That Was Then, This Is Now

For John, BLUF:  It is like our State Rep.  Innocent until proven guilty, especially given some of DOJ's recent high profile cases.  Free to run again for his seat.  I am free to support Mr Martin Burke, but the incumbent is free to run.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

WaPo Columnist Who Wrote A Book About Brett Kavanaugh Now Says #BelieveAllWomen Is ‘Dumb’ Given Accusations Against Joe Biden

From The Daily Wire, by Reporter Emily Zanotti, 16 April 2020.

I follow her on Twitter and so can you.

Here is the lede plus one:

Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus, who wrote a book about sexual assault accusations made against now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and defended Dr. Christine Blasey Ford in the pages of her newspaper, now says the “#BelieveAllWomen” and “#MeToo” movement are “dumb” — because a similar, but credible sexual assault allegation has been leveled against the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden.

In a shocking editorial for The Washington Post, Marcus lashes out not just at Biden’s alleged accuser, Tara Reade — who has now filed a criminal complaint against Biden and who has a record of contemporaneous claims made against the then-federal legislator — but at the anti-sexual assault movement altogether.

The former Vice President, Candidate Joe Biden, is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

And, I appreciate that a trial in a Court of Law is different from a Senatorial Advice and Consent hearing.  But, in the court of public opinion, shouldn't we the People, and our Press, strive to roughly apply the same rules?

Since we seem to be changing the rules, will this change be permanent, or will it flop back to the old rules if it could be applied to a Republican?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

`

Balance on the Supreme Court

For John, BLUF:  Democrats are apoplectic about President Trump perhaps being able to appoint another US Supreme Court Associate Justice, to be confirmed by Majority Leader Mitch McConell's Senate Majority.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Liberal Supreme Court justices vote in lockstep, not the conservative justices

Here is the sub-headline:

Over the past several sessions, Supreme Court Justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted in unison more than their Republican counterparts.

From USA Today, by Opinion Mr Ilya Shapiro, 10 September 2019.

Here is the lede plus four:

Ever since Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement last year, commentators have prophesied that President Donald Trump’s replacement of that moderate jurist would lead to a conservative majority running roughshod over core liberal concerns.  That’s why opposition to the milquetoast establishmentarian Brett Kavanaugh was so fierce, even before the 11th-hour sexual-assault allegations.

Justice Kavanaugh was supposed to have single-handedly overturned Roe v. Wade, but a funny thing happened on the road to apocalypse. Particularly in petition rejections and other procedural votes, Kavanaugh has demonstrated a pragmatic approach.  And a term with few big controversies showed the liberals voting together much more than the conservatives.

There were 67 decisions after argument in the term that ended in June. In those cases, the four justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted the same way 51 times, while the five Republican appointees held tight 37 times.  And of the 20 cases where the court split 5-4, only seven had the “expected” ideological divide of conservatives over liberals.  By the end of the term, each conservative justice had joined the liberals as the deciding vote at least once.

That dynamic isn’t something that sprang up in the Trump era or with the court’s newest personnel.  In the 2014-15 term, with Kennedy at the height of his “swing vote” power — the last full term before Justice Antonin Scalia’s death and resulting year-long vacancy — the four liberals stuck together in 55 of 66 cases, while the four conservatives (not counting Kennedy) voted as a unit in 39.

Our Nation's Capitol seems to be a place where analysis, although available, is not absorbed easily.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Likely Next Associate Justice Confirmation

For John, BLUF:  We have trust issues between our two major political parties.  Neither believes the other won't go totally wacko at the first opportunity.  We are settling into a Bismarck-like Culture War, and that is not good.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Democrats Brace for War over Supreme Court

Here is the sub-headline:

From The American Thinker, by Mr Fletch Daniels, 27 August 2019.

Here is the lede plus three:

The news that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was treated for pancreatic cancer raised the possibility of a Supreme Court opening within the next year.

The 86-year-old Ginsburg's health has been declining for years, to where the last year has felt like a bad remake of the 1989 Weekend at Bernie's movie.  Instead of enjoying her golden years in retirement, Ginsburg has been propped up and hidden in the hopes of holding the seat until a Democrat is elected.

The always elegant Michael Moore, who previously placed a Ginsburg doll atop a Christmas tree, summed up the Democrat zeitgeist when he tweeted, "HOLYMOTHEROFRBG!! EVERYBODY, RIGHT THIS SECOND, JOIN A MOVEMENT, CAMPAIGN, GRASS ROOTS GROUP -WHATEVER - AND WORK NONSTOP BTWN RIGHT NOW & NOV 2020!"

