Amy Coney Barrett Hearing, Day 2

Not much new at today’s hearing.  Mostly it was just a more of the same waste of time.

We learned, many times over, that Judge Barrett will follow the law and the Constitution as written, meaning she will interpret and apply but not rewrite or make policy or decide cases based on her personal beliefs.  We learned a bit more about the Constitution and our 3 branches of government – things we should have learned in 8^th grade civics.   We learned that Judge Barrett is incredibly knowledgeable about the Constitution and the role of the judiciary and of individual judges.

I think that 30 minutes per senator was far too long.  The Republicans, who seemed to be the only ones asking questions relevant to whether or not Judge Barrett was qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice, could complete their questioning in about 15 minutes (the remainder of their time was usually used to correct misstatements from across the aisle).  The Democrats, who sometimes asked not even one question, used their 30 minutes to continue their stump speeches and fear mongering from the day before. 

As a member of the legal profession I am appalled by the Democrats’ attempts to mislead the public about the role of the judiciary and the place of our courts in our judicial system.   As a woman I was insulted by the Democrats’ apparent belief that Judge Barrett is incapable of having independent thoughts and judgement.

Just a few of the more disturbing Democrat presentations.  First, they refused to acknowledge the fact that no judge may comment on cases that are or may come before them.  When Judge Barrett followed the rule and refused to comment, they tried to twist this into something sinister.

Democrats also refused to accept the fact that the judicial branch of our government is not a policy or law-making body.  Perhaps they just don’t understand.  But their repeated attempts to engage Judge Barrett in policy discussions were properly met by her assertion and reassertion that it would be against the canons of judicial behavior for her to so engage.  Again, they tried to turn these very appropriate answers into something sinister, to make her out as some tool of Trump who was just evading and lying about her real agenda.

Another misconception repeatedly put forth by the Democrats is that Ruth Bader Ginsburg must be replaced with a judge holding Ginsburg’s same more activist judicial philosophy, that it would be inappropriate to replace her with a conservative justice.  Do they not understand that we do not have liberal and conservative seats on the Court?  Judges, because they do not engage in policy, do not merit political labels.

The Democrats revealed that they still do not understand what Court packing is.  They argue that filling an existing vacancy is Court packing.  Using a typical Democrat tactic, they accuse the Republicans of doing that which in reality the Democrats are doing or are threatening.  It is a Democrat proposal to pack the Court with new positions geared to turn the Court into a policy making body that would rubber stamp their policies without any accountability to the people.  Nominating Judge Barret to fill an existing position is not Court packing.

Similarly, the Democrats continue to assert this whole nomination and confirmation process is illegal.  The President and the Senate are doing what they can, indeed what they are required to do when a SCOTUS vacancy occurs.  Yet the Democrats continue to call the process illegitimate.

The Democrats continually tried to twist and muddy Judge Barrett’s words.  At one point Republican Hawley had to read Judge Barrett’s actual words from the Cantor v. Barr opinion to reveal the many distortions that had been put forward by the Democrats in their speeches and questions. 

The Democrats regularly and seemingly intentionally distorted law and Judge Barrett’s words in an attempt to convey a picture of someone who would single handedly destroy healthcare, women’s rights, gun control, and whatever else they might have on their mind. 

The Democrats revealed either an unacceptable lack of knowledge about judicial processes for individuals sitting on the judiciary committee or, what is more likely, they intentionally muddled policy and emotion to create a misleading picture of how the courts function and the actual duties and powers of a sitting justice. 

They also continued their milk carton presentations in which they used pictures of folks from their districts with one or another hardship.  They would use these to attempt to stimulate some emotional response while lecturing Judge Barrett that if she did not understand and rule as they saw fit that she would destroy these people.  And some further implied that such destruction was Judge Barrett's actual goal.

Several Democrats refused to believe that Judge Barrett was capable of thinking for herself rather than just parroting her mentor Justice Scalia.   Others implied or even called her a liar, not because there was any suggestion whatsoever that she was lying, but rather because she was simply not giving the Democrats the answers that they wanted.  They don’t want someone to apply the law as written, they want someone who will do as they say.  And Judge Barrett’s honest and judicially appropriate answers were deflating their parade of the horribles that they were claiming she would bring upon us.  So, they just called her a liar.

