It’s all over but the shouting.

Politics of Division

It’s all over but the shouting. (but there’s a lot of that to still be done)

Here’s a list I compiled the day before Kavanaugh was sworn in. Some people think that with his confirmation, the Left will go on their merry way, but we know better, don’t we? At the time of this being posted, a few of these have already been done or are ongoing. Which ones have you seen?  Just for fun, let me know how many you’ve seen, then come back to this page from time to time in the coming weeks and see how many we can check off.

What to expect next:

  • The Media will say:

    • “Kavanaugh was confirmed under a cloud of suspicion”

    • “…was under FBI investigation for sexual assault”

  • The Democrats:

    • Will call for further investigation

    • Will demand that he recuse himself in cases of sexual assault, women’s rights issues.

    • Attempt to impeach Kavanaugh

    • Fundraise on appointment

  • The Left:

    • “Occupy SCOTUS” demonstrations

      • Some sort of demonstration aimed at physically preventing Kavanaugh from being sworn in and seated

    • Continued threats against senators who voted “yes”.

Advertisements

Flake Proposal Would be Huge Blunder in Kavanaugh Confirmation Effort for GOP

The Democrats are hoping to create a string of investigations that they can stretch out past the elections.

 

My reaction to Townhall.com story on the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings:

From Townhall.com:

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) told reporters Friday that she agrees with fellow moderate Republican Sen. Jeff Flake (AZ) in his call for an FBI investigation that would delay the Senate floor vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination for up to one week.”

This would be a mistake on the part of the GOP. The Republicans would benefit in no way from this. It would be a win for the Democrats. They will fill that extra time finding new women willing to accuse Kavanaugh of sexual assault and now with the federal investigation genie out of the bottle, they will demand FBI investigations for all of them. The Republicans would be hard-pressed to come up for a rationale for denying further investigation requests once having agreed to the first one. That “one week” will end up being two, three, or more. The Democrats are hoping to create a string of allegations and investigations that they can stretch out past the elections.

 

If this drags out past the November elections, and the Democrats win back the Senate, they will claim that there is no mandate from the people for a conservative justice and will demand his nomination be withdrawn. Even if they lose or they win and Kavanaugh is seated anyway, they will be able to point to an FBI investigation into Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual assaults as a reason for his recusal in any matter concerning the rights of women, which of course would include any litigation that threatens to overturn Roe v. Wade.

 

If the object is to get Kavanaugh appointed to the Supreme Court, this will not change a single Democratic vote. It will allow them and their partners in the mainstream media to claim that “Kavanaugh is under FBI investigation for sexual assault allegations”. There is no upside for the Republicans in doing this. They think this will help them seem sympathetic to Dr. Ford and the other accusers, and that will help them in tight Senate races. It won’t, it will only make matters worse, not when every Democratic challenger would now be able to run campaign ads truthfully saying that their opponent is for a judge who is or was under federal investigation for criminal sex offenses.


Update:   According to Fox News, following the Senate’s lead, President Trump has ordered the FBI to perform an investigation into the existing allegations of sexual abuse. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says the nomination will be brought to the full Senate for a vote.

Cruz Drops a Truth Bomb About Democrat Opposition to Kavanaugh’s Confirmation

US Senate II
U.S. Senator Ted Cruz Explains Democrat Opposition to Kavanaugh

It was a raucous day Monday on Capitol Hill at the start of the Senate confirmation hearings to approve Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. Amidst outbursts from the gallery by anti-Kavanaugh protesters, Senate Democrats pulled out all the stops in an all-out effort to delay the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh, throwing one procedural hurdle after another in front of Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa. Most of the objections coming from the Democratic side centered around thousands of pages of documents requested by them that they had not received or had time to examine. Committee member Ted Cruz in his opening statement gave a dead-on assessment of why the Democrats are so against Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Here’s an outtake from Sen. Cruz’s remarks that sums up nicely what the true Democrat objection to Kavanaugh’s confirmation:

We know that every Democratic member of this committee is going to vote no we don’t have to speculate. Every single one of them is publicly announced they’re voting no– doesn’t depend on what they read in documents, doesn’t depend on what judge Kavanaugh says at this hearing they’ve announced ahead of time they are voting no and most of the Democrats in the Senate have announced that in the full Senate but everyone should understand Judge Kavanaugh has handed over more documents than any nominee more than the last five combined, Republican and Democratic nominees. This is not about documents it’s not about qualification it’s not about record, what it is about Democratic senators trying to re-litigate the 2016 election and just as importantly working to begin litigating the 2020 presidential election but we had an opportunity for the American people to speak, they did. They voted in 2016 and they wanted judges and justices who will be faithful to the Constitution that’s why I’m confident at the end of what Shakespeare would describe as ‘a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing,’ I am confident that Judge Kavanaugh will become Justice Kavanaugh and will be confirmed in the United States Supreme Court. Thank you mister chairman.”

