The Dangers Of A Democratic Landslide

Many political prognosticators are predicting a landslide victory for Joe Biden on Election Day. And the same people are saying that the Senate will also go to Democrats.

This turn of events will put our country in great political danger. It’s not because liberals will control the Executive and Legislative branches. It’s what Congress, endorsed by Biden, might do to change the age-old checks and balances in government.

Historically, the Senate filibuster was the failsafe procedure to prevent harmful bills from becoming laws. It has been the only way for the opposition to protect the country from an overzealous majority party.

The vitriol in Congress has never been worse in our history. The combination of Justice Amy Barrett’s confirmation and the Trump reign of terror are just two of the phenomena that have incited liberal congressional leaders to seek revenge.

So, what might Congress attempt to do if Democrats run the table? Since it is highly unlikely that the Senate Democrats will gain a filibuster proof majority (60 seats), it is conceivable that Sen. Schumer (the probable Senate Leader) will attempt to do away with the filibuster all together by changing the rules of the Senate.

In this case, all laws would need only a simple majority to be enacted. There will be no checks or balances to prevent unwise legislation, by requiring a supermajority for passage.

Note: The filibuster for confirmation of judges below the Supreme Court level was eliminated by Democrats several years ago 2013. The Republicans did the same for SCOTUS justices subsequently in 2017. Filibusters for laws are still available to the opposition party.

What will liberals do with this newfound power? One thing is they may abrogate the filibuster for all new laws. This would enable them to enact laws that will significantly affect every aspect of our lives without any possible enforceable objection from the minority. All tax laws, health care laws, immigration laws, voting laws, gun control laws, abortion laws would be modified so they would accommodate liberal ideological dogma.

But you might say, couldn’t the Supreme Court rein in the Legislative Branch? Currently, it could, especially with the confirmation of Justice Barrett. If Congress enacted a law that changed the number of justices on the Supreme Court, it could rebalance the court liberally. There has been much conversation about this unorthodox approach which is called court packing.

Since 1869, there have been nine seats on the Court. The Constitution gives Congress the power to change the number of seats. There have been between 5-10 justices on the Court in the 231 years of its existence.

Democrats want to draw blood from their Republican opponents. Moreover, the socialistic arm of Congress will be able to exert more power, so we should expect inane government spending along with outrageous tax increases for most socioeconomic levels.

The impending election has become the most important political moment in years. The ongoing backlash against Trump could have a marked change in our government for the foreseeable future.   

Amy Coney Barrett, Supreme Court Justice

Democrats are trying to discredit Amy Coney Barrett this week as she bids to become the next Justice of the Supreme Court. They have been unsuccessful for a number of reasons. Two of the most important ones are that ACB is very well qualified and her demeanor is ideal for a Supreme Court Justice.

Listening to ACB lecture the left-wing senators was bittersweet. On the one hand, she established that she is an expert on constitutional law. On the other hand, a number of Democratic senators showed the nation that they haven’t a clue about what it takes to be a jurist and writing opinions. Yet these senators are deciding ACB’s fate.

Watching ACB was like being in a classroom at law school. She defined legal terms. She informed the uninformed how SCOTUS operates and what rules the members are bound by. It was great for all those who tuned in.

Unfortunately, the Dems showed that, in spite of their membership on the Senate Judiciary Committee, they do not understand the nitty gritty of jurisprudence at the highest level. The Constitution requires that the Senate advise and consent on all nominees to the Supreme Court. If this was not the case, the current group of liberal senators would be dismissed for incompetence with few exceptions.

And why did the Dems go toe to toe with ACB? She is highly experienced, well written, eloquent as a judge and as qualified as any recently confirmed justice. She made her attackers look foolish. She is far more knowledgeable than any opponents who were grilling her.

Everyone knows that if the tables were turned, Democrats would be doing exactly what the Republicans are doing, pushing for their nominee. First of all, if a party nominating a judge to SCOTUS holds the presidency and the Senate, a confirmation hearing should not be contentious unless the opposition uncovers untoward behavior on the part of the nominee.