Perhaps the worst was Sen. Whitehouse who presented a series of charts to prove “The Scheme” (that was actually the wording of one of his posters) in which he presented an entire conspiracy theory of how Judge Barrett is just some tool of some Republican deep state, deep money.  This 30-minute attack on Judge Barrett was not based on anything relevant to her, but simply a made-up slur against her because he did not like her or her opinions.  And, again, it took a Republican to get things back on track as Sen. Cruz returned us from Whitehouse’s focus on "fancy conspiracy charts" back to “just the facts.”

The Democrats do not like that Donald Trump happens to be President when Justice Ginsburg’s death created a SCOTUS opening.  But he is.  And he nominated a highly qualified judge.  The Democrats don’t like that either.  They can’t attack Judge Barrett’s qualifications, so they seek to distort her role and fear monger emotions to turn public opinion not only against her but against the President and entire Republican party.  They have no case so they turn to their standard tactics of misinformation and hate.

And there will be another day of it tomorrow.

 

Notes from Amy Coney Barrett Hearing Day 1

 It’s like watching two separate events.  The Republicans are talking about the nominee, the role of a justice, and the Constitution.  The Democrats are talking about health care, fear mongering, and giving stump speeches.

If you want to understand the purpose of the hearing, listen to Ted Cruz’s opening remarks LINK.  If you want to understand the Constitutional and historical why, listen to Ben Sasse’s opening remarks LINK.

Following are a few other important notes covered by these and other Republicans, but worth repeating because of the incorrect presentations by Democrats and media, reflecting either an unacceptable misunderstanding of our country and its history or an intentional effort to mislead the public.

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.  (Ted Cruz and Mike Crapo reiterated these statistics in their remarks). 

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.  It is not hypocritical.  It is not some anti-Constitutional move. 

Indeed, in both instances the Senate carried out the will of the people.  The people voted in 2016 and 2018 and will vote again by 11/3 of this year.  The terms of those people currently in office do not expire before their possible replacements are elected and confirmed.  (As Ruth Bader Ginsberg said, A president is elected for 4 years, not less)

The current Senate and the President were elected by the people and are expected to carry out their jobs.  That is what they are doing and that is also what they did in 2016 when Garland was appointed. 

The Supreme Court is not a political body.  It is a check on our other two political bodies – the Executive and the Legislative branches.  It is those bodies that are elected by and answer to the people – they carry out the will of the people.  In our system of checks and balances, the Congress legislates, and the Executive enforces those laws. 

The Court, on the other hand, does not answer to the people.  It answers to the Constitution and the Law as it holds the other two branches in check. 

The Court decides actual cases before it; while the decision on a particular case creates precedent, the Court’s decision itself cannot go beyond the specific issues presented by the case before it. 

The court does not legislate or create policy.  That is not its job.  Its job is to interpret and apply existing law, not to create it.  While justices are appointed and confirmed by political bodies, their duties on the Court are apolitical.  It is a distortion of reality when the Democrats try to create a view of the Court as a necessarily political body.

This leads to some thoughts on Court-packing, something threatened by the Democrats as punishment if the Senate goes through with its constitutional responsibilities to advise and consent on the President’s nomination to fill an existing vacancy on the Court.

Court packing is decidedly political and would destroy the Supreme Court as we know and with that our separation of three branches of government that is an essential part of the government that we hold so dear and which is a shining beacon of freedom to the rest of the world.

Court packing is when a political party puts additional justices on the bench to ensure that the Court will act as a rubber stamp to the policies put forward by that party.  Essentially the court becomes a super legislator but one with no checks and one that is not responsible or accountable to the people.  Rather, its constituency becomes the political party.

It is also important to understand that filling an open vacancy is not Court packing.  The elected President appoints, the Senate confirms.  The President and Senate were put into their roles by the voters.  The voters knew that when they voted for a Republican they were likely to see judicial appointments of individuals with a more conservative judicial philosophy and that is exactly what we have seen as President Trump has filled a number of vacancies throughout the federal court system. 

