knows that even if she is being counseled otherwise.

7. Perhaps what Ms. Ford claims happened indeed did happen.  Perhaps there is more to the story.  Perhaps different individuals were involved.  Perhaps this is a memory that she has somehow constructed in her mind over the course of 36 years and truly believes it is true, even if it is not.  Or perhaps it is all a fabrication.  Since she has brought this allegation forward, she must allow her allegation to be questioned and examined in a way that is fair and just to both individuals involved.

8. This is a criminal allegation and should be given the due process standards that criminal allegations deserve.  It should not be tried in the media or the court of public opinion or based upon a political or identity group’s agenda.

9. These hearings are a complete farce.  Before they began we had the Democrats in unison telling us they would not vote for Kavanaugh no matter what was said at the hearings.  They had Ms. Ford’s accusation but did not bring it forward.  They waited, hoping it would look like Kavanaugh would not get the votes he needed, but, when the hearings ended and he had proven himself to be an outstanding jurist and the vote seemed certain in his favor, the Democrats then brought forward the unsubstantiated allegation and demanded a hearing.  That served as a nice delay.  And delay.  And delay.  And still delay.  The accuser and her Democrat attorneys made demands for the hearing that essential threw out any semblance of fairness, instead weighting the hearing in the accuser’s favor before it has even begun.  Sadly, the Republican leadership, apparently fearful of this woman who can’t stand up for herself or show up at a hearing, caved to many of the demands.  Yet we still have no certain hearing as demands continue.  And now, the call having been put out for more, we have other accusers.  Yet, all the witnesses named by the accusers have said nothing happened.  No matter.  It’s all about delay and keeping a good jurist from the bench.

10. We can easily infer that the Democrats’ concern is not with Ms. Ford or women victims of violence when we look at their reactions to members of their own party who have been accused with actual substantiating evidence, unlike this case.  When it is one of their own, the women are ignored, shamed, or in some other way silenced while excuses are made and inquiries are not held.  In those instances it is rare that there is a demand that the woman must always be believed.

11. This has really got to stop.  I don’t care how many more “memories” are suddenly found.  I don’t care what other concessions Ford and her attorneys demand.  There is a hearing set for Thursday.  She can come testify or she can go home.  Anyone else has had plenty of time to come forward.  They have lost their chance to testify here.  If they really feel aggrieved, let them go to a court of law and seek justice as Ms. Ford should have done.

12. This smear campaign, in addition to making a mockery of the judicial nomination process, has a frightening chilling effect on the future of our democracy.  If those who step forward to serve are forced to face what Judge Kavanaugh is now enduring, how can we expect good people to come forward?   This is a way of silencing those views with which one party does not agree.  A democracy requires diverse views.  It deserves good public servants who do not have to go through the equivalent of a Salem Witch trial and risk the destruction of their lives as well as the lives of their families in order to serve.

13. This whole circus is a full out attack on Democracy.  It is time that it stop, that a vote is taken and that decisions are made based on the criteria for sitting as a Justice, not on the basis of a 36 year old unsubstantiated teenage allegation and the undemocratic demand that all women must be believed, period, without more, without proof,  without due process for the accused, and in direct opposition to democracy’s core belief in innocent until proven guilty.  Proof does not and cannot consist of someone’s accusation alone.

14. I have trouble keeping up with this ridiculous spectacle.  I want to ignore it, but no American should.  Rather, we should all stand up against what is going on and demand a return to fairness, justice, and the rule of law.

My past 3 blogs have addressed some of the above and some other points in more detail – I encourage you to read them:

https://ps.pinkspolitics.com/2018/09/this-is-crucial-moment-for-america.html  This addresses the convergence of tactics used by the Left for over 30 years to keep conservative, non-activist jurists from the Appellate and Supreme Court benches with the use of identity politics and its companion hatred as a weapon against those standing in the way of a political agenda.

https://ps.pinkspolitics.com/2018/09/purging-enemies-of-party-with.html This includes the parallels between this demand of a guilt sentence upon accusation alone to the same tactics of accusation alone used by dictatorships to silence and remove the opposition.  It discusses democracy’s need for due process and fairness and a real belief in innocence until proof of guilt is shown.

https://ps.pinkspolitics.com/2018/09/its-about-more-than-nominee-its-about.html  This is about the broader implications for our country of this nomination and the farce that it has become.  If we let the Democrats get away with their antics, if we let them stop a perfectly valid nomination based on accusation and innuendo alone, then we are empowering further their assault on our democracy and we are well on the way to losing America as we know it.

