Category Archives: US Supreme Court

RBG: will the GOP Senate do the right thing?

Posted on by

Since the passing of US Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday, September 18th, at home, at the age of 87, the world has turned upside down. Many issues are on the table.

Her personal life and her impact has already been discussed in ways I can’t begin to address and won’t. What I will do is address her politics and then the politics of “okay, so what next”?

Personally I’m sure she was a good woman — and it’s clear she had numerous challenges in her life, from her multiple bouts with cancer to her husband Marvin passing at the age of 78 back in 2010 of metastatic cancer himself.

That’s the personal aside. Now to politics. And that is this, which apparently no one save me seemed to notice or much care about.

How can an actual sitting Associate Supreme Court Justice eschew the United States Constitution when talking with a foreign power — in this case Egypt — about creating their own constitution?

If she doesn’t recommend our Constitution to anyone else in 2012, how can she be trusted to uphold it when anything comes before her?

Why would that be? I submit: positive vs negative rights.

The US Constitution is crafted in such a way as to tell our government what it can’t do against its citizens.

The rights granted United States citizens come from God, not government.

Our rights are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as set forth in the Declaration of Independence. Nowhere does any document guarantee any outcome whatsoever, nor should it. Opportunity? Of course so. For everyone.

However, it is the responsibility of persons to act, well, responsibly.

The vacancy created? We know that nature abhors a vacuum. And whereas before, Republicans were historically hesitant to wield power when they had it, it appears Mitch McConnell is set to deliver again — in re Merrick Garland.

Of course, that’s when the threats and screaming began.

Senate Minority Leader Chuckie Schumer also started screaming. And the body hadn’t even cooled yet on the 18th.

Schumer: Ruth Bader Ginsburg seat should be filled by next president

by Jordain Carney, 9-18-20

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Friday night that the Senate should wait until next year to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg‘s death.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” Schumer said in a tweet.

Schumer’s tweet comes less than an hour after news broke that Ginsburg had died Friday at 87, throwing a landmine into an already chaotic presidential election year.

Schumer’s tweet is a word-for-word copy of a statement Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) released in 2016 after the election-year death of the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

It also points to the looming battle over whether Senate Republicans will try to fill the seat in an election year, after leaving Scalia’s seat open until 2017 when President Trump appointed and the GOP-controlled Senate confirmed Justice Neil Gorsuch.

As the revered Barack Hussein Obama once chirped at Republicans, “elections have consequences.”

Did you ever know Demorats not to wield power when they had it? Hold back? Become remarkably circumspect, packed with good tidings, bipartisanship and compromise? Fuck no.

In a role reversal, do you possibly think they’d stop from filling the SCOTUS vacancy? Not on your damned life.

Also, the NationalReview.com wrote:

History Is on the Side of Republicans Filling a Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020

by Dan McLaughlin, 8-7-20

Choosing not to fill a vacancy would be a historically unprecedented act of unilateral disarmament.

If a Supreme Court vacancy opens up between now and the end of the year, Republicans should fill it. Given the vital importance of the Court to rank-and-file Republican voters and grassroots activists, particularly in the five-decade-long quest to overturn Roe v. Wade, it would be political suicide for Republicans to refrain from filling a vacancy unless some law or important traditional norm was against them. There is no such law and no such norm; those are all on their side. Choosing not to fill a vacancy would be a historically unprecedented act of unilateral disarmament. It has never happened once in all of American history. There is no chance that the Democrats, in the same position, would ever reciprocate, as their own history illustrates.

History supports Republicans filling the seat. Doing so would not be in any way inconsistent with Senate Republicans’ holding open the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. The reason is simple, and was explained by Mitch McConnell at the time. Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies at any time — even in a presidential election year, even in a lame-duck session after the election, even after defeat. Historically, when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees sent up in a presidential election year, and hold the seat open for the winner. Both of those precedents are settled by experience as old as the republic. Republicans should not create a brand-new precedent to deviate from them.

I bet Biden wishes he hadn’t said this.

So: yes, President Trump did consult with the Senate. Check. And mate.

Does anyone remember what occurred with nominee Clarence Thomas in 1991?

Because, well, if you’re voting for Trump, “you ain’t black.”

“Come on, man!”

And as I said, let the threats commence. From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

‘Over our dead bodies’: Liberals threaten to ‘burn it all down’ if GOP replace Ginsburg before Election Day

by Andrew Mark Miller, 9-19-20

Former CNN host Reza Aslan joined several other verified Twitter accounts in threatening violence if Senate Republicans attempt to fill the Supreme Court seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“Over our dead bodies. Literally,” Aslan wrote in response to a tweet saying Sen. Mitch McConnell intends to fill Ginsberg’s seat, shortly after it was announced Friday that she had died at the age of 87.

Aslan also tweeted, “If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f—ing thing down.”

“If McConnell jams someone through, which he will, there will be riots,” Washington Post and GQ writer Laura Bassett said.

Director of Communications at the Anti-Violence Project Eliel Cruz agreed with Willimon’s calls to shut things down by calling on people to march on Washington and “just shut it down ourselves.”

Aaron Gouveia, author of a new book titled Raising Boys To Be Good Men: A Parent’s Guide to Bringing Up Happy Sons in a World Filled with Toxic Masculinity, responded to McConnell’s call to fill the vacant seat by tweeting, “F— no. Burn it all down.”