I should remind Dems, Trump is president, Republicans control the Senate and ACB is lauded by almost everyone who has come into contact with her, including fellow judges, mentors, mentees, students and virtually every professional organization that rates judges. She may not opine on legal issues the way you want her to, but she is always prepared, professional and diligent.

The Dems didn’t give any credence to this moment in history. A woman, who has been highly successful in every aspect of her life was vying for the position of an equally great woman, RCB. It’s pretty obvious that ACB is a superstar mother and person, and her religious beliefs have helped her live a righteous life.

The confirmation process for judges and justices leaves a lot to be do desired. Why does it need to be so confrontational? Why did Dems portray ACB as a person who will destroy America’s value system? This perspective is utter nonsense. The judge is an originalist. Her objective is to opine about the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress.

SCOTUS does not create laws. It’s a responsive arm of our government. If a law is deemed to be in tune with the text of the Constitution, justices should support it regardless of their personal feelings. ACB swore never to change laws that have been endorsed by earlier courts unless there is a serious issue. In other words, she will respect precedent (known as stare decisis). This means that ownership of guns and a woman’s right to choose, in the absolute, will be protected in perpetuity.

Many Dems suggested that ACB will be the deciding vote regarding ACA (Obamacare). She said numerous times that SCOTUS was not deciding whether ACA is a good law, only whether the law makes since without the mandate that supports the law (Is the mandate to tax/penalize citizens severable?). If ACA is viable without said mandate, SCOTUS should support the continuation of the law. In this regard, ACB said at least 100 times that SCOTUS is not a group that should be making law. It is supposed to ensure laws are constitutional. SCOTUS justices are not supposed to be activists or policy makers.

Finally, Democrats repeatedly asked ACB about specific issues that my come up if she is confirmed. The justice responded that she could not discuss these situations per the code of conduct (she may have to opine on them in the future). This happens at virtually every SCOTUS confirmation and should end to save time and aggravation for all.

Everything about ACB leads me to believe she will be an outstanding justice. True, the Court will tilt to the right because she will replace a more liberal justice. This is all a function of when judges step down or pass away, who is president and which party controls the Senate. Confirmation of a judge should not be open warfare. The party in power decides who will be considered, so conservative presidents and lawmakers will nominate conservative judges and liberal presidents and lawmakers will nominate liberal judges. The power to change the mix in of the Court ultimately lies with voters who vote for presidents and lawmakers of our country.

Barrett Will Be Confirmed

The impending confirmation proceedings of Amy Coney Barrett have Republicans and Democrats in a tizzy. Liberals claim Barrett will tilt the Court too far right, while conservatives are saying they hope the Court will hamper progressive initiatives.

First things first. Barrett is going to be considered and voted upon by the Senate before the election unless something dramatic turns up. It would have to be something salacious or illegal to stop the process.

Republicans control the White House, so Trump gets to pick the next nominee for the Court. Conservatives appear to have a bulletproof majority in the Senate, and an enthusiastic vice president who is ready, willing and able to break a tie vote. So, let’s put to rest a rejection of the process. You may not like what is going on, but all the things occurring are delineated in the Constitution. This of course will not deter protests by any number of left-wing groups.

Next is the issue of confirming a nominee in such a short period of time. It has been done before, and Barrett was vetted by the Senate a short time ago. The same questions will be asked by Barrett’s opposition relating to two major issues, Obamacare and Roe v. Wade. There is no reason why a short process would be a problem, although hysterical Democrats will likely do everything possible to obstruct Barrett’s confirmation.

A great deal of attention will be directed at the Merrick Garland ordeal. He was an Obama nominee in 2016 who was not afforded a Senate vote. At the time, Obama was president and Republicans held a majority in the Senate, and therefore controlled the confirmation process. Mitch McConnell, the Majority Leader, refused to take up the Garland nomination, which was his prerogative. The Constitution says the Senate considers and votes on nominees. It provides no time frame to get the job done.