See also: https://ps.pinkspolitics.com/2017/11/me-too-does-not-empower-you.html, a post from last year about the MeToo movement

Purging “Enemies of the Party” with Accusation Alone

In Communist Russia under Stalin, people were sent to the Gulag on accusation alone.  If there was a trial, is was a kangaroo court where the accused was already guilty.  This was the way that the country was purged of “enemies of the party.”  People's lives and the lives of their families were destroyed based on nothing more than a whispered accusation.

We like to think this wouldn’t happen here, that our country stands for freedom and justice.  A person is innocent until proven guilty.  Mere accusation alone is not enough; justice requires proof.  That justice, that freedom, is part of what our country stands for.

Or, so we thought.

This past week we have watched the destruction of a man’s life based on the accusation of one person alone.  No proof.  No evidence.  No innocence until proven guilty.  Brett Kavanaugh has been sent to the gulag of public hatred and his life, along with the life of his family, will never be the same.

To demand that a woman provide more than just an accusation – here one that is about something alleged to have happened 36 years ago – is not an attack on that woman.  It is simply a demand for the fairness and justice that our country demands. 

I don’t know if some incident happened or did not, but if it did, it apparently did not have enough impact to cause the “victim” to have any sort of contemporaneous reaction.   Aside from her word, there is apparently no evidence that the incident did indeed occur.  This may change now that we have a group of Democrat operatives hired who are putting out the call for something more, though new evidence suddenly appearing at this point should be suspect.  Essentially, we now have her word against his.  If we get more sudden memories on both sides it is still just their word against their word. 

In this country we require evidence.  We have rules.  We do not have lynch mobs.  Or at least we didn’t used to.   But what is the press and the Democrat behavior but that of a lynch mob out to destroy Judge Kavanaugh?  Of course, that destruction is part of a greater plan.  Just as Stalin and his right hand man Beria rounded up and destroyed all enemies of the party – anyone with any kind of dissenting viewpoint – so the Democrats are one by one trying to destroy anyone associated with Trump and his policies because those dissenting views are enemies of their party.

Does anyone really think that the Democrats care at all about Ms. Ford other than as her use as a weapon in their own fight for power?  Or that they really even care about the act of sexual abuse?  If they do, why are they not investigating their own darling Rep. Ellison for the far more substantiated allegations against him?  Why do Democrats including Feinstein and Hirono (both of whom are so “outraged” about Kavanaugh’s behavior of which they have already and without proof determined him guilty) take campaign funding from a fellow Democrat who admitted hitting his wife?  Why do the same Democrat lawyers and operatives who are working with Ms. Ford defend Al Franken and Bill Clinton for the again far more substantiated claims against them? 

This has nothing to do with MeToo or women’s rights or sexual abuse.  It has everything to do with the Democrats' unquenchable thirst for power.  And, more importantly, in taking a page from the playbook of Stalin and Beria, it is a direct assault upon our freedom and our system of government.

Today I thought that this circus would be on its way to being over.  But the farce continues.  Ms. Ford was given a deadline of 10 am this morning to indicate if she would testify, but that deadline has passed and yet, as of this writing,  “negotiations” continue. 

We have rules for a reason.  In the Senate they allow for an orderly process.  In the case of the Kavanaugh nomination, a hearing was scheduled, Kavanaugh was questioned, witnesses appeared, and the hearing closed.  The next step should have been a vote.  The ranking Democrat on the Committee, Diane Feinstein, had received the accusation from Kavanaugh’s accuser before the hearing began.  She still refuses to share the letter she received with the full committee, but apparently she had shared it with her Democrat colleagues because they asked questions that in hindsight were obviously intended to be able to catch him in a lie about the accusation.  Feinstein could have brought the accusation forward at the hearing so that the committee could consider it, possibly seek more information from the accuser.  She chose not to.  The hearing ended and then, as a vote was scheduled, she raised the issue.  Instead of saying "you had your chance, too late," the vote was canceled and a date was planned for the “victim” to testify or tell her story.  Then the accuser started making demands:  FBI investigations; security; who could question her and how; more time to meet with her Democrat handlers; more accusations of insensitivity against anyone who will not meet her demands.  Finally, she was given a deadline to simply state if she would appear or not.  She said she needed more time (for what?  She has a story, it’s not going to change, so either tell it or be quiet).  The delay goes on.  Justice does not.  The rules are forgotten as sympathy for the “victim” becomes the calling card and rule of the day. And we the people are being denied a vote on a highly qualified nominee.