Writer and LGBT activist Charlotte Clymer opted not to wait until Republicans pushed a Ginsburg replacement through, deciding instead to head straight to McConnell’s home on Friday night.

“We’re now walking to Mitch McConnell’s house to protest,” Clymer said before tweeting out the intersection that McConnell allegedly lives on.

“His house is entirely dark,” she said later. “Significant police presence out front. It’s clear that he’s not here, as confirmed by a neighbor who is not fond of him. People are going home.”

Because that’s where the Demorat Party is these days.

McConnell received some support from fellow Republicans, including Sen. Ted Cruz, who agreed that a replacement should be voted on before the election, arguing that voters went to the polls in 2016 with the understanding they would likely be voting for the president who would fill Ginsburg’s seat.

“The president should next week nominate a successor to the court, and I think it is critical that the Senate takes up and confirms that successor before Election Day,” the Texas Republican said Friday night. “This nomination is why Donald Trump was elected.”

Then the standard Mark I, Model I JAFRs weighed in.

Several Senate Republicans, including Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Sen. Susan Collins, have made statements this year suggesting they would not support filling a SCOTUS vacancy this close to an election.

Democrats began vehemently opposing the move to fill the seat before the election immediately following Ginsburg’s death.

As indicated, there’s precedent.

There is historical precedent, as American Enterprise Institute fellow and former speechwriter for George W. Bush Marc Thiessen pointed out on Twitter, for Republicans to fill the seat so close to an election.

“*29 Presidents have had election year or lame duck vacancy -—all nominated someone,” Thiessen tweeted. “*8 x before election when other party controlled Senate — only 1 succeed. *10x before election when Pres and senate controlled by same party — 9 succeeded.”

Nancy Pelosi, of course, weighed in — in her preternaturally-cogent way.

But wait. The Demorats insisted a vacant SCOTUS seat be filled. At the end of Obama’s term. What changed?

But wait. Again. Didn’t Ruth Bader Ginsburg say something about this as well?

Here’s What RBG Said About Filling a SCOTUS Vacancy in an Election Year

by Matt Margolis, 9-19-20

As the debate over what to do about the vacancy on the Supreme Court is only getting started, perhaps we should heed the advice of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself as to what to do.

When a similar scenario occurred four years ago, following the death of Antonin Scalia, the Republican-controlled Senate blocked Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. It was a controversial move, and Ginsburg had something to say about it:  Ginsburg publicly called on the Senate to go through with the nomination.

“That’s their job,” she said in July 2016. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”

“Eight is not a good number for a collegial body that sometimes disagrees,” Ginsburg said on the issue a few months later during an event at the Smithsonian Museum of American History in Washington.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was with her, agreed. “I think we hope there will be nine as quickly as possible.”

“What we do is we automatically affirm the decision of the court below. No opinion is written, no reasons are given, and the affirmance has no precedential value,” Ginsburg explained. “It’s just as though we denied review.”

There’s more. Here’s RBG from CNBC.com:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she opposes proposals from 2020 Democrats to expand the Supreme Court

by Tucker Higgins, 7-24-19

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she opposes proposals by Democratic presidential candidates to increase the number of seats on the Supreme Court because doing so would make it look partisan.

“It would be that — one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to,’” Ginsburg told NPR in an interview that aired Wednesday.

“Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time,” she said Tuesday.

Several Democratic candidates have said they are open to increasing the size of the nine-justice court.

Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke said shortly after entering the race that expanding the court to 15 members is an “idea we should explore.” Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, has made court reform a centerpiece of his campaign, including the idea of court expansion. Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand have said they are open to the idea.

But Ginsburg, the court’s most senior liberal justice, said the idea contradicts the premise of an independent judicial branch.

But guaranteed, very very guaranteed, you have NEVER heard of these stories or heard these audio cuts from the American Media Maggots. Purposely. You cannot afford to be actually informed or you begin to think clearly and independently.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz wrote:

Sen. Ted Cruz: After Ginsburg — 3 reasons why Senate must confirm her successor before Election Day

Here’s why President Trump must nominate a successor next week and why the Senate must confirm that successor before Election Day:

First, this nomination is why the American people elected Donald Trump as president and this confirmation is why the American people voted for a Republican majority in the U.S. Senate.

Second, twenty-nine times in our nation’s history we’ve seen a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year or before an inauguration and in every instance, the president proceeded with a nomination.

And finally, as we approach what is likely to be a contested election that hangs in the balance of the Supreme Court, our nation is at risk of a constitutional crisis without nine justices on the bench.

Obama himself said in 2016:

Note how the UK Daily Mail portrays RBG’s death:

Trump is expected to ignore RBG’s dying wish and nominate her replacement in days while Biden demands he wait until after the election so the American people can decide

  •  It was the dying wish of late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away Friday, that the next president nominate her replacement

  • Trump is set to ignore her and announce a nomination in the coming days

  • His rival Biden has already hit out and demanded he wait until after the election

  • Even if Trump does nominate in the next few days, a group of rebel GOP senators may stop it being approved 

  • Senators Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski are among those expected to oppose a vote 

As if death wishes or emotions take precedent over the US Constitution.