Democrats are more likely to appoint individuals with a more liberal judicial philosophy.  That is one of the differences between parties that we the people consider before we vote.  But this vacancy occurred when we had duly elected Republicans in the Executive and Senate.  They are carrying out the will of the people by moving forward with this nomination.

The upcoming election has nothing to do with this nomination.  Whoever is in office after the winners of the November election are installed into their offices will have the right to handle whatever vacancies occur during the full term of their office.  Not before.  Not after.  During.  The Amy Coney Barret nomination along with the vacancy she is nominated to fill occurred during the term of Trump and this Senate.  It is not court packing to fill that vacancy 

It seems that the Democrat strategy for this hearing (today at least) is to talk about health care which has nothing to do with the judge’s qualifications.  They are appealing to emotions and fear.  Why?  Because they know this judge is fully qualified (the American Bar Association ranked her “well qualified” based on her integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament).  But the Democrats seem to think it will be effective to convince the American people that Judge Barrett is out to somehow kill us all. 

Democrats would have you believe that a justice is an activist who can and does change laws and make laws.  They may think that is true, they may want that to be true, they may try to make that true by packing the court, but that is not what a judge properly does.

Let’s be clear about what a judge does.  She decides actual cases and controversies before her based on the law and the constitution.  That’s what a good judge does.  The decision might or might not agree with a judge’s personal views.  That is as it should be under our Constitution.

A judge may not comment on an actual case that might or will appear before her.  The questions to and comments about a judicial nominee should focus on her judicial philosophy, her understanding of the Constitution and a justice’s role in it. 

While the Democrats’ stories may be emotionally compelling, they have nothing to do with the qualifications of Judge Barret to be a justice on the Supreme Court.  They are nothing more than a political stunt.  But, then, that’s all they have – they can’t attack Judge Barrett’s qualifications. 

Sadly, the Democrat speeches sound the same as all their speeches for the past 4 years – fear mongering, distortions, and misstatements of fact.  No substance, no responsiveness to their obligations to the American people and the Constitution.  Just stonewalling against any legitimate actions taken by a President whom they despise.

Lies and Deceit Are Not a Debate

 Now that the Oct. 15 debate has been cancelled, the Commission on Presidential Debates and we the people have a little more time to think before the next debate format is finalized.

What we should have learned from the first presidential and the only vice-presidential debate begins with wondering why even bother to hold debates when:

•  No one answers questions, in part because
•  Two minutes is not enough time to even begin to answer questions about complex issues;
•  The answers of one side, consistent with their campaign techniques, are based on lies, half-truths, misstatements, and deceit;
•  The objectivity of the moderator is at best questionable.

Let’s unpack some of the above.  First, it is rare to get a clear answer to a question.  Now there are several reasons for this.  One is that the candidates don’t want to turn off any potential voters.  Another is that they don’t want the voters to know the answer (for example, Biden/Harris refusing to answer questions about their intent to pack the Supreme Court). 

But, even if they wanted to give a clear answer, it is hard to do so within the time structures of the debates.  You can’t just answer a complex social or international issue “yes” or “no”.  Such answers require complex explanations underlying the yes or no.  It is impossible to give such explanations in two minutes or less and if one tries to do so it is more than likely that the incomplete explanation will be used against them by the media and/or their opponents.

The limited rebuttal time does not really allow a candidate to challenge his or her opponent when that opponent bases an answer on falsehoods.  If there is a limited (usually 1 minute or less ) time for rebuttal, that is insufficient to explain why the answers of the opponent are deceitful and to cite the necessary facts and authority that prove the deceit. 

It is very frustrating, not to mention unfair, to see an opponent be allowed to base an entire answer on a lie and then see the other participant be left unable to rebut.  This sometimes leads to interruptions (yes, all 4 candidates have interrupted their opponent) as the one faced with the lies tries to set the record straight.

Because of the lack of time to actually address and explain issues, the candidates are left to repeat tired campaign slogans and party lies.  How many times do we have to hear the thoroughly debunked assertion that Trump has not condemned white supremacist groups?  Or the tired out of context and proven lie from Charlottesville asserting that he said the KKK were good people? 

Wouldn’t we all like to hear positions on issues instead?  But the debate format makes that nearly impossible.