Today, a Republican president is nominating a conservative to replace a liberal judge, and the Senate is in the hands of the Republicans. Although Democrats insist that the facts are the same as when Garland was nominated, they are not. Barrett will be considered quickly because Republicans are in charge of every aspect of the process. We will hear about hypocrisy and fairness ad nauseum from those that oppose Barrett, but it will be to no avail.

How dangerous is a conservative tilt of the Court to America? For the most part, there are only a few major social issues that the Court must deal with. Nevertheless, Trump opponents will say that conservatives are dead set on changing our way of life. This is a gross exaggeration.

The major issues that may be challenged by the conservative majority on the Court are abortion and health care. And, if there is a problem with the 2020 Election, presumably it will be worked out in favor of Republicans, similar to the 2000 election.

Abortion laws will not be expunged. We have come too far in our country guaranteeing the right of women to choose. Roe v. Wade will remain intact, but it could be tweaked in subtle ways. For instance, more late term abortions could be outlawed federally or by additional states. In fact, abortions after the 2nd trimester could be limited (paving the way for a massive negotiated settlement of the abortion issue), or funding of abortions with public money could be restricted. The Court may chip away on abortion, but the basic right of women will survive in my opinion.

Obamacare is another contentious issue. It has been a dismal failure since it became law. President Obama spent trillions trying to set the stage for universal health care. The US cannot afford this entitlement. The ultimate resolution of the situation is to provide free healthcare to people who cannot afford it, an expanded Medicaid system, if you will. This is the direction our government should follow after Congress and a conservative Court determine that some elements of Obamacare are either unaffordable and/or unconstitutional.

From what has been made public, Judge Barrett is well qualified, well-educated, empathetic, religious and in love with her family and America. This is a pretty good combination. I don’t think the world will suffer at all if this conservative judge joins the Supreme Court.

Farewell RBG

Farewell Ruth Bader Ginsburg. You were a liberal Supreme Court Justice and a great standard bearer of justice. Every American will miss your wise perspectives and wit.

I know you were trying to live long enough to give Joe Biden the honor of replacing you. Sorry it didn’t work out. In your coveted seat in Paradise, you will no doubt have a bird’s eye perspective while witnessing the fireworks that will kick off Sunday during the lineup of news programs.

Here is the preliminary state of affairs. Donald Trump has the constitutional duty to replace RBG, even though his opponents are saying he does not. Trump haters will remind us that the Senate would not consider Merrick Garland, the man that Barack Obama nominated during his final year in office. Mitch McConnell, the Majority Leader of the Senate, indicated that the next president should be the one to nominate a new justice in an election year. The replacement would take Justice Scalia’s place on the Court. McConnell refused to take up the nomination of Garland and Bret Kavanaugh was confirmed. Now, we have a somewhat similar situation.

Trump will surely nominate someone who is a conservative that will impact the tenuous conservative/liberal balance of judges on the Court. Currently, there are four conservative judges, three liberal judges and Justice Roberts who sometimes votes with liberals. He is the swing vote.

If Trump manages to get a conservative confirmed to replace RBG, the Court would have five conservative justices, three very liberal justices and Roberts. But conservatives would no longer need Roberts to side with them to have their way. It would be a very important moment for the Court and could have a huge impact on American society and values.

What will Trump do? Presumably, he will move rapidly to nominate a new judge. Time is of the essence. The Senate must confirm with only a majority vote. Currently, the Senate has 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats and Independents who vote with them. To confirm, McConnell must find 50 senators to support the nominee. In a 50-50 tie, VP Pence will deliver the winning vote.

There appears to be three potential Republican holdouts, Murkowski of Alaska, Collins of Maine and Romney of Utah. If any other Republicans are not supportive, the nomination will fail.

Even though Amy Coney Barrett has the edge according to rumors, it might make sense for Trump to nominate someone familiar to the Senate to save time, like a member, to be the next Supreme Court Justice. Cotton of Arkansas and Cruz of Texas have been mentioned as contenders. By choosing someone familiar to the senators, the vetting time could be cut short. This strategy is a long shot.