As it is, Demorats refuse to face the difficult truth: if Ruth Bader Ginsburg weren’t all taken by herself, and if the Demorats under Obama were playing tactically, she would have retired and Obama could have appointed her replacement quite easily.

But no. That was her decision. And their decision. No one hosed the Demorats but Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Demorats themselves.

At this point, it appears that Chuck Grassley and Mitt Romney have said they’ll vote in the Senate instead of refusing to vote.

Trump is expected to announce his nomination for SCOTUS this Friday or Saturday.

I suggest it may be Amy Coney Barrett.

And then next Tuesday? Will there be an actual debate between President Trump and Joe Biden? Will Joe suddenly be feeling poorly?

Time will tell.

BZ

 

 

 Share

Ruth Bader Ginsburg retiring in January of 2019?

Posted on by

RBG believes in the soldier’s mantra: “get sleep wherever you can.”

First, from the SantaMonicaObserver.com:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Will Retire from the US Supreme Court in January, 2019

by Stan Greene

Speaking privately, a law clerk says the Justice’s Cancer has come out of remission.

While the Nation is preoccupied with the appointment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, it appears there will soon be another vacancy on the US Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has had a re-occurrence of malignant melanoma, she has told her law clerks. Ginsburg was treated in 1999 for colon cancer and had surgery in 2009 for pancreatic cancer.

She has told key Democratic members of the Senate about her medical condition, including ranking Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee Dianne Feinstein. This explains in part the “take no prisoners” attitude of the Democrats during the Kavanaugh nomination, carefully orchestrating weak 37 year old allegations against Kavanaugh by Women he barely remembers knowing in High School and College.

But wait. Demorats knew this back in September or perhaps even before? By all indications, that would be a fervent “yes.”

Does that not provide a rather clear explanation for certain behaviors? Of course it does. It explains much about the Judge Brett Kavanaugh hearings.

And no, BZ did not write this next paragraph, stellar as it is.

Kavanaugh is a player in this drama. He’s in the wrong place at the wrong time . President Donald J Trump will be replacing Notorious RBG, the lovechild of the left, and so will remake the Supreme Court for a generation. The Democrats simply must win back the Senate in November 2018, progressives feel.

Aha. Now you put this all together. Now you know why the Demorats are cheating in Florida. As Catholics say that “every sperm is sacred,” so do Demorats wail that “every seat is sacred.” Further: why “every stolen vote is sacred.”

As in: the Demorats knew this for quite some time. And planned their various and numerous cheating schemes accordingly.

Nothing succeeds like success. And nothing exceeds like excess.

Then I was made aware of this.

But wait. Was BZ prescient? I said and wrote back in late 2016 and early 2017 that I believed President Trump would get, at minimum, two opportunities to make SCOTUS nominations. I was proven correct via Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

I also submitted that a third vacancy could be placed in President Trump’s lap even before 2020. Now it appears that may be correct as well.

Gird thy loins.

If you thought the Demorats fought over Kavanaugh, you haven’t yet seen a “fight.”

Demorats realize that an RBG vacuum is the ultimate political battleground.

You have yet to witness the real violence and political backstabbing that is to come.

BZ

 

 Share

Susan Collins: one rational female voice in the political Senate wilderness

Posted on by

Senator Susan Collins at podium, with Republican Senators Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi sitting behind. They too were a “yes” on Judge Brett Kavanaugh. 

And I certainly never thought I’d write that but, after all, these are the times of Kabuki Theater, lies, betrayal, backstabbing politics, abject character assassinations and the reversal of most everything people commonly knew as “good.” Here is but one example, embraced lovingly by the Demorats. It’d be laughable — which it actually is — if it weren’t true.

Also note that Senator Collins had to wade through all this extraneous flotsam in order to get to the chambers.

Nothing like being tracked down, hounded, followed and stalked. Nah. Nothing creepy or fraught with potential violence there.

And yet, Republican Senator Susan Collins managed to proffer this to the Senate. Something that should have been embraced by every other clear thinking Senator because, damn her, she managed to eschew simple emotion and embrace the law.

One brave woman. Who received these immediate threats for displaying a grasp of logic, proportion, facts, history, common sense and rationality.

This is a fraction of what Susan Collins faced thereafter.

Not so brave? In fact, a miserable, duplicitous wretch? Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who caved following this physical bracing by Diane Feinstein in the halls, caught by cell phone camera. Note the posturing and body language inherent in the shot. This is a power pose like no other, meant to do nothing more than belittle, frighten, humiliate and, mostly, intimidate. As in “you’d better stand with the women or we’ll make your life a living hell.” Murkowski, of course, caved #BecauseWomen.

Feinstein is invading Murkowski’s personal space. She has backed Murkowski up against a wall. Another naked display of power is the placing of Feinstein’s left arm, upraised, against a wall. An upraised arm is a signifier of potential power as in “I could easily bring this down on top of you.” This is primeval but very clear.

What do you think would be the reaction from the LDAMM, the Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots if, say, a man were to position himself in this fashion, publicly, against a female? Answer: bedlam, unbrage, protests, calls for a public hanging.

On the other hand, couldn’t one say that Feinstein appears to be Skeletor’s grandmother? She’s likely 95-cents, dripping wet. Ew, sorry. Brainworm. Bad visual. Apologies.

Ask yourself, however, if you have seen that stance, by a Demorat, in politics before. Right. Demorat Lyndon Baines Johnson — who was 6’4″ tall — and used it to intimidate whenever possible.