And let’s not forget that this is a media event.  The media likes show.  I thought the absolute best comment about the presidential debate came from Sen. Ted Cruz who said that the “raucous debate” reminded him of Detroit Pistons Basketball when the team was known as the “Bad Boys.”  He said, "It kind of reminded me of the Detroit Pistons basketball in the 90s where there were a lot of hard fouls, there were a lot of missed shots. But at the end of the day, I doubt the debate changed the election in any fundamental way."  That’s a pretty good summary of what was a worthless debate, but a pretty good show.

We also must think about the moderator.  It seems that it is the moderator who determines the topics and writes the questions.  These moderators are TV personalities, journalists, etc.  They are people with strong political opinions.  And those opinions, their biases, are clearly apparent in the questions themselves and in the behavior of the moderator. 

The bias seems to have become clearly apparent in the behavior of the moderator who would have hosted the Oct. 15 debate – prior support for Biden and tweets about the upcoming debate with a staunch Trump critic (tweets that he conveniently claims were the result of a hack). 

In the first presidential debate, the moderator effectively became a participant when he took it upon himself to argue with the President.  The moderator’s job is to ask the questions, let the candidates answer, and let the people make their own judgements.

Lack of necessary fairness can be more subtle.  In the VP debate it appeared that Pence ran over his time far more than did Harris.  But, those who actually timed the debate noted that the moderator asserted “time up” to Pence at exactly the 2 min. mark while regularly allow Harris to run over for 15 or more seconds before telling her that her time was up.

So, the committee has more time than it thought until the next debate.  Perhaps they could actually do something to turn the apparently final debate into something meaningful for the voters.  What might they do:

•  Change the structure entirely so that the debate is about issues.  If the debate is 90 minutes, give 30 minutes each to 3 issues.  Treat those three issues like a real debate.  For example, if the issue is going to be healthcare, the opening question might be:  Explain the extent to which you believe the government should be involved in providing health care, why you believe that is the best policy, and how your position/plan would actually affect the citizenry.  Give each candidate an opening of 6 minutes to give a basic answer, then each has a 3 minute rebuttal, then each can ask the other a question for which there are 2 minutes allowed for response, another set of 2 minute questions, and then each gets a 1 minute conclusion.

• With the above structure, the moderator’s primary function would be to keep time and keep it fairly.  Aside from stating the opening question, the moderator should not be asking questions or arguing with the candidates.

• The debate Commission should be the one to come up with the topics and the opening question and it should be objective and even handed so as not to give either candidate an advantage or disadvantage.  I would suggest that the questions should be drafted and/or reviewed by individuals with leanings to both the Left and the Right.

• This should be a stand-up debate.  The candidates should be told in advance the general nature of the topics.

A debate following the above structure might be less exciting than a debate with a lot of fireworks, less exciting than a Pistons game in the 90s, but it would be far more informative for the voters who are electing a President and not a point guard.

Just a thought.

 

The Tactic of Turmoil

Please stop saying that President Trump is the cause of the current unrest. 

While the election of Donald Trump/the Democrats’ loss of power may have had something to do with the Democrats’ nearly 4 year long temper fit, this unrest cannot be pinned on President Trump.

From the moment that Donald Trump was announced as the winner of the 2016 presidential race, the Left has been distraught.  They refuse to accept the election results, blaming one manufactured evil after another.

When things like the Russian collusion hoax and the impeachment circus were unsuccessful in removing the duly elected president from office, the Left increased its efforts to foment discontent among the people to the extent that now even their VP candidate praises the ongoing protests along with key promotors such as the BLM organization as “essential for change in the US.” 

The protests began when the Democrats refused to accept the duly elected president.  They have escalated over the past 3 plus years and are now becoming more and more violent.  The divide among us created by the identity politics of the Obama administration are a basis for fomenting discontent and fomenting “protests” about one grievance or another, protests that are more and more likely to turn into riots against our history, our institutions, and our country itself.

Kamala Harris is right – these protests (turned riots) are essential for the type of change that the Left is truly seeking.   In 1848 Marx stated, “there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.” 

Lenin, Trotsky, and other leading Bolsheviks recognized mass terror as a necessary weapon in the intermediate stage between capitalism and communism.  Stalin wrote, "Terror is the quickest way to new society." 