The Left is already manning the barricades.  The resulting hearing will make the Brett Kavanaugh fiasco, a dark moment in U.S. history, look like a charming affair.  In the event that President Donald Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett, as many conservatives hope, this hearing will be a preview of the Apocalypse.

It goes down hill from there.

As for Professor Amy Coney Barrett! I can't think of a better choice.  Yes, I find her association with the People of Praise Community as a positive thing.  Two of our very close friends from Naples, Italy, joined an affiliated Covenanted Community in Ann Arbor, Michigan, when he got out of the Navy.

To wrap up, I wish Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg the very best, including a continued long life.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Confirmation Circus

For John, BLUF:  Information on the Kavanaugh Hearings is slowly sweeping out, and it isn't pretty.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Christine Ford’s Lawyer Wanted ‘Asterisk’ Next to Kavanaugh’s Name

Here is the sub-headline:

Previously denied accusations were politically motivated

From Washington Free Beacon, by Reporter Graham Piro, 4 September 2019.

Here is the lede plus two:

Debra Katz, the lawyer for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's accuser Christine Blasey Ford, said that putting "an asterisk" next to Kavanaugh's name was "part of what motivated" Ford's accusations in a video posted to Twitter.

In the video, posted by Daily Caller reporter Mary Margaret Olohan, Katz is heard saying that Kavanaugh "will always have an asterisk next to his name" when he "takes a scalpel" to landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade.  Revealing what she considered to be Kavanaugh's true character ahead of a hypothetical reversal of Roe is "part of what motivated Christine," according to Katz.

"I believe that Christine's testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the Court," Katz said, according to the video.  "We were going to have a conservative.  Elections have consequences."

This does tend to put Professor Blakey Ford's testimony in a bad light.  Sad.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Prosecutors Untethered

For John, BLUF:  Prosecutors are very powerful people within our system of Government, and thus they need the highest ethics and a big chunk of humility.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

While Democrats get crazier, Gabbard hits Harris criticism right on the nose

Here is the sub-headline:

While most 2020 Dems are getting lost in the collective sprint to the left, Rep. Gabbard is making waves with her serious criticisms of Rep. Harris.

From USA Today, by Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds, 5 August 2019.

Here is the lede:

But the really serious point to come out is this:  If you’re shocked and appalled by Harris’s conduct, don’t try to comfort yourself by thinking it’s unusual (or by blaming Russia.)  As Clark Neily writes, “The real significance of Gabbard’s critique, however, lies not in the proposition that Harris was a particularly unprofessional or malign prosecutor, but rather in the fact that she seems to have been a rather ordinary prosecutor who simply did her job the way most prosecutors do.  And if that makes a former-prosecutor-turned-presidential-candidate look like a monster, then perhaps that says more about prosecutors in general than it does about Kamala Harris in particular.”

There appears to be a certain lawlessness in the field of prosecutors.  However, cleanup is going to have to come from the inside of the law profession. 

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Fair is Fair

For John, BLUF:  Consistency is not a common political virtue.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Leftists Demand That All Criticisms Of Trump Cease Until He Stops Getting Death Threats

From The Babylon Bee, 15 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus two:

The left has urged people to stop quoting stupid things Representative Ilhan Omar has said and to stop accurately pointing out that she’s a bigot because Omar has received death threats.  It was revealed, though, that President Donald Trump has also received death threats.

“Yes, it’s hard to believe, since I’m the greatest president ever,” Trump told the press.  “My death would be the worst tragedy this country has ever seen -- I’d expect mass suicides if it happens.”  Still, he confirmed that the Secret Service has intercepted numerous death threats.

If there is one thing the American left is known for, it’s being extremely consistent and never only espousing certain principles in a partisan or self-serving way.  Thus when they heard President Trump had received death threats, they immediately went after those who would criticize the president.

UPDATE:  An alternative view is provided by Mr Jim Treacher at PJ Media.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Going After Biden

For John, BLUF:  A jaundiced view of former Vice President Joe Biden's recent #MeToo issues.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Timing Of All This Biden “Scrutiny” Is Certainly Convenient, Eh?

From Hot Air, by Blogger Jazz Shaw, 1 April 2019.