By the way Lisa, heads-up: from GatewayPundit.com:

Sarah Palin Fires Warning Shot: Strongly Hints at Senate Run Against Lisa Murkowski

by Kristinn Taylor

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin strongly hinted at a challenge to Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) when Murkowski is next up for reelection in 2022. Murkowski, a three term incumbent, is undecided on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, but gave several indications Friday that she will vote no.

Palin and Murkowski are longtime political foes. Plain defeated her father Gov. Frank Murkowski in 2006 in the GOP primary, thwarting his reelection bid. Palin successfully endorsed GOP challenger Joe Miller who defeated incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the 2010 primary. Murkowski then controversially ran as a write-in candidate, winning reelection over Miller in the general election.

Interesting point:

Wikipedia notes Murkowski, who initially was appointed to the Senate in 2002 by her father Frank Murkowski when he left the Senate after being elected Alaska governor, has never won a majority of the vote in the general election.

Murkowski needs to be removed because she’s simply anti-American. And a sexist. She believes that men are guilty until proven innocent.

Then there were the protesters. Tell me you don’t think either one of these videos illustrates brainless, uninspired walking dead Leftists. Example 1:

Example 2:

But wait, there’s more. A picture is frequently worth a thousand words.

You’re welcome.

BZ

 

 Share

The Borking of Judge Kavanaugh

Posted on by

That’s it. I’m done with the hypocrisy and the identity politics.

It’s time to tell the truth and dig into the real issues at point. The truth is: there is a massive Leftist bent at work here. I shall buttress that statement.

Judge Kavanaugh is in the process of being Borked, though it lacks the process of a “high tech lynching” as quoted by now-Justice Clarence Thomas from 1991 but, absent the issue of melanin count, certainly quite similar as the graphic would indicate.

This is not without purpose. The graphic explains much, with one exception. The primary reason is an all-out continuing assault, via Kavanaugh, on anything having to do with President Donald Trump. If you recall, any number of Demorats quite stridently stated that they would vote against anyone nominated for SCOTUS by President Trump. They didn’t care who it was. Gandhi. Serena Williams. Didn’t matter.

What is “Borked” when used as a verb? Let’s go back to October 23rd of 1987 when President Reagan’s nominee, Judge Robert Bork, was voted down in the Senate, 58 against, 42 in favor. He was to replace retiring Associate Justice Lewis Powell. This was a conservative judge nominated by a conservative president. Bork’s video rental history, if you recall, was leaked to the press. Bork had “originalist” views, was an anti-trust scholar and his marriage to a Roman Catholic ensured, Demorats believed, that he would surely reverse Roe v Wade. Bork was reviled for briefly being Nixon’s Acting Attorney General.

Move ahead to 1991. In the last week leading up to Judge Clarence Thomas’s confirmation hearing for Supreme Court, Leftist activist Anita Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassment — a “he said, she said.” Add melanin count and the situation is similar to that of Ford and Kavanaugh. President Bush had nominated Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall, who had announced his retirement.

In 1991, Clarence Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court by a Senate vote of 52 to 48. it is interesting that Amanda Prestigiacomo wrote this article in 2016 following an HBO film about Thomas and Hill:

6 Pieces Of Evidence Anita Hill Was Lying

1.A witness said she was told details about the supposed sexual harassment while the two were living in Washington, except this witness was not living in Washington when Hill worked for Thomas.

The witness supposedly corroborating Hills’ allegations had moved out of Washington before Hill even began working for Thomas. How could she have possibly been told about the harassment before it happened?

2. Hill followed Thomas, a man she accused of sexual harassment, from job to job.

Hill claimed that she feared losing her government job if she did not follow Thomas from job to job. As Brookings Institute senior fellow Stuart Taylor Jr. points out, Hill was an employee of the federal government, known for its incredible job security.

3. Hill made numerous phone calls to her supposed sexual harasser after she stopped working for him.

Phone logs document numerous calls from Hill to Thomas after she stopped working for him, notes Thomas Sowell. It seems rather odd that a woman would consistently call a man who sexually harassed her.

Further, Hill initially denied that she made these calls — which doesn’t exactly boost her credibility either.

4. Hill initially asked to be kept anonymous when her accusations were presented to Thomas. But if her accusations were true, then Thomas would know that the accusations were launched by Hill, so why ask for anonymity?

Sowell elaborates: “The really fatal fact about Anita Hill’s accusations was that they were first made to the Senate Judiciary Committee in confidence, and she asked that her name not be mentioned when the accusations were presented to Judge Thomas by those trying to pressure him to withdraw his nomination to the Supreme Court.

“Think about it: The accusations referred to things that were supposed to have happened when only two people were present,” adds Sowell. “If the accusations were true, Clarence Thomas would automatically know who originated them. Anita Hill’s request for anonymity made sense only if the charges were false.”

5. Hill lied five times about being told something from a Democratic staffer, which she later admitted to under oath.

The Federalisthighlights that Hill admitted, under oath, that although she previously denied being told something by a Democratic staffer, she actually was. This of course reeks of a political motive for the allegations and, again, a lack of credibility of the accuser.

6.A dozen females who worked with Thomas and Hill gave favorable testimony about Thomas and refuted the claims by Hill of Thomas’ inappropriate behavior.