The process will not be a smooth one. Democrats will harp on the following issues as they object to anyone nominated by Trump:

Garland’s nomination in the final months of the Obama administration. It should be noted that now Republicans control the presidency and the Senate. When Garland was nominated the presidency was in the hands of a Democrat and the Senate was Republican.

Replacing a liberal judge with a conservative judge will upset the current balance of power in the court.

Replacing a female judge with a male judge, assuming the nomination of either Cotton or Cruz, will create more resistance.

The history of all Trump’s possible nominees considering Roe v. Wade, gun control, civil rights, etc. will be controversial.

Trump’s presidential performance should not allow him to confirm three judges.

It’s going to be a zoo in Washington during the next several months. The pandemic, the election and the Supreme Court confirmation will serve to politicize our nation’s capital even more than it has been in the past.

Kavanaugh’s Impact On The Mid Term Elections

The confirmation process of Brett Kavanaugh was an opportunity for the Democratic Party to make significant gains in both houses of Congress. Bonehead gambits by exuberant political hacks backfired, resulting in a great win for Trump, Kavanaugh and Republicans on the ballot this year.

The most obvious blunder was to depict Kavanaugh as Donald Trump reincarnated. The confirmation battles were really about the president, not the nominee. Democrats were intent on dealing Trump a loss, and it didn’t work out.

Fact is, Kavanaugh is a “boy scout” and is in no way a Trump sycophant. In fact the justice was not Trump’s first choice in the vetting process because he worked in the Bush administration.

Moreover, Kavanaugh’s personality and demeanor, prior to the onslaught by Democratic hit men and hit women, was far removed from Trump. Even as Kavanaugh fought back his tormentors, and his tears, he, in no way carried himself like Trump would under the same circumstances.

In a nutshell, Democrats were more interested in dealing a blow to the Trump administration than being mortified by Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual exploits 36 years ago as a 17 year-old knucklehead.

The interrogation of Kavanaugh before and after the Ford revelations was far too aggressive. The contention that Kavanaugh’s confirmation would immediately threaten Roe v. Wade was totally blown out of proportion. The nominee spent a great deal of time expressing his support of legal precedent, which Sen. Collins (R-MA) eloquently detailed in her endorsement speech.

The Democrats said that Kavanaugh would singlehandedly bring down the provision of Obamacare dealing with pre-existing conditions. This is ludicrous. Nobody, in either party, wants to roll back this aspect of health law.

And to suggest that Kavanaugh would blindly protect Trump in a constitutional crisis relating to an impeachment was unfounded. The justice, during his vaulted career frequently sided against conservative politicians.

Democrats had Kavanaugh on the ropes after Dr. Ford testified. The opposition made a number of mistakes handling Ford prior to the hearing and after it. Most important is that the accuser demanded anonymity. Her letter to Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) was leaked. Many speculate that someone on the senator’s staff was responsible for doing so.

But it didn’t matter. Kavanaugh’s accuser had him in her crosshairs, and she performed credibly. Note: I had serious concerns about Ford’s motives, loss of memory regarding times and places. Yet, I was sure Kavanaugh’s nomination would fail after the end of the accuser’s testimony.

Instead of allowing the alleged crimes to slowly sink in, and give Republicans a chance to stew over the allegations, Democrats doubled down and ravaged the accused with inane questioning. Moreover, their criticisms of a teenage boy were out of line.

Democrat’s scorched earth inquisition enabled Kavanaugh to switch gears and to become a sympathetic character being brutalized by liberals who really wanted to bring down the president. He morphed from a sexual harasser to political victim.

Someone must have encouraged Kavanaugh to play this part. Evoking tears, outrage and indignation were Kavanaugh’s only chance to save his nomination. “You [Democrats] ruined my life,” he said to his tormentors. It was a family affair, when Kavanaugh spoke of the pain of his wife and young daughters.

How did Democrats respond? They began to ask him even more irrelevant questions about passing out while drinking and the number of beers he drank at parties 36 years ago. Kavanaugh thought the questions were inappropriate and told Democrats so.