Internal Progressive action to try and cut down the Front Runner.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Spartacus Concerned About Sin

For John, BLUF:  I guess this plays to his base, and it dirties up future SCOTUS nominees.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Cory Booker Launches Inquisition Against Trump Nominee:  'Are Gay Relationships ... Sinful?'

From PJ Media, by Mr Tyler O'Neil, 5 February 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

On Tuesday, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), a 2020 candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, asked Trump judicial nominee Neomi Rao if she considered homosexual relationships to be sinful.  Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) immediately called Booker out on this line of questioning.

Booker seized on Rao's 2008 article opposing the Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas, which decriminalized homosexual activity. He then directly asked her, "Are gay relationships in your opinion immoral?"

In a pluralistic society, such as ours, we need to distinguish between illegal and sinful.  We all have friends who have sinned.  Forgiveness is a useful attitude and one God probably agrees with.

On the other hand, we should avoid an "anything goes" attitude.  Stable families, raising stable, hard working kids, is the bedrock of a successful long term society.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Time to Move On

For John, BLUF:  For, for the next three weeks we will be living in two worlds.  One is where the Democrats have a Blue Tsunami and the other is where they don't.  This nightmare, except for the recriminations, should end when we wake up on 7 November.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Feinstein wants Kavanaugh sexual misconduct investigation reopened if Dems take Senate

From Fox News, by Reporter Andrew O'Reilly, 17 October 2018.

Here is the lede:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Wednesday that if Democrats took control of the Senate following November’s midterm elections, she would be in favor of reopening an investigation into the sexual misconduct allegations levelled against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Of course she does.  She embarrassed herself during the Hearings and now she wants a "Do Over", hoping for a better outcome.

I am blaming this, in part, on California's "Jungle Primary".  While, in theory, this system should produce more "moderate" candidates, in reality the mileage may differ.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Rule 13

For John, BLUF:  For not being a politician, President Trump seems to be a quick study.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Trump goes full Alinsky in the midterm race

From The American Thinker, by By Thomas Lifson, 8 October 2018.

That would be Mr Saul Alinsky, an American community organizer and the author of the 1971 book Rules for Radicals.

President Trump, either by native instinct or reading Mr Alinsky's book or by getting a good background briefing on the book, seems to be implementing its rules.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Presumption of Innocence

For John, BLUF:  Laws, if they are to protect all, must allow no exceptions for station or party.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Those Who Unmake Civilization

From PJ Media, by BY SARAH HOYT SEPTEMBER 27, 2018.

Here is the lede plus five:

I've been listening to crazy people saying things like, "someone isn't entitled to the presumption of innocence," or an accusation that is not only unproven but unprovable is "corroborated" in growing alarm. What goes through my mind is that this is the way you un-make civilization. Part of the problem is that our civilization – arguably, at least in terms of keeping the most people alive and in relative comfort – is not normal in the history of the world. This strange idea that each individual has rights, that the rights are inherent to them, that they deserve to be given due process and not simply destroyed because someone – anyone, or one of their betters – accused them of something is not only bizarre in terms of historical societies. It’s also something that took a long time to work itself through. And ever since it’s been created there have been attempts to take it back to “normal human society.” The attempts are usually the result of people who don’t understand the full horror that society used to be. People who think that society without all these “ridiculous” protections for normal individuals will be somehow better. Or people who understand how horrible it will be but think they will emerge on top and be able to make things serve a greater good somehow.

Sarah Hoyt tells it like it is.

So, here is the argument between Sir Thomas More and his son-in-law, William Roper:

Roper: "So now you'd give the devil the benefit of law?"
More: "Yes.  What would you do?  Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?"
Roper: "I'd cut down every law in England to do that."
More: "Oh, and when the last law was down, and the devil turned on you, where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat?  This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's laws not God's, and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?  "Yes, I'd give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake."

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Danger of a Bridge Too Far

For John, BLUF:  Running out the clock and not caring who gets hurt.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Notwithstanding the advice of then Senator Joe Biden that "FBI investigations into nominees are "inconclusive.'"

It was interesting, but consistent, that once Senator Flake proposed a one week FBI review of the allegations by Professor Ford, against then teenage Brett Kavanaugh, that Democrats, and Professor Ford's lawyers, claimed there should be no end date.  I guess they think it should go on until January 2019, or February 2021.