In 1918 Bolshevik Martin Latsis wrote, “The first thing you have to ask an arrested person is: To what class does he belong, where does he come from, what kind of education did he have, what is his occupation? These questions are to decide the fate of the accused. That is the quintessence of the Red Terror.”

In his book Terrorism and Communism (1920), Trotsky emphasized that " We are forced to tear off [the bourgeoisie] class and chop it away. The Red Terror is a weapon used against a class that, despite being doomed to destruction, does not want to perish."

Today’s Left has created a class struggle of a different kind.  Not a struggle between working and ruling classes, but a struggle between those whom the Left has labeled victims and those whom the Left has labeled victimizers.  I do not know what the Left’s ultimate purpose is in creating this struggle other than its leading to their own power.  Perhaps their intentions are somewhere in the area of the idealism of some other socialist leaders and dreamers, perhaps they are more sinister. 

What is clear is that the Left wants to overthrow our current system entirely.  Not mend it, not use it as we have done in the past to move ever closer to the ideals propounded by America for the past 244 years. 

And, following the playbook of Marx and his followers the Left seem to believe that something akin to violence or mass terror is necessary to make those who support the current system succumb and make way for that new world that the Left will control. 

President Trump is not responsible for today’s unrest.  He is simply the excuse that allows the Left to stir up the discontent that is needed for their revolt against our current systems. 

Blaming others for any negative results of their own well-calculated actions just makes no sense.  The Left cannot blame the other side for their own tactics of revolt, whether those tactics involve the use of lies, unfounded investigations, frivolous litigation, or “protests” that turn to riots. 

These tactics are being used to remove from office someone whom the Left does not want there.  That is not how our system works.

The Left wants new rules that allow them to have whatever they want and to do whatever they want when they don’t get it.  Rather than looking to their own policies and possible inadequacies they just blame the other side.  Since November of 2016 they have been trying to  subvert our system and the will of the voters. 

Blame is just one more tactic that they are using to get their way and remove President Trump from office.   It is one more attempt to make him the bad guy.

To justify a temper fit by blaming someone else for causing it is just another example of the Left’s refusal to take personal responsibility.   Donald Trump may anger some people, but he did not make anyone throw this nearly 4 year long divisive fit.  He does not encourage the turbulent behavior (unless one believes that simply holding office and carrying out one’s duties based on policies promised during his campaign is somehow sufficient encouragement for those holding different policy views to create turmoil and strife).  The President does what he can within the bounds of our Constitution and our governmental system to stop the unrest.   

Those who do not like the President’s actions have many remedies other than displays, encouragement, and praise of unrest and those who carry it out.  Indeed, the very systems that this unrest is directed against provide civil means to oppose actions of the President or others with whom the Left disagrees.

The Left wants to remake America into a different place – they tell us it is time to “re-set”.  Unrest is a proven tactic to move towards that goal.  Regardless of how one feels about that ultimate “re-set” (to what?) goal, honesty requires that one admit that the actors and promoters of the unrest are the only ones responsible for it.

 

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.

 

What Prevents Civil Discourse

 

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past few years, you know that this is pretty much what political discussions sound like these days.  No facts, no explanations of factual interpretations, just name calling and lies.

To be clear, if the disagreement is about facts alone, then only one can be correct.   The other may be lying, or simply misinformed, or without a thorough factual investigation.  However, if the disagreement is about one’s viewpoint or opinions, or factual interpretations that support those opinions, then neither can be absolutely correct, and neither can be lying.

And herein lies a key problem with today’s political (as well as other) discourse.  We seem no longer able to distinguish facts from opinions.

Facts are what they are and we cannot change them.  We can often interpret them in more than one way and can use them to support more than one viewpoint.  But interpretations, opinions, viewpoints are not facts and cannot be lies.  They can be based on lies, but they themselves are individual interpretations and in this country we are allowed to have our own opinions. 

This is why the distinction between fact and opinion is so important.  It is also why, until we can once again make that distinction, that our discourse will never return to the civility that once was and will instead continue to look like the above cartoon.

We also are living in a post-fact world where one’s feelings, hopes, desires – their narrative – rather than facts seem to be the “reality” that many prefer. Although living in a post fact world we still interact as if we were not, as if we were living in a reality governed by facts. 