As noted in the Wall Street Journal, “a dozen” women came out in support of Thomas, giving glowing testimony of his behavior, lending contradiction to Hills’ accusations.

Two things we seem to know about sexual assault accusations in these #MeToo days:

  • There will be a flood of persons subsequently coming forward to accuse Judge Kavanaugh, or
  • No one else will come forward.

In the case of Thomas, two other women were mentioned but did not testify. As of this writing, there is one accuser of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. And 65 women supporting him by letter. Time for a September 14th article by Virginia Hume, who wrote this article in The Weekly Standard:

About That Letter From Women in Support of Brett Kavanaugh

by Virginia Hume

I signed it. Here’s how it went down.

On Thursday afternoon, Dianne Feinstein released a cryptic statement saying she had submitted to federal investigators a letter about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Although the FBI quickly announced it would not pursue an investigation, speculation surfaced that the claims related to an incident of sexual misconduct dating to Kavanaugh’s high school years.

On Friday, a group of women who knew Brett in high school sent a letter in support of him to Senators Grassley and Feinstein. I am one of those 65 women. Having seen some of the reaction to the letter, I’d like to clear up a few things:

The letter was conceived and drafted by friends of Brett’s, and it was drafted afterallegations came out on Thursday. I learned about the letter from a friend and fellow signatory. Others learned about it the same way. Those surprised at the speed with which it came together should see it as yet another testament to Brett’s excellent reputation.

To those who responded to my tweet saying “I knew Brett in high school” by asking if I had gender reassignment surgery: I went to an all-girls school in Bethesda. He went to an all-boys school in Bethesda. We were permitted upon occasion to speak to people of the opposite sex.

To those hearing the thwap thwap thwap of black helicopters because my father is a journalist or because I worked in politics: In a group of 65 graduates of D.C. area schools, it would be odd not to find someone related to or working as a journalist or politician. It is entirely unremarkable. This is a company town. (That said, it might explain why people happened to see my tweets on the subject).

Finally, to the one person who said I’m too young to know Brett Kavanaugh: Truly, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

So no, the letter of support was not “waiting in the wings for weeks” as Leftists allege, to be magically exhumed if or when necessary, circumstance-dependent. Other women came out as well.

Bork was a bit of the beginning of partisanship in SCOTUS hearings, Thomas followed up and now we have Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Senator Diane Feinstein was made aware of the allegations, via letter, by then-anonymous accuser, Leftist clinical psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford, in July. She sat on that letter. Judge Jeanine Pirro explains how and why.

The allegations are, from the WashintonPost.com article by Emma Brown:

Speaking publicly for the first time, Ford said that one summer in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh and a friend — both “stumbling drunk,” Ford alleges — corralled her into a bedroom during a gathering of teenagers at a house in Montgomery County.

While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth.

“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” said Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”

Ford said she was able to escape when Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling. She said she ran from the room, briefly locked herself in a bathroom and then fled the house.

That was 36 years ago, in 1982. Judge Kavanaugh categorically denied the allegation, then responded again, in writing, on Monday the 17th:

But there is more information to be gleaned from all of this, much of it not revealed by the American Media Maggots, and some of it already removed by Twitter — including one of my own Tweets. Luckily, because I suspected this would occur, I captured much of the information with screen shots.

Let’s start with this story, from TruePundit.com:

Kavanaugh Accuser’s Brother Worked for Law Firm that Paid Fusion GPS For Work with Russian Lawyer Who Set Up Trump Tower Meeting

Ralph Blasey III, Christine Ford’s brother was formerly employed at the D.C. offices of Baker & Hostetler LLP. That’s the same firm that made payments over over half a million dollars to Fusion GPS.

Ralph Blasey III left Baker & Hostetler LLP in 2004. Still, its’ just another rather odd twist to the case of the accuser of Brett Kavanaugh. First it was revealed Ford is a far left, Northern California professor. Then last night it was revealed that Brett Kavanugh’s mother, a Maryland district judge in the 1990’s foreclosure case against Christine Ford’s parents.

And now this. Christine Ford’s brother once worked for Baker & Hostetler LLP that paid Fusion GPS $523,651 between March 7, 2016 and Oct. 31, 2016. Even though the payments were made after Blasey III left Baker & Hostetler LLP, one has to wonder (and investigate) his connections with the law firm. He may have had no knowledge at all of the payment. Ralph Blasey might have had ZERO influence with the payment.

No Left leanings there. None in the family. This is not a continuing familial thread that indicates a pattern of despising all things Conservative — to include Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Why, nothing of the sort. Perish that thought. Except that, well, there’s more. Of course there’s more. Let’s start with Bill Maher, who wasn’t exactly overjoyed with the anonymous accuser:

Why ever would I, right out of the box, accuse Ford of being a Leftist? From Breitbart.com:

Kavanaugh Accuser Signed Letter Fighting Trump Border Enforcement

by John Binder

The woman accusing President Trump’s United States Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of a “rape attempt” when the two were in high school previously signed a letter fighting Trump’s “Zero Tolerance” policy at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)—an open borders advocacy organization—letter was written and sent to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and Attorney General Jeff Sessions in June.