The danger in all this is that it might blow up on Professor Ford.  There is some small, but finite, chance that the FBI will come back and say that Professor Ford is an unreliable witness, or worse, that she made it all up.  That would be devastating to her mental health.

I guess, at the end of the day the Democrats can put the blame on the Republicans, for insisting on a further investigation, rather than just going for a vote of the full Senate.

But, back to the risk, there is this article, by Reporter John Nolte in the 28 September 2018 issue of Breitbart.

Christine Blasey Ford Brought No Evidence but Plenty of Contradictions

I just don't see this thing ending well.  Frankly, I put the blame on DiFi♠ and Chuck Schumer.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Speaking of Clowns, yesterday's Howie Carr Show had a Poll Question on who was the biggest clown on the Democratic side of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  In the initial version of the poll they listed all the Democrats, except for DiFi.

Conflicting Stories

For John, BLUF:  When the Ford/Kavanaugh story looks like it couldn't get more weird, it does.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Two Men Tell Judiciary Committee They Did It, Not Kavanaugh

From PJ Media, by Reporter Paula Bolyard, 26 September 2018.

Toward the end of the article is this caution:

It's quite possible that the two men are either mentally disturbed or seeking attention—or both.  But their "confessions" highlight the uncertainty that accompanies claims that cannot be substantiated with evidence, which makes them all — including those of Kavanaugh's accusers — highly suspect.

Given what we know, that is a good point.  At this point we basically still know nothing.  Well, we do know that Senator Feinstein did an excellent job orchestrating the opening of this phase of the hearing.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Blumenthal For President

For John, BLUF:  The thing is, why do we believe Senator Blumenthal has ever told the truth?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Watching Out Numbered just now on Fox News I heard Senator Richard Blumenthal declare Judge Brett Kavanaugh guilty of sexual crimes and state that if he denies it he will be lying.

With this certainty, why do we need an investigation?

My prime advisor suggests the Senator wishes to run in 2020..

Regards  —  Cliff

Double Standards

For John, BLUF:  I would never suggest that Senator Hirono just shut up, but she thinks that is what I should do.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Senator Hirono Didn’t Always Tell Men to ‘Shut Up’ and Believe Accusers

Here is the sub-headline:

When it mattered in her own backyard, with a male Democratic senator, she turned a blind eye to sexual abuse

From National Review, by Reporter John Fund, 23 September 2018.

Sadly, for me, this story involves allegations against a hero of mine, the late Senator Daniel Inouye.

If it wasn't for double standards the Democrats wouldn't have any standards at all.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Hearing On! [Maybe]

For John, BLUF:  No matter how this goes, if the Democrats take control of the House in January, there will be calls for impeachment.  I hope Judge Kavanaugh is impeached, because the trial will be interesting.  It will settle nothing, but it will be interesting.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Kavanaugh accuser will testify before Senate panel

From The Boston Globe, by NYT Reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg, 22 September 2018.

Here is the lede plus three from my EMail Notice of this story:

Lawyers for the woman who’s accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of a sexual assault decades ago when they were teenagers say they've accepted the Senate Judiciary Committee’s request for her to tell her story.

But attorneys for Christine Blasey Ford say in a letter to the committee’s Republican majority that they want to set up a time later Saturday to keep discussing terms of Ford’s appearance.

The letter says Ford ‘‘accepts’’ the committee’s request that in the coming week she would ‘‘provide her first-hand knowledge of Brett Kavanaugh’s sexual misconduct.’’

The lawyers say they are ‘‘hopeful that we can reach agreement on details’’ of Ford’s appearance.

I am glad Senator Grassley granted the extra day.

I hope the Senate does not just summarily throw out the time honored tradition of innocent until proven guilty.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Value of Hearings?

For John, BLUF:  Someone suggested that hearings for Supreme Court Nominations became popular as a way of dealing with those favoring racial integration.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

RICHARD EPSTEIN NAILS IT

This is from a larger article at Politico Magazine:

"What Should the Senate Do With Brett Kavanaugh?"