Watch Sen. Cruz’s full statement. 

Libertarians are Cool on Kavanaugh

Constitutional Republic
In a constitutional republic, why would you not want a constitutionalist justice?

Progressives not surprisingly, hate President Trump’s pick of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. He won’t create rights not enumerated in the Constitution, nor will he legislate from the bench.   Conservatives like him, as he was vetted and approved by the Federalist Society for consideration.  They love him for the same reason the Left hates him. Libertarians have given the choice a cooler reception, citing concerns about privacy rights, especially when it comes to Fourth Amendment protections.  Judge Andrew Napolitano, a libertarian-leaning judge had this to say about the pick:

Now he has given us a nominee to the highest court in the land who typifies the culture he railed against when he claimed he’d drain the swamp. This man and this culture accept cutting holes in the Fourth Amendment because they don’t believe that it should protect privacy. This man and this culture accept unlimited spying on innocent Americans by the National Security Agency because they don’t believe that the NSA is subject to the Constitution.  — Judge Andrew Napolitano

Judge Napolitano’s concerns have been echoed by others on the libertarian side:

Kavanaugh is not another Gorsuch—not even close. Disappointing pick, particularly with respect to his record. Future decisions on the constitutionality of government surveillance of Americans will be huge. We can’t afford a rubber stamp for the executive branch.  –Rep Justin Amash, (R) MI

Restore the 4th

Senator Rand Paul, arguably the most notable libertarian on Capitol Hill was also cool on Kavanaugh, reserving his judgment for now…  “I’m not going to make any comment until we’ve had a chance to look through and really go through a discovery process, meet the nominee,” — Sen Rand Paul, (R) KY

Liberals don’t like Kavanaugh, they are deathly afraid of him overturning Roe v. Wade, and would prefer a justice who believes in a “living Constitution”.  Conservatives like him because they think he won’t legislate from the bench.  Libertarians are concerned that he will opt for an interpretation of the Constitution that favors the government over individual rights.  Will Senator Rand Paul, who might well be the deciding vote in the Senate, be able to overlook past rulings on the Patriot Act and NSA surveillance?  Will he decide that perfect is the enemy of good-enough, or will he find he has irreconcilable differences with Kavanaugh’s judicial philosophy when it comes to privacy versus security?

Constitution Memorial Day

U.S. ConstitutionSaturday marked the 229th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.  It established the United States as the world’s first constitutional republic.  We may be mere months from the end of America’s existence as such.  2017 could be the first year of a new, post-Constitutional era.  If Hillary Clinton is elected president her choices of Supreme Court justices will tip the balance in favor of a Court that sees the Constitution as a “living document”, one that can be interpreted to mean whatever they need it to mean.  On that day, the Constitution, already in exile, will cease to function as a constraint on government.

“A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless.”  -Antonin Scalia

The Bill of Rights, in particular, will be eroded to such an extent as to become meaningless.  Rights favored by the new majority will be created out of whole cloth, while rights not favored, such as the right to bear arms, will be made virtually impossible to exercise.   Consider this:  The subject of marriage does not come up anywhere in the Constitution, but the tenth amendment says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” So anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, such as marriage, would seemingly be governed by that amendment. It establishes what is often referred to as “state’s rights”.  When some states wanted to outlaw same-sex marriage, and some states wanted to legalize it, the Supreme Court stepped in with the Obergefell v. Hodges and legalized ‘gay marriage’ nationally.  Many social conservatives objected to the decision on moral and religious grounds, setting those objections aside the decision created a number of problematic consequences for the Constitution. Many, including Justice Roberts, believe the majority in that ruling used arguments with no constitutional basis:

“Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be”

A ruling based on what the majority thought the law should be seems to be exactly what happened.  The Court invented an individual right at the expense of the rights of the states.  The tenth amendment seems to exist only at the whim of the majority.  Impatient with the legislative process that requires consensus building, activists used the Court to do what they could not wait for the state legislatures to do.  Now they have the law but necessarily a consensus.  Because the ruling was based on emotional arguments more than constitutional ones, there is now no constitutional argument to place any limits on marriage between adults, not based on the sex of the participants, not based on the number, nor kinship nor likely even age.  Polygamy laws could be struck down tomorrow, were the cause popular enough.  What would be the argument against?