Effectively, Kavanaugh felt he had a pass to treat his oppressors disrespectfully and with venom. He mocked the senators, interrupted them and turned the tables on them. In short, after believing Kavanaugh was dead meat, I thought he was back in the game.

Regarding the upcoming elections and the presidential election in 2020, Democrats suffered a tremendous defeat. A young conservative was confirmed to join the Supreme Court. Republicans, specifically Sens. Charles Grassely (R-IA) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) pulled a rabbit out of the hat on the wings of unfair and inappropriate actions by their opposition.

The most memorable Democrats for me were the presidential aspirants on the Judiciary Committee, Sens. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Corey Booker (D-NJ). Their vicious rhetoric was embarrassing. Sen. Richard Blumenthal also deserves mention for his aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh’s integrity, after lying about his own military service.

And finally Democratic leadership should be singled out for conducting the worst campaign against a Supreme Court nominee ever. How could their caucus say no to a candidate before hearings begin?

Americans want more leadership, comity and fairness from their elected officials.

Democrats failed in their assessment and questioning of Brett Kavanaugh. For this, they will suffer at the polls on Election Day.




Kavanaugh Is Confirmed

The confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh is a confluence of many issues, underhanded tactics and history. Unfortunately, the process was circus-like and a low point for the Senate.

Some senators were brave and respectful, and some were conspiratorial and willing to destroy a well-qualified nominee for political gain.

Democrats, in particular, showed what they stand for during the deliberations. The party is at sea and fraught with partisanship and skullduggery. In the end, Republicans got their man. But his life has been turned upside down by a political party that doesn’t know how to win, or lose, gracefully.

Susan Collins (R-MA) summed up the state of affairs in the Senate eloquently in her speech prior to endorsing Kavanaugh. It was a seminal moment, and one that will be lauded by some and lambasted by others.

Collins is a moderate Republican a dying breed in this day and age (as are moderate Democrats). She risked her political career and legacy in a 45-minute speech, in which she justified her vote for the beleaguered candidate for the Supreme Court in a lawyerly and well-researched fashion.

Collins is known as a staunch advocate for all things important to women, including abortion rights, the proliferation of sexual harassment and health care benefits, to name a few. She transcended these important issues in favor of the rule of law.

Liberals will deride Collins mercilessly as a traitor to the basic rights of women. But really her actions benefited Americans of all sexes, races and religions.

During her speech Collins took the time to congratulate Dr. Christine Blasy Ford for coming forth and telling her story of sexual harassment. She also complimented and appreciated Kavanaugh for being a great judge over several decades and for being a scholar, father and husband.

Collins announced that she could not condone or be a part of any more attacks on Kavanaugh’s reputation based upon uncorroborated, thirty year old accusations of misbehavior. She clearly pointed out that although the confirmation process is not bound by finding irrefutable proof of wrongdoing, it should nevertheless strive to attain that ideal. Evidence has not been presented to support a no vote. Even a supplemental FBI investigation did not surface any damaging information.

The senators are victims of the Constitution they swear to protect. Supreme Court justices are confirmed for life, so the process rightly must drill deep into the lives of nominees. But Collins believes the opposition to Kavanaugh went too far and unfairly tarnished the nominee, thereby ignoring the most basic elements of the rule of law.

Democrats were enthusiastic about destroying a highly qualified man for political revenge. Kavanaugh personified Donald Trump in their minds. A loss by Kavanaugh would be a loss for the president.

The fallout from this sordid process is multifaceted. Many women are outraged even though the confirmation is more symbolic than they believe. Collins indicated that the new justice would not challenge Roe v. Wade. The pre-existing conditions in health care laws will persevere. And Kavanaugh has not been, nor will he ever be, shy about challenging sitting presidents including ones in his own party.

The unhappiness related to this confirmation could have significant ramifications moving forward. For one thing there will be a lot of noise, protest and sour faces. But it just might backfire and energize the Republican base in the midterm and subsequent elections. Pundits are debating this right now.

Moving forward, it would be shocking if Kavanaugh did not bear a grudge against those who slandered him. But, the other eight members of the court will dilute this.

