Friday, 05 October 2018 13:02

Kavanaugh Supreme Court blues, all over but the last rights

Written by
Rate this item
(0 votes)

blue cap

At the time of this writing, we less than one hour away from US Senator Susan Collins of Maine telling us that she has decided to back Judge Kavanaugh which will tilt the Supreme Court to the right, most likely for the balance of my life time.

There is a sense of desperation in the halls of the Capitol for many Democrats. A thick blue cloud has fallen upon their hopes, choking them, possibly for decades to come.  The time for praying is over. It's time to pack up the rights for which they have fought and pack them up, for now. The bright days ahead for them will need to see another moment.

I have been silent on the issue as to whether I believe he should be disqualified on the basis of his politics. Despite what he claims in the Wall Street Journal last night when he said he will be independent, his behavior of the past few weeks and shown anything but. Susan Collins might cite his claims as a reason for her support, but, if she does, not many will believe her.

Certainly not the Democrats who see Kavanaugh as the grinch who stole the woman's right to choose. And certainly, not the Republicans, who are pushing his nomination for exactly the same reason, to forever deal with the abortions.

Nor can Collins say that the FBI process was fair, although she surely likely will do that.  Too many reports have revealed that the White House and the Republican controlled Congress has put their finger on the scale. When you have 40 odd witnesses identified and many of them wanting to testify, and the FBI only interviews a small fraction of them, it doesn't take much to figure out the score.

But, for me, the FBI lack of investigatin, the really poor behavior for a Supreme Court nominee, the entire sexual battery issue, the skewing of the court to the right--none of those reasons are good enough to stop Kavanaugh from being sworn in. As i have previously written, the divisions in this country are so severe, there must be compromise, whether some of us like it or not. Thus, to put up skin in the game of working together with whatever the other side might be, I hereby believe that the President should be allowed to have whatever nominee he or she wants, unless there are ethical concerns. This means, cabinet members, federal judges, appointees, and Supreme Court nominees, the President's choice primes over political philosophy.

Radical and absurd?  

Possibly, but something needs to break this angry, ugly feverish, hateful political divisions in this country.  So, despite my knowledge that no US Senator or anybody else would even consider following this political recipe to bringing the country together, this is my way of trying to mend the fences.

However, as I said, the only factor to consider are ethical concerns.

And that's where my acceptance of this nominee for US Supreme Court ends.  I don't believe he qualifies for the US Supreme Court, not because of his politics and not because the FBI might have been forced to curb the investigation, but, because of the fact that i don't believe he told the truth.

Below is an opinion piece i posted yesterday on Facebook. I know this falls on deaf ears for Collins will almost certainly vote in support and if, for some reason, she totally caves, West Virgina's Joe Manchin, will cross the line and back the nominee or else, he could say goodbye to the Senate, forever:

BELOW: FACEBOOK SEPTEMBER 4, 2018
It has been my opinion since Thursday that the key issue is not which person is telling the truth about what happened 36 years ago. Instead, to me, and hopefully to you, the question to ask that is much more relevant and important is this—did Kavanaugh tell the truth when he testified. If he did not tell the truth, than, regardless as to what Ford might have said, this man should not be on the Supreme Court.
Again, if Kavanaugh was not being honest, even if Ford lied totally about the events that she stated under oath, he should not be our Supreme Court justice.
During the hearing, he specifically said, 9 times that the witnesses said that event “didn’t happen” Nine times, in his mind and through his mouth, he stated affirmatively that the WITNESSES stated it did not happen.
Did they?
NO.
At very best, what they said was—I don’t recall, I did not see that, I was not at that party, I don’t remember that party. One witness said that she had no memory of the events, but she believed her friend, Dr. Ford.
So, could Kavanaugh be accurate to say that the witnesses said that the event did not happen?
A friend of mine has said to me that had he said, “none of her witnesses said it happened”, he would have been right. Thus, my friend contends that since Kavanaugh is essentially claiming that all of the witnesses said it “did not happen”, this is just a technical distinction.
Is it?  Words mean nothing?
Does “ALL the witnesses said it “DID NOT HAPPEN” equal, none of the witnesses said “IT HAPPENED”
Is that a technical distinction without a difference?
If so, when did All mean none? When did “it happened” mean “it didn’t happen”?
So, if you accept that they are not the same, then, in my opinion, the only question to ask is this—why did Kavanaugh, a man who has sworn to tell the truth, a man who wants to be on the highest court in the land, make such a adamant definite statement, not once, not twice, but (9) nine times? 
Nine times, when asked about the FBI reviewing the case or when defending his position, under oath, Kavanaugh said something that clearly was not correct. 
Why did he say 9 times that the witnesses said "it did not happen"? Why did he not say, "no witness has said it happened"?
I cannot tell you why he said what he said. What I can tell you however, is this-- he is a judge in the second highest court in the land. 2nd highest. He is being praised for his intellect and presumably his honesty and temperament. He badly wants to be on the Supreme Court. He is being challenged.  He was upset that his reputation had been smeared and was upset his family has to listen to this.
So, instead of saying, "none of the witnesses appear to support her version of the facts", which actually, might not be true since the lady friend said she believed Dr. Ford, or again, instead of saying none of the witnesses said it happened, he decided to make the ultimate defense, which was all the witnesses said it did not happen.
So, this man, who desperately wants to be on the Supreme Court said 9 times, in my opinion, a sentence that he had to know was not true.  How could that happen? How could a man with this type of training and intellect and experience not know the difference between the two?
Could it be that he resorted to the ultimate defense because he felt compelled to do it? At best, did he fudge, distort, twist, spin or at worst, lie?
Did he think at least one of those times he made the statement, hey, maybe all of the witnesses are not saying it did not happen?
Has he corrected the record?
Indeed, there are inconsistencies on both sides and trying to reconstruct the past is very difficult, especially, in this type of situation where people might have a motivation to cover up, or, to be fair, motivation to accuse.
That is why I have said all week--let us assume that he is totally correct, that she is wrong. Let us assume that she is lying.  Let us assume that he is angry that he knows he has been smeared.  The question still remains, did he not tell the truth when he testified about what the witnesses said?
In my opinion, if you believe it is more important to stick it to the democrats or Feinstein deserves it or that he would make a great conservative judge or, how dare the dems destroy this man’s reputation, I fully understand your emotions.
She has a very difficult time given the circumstances to prove her case after so many years.
But, I contend that if you believe that the US Constitution must be strictly interpreted, then, please don’t allow this judge to interpret the facts by using words that simply are not true.
Nine times is at least eight times too many to be a mistake.
Our trust in the constitution and in the highest court in the land and trust in all of the courts in the land which this man will oversee is paramount to uphold.
Words must matter. Words must matter to understand intent.
Nine times, this judge chose those words instead of a less adamant phrase to support his case.
Why?
I think many of you know the answer.

Read 412 times Last modified on Friday, 05 October 2018 14:57

Our Past Webinars

allee 5


bern jim3 2


buisson elections4 1

 

 

cherv james williams 3

Dead Pelican

Optimized-DeadPelican2 1 1