Here is a comment from Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds:

If the Republicans hold the Senate, Mitch McConnell should use this precedent — together with the nonstop disruption of the hearings — to put Trump’s next nominee directly to a floor vote with no hearings, on three days’ notice.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

What the Democrats Promise for the House

For John, BLUF:  In the end it is about guerilla warfare against President Trump, awaiting the Day of the Mueller Report.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Agenda That Dare Not Speak Its Name

Here is the sub-headline:

Column:  The Democrats' plans for 2019—and beyond

From The Washington Free Beacon, by Mr Matthew Continetti, 17 August 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

The Democrats have decided that agendas are overrated.  Back in May, the party unveiled its "Better Deal" program, calling for expanded broadband access, an increase in the minimum wage, and paid family and sick leave.  Voters didn't bite.  So last month the Democrats came up with "For the People," which simplifies the platform to infrastructure spending, lowering health care costs, and draining the swamp.  Again, crickets.

What to do?  Party leadership has declared that it's every cis-het man for himself.  "We trust our candidates to know their districts and the challenges facing their communities better than anyone," House campaign chair Ben Ray Luján tells the New York Times.  Translation:  If you are Conor Lamb, run as a gun-friendly champion of the working class.  If you are Rashida Tlaib, feel free to announce that you would vote against aid for Israel and to call for bi-nationalism that would end the Jewish State.  Texas Democrat Colin Allred, following Hillary Clinton, says everyone should be able to buy into Medicare.  Maine Democrat Jared Golden, following Bernie Sanders, says, "We need to move towards a universal health care system, like Medicare-for-all."

In the end it is about banishing President Trump, and crippling him until that glorious day.

As for President Trump, it reminds me of the pig wrestling caution.  "Don't wrestle with a pig.  You will get dirty and it will only make the pig happy."

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Progressive Loss

TRIGGER WARNINGS:  In which I suggest progressives have lost their way.

For John, BLUF:  The Left is unmoored.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Primal Scream

This is from Opinionator Richard Fernandez and The Belmont Club, 10 November 2017.

Mr Fernandez talks to the Santa Muerte cult in Mexico, Kevin Spacey and The Communist Manifesto

Mr Fernandez then goes on to mention this recent event:

On Nov. 8, thousands of concerned Americans will commemorate the one-year anniversary of President Donald Trump‘s election by screaming helplessly into the sky.

The Opinion Piece ends on this note:

What they were mourning was not some conservative's sublunar fallibility, but their own.  Whatever happens now, the progressives have lost decades of "gains," not to the alt-right, which is nothing special, but to the realization of their own human frailty.  They will find equality intolerable.  But they might in consolation remember the classic lines from the movie Unforgiven.

The Schofield Kid:  Yeah, well, I guess they had it coming.

Will Munny:  We all got it coming, kid.

Sadly, we do.

Well worth a read.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Senators Questioning Religion?

For John, BLUF:  No religious test.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Hath Not a Catholic Eyes?

This is from Pajama Media, by Writer Andrew Klavan, 8 September 2017, about Senator Diane Feinstein (DiFi) (D-CA) questioning a Trump nominee, Professor Amy Barrett of Notre Dame University.

How would it be if we questioned Dianne Feinstein's ability to serve as a senator because she is Jewish?  After all, "You know, dogma and law are two different things. And I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma.  The law is totally different."  So said the senator in her recent questioning of Notre Dame law professor Amy Barrett, a Trump nominee for the Seventh District Court of Appeals, and a believing Catholic.  Of course, Senator Feinstein's hostility to Catholic dogma — including the divinity of Christ — might be seen as an expression of her own Jewish dogma, denying Christ's divinity.  We might say to the senator what she said to Professor Barrett:  "the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country."  As a liberal Jew, for instance, the senator might deny that our founding guarantees of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," apply to children in the womb — a principle large numbers of people have indeed fought for for years.

But of course — of course — it would be despicable, disgusting and deeply unAmerican to question Senator Feinstein in this way.  Not because religious dogma can't be questioned. All ideas can be questioned and attacked. And it's not because there isn't a danger of dogmatic religious people imposing their dogma on our secular government.  I for one wouldn't allow a Muslim who believed in the abomination of Sharia to come anywhere near an American bench because the very idea of Sharia is antithetical to the underlying principles of American law.

No.  It would be disgusting and unAmerican to attack Senator Feinstein on the basis of her Jewishness because it violates the very principles of our founding, so deeply connected to Judaeo-Christian thought.  Article Six of the Constitution explicitly states that all public servants, including judges, "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."  In other words, once it is established that a candidate for public office does not hold beliefs that prevent him from swearing allegiance to the Constitution (as a belief in Sharia would), his religion is none of your damn business.

If this an organized effort or just a smattering?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff