Kavanaugh Has As Much Chance Now Being Confirmed As I Have Being Pope

The would be rapist Brett Kavanaugh - would definitely be found to be that - if the FBI were allowed to expand its background check on him in that area now.

Back in my July 10 post, I wrote that Trump the "pussy grabber's' pick for the Supreme Court (Brett Kavanaugh)  "is not the worst pick but he still merits scrutiny."   This was also, to be sure, after breathing a sigh of relief that Amy Coney Barrett was not chosen, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2018/07/amy-cloney-barrett-nightmare-sc-pick.html

Now, in the intervening two months we've learned much more about Kavanaugh including maybe why the nation's pussy grabber-in- chief would pick him. That is, not only to protect him in case of a potential Mueller indictment or even subpoena, but well, because maybe it takes a pussy grabber to recognize a fellow would-be species member.

For me, Kavanaugh's chances as a confirmed SC nominee crashed when Christine Blasey Ford stepped forward to make her serious allegations about Kavanaugh's attempted rape some 36 years ago.  This  concerning the same guy who was part of Ken Starr's infamous team and even questioned Clinton on how much ejaculate he produced in his liaisons with Monica Lewinsky.  

Now Prof. Ford says she is willing to testify about her experience, and this will happen on Monday as the eyes of the nation watch.  I am convinced, even before that drama unfolds, she will be found to  be the one with greater credibility- and at least two R-Senators' votes will be peeled off - sending Kavanaugh down to defeat. Hence, his nomination is toast, see e.g.

Supreme Court

Kavanaugh Is Toast

 Premature? I don't believe so. As Sen. Kamala Harris put it on CBS Early Show this morning, she has absolutely nothing to gain, nada, other than severe excoriation and ridicule as the Reepo dominated Senate Judiciary Committee goes after her like rabid rats  - trying to portray her as a kook or liar - like they did with Anita Hill some 27 years ago.   The difference here is that Prof. Ford needs a lot fewer Reepo Senators on her side, believing her account, than Prof. Hill needed way back when. (And let's recall that the Dems weren't much use back then either!)

Again, let's get it clear in our heads this isn't about finding Kavanaugh guilty of a criminal act given the statute of limitations has long since passed. This is about allowing a less than sterling moral character to have influence on the nation's highest court.  As blogger P.M. Carpenter put it, in the cited link above:

"Yes, he is going down, I'd wager, because Republican senators' "female constituents will not tolerate … rug-sweeping," as the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus put it. "Yes, it was high school," continued Marcus, "but if you do something bad enough in high school, it can lose you your seat on the Supreme Court."

Ford is being criticized for having a vague memory about the attempted rape incident. Yet her memory — and supporting notes from her therapist — are specific enough, concrete enough, indeed bad enough to be unforgivingly damning.."

So I agree. 

Of course, Kavanaugh has offered a full denial, saying: “I have never done anything like what the accuser describes – to her or to anyone.”  But what the hell would you expect him to say: "Yes, I admit doing that, when I was a brash, entitled young kid, but I was running on testosterone ya know? Please gimme a break now!" 

And to the point once more, I don't accept that on Monday Prof. Ford needs to provide absolute proof that Kavanaugh did what she alleges. All we need is to have enough credibility displayed that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt he assaulted her, covering her mouth when she tried to scream and trying to remove her clothing.

Again, no one who has committed an act of violence against  a young woman  (even in high school) should be in a position to make future binding decisions about women’s lives – even if they were a reckless teenager when they did it.  Oh and even if they’re very sorry now and all of Kavanaugh's remaining record discloses he's a basically  decent guy  in other ways.

We accept that with age and maturity he availed himself of plausible rehabilitation - but still - that assault in his early years cannot be forgotten or  dismissed now. Not when so much is on the line, including the future of Roe v Wade.

True, testimony from both Ford and Kavanaugh on Monday  will not bring about perfect clarity.  It can't given that, as Sen. Harris said this morning, the FBI was not given the authority to do its background investigation on this event.  So as it stands there simply isn’t much in the way of evidence beyond Ford’s word. But I am predicting that word will be cogent and powerful when she delivers it.  And no, we already acknowledge whatever she says, Kavanaugh will not be led away in chains or handcuffs.

What’s at stake isn’t the deprivation of Kavanaugh’s life or liberty, but the privilege to hold one of the most important positions in the nation, for which good character and fair treatment of others is necessary.   We may be able to excuse the fact this guy was nominated by the nation's number one serial sexual assaulter, but we cannot have his confirmation if there's even a whiff of  extreme sexual impropriety, as there appears to be.

For all these reasons the WSJ editorial today (The '#MeToo' Ambush) is mere last minute desperation before the hangman's noose appears, as when it asks: "Why go to such lengths (i.e. taking a polygraph test) if Ms, Ford really wanted her name to stay a secret? Even this weekend she could have chosen to remain anonymous".