Christine Blasey Ford, a psychology professor, signed the ACLU letter as “Christine Blasey Ph.D. Psychologist,” signing off on statements that accused Trump of using southern border enforcement to “traumatize children” and claimed the Zero Tolerance policy was “violating fundamental human rights.”

But wait; there’s more. First, Terrence Williams, because he makes me larf.

Of course, Professor Ford has already lawyered up. Why? You’re either correct or you’re not. Does Professor Ford somehow envision herself subject to suit therefore requiring of a mouthpiece? You could just as easily have chose a friend or relative to be a spokesperson. Or did you hire your lawyer in order to make another semi-subliminal Leftist statement? Because what is it that we know about the mouthpiece that Ford specifically chose? Two things. One:

Lawyer for Kavanaugh accuser downplayed sexual misconduct allegations against Clinton, Franken

by Alex Pappas

Attorney Debra Katz made the rounds Monday on morning television to argue her client’s sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh should be taken seriously, an appeal accepted even by the White House. 

But while her client’s claims have raised bipartisan concerns about Kavanaugh, Katz, a longtime Democratic donor known for representing sexual harassment accusers, also has a history of downplaying or dismissing accusations made by women against Democratic politicians — including former President Bill Clinton and former Minnesota Sen. Al Franken.

“Paula Jones’ suit is very, very, very weak,” Katz said on CNN’s “Talkback Live” in March 1998 in a discussion about Jones’ claims against Clinton, according to a show transcript. “She’s alleged one incident that took place in a hotel room that, by her own testimony, lasted 10 to 12 minutes. She suffered no repercussions in the workplace.”

Katz, in other media appearances first highlighted by Townhall, suggested Jones didn’t have much of a case.

“Clearly a one-time incident that took place in 10 to 12 minutes, she was not forced to have sex, she left on her own volition, the courts increasingly are finding that that is not enough to create a sexually hostile work environment claim,” Katz said in April 1998, according to a transcript of CBS Evening News.

Hang on. It gets better.

”If a woman came to me with a similar fact pattern, that is someone in the company above her propositioned her but only once and she suffered no tangible job detriment,” Katz told The New York Times in 1998, ”I would probably tell her that I’m sorry, it’s unfair, but you don’t have a case.”

Katz, speaking to the newspaper, added, ”If it’s one time, it has to be severe, almost a sexual assault, not just a touching of somebody’s breast or buttocks or even forceful kissing.”

Two:

KAVANAUGH ACCUSER’S LAWYER: IT’S NOT HER JOB TO CORROBORATE HER STORY

by Amber Athey

Debra Katz, the attorney for the woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, said that it is not her client’s job to corroborate her claims.

You heard that correctly. I suppose it’s simply her job to make allegations and then wait for the 100-car freeway pileup.

Further, we find this lawyer is tied in with George Soros. From 100percentfedup.com:

JUST IN: KAVANAUGH ACCUSER’S Lawyer Connected To Soros’ Open Society Foundation

The plot thickens…There are two key people involved with Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser who need to be looked at further. Senator Lindsey Graham asked the best question yet on the Kavanaugh accuser and we’re beginning to get some answers to his question:

 Senator Graham: Here is what I want your audience to know. If Miss Ford really did not want to come forward, never intended to come forward, never planned to come forward, why did she pay for a polygraph in August and why did she hire a lawyer in August if she never intended to do what she’s doing?… And who’s paid for it?

Debra Katz, the attorney for Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is vice chair of the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) which has been directly funded by George Soros’ Open Society Foundation.

She’s donated about $24K to liberal causes including Moveon.org and had this to say about Trump advisors on Facebook:

 “These people are all miscreants. The term ‘basket of deplorables’ is far too generous a description for these people who are now Senior Trump advisors.”

Debra Katz is a known lawyer who specializes in the representation of whistleblowers. How was it that she was hired months ago to represent Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser? Remember that Senator Feinstein claimed that the anonymous person wanted to stay anonymous. If that’s the case, why did this woman secure a lawyer specializing in whistleblower cases months ago?

This is probably just the tip of the iceberg with the involvement from the left in trying to stop the Kavanaugh confirmation. These people will stop at nothing to get what they want.

AND THEN THERE’S THIS:

The hard left group “Indivisible” was founded “to defeat the Trump agenda, elect progressive leaders & realize bold progressive policies.” They have a section on their website dedicated to stopping Judge Kavanaugh. Christine Blasey was active in their Silicon Valley Chapter.

This reeks. This doesn’t pass the smell test. It’s precisely what Senate Demorats did to Clarence Thomas in 1991. But here’s what’s going to happen.

There will be new hearings starting on Monday the 24h. From the NYT.com:

Hearing set for Monday to hear Kavanaugh and his accuser

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, under mounting pressure from senators of his own party, will call President Trump’s nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and the woman who has accused him of sexual assault before the committee on Monday for extraordinary public hearings just weeks before the midterm elections.

But as of Tuesday, there is new information. Mark Judge says he’s not coming to testify. From the WashingtonTimes.com:

Mark Judge, other man in room according to Kavanaugh accuser, tells senators he won’t testify

by Alex Swoyer

Mark Judge, a friend of Brett Kavanaugh’s from high school, told senators Tuesday he doesn’t recall anything like the attempted sexual assault a woman claims she suffered at the hands of Judge Kavanaugh — and that Mr. Judgewitnessed.