Most importantly Collins implored politicians on both sides to temper their rhetoric for the good of the nation. This is doubtful in the near future.

Supreme Court Justices Should Have Term Limits

Perhaps the power bestowed on Supreme Court justices is too great. If so, does it make sense for justices to be subjected to term limits?

Congress is having one hell of time confirming new justices these days. Opposing senators say over and over that nominees to the Court must stand up to the harshest scrutiny because the seats are lifetime appointments. Most agree with this perspective, so why shouldn’t we amend the Constitution and force some healthy turnover on the Court?

Consider the plight of Brett Kavanaugh. He’s been bludgeoned mercilessly by Senate Democrats relating to an incident that may or may not have occurred thirty-six years ago when he was 17.

Opponents of Kavanaugh are spending an inordinate amount of time counting the cans of beer the nominee drank when he was in high school and college. No consideration is being given to the fact that since college Kavanaugh has never been cited for excessive alcohol consumption, assaulted anyone in a drunken stupor, received a DWI summons or was criticized for being inebriated while performing his role as a judge. This is more than most typical legislators can claim about their lives.

Kavanaugh has led an exemplary life and has been touted as a potential Supreme Court justice for years. Moments before he attained this exalted position, a woman materialized out of the blue and accused him of sexual assault in the 1980s. Dr. Ford indicated that because a Supreme Court appointment was for life, she was obligated to come forth.

The circumstances surrounding Ford are just a little dicey. For one thing she didn’t want to go public. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) received a letter written by Ford and guided her “coming out” moment, in spite of Ford’s desire to remain anonymous. It’s been alleged that the senator leaked the story to the press to gain a political edge against Kavanaugh who was well on his way towards confirmation, thereby ignoring the plea of the accuser.

Lifetime appointments are significant because, by the luck of the draw, one president could be in a position to pack the Court with like-minded individuals for an extended period of time. A 45 year-old justice could be on the bench for 40 years. If two or three justices retire and/or pass away during a single presidential term, that president could replace them with radical justices (liberal or conservative).

Changing the Constitution and limiting justices to say ten years of service would mitigate many of the problems affiliated with the current system. A “bad” appointment would only last for a finite period of time. The average age of the Court would decrease and the debates and insights from the justices would surely be enhanced. As an aside, Justice Ginsberg has been having problems staying awake while the Court is in session. Younger justices would have more energy and also be more in tuned to our dynamic society and changing times that make old laws less relevant.

Unless the F.B.I. finds a smoking gun, Kavanaugh is likely to be confirmed. In my last post I indicated that he is damaged merchandise. He could very well retain a bias against those that treated him unfairly along with the issues that they champion. We should expect him to lean even further right if confirmed.

Prospectively, confirming a male will be particularly difficult. What goes around comes around. You can be sure that when Republicans are the opponents, nominees will be tormented in kind.

The Kavanaugh process was a total disaster for our country and the Supreme Court. In this instance Democratic senators are most culpable.

In the near future, the country should consider limiting the tenure of Supreme Court justices.

Kavanaugh Is Distressed Merchandise Even If He Is Confirmed By The Senate

Thankfully the journey of Brett Kavanaugh, the nominee for Supreme Court Justice, is near an end. After a heartbreaking supplemental Senate hearing on Thursday, a small group of Republicans, led by Jeff Flake (R-AZ), enabled the F.B.I. to investigate new assertions of misbehavior by the nominee.

The Democrats reacted in a way that was totally predictable. They said the F.B.I. has too little time to investigate thoroughly. Clearly the opposition is trying to delay the process past the midterm elections. A blue wave on Election Day could derail Trump’s attempt to name a conservative to the Supreme Court, if Kavanaugh is derailed.

Dr. Christine Blasy Ford testified first last Thursday and was convincing. Republican questioning through an intermediary was respectful and not accusatory. In fact, it was so tepid that it seemed like Kavanaugh’s confirmation was doubtful.

There are some holes in Ford’s testimony about the location of the alleged attack, how she returned home afterwards and a dearth of corroboration from individuals that may have been involved. But overall, Ford’s testimony was credible, and she was a sympathetic witness.

