It looks like the Democrats’ Christine Blasey Ford ploy is changing minds, but not in they direction they had hoped. From Nathanael Blake at thefederalist.com:
Is it too late to get one of those red hats?
I didn’t support Donald Trump during the 2016 election — not that it mattered. I wasn’t in a swing state and I wasn’t publicly opining about the general election. Had my vote mattered, I might have brought myself to vote for him, but it didn’t, so I didn’t.
On election night, I had a few drinks and enjoyed Hillary Clinton losing. It was a spectacle at which, to borrow a line, it would have taken a heart of stone not to laugh. I did text a friend or two that I hoped I was wrong about Trump.
In some ways, I was. He has kept his promises on judges, for instance. In other ways I think my low opinion of him has been thoroughly vindicated. Thus, in writing for The Federalist, I have defended President Trump and criticized him, sometimes in the same column.
Ford’s narrative collapsed because it changed, she remembered few of the important details, and she had no outside corroboration. From Victor Davis Hansen at amgreatness.com:
In the end, the Christine Blasey Ford accusations collapsed. With them went the last effort to destroy Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the United States Supreme Court.
After thousands of hours of internal Senate and FBI investigations of Kavanaugh, as well as public discussions, open questioning, and media sensationalism, Ford remained unable to identify a single witness who might substantiate any of her narratives of an alleged sexual assault of nearly four decades past.
To substantiate her claim, the country was asked to jettison the idea of innocent until proven guilty, the need for corroborating testimony, witnesses, and physical evidence, the inadmissibility of hearsay, the need for reasonable statutes of limitations, considerations of motive, and the right of the accused to conduct vigorous cross-examination. That leap proved too much, especially when located in a larger progressive landscape of street theater antics, including Senate disruptions, walkouts, and sandbagging senators in hallways and elevators.
Many Americans just don’t buy the assertion that a victim of an alleged sexual should be believed and a man denied a position on the Supreme Court without corroborating evidence. From Heather Higgins at thehill.com:
Democrats were cheered by the renewed FBI investigation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh and counted it as a win. Most Republicans were dismayed that the full Senate’s vote on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court was delayed and saw this as a political misstep.
They should change places.
First, while the politically attuned understand this is just a delay game by the left, who are on record as willing to do anything to derail this nominee and force the appointment to be made after the November election, swing voters and many women do not.
“Believing all women,” by abandoning the presumption of innocence and the necessity of proof, lowers the bar for women. As we’ve seen, whenever the bar is lowered for a favored group, it ends up hurting that group. From Alice Salles at mises.org:
As Gallup reports that more Americans expressed support for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh during the week he denied being guilty of sexual assault, it’s clear that whether accuser Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is speaking the truth, the public might not be ready to accept the allegations without evidence. But if you were to rely solely on most news outlets , you would think Kavanaugh had been charged and convicted.
While the outspread concern over a Supreme Court nominee is warranted , mainly due to the power justices have over our lives, the conversation was never about how Kavanaugh saw the PATRIOT Act as “measured, careful, responsible, and constitutional,” despite the law’s mockery of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Democrats also never bothered to mention Kavanaugh once ruled that “the Government’s metadata collection program is entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment” while sitting in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Before the allegations of sexual assault, all they seemed to worry about was how Kavanaugh would rule on an abortion case, apparently frightened that states would have to pick up where they left off before Roe v. Wade. But ever since Ford entered the picture, offering a compelling story of assault but also one with gaps and no evidence , the focus is back on one thing and one thing only: We must believe all women, no matter what.
A political victory only, not a stand on principle.
No lion, tiger, bear, or wolf would, if it could choose, give up its claws or fangs. No poisonous snake or spider would surrender its venom. Only humans voluntarily abandon their means of survival.
Reason is humans’ tool of survival and separates them from the other animals. The Oxford Dictionary defines reason as: “the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.” Ayn Rand had it right when she warned that reason was under sustained attack. It has only intensified since her death in 1982.
Anybody can accuse anybody of committing a crime. The longstanding legal presumption is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Given a guilty judgment’s consequences, the burden necessarily falls on accusers to prove guilt. If it did not, mere accusation would be a verdict leading to punishment of the accused, or Salem Witch Trial justice.
Posted in Civil Liberties, Collapse, Cronyism, Government, Law, Media, Morality, Philosophy
Tagged Brett Kavanaugh, Burden of Proof, Christine Blasey Ford, Constitution, Due Process, Presumption of innocence, Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings
The Democrats have shot themselves in both feet. From Tom Luongo at tomluongo.me:
Yesterday’s dramatic cloture vote to push SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh to a final confirmation vote is one of those political moments of pure victory. It was messy and it was tense, but the ultimate outcome was better than I could have ever originally expected.
Because it’s pretty clear to me that we’re looking at the kind of big operation run on the Democrats and the Soros Group to expose not only their tactics, the classic “Nuts and Sluts” shaming technique, but also in the process crush certain powerful members of the Democratic party which have been the conduit through which ‘the Resistance’ has driven our political process to the point of no return.
The ACLU could plausibly have opposed Brett Kavanaugh on the grounds that he’s weak on civil liberties. Instead, it argued that the presumption of innocence should be thrown out, Ford believed, and Kavanaugh rejected. From Alan M. Dershowitz at gatestoneinstitute.org:
- So why did the American Civil Liberties Union oppose a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court and argue for a presumption of guilt regarding sexual allegations directed against that judicial nominee? The answer is as clear as it is simple. It is all about pleasing the donors. The ACLU used to be cash poor but principle-rich. Now, ironically, after Trump taking office, the ACLU has never become so cash-rich, yet principle-poor.
- The problem is that most of the money is not coming from civil libertarians who care about free speech, due process, the rights of the accused and defending the unpopular. It is coming from radical leftists in Hollywood, Silicon Valley and other areas not known for a deep commitment to civil liberties.
- The old ACLU would never have been silent when Michael Cohen’s office was raided by the FBI and his clients’ files seized; it would have yelled foul when students accused of sexual misconduct were tried by kangaroo courts; and it surely would have argued against a presumption of guilt regarding sexual allegations directed against a judicial nominee.
- When the ACLU’s national political director and former Democratic Party operative Faiz Shakir was asked why the ACLU got involved in the Kavanaugh confirmation fight, he freely admitted, “People have funded us and I think they expect a return.”
|President Trump greeting Brett Kavanaugh and his family. Why did the American Civil Liberties Union oppose a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court and argue for a presumption of guilt regarding sexual allegations directed against him? (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)
Now that Brett Kavanaugh has been confirmed, it is appropriate to look at the damage caused by the highly partisan confirmation process. Among the casualties has been an organization I have long admired.