Yes, she could have. but she is also smart enough to  know if she did remain nameless her claims would never be taken seriously.  Nor would she have been granted a public forum to air them.  It is precisely because coming forward dramatically shows she's prepared to defend herself in an open hearing  (vs. Kavanaugh's denials) that the media's  paying any attention.   Hell, she's even prepared to face the Reepo rat brigade on Monday, despite the fact there is zero upside for her other than establishing her credibility as a victim of an attempted rape - even after 36 years. Many women in the #MeToo movement will also relate to her, of that you may be sure.

One more observation in passing: If by some fluke or perversion of process Kavanaugh does succeed in still getting confirmed look for an even larger groundswell of women adding to the blue wave tsunami coming in November.  "Bloodbath" in the words of one GOP strategist, yep and times ten.

-----------------

Update: It now appears Christine Blasey Ford  will no longer be appearing in any hearing on Monday. This follows her being terrorized by a gaggle of demented degenerates  -  Trumpies no doubt- who forced her and her family into hiding after sending her vile emails and death threats, as well as hacking her computer and impersonating her online.   I still stick with my prediction that Kavanaugh's confirmation will be sunk  - one way or another.  The proper action to have taken, if the Senate Judiciary Committee was serious at all, would have been to demand that Trump authorize an updated FBI background investigation of Kavanaugh. But, of course, that would have meant neutralizing the one guy who could set him free in a SC decision, say following a Mueller indictment or subpoena.

See also:

Republicans are fearful of a full airing of an attempted rape allegation

Kavanaugh Not The Worst SC Pick - But He Still Merits Scrutiny - Not A Rubber Stamp

While Brett Kavanaugh is the least deplorable Trump SC pick, that doesn't mean he gets a free ride.

Well, today much of liberaldom can breathe a (small) sigh of relief that Donnie Dotard didn't select Amy Coney Barrett (previous post) as the Justice to replace Anthony Kennedy. As I noted, the selection of Coney Barrett would have amounted to a judicial travesty no less disastrous than the Bush Sr. choice of Clarence Thomas in 1991.  So, perhaps before the left gets hysterical over the Kavanaugh pick it needs to bear in mind Trump's choice could have been way worse.

Of course, to a patient notified he's actually contracted  dysentery,  as opposed to cholera, this is small consolation.

For those who may not know, Brett Kavanaugh worked in the Bush Jr. White House before being nominated to the DC court of appeals in 2003. He was confirmed in 2006 after Democrats mounted a long fight against his nomination on the grounds that Kavanaugh was overly partisan.  That take was not completely unjustified given Kavanaugh worked for Ken Starr, the infamous lawyer who led the "Whitewater"  investigation of President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

As most of us who were alive at the time know, Starr couldn't get gnatshit out of the Whitewater investigation so had to pursue the irrelevant angle of Clinton's sex life. That also would have been a total dead end had Starr been disallowed the use of secretly made (criminally made) phone tapes of  confidential conversations with Monica Lewinsky by one Linda Tripp.   Tripp lived in Columbia, MD at the time-  where wifey and I also resided - and it was widely known Tripp (who worked at the Pentagon as a high grade gopher) violated Maryland statutes against taping phone conversations without informing the taped party.  Technically then, the Lewinsky tapes (Tripp incited Monica for more and more details at each taping)  ought to have been inadmissible. But Ken Starr disregarded the law when it suited him and used said tapes to trap Clinton in a lie ("I did not have sex with that woman!") which then became the basis for his impeachment.

Kavanaugh also helped author the Starr Report, which laid out the  spurious case for Clinton’s impeachment and removal from office, based on Lewinsky's illegally- obtained taped spiels with Tripp, i.e. about a blow job and soiled dress.. To make matters worse, Kavanaugh also did legal work for the Bush campaign during the Florida election recount.

Recall in that 2000 election, Jeb Bush had the voter lists scrubbed of tens of thousands of Afican Americans, who by a majority vote Dem. Greg Palast documented this  in his book,  'The Best Democracy Money Can Buy' detailing how 90,000 and probably more like 180,000 legal black voters were removed from voter lists in Florida, using the ruse that convicted felons can not vote in that state. Jeb Bush awarded the contract to the firm that submitted the higher bid, Choicepoint.  It then scrubbed from the voter rolls all names that were clearly black (e.g. first name Jamail, Devante or Kinesha,  for instance), that bore an arguable resemblance to a felon’s name.   End result? The SC handed the FLA electoral votes to Bush Jr.   Even Vince Bugliosi, who later blew it in a 2,500 page tome on the Kennedy assassination, got this one right. That was  embodied in his 2001 book, 'The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President'.

All of this in concert peeved Democrats no end, as it should have.

Alas, Kavanaugh is also a Roman Catholic - like Amy Coney Barrett - and he  discussed his Catholic faith last night in his acceptance blurb, proclaiming: “I am a proud member of the Catholic community in DC.”  Providing this disclosure while noting the priest for whom he served as an altar boy was in attendance for the announcement.    The good thing is he doesn't go in for speaking in tongues or getting esoteric divine messages.  The bad thing is abortion rulings could still be an issue for him. Or rather for those of us who defend a woman's right to abortion.