We have processes for victims that protect both victim and accuser.  When someone is a victim, the proper place to seek recompense is in a court of law.  When someone seeks revenge, then one will avoid a court of law because the law seeks justice, not revenge.  This “victim” has had 36 years to seek justice.  But, justice would require that she actually prove that the person that she is accusing is guilty of the alleged crime.    I don’t know what this accuser’s motive is – revenge, power, attention, or something else.  It certainly is not justice.

Many courts have statutes of limitations on some types of claims, and there is a reason for that too.  People’s memories fade, evidence is lost, memories change or are generated.  Similarly, teenage crimes are treated differently than those of adults.  We know that the teen mind is not fully formed and so most juvenile crimes up to and including murder are tried in juvenile courts and, if convicted, the sentence is usually in a special juvenile facility with an end date of the sentence corresponding to the date the juvenile becomes and adult.  At that time the record is often expunged so that the individual can begin adulthood with a clean slate. 

Here we have something that allegedly happened at a teenage party 36 years ago.   There was allegedly alcohol involved.  A boy allegedly grabbed at or tried to kiss a girl.  She was allegedly frightened; perhaps he was going further than she had expected.  She ran away.  He did not pursue her.  Her story does not suggest rape or anything close to that.  This is just not a big deal, or at least not the big deal that the media is making it.  This happens at teen parties every weekend in America.   Should it?  Probably not.  But it is part of what goes on in the teen years as young people begin to discover who they are, what their values are, and how they incorporate those values into their lives and the lives of others.  It is called growing up. 

This accusation should not be permitted to ruin a man’s life.  Even if her fuzzy story were true, can any of us say that we did not have one less than honorable incident during our childhood or teen years?  Is this really the sort of thing that should keep an outstanding jurist from the Court?  If so then there is truly no one on this earth qualified for the position of Justice.

What we have here is the Democrat party using and blowing out of proportion a simple allegation of teen misbehavior.  I do not know what the accuser’s mental state is in regard to this alleged incident.  I do know that she had 36 years to seek justice or make a claim against Judge Kavanaugh in a venue that would have allowed him due process.  She has had 36 years to deal with whatever psychological traumas she believes stem from this alleged incident.    Did it happen?  I don’t know.  Does she believe it happened?  I don’t know.   Do the Democrats care?  I don’t think so.  Does the media care?  Only so far as it gives them a good story.

What is lost in all this?  Justice.  Our Country.  Our Democracy.  Our rule of law.  When we start convicting people in the kangaroo court of public opinion based on mere accusation alone we have lost the fairness, justice, and due process that make this country what it is.   

This nomination may actually be a watershed moment for all of us.  I hope that Kavanaugh will not be driven to withdraw (as I am sure the threats to him, his wife, and his family are intended to cause).  Anyone who cares about this country or justice should demand that this kangaroo court, this lynching by the Democrats and the media stop immediately.  If we do not, then are we any better than those who stood silently watching their fellow citizens be sent to the gulag on questionable accusation alone?

It's About More Than the Nominee; It's About America

This is more than a fight for the Supreme Court.  It is a fight for America itself.

It is hard to keep up with the allegations as the Democrats try to block the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.  They made a mockery of the hearings, using innuendo and misleading if not false statements in their accusations against him during the questioning.  They have tried to stir up fear that he will take away all important rights if he is a Justice.  None of this seemed to work; the confirmation seemed to be certain, so what happens?  They pull a 36 year old, completely unsubstantiated sexual allegation out of the hat.  And, in this MeToo era we must indulge every possible statement by anyone.  Soon I suspect others will have sudden “memories” as they jump on the bandwagon to smear the nominee with completely unprovable and unsubstantiated charges and no way for the accused to defend himself since the current view seems to be guilty until proven innocent – an impossibility with a fuzzy 36 year old allegation that essentially amounts to he said – she said with no witnesses to substantiate either side.

This should remind one of the Salem Witch trials, but it is the Desperation of the Democrats that leads the circus here.  They lost the election.  The president has appointed a conservative judge – one who will follow the Constitution and the law rather than go with and make popular policy of the day.  That is, he will do what a Supreme Court Justice is supposed to do – apply and interpret the law, leaving law-making to the legislative branch.  The Democrats cannot abide this rule of law, this basic Constitutional principle.  They will only tolerate someone who will join them in their jihad against the president.

So, we have a woman come forward with some fuzzy recollection of a teenage party where some teenager that she now identifies as Kavanaugh made some sort of advance towards her.  And, what happens?  We indulge her.  There is so much wrong with this; let me make just a few points:

First, this was a bunch of high school kids at a party in the early 80s.  No one should be surprised that there might have been alcohol there and a boy might have tried to kiss a girl.  What high school student has not been involved in a situation where things started to go too far?  This is just part of growing up and learning one’s limits and values.   If it was anything more than that then one would expect there would have been some contemporaneous reporting to someone.