Yet, in today’s times the narrative, not the fact is king.  For many today, if one believes something to be true, because it is their narrative, then it is so.  Inconvenient facts that do not fit one’s narrative are often ignored, and the bearer of those difficult facts is called a liar or worse and often silenced.

While issues can and often do have more than one viewpoint and more than one reasonable solution, we have gone beyond tolerance of opposing viewpoints to a belief that there can be only one.  That one is the one that one’s own controlling narrative says is the one.

We have confused fact with narrative and while someone certain of their facts can claim to be right and try to silence incorrect factual presentations, one cannot attempt to silence other narratives than their own.    To do so is to confuse reality with one’s own opinion or hope or emotional experience or other unverifiable information.  This confusion is not only present in today’s uncivil discourse, we see it all around us.

If one wants to check oneself and one’s beliefs against reality, against actual and complete facts, where do they go to find those facts?  Because it is only with a complete picture of the facts relevant to an issue that one can form an honest opinion about that issue.  And it is those real and complete facts that allow one to build arguments in support of their preferred resolution to the issue and then build a real world narrative based on those facts.

Today one has to spend hours going from news site to news site to try to ferret out the actual and full picture of any issue.  The line between news and opinion and propaganda has become so blurred that one must at a minimum check at least one source from every aspect of the political spectrum.  This takes a lot of time and few are able or willing to spend that necessary time on this task.  Others still have a sadly misfounded belief that they can trust their usual news source to give them a full and unbiased report.

The press currently fails us in its responsibility to report unbiased facts.  The many forms of media bombarding us 24 hours a day are mostly there to entertain and to make a profit, not to provide us with a fair and unbiased report of some occurrence.  Those who seek power are able to take advantage of the medias’ failings and of our confusion or ignorance of them.

This leaves the two political sides to each create their own story and assert that narrative as true.  And the supporters of each side are often more than willing to accept that narrative on face value and call those who don’t agree liars and disrupters.

I was recently told that this is a partisan world and how dare I take a partisan view (with which the speaker disagreed) and therefore further the partisanship.  There was a time when people with differing opinions could present them, question one another and discuss those views.  Unless we have the state mandating what we think we will always have a partisan or multi-opinionated society.  That is not a bad thing.  It is how we learn and grow and move forward.

Compounding the problem of inability to distinguish fact and opinion is the fact that the two political parties and their followers seem to have two very different and indeed opposing opinions of this country’s past, present, and future. 

These two distinct views of America cannot coexist in any unified form.  There are those, mostly on the Right, who generally like and believe in America as she currently exists.  While accepting her faults and working to correct them, they believe that the country and form of government created by our Constitution and developed over the last 240 plus years is good.  They do not believe it is static or that it should be so, but they do believe that it is worth preserving and changes to it should occur within its proven systems, governmental institutions, and Constitutional provisions.

The Left’s view, in contrast, paints a negative picture of America as she currently exists.  People holding this view do not think of America as a good country, they do not believe in her system of government and actually they do not trust the people to make the decisions about themselves and their country that our Constitution allows.  Many holding this view believe that problems in America’s systems should not be repaired or improved, but rather that the entire structure of America should be dismantled and completely rebuilt in a manner that conforms to their vision of what she should be.

The Left’s vision for a future America is unclear.  Like Obama’s promise of “hope and change”, no one can or will really articulate what the Left’s vision means – what it will look like in the larger picture;  instead it holds a different form in each believer’s heads.  (And this is the problem with narrative when it is not tied to actual and specific facts.)

We can, generally, distinguish the restructured view of America from that which currently exists.  It far more resembles socialism than anything we have today.  It includes a large government and would allow those in power to make many and significant decisions over the individual lives of the citizenry. 

Each side feels very strongly about its view.  The belief in a governmental system is far more deeply seated and passionate than a position on this or that issue; it affects the individual’s entire world and the world of their future generations.  It is not a wonder that passions are elevated when one is talking about their view for their very existence.

Both sides often assert the other is destroying the country.  Indeed, each really believes this.  But the destruction that the Left sees is often more a destruction of their narrative than an actual destruction of what in reality exists.   When the President does not do what the Left wishes he would, when his actions conform to our laws and our Constitution, he is not destroying the country; rather, his political positions,  policies, and opinions are not those of the Left and their narrative. 