What other amendments are as disposable as the tenth?  What if the courts because of some public pressure due to security decided to give similar treatment to the fourth amendment?   Our right to privacy would be gone.  Proponents of so-called common sense gun control have already called for legislation (no fly no buy) that would simultaneously abridge our second, fifth, and fourteenth amendment rights.  What if the Court decided to do what a powerful voting bloc such as the anti-gun lobby demanded?

“As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to ‘do what the people want,’ instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically.” – Antonin Scalia

Another example of how SCOTUS justices chose to use extremely contorted logic to arrive at the decision they wanted was National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the ruling that effectively legalized the Affordable Care Act, A.K.A. Obamacare.  This allowed the government to compel its citizens to engage in commerce, whether they chose to or not, whether they felt like they needed the product or not.  If you remember your grade school history, the American revolution was fought to end this sort of thing.  A government that can compel its citizens to spend money, determine how much, and on what does not serve the populace, it rules it.

The Constitution was meant to act as the guardrails of our government.  It was meant to act as a constraint to the federal government while protecting the rights of the states and individuals.  The idea of the Constitution as a ‘living document’ then makes about as much sense as playing football on a field with no sidelines, with no objective means of determining what is in or out of bounds.  Liberal justices, believing that the Constitution must adapt to the present society have little compunction against following only those parts of it that are convenient to their objectives while ignoring others.  When the Constitution gets to the point where it can mean anything the justices need it to mean, it will at once come to mean nothing.  We will be living in a post-constitutional America.  The three Supreme Court justices that our next president is expected to appoint, if they are liberal, activist judges, will be more than enough to effectively end the era of the United States as a constitutional republic.

Antonin Scalia, the Constitution, and the Coming Storm

Antonin Scalia copyOn Saturday, we lost a truly great jurist in Antonin Scalia.  Justice Scalia believed in interpreting the Constitution not as we would have it, but as the framers understood it. He was an “originalist”.  He is considered to be a conservative among Supreme Court justices.  It’s strange that a justice that believed the Constitution is an unmalleable document should be considered conservative, as if some other way of seeing it was just as valid.  Scalia knew that the documents power laid in it immutability.  He understood that the meaning of the Constitution could be interpreted, but could not be changed to fit out passions and our prejudices at the moment.  Can what was unconstitutional yesterday be constitutional today simply because we wish it to be?  Scalia knew the answer.

“A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change.” – Justice Scalia 

Justice Scalia’s view that the Constitution is “dead” should be a universal constant among justices, it should be common sense, and sadly it isn’t.  Progressives see it as a living document, one that can change as society’s needs change.  Each decision can take the law farther and farther from the Framer’s original intent until what we have is something that not only is unrecognizable as a constitutional entity, it may even contradict the plain wording of the original document.

President Obama doesn’t share the Scalia’s originalist view of the Constitution.  To him, the Constitution is merely a guide, a series of suggestions to be followed or not according to what is politically desirable.  He has appointed, and would presumably appoint judges to the Supreme Court who share this view.  As many of the Court’s recent rulings have split five to four along ideological lines, it is easy to see that another liberal justice would change the balance of the court in favor the Constitutional destructionists.  What under such a Court would be constitutional?  Whatever the Progressives decree to be necessary to the advancement of their cause.

To those that think that the law should not be subject to the whims of a political ideology, but to our founding principles, the appointment of an activist justice should be avoided at all cost.  Luckily, the U.S. Senate must consent to the president’s pick, and the Senate is controlled by those who tend toward Justice Scalia’s originalist views.  The Republican Senate is not known for always standing steady on conservative principles.  President Obama will likely nominate a candidate with a history of judicial activism.  When the Senate initially rejects this nominee, he will call them obstructionist.  He and much of the media will claim that they are attempting to deny him his Constitutional rights.  Of course, this will be after he has exercised precisely that, his right to nominate a replacement for Justice Scalia.  That right does not require the Senate to rubber-stamp his choice.  The Senate’s right is also clear, they have the authority to consent (or not) to the president’s selection.  Constitutional conservatives must then help them to steel their spines, to withstand the hurricane winds of criticism and accusations.  The stakes are so high, so high—let’s hope they are up to the task.