We already know, for example, that last fall Kavanaugh wrote a decision siding with Trump administration lawyers to block a migrant teenager in Texas from being released from custody to get an abortion.  He also criticized his colleagues for "creating a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. government detention to obtain an abortion on demand."  If Kavanaugh had been successful, he'd have pushed the teen into her second trimester.  Reinforcing this position, Kavanaugh also wrote,  “the Government has permissible interests in favoring fetal life, protecting the best interests of a minor, and refraining from facilitating abortion"

So the jury is still out on his abortion stance, and yes, that ought to concern pro-choice folks.

At the same time, let's bear in mind the guy is almost like kryptonite for social conservatives.   Indeed, many of those groups have warned that Kavanaugh is "insufficiently conservative", citing decisions on Obamacare and abortion where they have felt that he did not go far enough in his opinions. In particular, they cite a 2011 ruling in which he dissented from a decision that the Affordable Care Act was constitutional solely on jurisdictional grounds and not as a matter of law. The American Family Association, a prominent fundamentalist Christian group, came out on Monday night against Kavanaugh’s nomination because his “reasoning on religious liberty, Obamacare and issues concerning life have proven to be of major concern”.

That social conservo knock was more than good enough for many libs (including me) to assert Kavanaugh to be the least of four potential evils. Again, try to think of it  not as conferring kudos but as electing to contract dysentery instead of cholera, Ebola or smallpox.

Still there are other issues that invite strong scrutiny of  Kavanaugh, especially given his views on whether presidents (like Traitor Trump) can be indicted or even impeached.  This is critical in light of Robert Mueller’s continuing investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.  Indeed, Sharilynn Ifill speaking last night (on 'All In')  before the announcement, noted it is an anomaly of the first order to have a likely criminal president making a Supreme Court pick at this time (perhaps weeks before being cited as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Russia probe),

 Thus, it is eminently justified that Kavanaugh face tough questions about his views on whether sitting presidents can face criminal investigation. For example, Senate Dems can cite a 2009 law review article, in which he stated that impeachment was an adequate safeguard “if a president does something dastardly” writing:

“The President’s job is difficult enough as it is. And the country loses when the President’s focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or criminal investigation and possible prosecution.”

Aww...boo hoo hoo, cry me a river, do.   But see we aren't talking about a normal, legitimate president here, but a buffoon and layabout who spends most of each day watching cable TV (FOX News) and tweeting. A guy who can't even be bothered to read his daily briefs and has spent more time now away from the White House - playing golf or hobnobbing at Mar-a-lago and Bedminster, than all previous presidents put together.   THIS is a doofus whose focus is already distracted and besides, wouldn't know how to do the damned job even if someone tried to donate a teaching video. ("The Presidency  101").

Hell, five days into his presidency he  even bawled that the job had  turned out to be too much for him to face. Too many details, too much stuff to master for an extensive government bureaucracy.  Hence, his penchant for becoming a cable TV and tweet addict. See e.g.

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/donald-trump-stunned-to-learn-presidency-is-an-actual-j-1792215349

Excerpt:

“Being president is harder than Donald Trump thought,” begins the article, neatly capturing the blithe, criminal ignorance that characterizes both Trump himself and the many dozens of millions of morons who thought he should be the leader of the free world. Yes, being the president is a harder job than Donald Trump would expect, because Donald Trump had never previously held an actual job, because actually, spending your inheritance on a succession of failed cons is not an actual job."

The irony is that this consummate  asshole who is also a likely traitor,  selects a 53-year-old who has impeccable academic credentials and has authored over 286 opinions.  Unfortunately, one of those could grant Trump a "get out of jail free" card if somehow the culmination of the Russia probe reaches the Supreme Court.

Thus, the Dems must be as sure as much as they can be that Kavanaugh will act as an independent justice, and not seek to exonerate Trump because his job is "difficult enough as it is".   As per an op-ed in the NY Times:

"Fair questions would include inquiries not just about Judge Kavanaugh’s past writings and activities but also about how he believes various past notable judicial cases (such as Roe v. Wade) should have been decided — and even about what his current legal views are on any issue, general or specific."

The specific questions that ought to be considered by the Judiciary Committee, start with his opinion piece on relieving presidents of strong legal blowback, i.e., in terms of being questioned by Trump prior to the announcement:

"What were you asked about this article? What did you say? What assurances did you offer? What kind of things did the White House want to know?"

This is given Kavanaugh is the only person on Trump's short list who specifically wrote that  presidents should have protection from investigations. If it can be ascertained he was pumped by Trump to bolster that opinion or act on it (in Trump's case),  protecting Trump from a Mueller subpoena, the Dems need to full bore oppose it.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/bill-blum/80068/brett-kavanaugh-trump-s-supreme-court-pick-will-drive-u-s-law-hard-to-the-right

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/cody-fenwick/80067/5-things-you-should-know-about-trumps-supreme-court-pick-brett-kavanaugh