Judge Kavanaugh’s experience was quite the opposite. He’s been treated with total disrespect from the get go. During the initial hearings he was cooperative when responding to insulting questions, but he turned combative in the face of allegations by Ford on Thursday.

In a lengthy opening statement, the Judge said the Senate Democrats were treating him unfairly, ruined his reputation and good name and turned his personal life into chaos. Throughout his soliloquy Kavanaugh was on the verge of breaking down.

Of note was the Kavanaugh’s complaint that Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) waited for weeks before disclosing the correspondence from Ford about an alleged attack. He said it should have been investigated not at the 11th hour, but earlier in the process. Additionally Kavanaugh pointed out the lack of corroboration by any of the people supposedly present on the day in question 30 plus years ago.

Kavanaugh accused Democrats of using his confirmation as a ploy to attack President Trump. He said they were seeking retribution for their losses in the 2016 elections. He said that Democrats treated him even more harshly than Justice Thomas and Robert Bork.

During the questioning Democrats consistently insisted that Kavanaugh himself should ask the F.B.I. to investigate the accusations made by Ford and others. He responded time and again that he’d already been vetted by the agency numerous times.

Democrats sought to characterize Kavanaugh as a drunken party boy. They asked him countless times if he was intoxicated regularly as a young man and, if he ever passed out while drinking and if he was belligerent when he drank to excess.

New revelations were evident in Kavanaugh calendar, which he keeps vigilantly. It indicated that he attended no such party as the one at which he allegedly assaulted Ford.

Kavanaugh dismissed Ford’s accusations. But, he said he believed that someone assaulted her, just not him. He also indicated that he bore no ill feelings towards his accuser.

Suffice it to say, the Kavanaugh confirmation has been a circus. It’s a low point of recent Senate deliberations fraught with political shenanigans, twisted truths and character assassination.

The big question is: Can Kavanaugh effectively fill a Supreme Court seat after the shellacking he received from his detractors? Doubtful. The damage inflicted upon the man is so great that it makes no sense for Trump to move forward with him. Liberals and women have used Kavanaugh as a whipping boy in lieu of Donald Trump, who is the real villain. This will not change regardless of what the F.B.I. uncovers in their investigation. Some Democrats promised to continue to investigate after Kavanaugh is confirmed, if Democrats win either the Senate or House.

What are the ramifications of this terrible episode? Will the treatment of Kavanaugh by Democrats impact future confirmation hearings? Damn right it will!

All future male nominees beware. You should expect an avalanche of harsh and unfair questioning relating to behavior since birth by the opposition. Every romantic moment in your lives will be investigated. Those seeking dirt will comb high school and college yearbooks and social media looking for hints of any inappropriate behavior.

The jury is still out. There remains much more mudslinging to come. The Democrats will be relentless and try to stymie the confirmation. Republicans may jam the nomination through the system if the F.B.I. comes up empty.

But the damage has already been done. Kavanaugh is distressed merchandise abhorred by most women and all liberals. He will never be the judge that most expected him to be because of the past few months. I hope those that treated him unfairly lose sleep over their actions, especially if the authorities are unable to find any corroboration of allegations.

Kavanaugh Has Become The Poster Boy For Feminists

If you are a male it’s becoming increasingly difficult to ward off feelings of self-loathing given all the criticism about us. We are all vile sex deviants according to feminists, several of whom are Democratic senators. The #Me too hysteria has swung far to the left and is tearing the country apart.

In the New York Times op-ed section yesterday, there were two articles that lambasted men. One related to the decision about Senate Republicans proposing to employ female prosecutors to question Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser.

Ironically, I thought this was a sensitive, sincere and civilized gesture on the part of the all-male Republican contingent on the Judiciary Committee. I’ll bet an anti-male article would have been forthcoming regardless of whom the Republicans proposed to appoint to question the accuser.

The other story is a general bashing of men, fraternities, sports groups, affluence, private schools, etc. It discusses the misogynistic antics and alcohol consumption of male party animals. The article is titled “Pigs All the Way Down.”