Mr. Judge, through his lawyer, also said he does not want to speak publicly about it, effectively shooting down Democrats’ calls that he testify next week as part of a free-wheeling hearing to examine Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations about a decades-old attempted assault.

“I have no memory of this alleged incident,” Mr. Judge said in a statement his lawyer provided to the Judiciary Committee. “Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford’s letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”

As if that weren’t enough, now there’s doubt about the accuser. From Reuters.com:

Doubts arise over whether Trump court nominee’s accuser will testify

by Lawrence Hurley and Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A woman who has accused President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault decades ago has not yet agreed to testify at a U.S. Senate hearing set for next Monday, raising questions about whether the high-stakes public showdown will take place.

Christine Blasey Ford, a university professor in California whose allegations have put Kavanaugh’s once-safe nomination in jeopardy, has not responded to attempts by the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee to contact her about appearing at the hearing, committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said on Tuesday.

Yes, despite the accuser, Ford, stating she would testify.

Debra Katz, a lawyer representing Ford, said in television interviews on Monday that the professor would be willing to testify and called the alleged incident “attempted rape.” Katz did not respond to Reuters requests for comment.

Trust me, if you thought Day One of the Kavanaugh hearing was explosive Kabuki Theater, you haven’t seen anything yet. This coming Monday the 24th will be every bit the Shit Show and then some. If you thought there was posturing, you haven’t seen posturing. If you thought there was acting, umbrage, Sturm und Drang, you haven’t seen acting, umbrage and Sturm und Drang. More on this at the conclusion.

How odd that, up to this point, Kavanaugh has managed to pass six prior hearings and FBI background checks with a flawless record.

That said, here is the Demorat Game Plan. First, tar and feather Judge Kavanaugh and hang the dead cat of Professor Ford around his neck. Once accomplished, because he is a current sitting DC court judge, Demorats will move to have him impeached.

This is an interesting note from Axios.com, however:

Scoop: GOP plans to play hardball on Kavanaugh

Strategists advising Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh plan to use aggressive tactics this week in response to the public accusation of a “stumbling drunk” sexual assault in high school that instantly imperiled his confirmation, top sources tell Jonathan Swan.

  • A source close to the process said that if Democrats sink Kavanaugh “we’ll just bring in someone moreconservative.”

The senators to watch:

  • Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the most crucial swing vote, told CNN that she was “surprised” by the accusation, but: “I don’t know enough to create the judgment at this point.”

  • Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the other critical vote, told CNN the committee “might” need to consider a delay.

  • Judiciary Committee member Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who isn’t on the committee “but whose vote is critical to Kavanaugh’s confirmation,” told Politico that the committee should pause.

  • Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called for an FBI investigation and a postponement of the vote.

Just like John McCain, lame duck Arizona Senator Jeff Flake is just that: a flake who should have turned his (R) to a (D). The same with Collins and Murkowski.

Let’s now examine a series of Tweets that saw the light of day on Monday the 17th — and some that were subsequently removed by Twitter.

I first noticed Kurt Schlichter making a salient point about a possible motivation with regard to Kavanaugh and the sexual allegation by Ford.

Suspicion increased with Christine Blasey Ford erased her social media.

In 1996, Kavanaugh’s mother was the judge in a home foreclosure action against Ford’s parents. Now the animus makes sense. Add Donald Trump as president and then stir to taste.

More evidence, immured in a screen capture.

C’mon. High school drunken hijinks are much more serious than robbery and drunk driving! Get with it!

Why? Because Feinstein is now, as I am wont to say, “insufficiently left for the Left.” She must continue to prove that she is valid in 2018’s Demorat world. She’s getting tremendous pushback from California Demorats who have decided they’re going to back Kevin deLeon instead of her, for a Senate seat. In order to look “relevant” Feinstein, I believe, thinks she was forced to provide the information despite, perhaps, her first inclination to just hold it. She mused: “what will happen to me if it’s found that I had the means to squash Kavanaugh, and I didn’t use it?”

Okay. So she apparently enjoyed drinking and swiving. So do boys. It comes at a cost for both.

More Tweets immured. You know. Justin Case.

More evidence. Different views.

This was documented at WayneDupree.com, amongst other sites:

Kavanaugh’s Mother Presided Over Case That Included Accuser’s Parents

Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s mother, Martha, seems to have presided over his accuser’s parents court case back in 1996.

I have enlarged the entire public file below under the tweet but it seems as if Blasey’s parents didn’t fare that well in the judgment and if there are hearings due to this late accusation/allegation, this information should also be entered into evidence as a motive for revenge.

Ralph and Paula Blasey looks like they lost some property due to debt in Kavanaugh’s court.

Motive? I’d say so. Additionally, from PacificPundit.com:

CHRISTINE BLASEY-FORD MOTIVE: REVENGE – KAVANAUGH’S MOTHER JUDGE AGAINST PARENTS IN FORECLOSURE CASE 1996

Martha G. Kavanaugh, the mother of Brett Kavanaugh was a Maryland district judge in 1996. In an amazing coincidence, Martha Kavanaugh was the judge in a foreclosure case in which Christine Blasey-Ford’s parents were the defendants. Now it all becomes clear. Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh, not because of what he did in high school. Instead, Christine Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh out of spite and revenge for a case rulled on by Brett Kavanaugh mother. Martha Kavanaugh, Brett’s mother was Montgomery County Circuit Court judge from 1993 until she retired in 2001. During a 1996 foreclosure case, Martha Kavanaugh ruled against the parents of Christine Blasey-Ford in a foreclosure case.