Interestingly, this country, in its current form and with its current Constitution gives the Left legal and civil processes to challenge actions they do not like.  But in the Left’s narrative world, rather than follow these processes, their remedies are to break faith with the Constitution and do such things as silence the opposition, interfere with the administration’s performance of its Constitutional duties, and look to some form of mob rule for a remedy.  Their narrative allows – indeed they believe it mandates – that they do this.

This is what happens when narrative clashes with fact, or narrative with narrative.  There can be no civil discourse nor can there be a civil resolution because the rules are different depending upon on which side of the divide one stands. 

We have always had partisanship in this country as any free people should, but our debates were based on shared rules and an understanding of the difference between fact and opinion.  We were all playing by the same rules.  

Only when we once again respect the reality of facts and are able to distinguish factual reality from narrative will we be able to find our way back to some sort of civil discourse and debate and with that a way forward from the anger and hate that surrounds us today.

 

Facts, Conclusions, and a Suggestion

This is my second post following Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing.  It further addresses the issue of filling the vacancy created by her death.

Fact:  There is a vacancy on the United States Supreme Court. 

Fact:  It is the President’s job to appoint a justice to fill that vacancy. (Const. Art II, Sec. 2, Cl. 2)

Fact:  It is the Senate’s job to advise and consent in regard to that appointment.  (Const. Art II, Sec. 2, Cl. 2)

Fact:  The Democrats say that neither Trump nor the Senate should go forward with this Constitutionally mandated process and that they will use whatever they can to stop him including attempted impeachment and threats of Court packing.  (See, e.g. Nancy Pelosi’s statement on ABC’s This Week, 9/20/20; Rep. Joe Kennedy III, D-Mass, Tweet, 9/19/2020)

Fact:  Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), said “The Supreme Court handles ‘the people’s business,’ ... Every day that goes by without a ninth justice is another day the American people’s business is not getting done.” (Sen. Schumer, Congressional Record, S.6116, 9/27/2016)

Fact:  Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) stated “The court needs nine justices to function properly. It is vital to our judicial system.” (CNN, 2/25/2016)

Fact:  Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) stated “This is not just some TV show, right. ‘Eight is Enough.’ Eight is not enough on the United States Supreme Court. (Press Conference, 9/07/2016)

Fact:  Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA): “With only eight justices instead of nine, the Court's decisions can deadlock with a 4-to-4 vote…. [T]here is a responsibility that we have in the Senate to ensure that we, in fact, have a full Supreme Court.” (Congressional Record, S.982, 2/24/2016)

Fact:  In 2016 Justice Ginsburg said that senators refusing to vote on President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court should recognize that a president is elected for four years not three. (Wash. Post, 9/7/2016)

Fact:  The U.S. Supreme Court is “the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution” (Supreme Court of the United States, https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx)

Fact:  Without all nine justices the court is not fully functional.

Fact:  If questions about the November election go to the Supreme Court, with only 8 justices the Court could deadlock in a tie, leaving the Nation in a Constitutional Crisis.

Fact:  Ours is a government of, for, and by the people. (Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, Nov. 1863)

Fact.  The People voted for the current President and current makeup of the Senate. (2016 and 2018 election results)

Fact:  The People also voted for the makeup of the Senate that existed in 2016. (2014 election results)

Fact:  The Democrats seek to block action by the people’s representatives to move forward on a justice to fill the current vacancy.  (See numerous Democrat statements demanding that any nomination and vote wait at least until November)

Conclusion:  The people are entitled to a fully functioning court as part of their government for which they voted through their representatives.

Conclusion:  The Democrats’ actions are attempts to block the rights and the will of the people.

Conclusion:  The Democrats’ current position is inconsistent with their 2016 assertions, indicating they will use or misuse the Constitution to serve their own purposes, not those of the people.

Conclusion:  The Democrats’ current actions do not support our Constitution or our form of government.

Conclusion:  The Democrats cannot be trusted to protect and preserve our Democratic Republic.

Suggestion:  We the voters should not vote to support giving any more power to the Democrats.