Apparently the accuser first recalled this event during some sort of marital couples therapy in 2012.  Now, it would seem that since she, her husband, and the therapist have all now agreed that she mentioned it then, that any therapist-client privilege has been waived.  I would certainly like to see records from that therapy, especially the context in which the statement was made and what else she might recall.   For example, was this alleged incident used to explain or excuse the problems in her marriage that had brought the couple to therapy?  Or as an excuse for some other behavior of hers?  What else did she recall about the incident?  What else could she recall about that period of her life? Is her personality of the sort that would enjoy the attention from the reporting of such an incident or the power of having the ability to bring down someone important?  (These are not “blame the victim” questions, but legitimate questions when one suddenly has a 36 year old recollection that has the potential to destroy someone else’s life.)

Beyond the specific allegation, I have a real problem with looking at someone’s high school record as if that somehow has some bearing on one’s ability 30 years into adulthood.   We all know that teenagers do some stupid things.  Some even do illegal things.  Psychologists tell us their brains are not yet fully formed.  For these reasons we have juvenile courts and juvenile sentences, most of which end when the child reaches adulthood.  Juvenile records are frequently expunged in order to allow the juvenile a fresh start.  And, yet, we are allowing one woman’s foggy recollection to destroy a life.

We have no idea what the accuser’s motive is in bringing this accusation now.  What we do know is that it is unsubstantiated and that there is really no way for Kavanaugh to clear his name; even if the allegation does not keep him from the Court, he will always walk with this cloud over his head, this scarlet letter on his chest.  He has been denied the due process that any criminal defendant receives; rather, he is tried in the court of public opinion fraught with hysteria churned up by Democrats and the media.  He is guilty until proven innocent.   This is not the way America should work.

When I was in grade school a classmate gave me a valentine every day for a couple of months, then kissed me twice when we were alone on the steps of our classroom.  Today I guess we would call that stalking and sexual assault.  Perhaps I should check to see if he is rich or famous or perhaps up for some important nomination.  I know his name and actually have told many about it  extemporaneously both at the time of the incidents and through the years.  Just think,  I could suddenly realize the trauma this caused me and come forward to ruin this man’s life while enjoying my 15 minutes of fame, maybe get a book deal, and help the cause so as to be today’s darling of the resistance.

This is really where we are.  Anyone who does not speak out is complicit in the practice of doing whatever is necessary to destroy anyone who stands in the way of another’s goals.  Complicit in using anything from any moment in one’s life, substantiated or not, to destroy another human being.  In the days of Stalin, the Communists were famous for finding the most minor spot on the record of someone as an excuse to send them to the gulag for years.  The current behavior of the Democrats would seem to be taking us in that direction.

The Desperate Democrats, still not able to accept the simple fact that their candidate lost the election for President, will do any and everything they can to make sure that their opponent does not succeed.  They will not accept the Constitutional and Democratic process of our government.  Like little children they want their way and they want it now and the American people be damned.  They seem to fully believe that the end justifies the means.  Their end is restoration of their power, and they will lie, cheat, use people, and destroy people in order to achieve that end.  They have no regard for the Constitution or the rule of Law or Democracy.   They just want their way and they want to impose it on everyone else; elections seem to mean nothing to them.

So back to the nomination.  Every American citizen and anyone who cares about our Country and its form of government should be appalled by the Democrats' actions regarding the Kavanaugh hearing.  They have already revealed their ignorance of the role of a judge in our 3-branch form of government.  They have revealed that power for their Party is their primary if only goal.  They have revealed that they cannot accept or tolerate views and policies that they do not approve.  They have revealed that they are willing to deny to the people someone who will likely be one of the finest justices ever to sit on the Court simply as a way to “resist” a president they do not like.  This “resistance,” with their regular disparaging of Trump supporters, reveals that they do not understand how our democracy works or that, if they do, they are willing to destroy it for their own power.  Their encouragement of using unprovable and decades old allegations to destroy the reputation of a fine jurist reveals that they care nothing for the American people.

Someone needs to explain to the Democrats that this is not a game the goal of which is their power.  This is about our Country and what is best for its people – all of its people, deplorables included.  If we let the Democrats get away with their antics, if we let them stop a perfectly valid nomination, then we are empowering further their assault on our democracy and we are well on the way to losing America as we know it.