The foreclosure case against Paula K. Blasey and Ralph G. Blasey was opened on August 8, 1996. The case number is 156006V.

Isn’t it kind of amazing that all the media reports today didn’t mention this little conflict of interest for Blasey-Ford?

Another story covering the issue is here.

As an FTO for a major California department, I looked to identify trends and patterns so that I could reward positive patterns and attempt to correct negative trends and patterns. We generally know that past performance is the best predictor of future performance (or the lack thereof). Behavior patterns must be identified. They frequently are.

Just as patterns and trends went towards the motivation of FBI Agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, including their political predilections, these patterns and trends go towards the political motivations and predilections of Christine Blasey Ford. Women can be every bit as treacherous, plotting, conniving and untruthful as men. There’s your real equality.

Stop. A moment about the truth. There was a buried secret in the department I once worked for, regarding Sex Assault rape investigations. No one was to speak of it, because it was the department’s dirty little secret, its dirty little lie.

And that was, at the time (I cannot speak for trends and patterns now but I suspect they have not predominantly changed due to human behavior), roughly 40% to 50% of the rape reports coming through the bureau were later proven to be false. Women would falsify reports due to fear, venality, spite, vengeance, drunkenness and a host of other reasons.

That is how and why I continued on the path, as a detective and a peace officer, to ensure that the accused were innocent until proven guilty. I needed proof. I required evidence. I was driven by the facts and evidence. I had to go where the facts led me. If I couldn’t prove it, I couldn’t file it, request a warrant or make a fresh arrest. Simple.

An interesting point by Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Yes, #MeToo has its place. But that does not mean that due process is dismissed because, as I’ve found in four decades in law enforcement, you can never go wrong by adhering to the foundational documents of this nation. Allegations are just that. Absent corroboration they can and should die an ugly death.

Scott Morefield nails it:

Still, even the most skeptical among us might acknowledge that something may have happened that evening in 1982. Ford supposedly passed a polygraph test, so if those can be trusted we know at least she believes it. But what exactly? An attempted rape? A misplaced grope? A clumsy, unwanted kiss? A drunken make-out session that led to nothing? All of it’s up in the air, and when you’re looking 36 years in the mirror, especially if you’re a liberal knowing you could score a much-needed goal for the #Resistance, it can pretty much become whatever you need it to be.

Here is BZ‘s Heresy: should women inherently be believed when allegations are made? No. Of course not. They’re no better than men. Should they be free to make claims and allegations? Yes, they should. As should men. Because sexual harassment isn’t a one-way street any more. Power corrupts on both sides of the sexual aisle. I’ve had it occur to me. But that’s a story for another day.

What we have — allegedly, and unconfirmed —  is a teenager who got drunk and tried to have sex with a girl. Of course, you never got drunk in high school.

Well, sorry to burst any bubbles — but that’s pretty much any teenage boy’s life, particularly in the decades since the 1960s, when permissiveness and casual hook-ups became a lifestyle. BZ got more ass in the late 60s and early 70s than the women’s bathroom at a channeling convention.

However, should there be consequences for false reports of crime? Oh hell yes. Because those false reports waste valuable investigatory time and simultaneously diminish the veracity and credulity of real crimes against women who are real victims.

Listen: I still don’t trust “psychotherapy.” I don’t trust psychologists. The human mind is subject to a myriad of influences. I can beat a polygraph and I can beat a CVSA. I’ve done it. I can also beat the MMPI. I’ve done it. I’ve taken Rorshach tests. Hell, I’m color blind and I beat the color blindness test because a friend gave me the numbers.

One teensy-weensy question: Demorats somehow managed to forgive Teddy Kennedy for killing Mary Jo Kopechne in July of 1969. In fact, her killer, Teddy Kennedy, later became the much-venerated “Lion of the Senate.” Perhaps for his monumental drinking binges if nothing else?

But they somehow fail to find it in their hearts to forgive Brett Kavanaugh for, apparently, trying to get some high school tit action.

THIS JUST IN ON TUESDAY:

Diane Feinstein herself is now doubting the credulity of Professor Ford. From Mediaite.com:

Diane Feinstein on Kavanaugh allegation: “I can’t say everything is truthful”

by Caleb Howe

Senator Dianne Feinstein, who held from public view the letter from Christine Blasey Ford detailing an accusation against Donald Trump‘s SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh, told reporters today she cannot say “everything’s truthful.”

Speaking to Fox News reporters, Feinstein said: “No one called her, or called her lawyer. My understanding is she got emails. I have no say. I’m the lead Democrat so this is all up to the Republican side.”

“I can’t say everything’s truthful,” Feinstein added. “I don’t know.”

Then there was this blockbuster. where Jim Hoft from Gateway Pundit Tweeted:

BREAKING: According to sources, Diane Feinstein’s reluctance to mention the Kavanaugh accuser’s letter during confirmation session is because the accuser sent a similar letter directed at Judge Gorsuch last year. The whereabouts of the earlier letter remain a mystery. Developing.

Can you imagine if this information turns out to be correct?

Call it the Red Tsunami.

BZ

 

 Share