I was at a gathering this week that included several highly intelligent and successful women. It appeared that that the judge, jury and executioner has already decided. As far as I could tell all of them believe that (a) Kavanaugh is a liar and (b) Kavanaugh is going to overturn Roe v. Wade (as if he alone could do this). As an aside, I believe the majority of women feel the same way.

It should be noted that the Supreme Court nominee intends to testify under oath that he never sexually assaulted any women; he was a virgin until after college; and he never exposed his private parts at a drinking party.

Regarding Roe, it seems to make no difference that Kavanaugh resoundingly supports stare decisis, a precedent or authority in a legal case that establishes a principle or rule. This means that it would be next to impossible to abrogate Roe, even if Kavanaugh thinks the decision was misguided or unconstitutional. In any case, I suspect there would be a revolution if the law were to be changed.

I think the #Me too movement is a terrific thing for all woman. I’m delighted that women are implicating men who have abused them. It is particularly important when they bring down men who use(d) vaulted positions (as a boss, mentor, priest, doctor, teacher) to have their way with women (and other men).

I’m disheartened that Kavanaugh is the poster boy for the ire of all women. He’s led an honorable life, and has been a good judge, husband and father, by almost all accounts. It’s unfortunate that without corroboration he is being viciously attacked for political purposes by Senate Democrats who are abusing the court of public opinion. Note: The bar is much lower in this court than in a real trial of innocence or guilt.

The alleged event happened 30 years ago and someone’s recollection is cloudy. Very young people, not adults, were involved. My recommendation is that #Me too begin to shift its focus to prospective abuse by males rather than dwelling on alleged abuses by youngsters that may or may not have occurred decades earlier.

30 Year Old Accusation Threatens Kavanaugh Confirmation

The #Me Too phenomenon has dramatically empowered women in America and around the world. In a very short period of time, the movement has greatly affected the way men and women relate to each other. Unfortunately, when change occurs rapidly, there can be dire unforeseen consequences. One of these is reflected in the controversy affecting Judge Brett Kavanaugh, nominee to be the next Supreme Court Justice.

Most people seem to thing that Kavanaugh has led a righteous life (even if you disagree with his stance on social issues) as a judge, a teacher and a family man.

Many women have written to the Senate Judiciary Committee indicating that he was a nice fellow even when he was a young man, at the time of the alleged sexual abuse. These plaudits were inspired by an accusation that Kavanaugh sexually attacked a young woman of 15 years, while he was a young man of 17. The alleged encounter happened several decades ago.

I respect the right of any woman to take action against sexual abuse, regardless of the passage of time. I also believe that Kavanaugh has the right to defend himself and not be prosecuted by the court of public opinion. Unfortunately, the aforementioned court has a much lower bar than a traditional trial jury, and it has been particularly aggressive with Kavenaugh encouraged by Senate Democrats. So Kavanaugh’s life could be ruined without any court proceedings for a moment that may or may not have happened many years ago.

Reasonable doubt is supposed to protect the accused from frivolous prosecution and questionable allegations. It’s not always perfect and many defendants who were guilty over the years were set free because of reasonable doubt.

In the case of Kavanaugh, reasonable doubt and political gain is painted all over the allegations. The accuser has waited 30 something years to cry foul, just as the accused is about to be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice. The allegations were known, but not made public until the 11th hour of the Senate confirmation hearings. A highly partisan female senator, Diane Feinstein (D-CA) either directly or indirectly convinced the accused to go public. Directly by indicating that an age old interlude by high school students should disqualify a Supreme Court Justice nominee, or indirectly by encouraging the press to badger the accuser.

I don’t know whether an alleged singular moment in Kavanaugh’s life that happened when he was a child should disqualify him to become a Supreme Court Justice. I don’t know if the accuser is lying or she is confused about what happened and with whom it occurred many years ago.

What I do know is that if the accused will not testify, the questionable circumstances, the denials by a man with outstanding credentials and integrity, the age of the accused when it may have occurred and the passage of time should be enough to satisfy senators that Brett Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court.