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.
“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 odds on Kavanaugh’s confirmation are higher now than they were before the delay. From John McCormack at weeklystandard.com:
Let us count the ways.
When Arizona Republican senator Jeff Flake insisted on an additional one-week delay of the Kavanaugh confirmation vote in order to allow the FBI to conduct a supplemental background-check investigation into allegations of sexual assault, many Republicans feared that it would accomplish nothing other than provide time for more people to smear Kavanaugh with new false allegations.
In fact, the delay has actually helped clear Kavanaugh’s name.
The case against Brett Kavanaugh is falling apart. From Ann Coulter at anncoulter.com:
The Democrats’ current position on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh is: We cannot have someone addicted to beer on our highest court! What if a foreign power were to ply him with this nectar in a can? Talk about taking control of our government! Suppose they throw in a case of Weihenstephaner Hefeweissbier?
A bitter college roommate is going whole hog, wailing, He lied about being a beeraholic.
By the media’s account, Kavanaugh was a bounder, a brawler and a drunk. And yet he still managed to graduate at the top of his class, go to Yale, then to Yale Law and work in the highest positions in government.
What a radical proposition: there’s at least two sides to every story. From Emily Yoffe at theatlantic.com:
It’s important to listen to those who come forward—and also to those accused.
We are now in a time of chronic national convulsions, and the latest, over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, has resulted in the wrenching public and private testimony of women who have been sexually assaulted and who have never before spoken about it. Of course, this outpouring has a hashtag: #BelieveSurvivors. Women who tell their stories should have the support, and belief, of loved ones, friends, and a therapeutic community.
But when a woman, in telling her story, makes an allegation against a specific man, a different set of obligations kick in.
Even as we must treat accusers with seriousness and dignity, we must hear out the accused fairly and respectfully, and recognize the potential lifetime consequences that such an allegation can bring. If believing the woman is the beginning and the end of a search for the truth, then we have left the realm of justice for religion.