Displaying posts published in

October 2018

A Brett Kavanaugh Reader

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-reader/

Only a lengthy and voluminously footnoted book could paint the full picture the judge’s ordeal on his way to the US Supreme Court. Nevertheless, what Roger Kimball, John Hinderaker and others have had to say sheds a grimly unflattering light on the tactics and motivations of his accusers.

In Quadrant‘s October issue, Hal G.P. Colebatch contributes the second installment of his two-parter on TDS — Trump Derangement Syndrome — and notes how hatred of this outsider president has drawn forth a venomous insanity wherever the Left prevails. “The Sydney Morning Herald in October, 2016, claimed that ‘Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler Have More in Common than Slogans‘,” Hal writes, adding that the globe-girdling hysteria on the Left has seen “the institutionalisation and acceptance of violence and lies.” If you scratch from the ledger of ‘progressive’ bullying the attempted massacre by a Bernie Sanders supporter of congressional Republicans training for a charity baseball game, an outrage seldom mentioned since in the manistream media, the most vile manifestation of the Left’s principle- and decency-free strategy has been the Borking of US Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Below, a selection of the slanders and misrepresentations masquerading as commentary, interspersed with rebuttals the mainstream media has found it convenient to omit. In a better world you might have come across the facts on the ABC, rather than the by-rote Democratic Party talking points the national broadcaster serves up as news. And when an agent of accuracy does get a word in edgeways, the get the treatment accorded Judith Sloan on The Drum. Skip to the 40-minute mark of this video when Judith is repeatedly shouted down by the customary stacked panel. That’s the ABC’s idea of debate, just as this off-with-the-fairies polemic from a US contributor proceeds from the premise that Kavanaugh is the beast from Central Casting and must he held responsible for the ills inflicted on women. (…the image of Dr Ford, giving her testimony, now will accompany Mr Kavanaugh for the rest of his career. The image, in fact, is that of American women of her generation and everything that they have tried to become, and what they have had to endure to do so.)

Roger Kimball’s observations are especially worthwhile, but first a couple of cartoons that further the Democrats’ guilty-until-proven-innocent framing of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings:

Anjali Nadaradjane Africa’s Looming Venezuela

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2018/10/africas-looming-venezuela/

There are better ways for South Africa to implement land reform than expropriation without compensation. Vast swathes are owned by government and much of this, rather than properties seized by parliamentary decree, could easily be transferred to deserving families and communities.

The South African government’s planned land grab from farmers, known as Expropriation Without Compensation (EWC), sets a damning precedent for the country by threatening both fundamental property rights as well as South Africa’s economic prosperity.

Earlier this year, the parliament of South Africa supported the EWC resolution to amend section 25 of their Constitution. Currently, S25 mandates that the government must pay just and equitable compensation when it expropriates land. South African president, Ramaphosa claims that EWC Is necessary for restoring land stolen during apartheid, redistributing land so that home ownership correlates with racial demographics in order to appease the electorate which he argues, has been clamouring for land reform. He believes that the country’s economy will not be adversely impacted, yet the evidence suggests otherwise.

The EWC will weaken fundamental property rights and causing destitution and strife. The International Property Rights Alliance (IPRA), an international coalition of property rights advocacy groups of which the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance is the local affiliate, have cautioned the South African government against continuing with its proposed policy of expropriating private property, arguing that the proposed policy will undermine constitutional democracy. The proposed amendments would apply to both physical and intellectual property, from trademarks and patents to houses, vehicles and even heirlooms. The government may be tempted to abuse the new powers in order to undermine their political opponents. Land could be arbitrarily expropriated, as well as other forms of property such as pensions to fund government programmes.

Tomorrow’s Elite Lawyers Disavow Due Process Law students at Yale and Harvard, triggered by Kavanaugh, skip class and file Title IX complaints. By Heather Mac Donald

At last count more than 1,700 law professors have signed an open letter complaining that Judge Brett Kavanaugh “displayed a lack of judicial temperament” in responding to uncorroborated sexual assault accusations against him. In his 12 years on the federal bench, Judge Kavanaugh has produced ample evidence of his judicial temperament. If anyone’s temperament should be of concern to these professors, it’s that of their students, enthralled by identity politics and victim ideology.

Immediately after President Trump nominated Judge Kavanaugh in July, hundreds of Yale law students, alumni and faculty signed a petition claiming the nomination presented an “emergency . . . for our safety.” When Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations became public in September, Yale law students convened a town hall to combat a “culture” on campus “that privileges power and prestige over safety and wellness, [and] that precludes many of us from flourishing in this space.”

When the New Yorker published its own uncorroborated account of lewd conduct purportedly committed by Mr. Kavanaugh as a Yale freshman, Yale law-school alumnae organized an open letter supporting “all women who have faced sexual assault, not only at Yale, but across the country.” Thirty-one Yale law professors canceled classes to facilitate student protests against Judge Kavanaugh, both in New Haven and on Capitol Hill. The Office of Student Affairs put out a plate of cookies to let students “know we are thinking of you.”

Not to be outdone, Harvard law students walked out of their classes the day after the New Yorker article appeared, wearing pink buttons declaring “I Believe Christine Blasey Ford.” America must “stand by these survivors,” the president of the Harvard Black Law Students Association told the crowd. The dean of students announced, “We are supporting our students as they grapple with these issues.” Whether she provided cookies is unknown.

Kavanaugh and the Senate’s Honor The judge is a distinguished nominee. The charges against him are uncorroborated.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/kavanaugh-and-the-senates-honor-1538695662

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has scheduled a Senate vote for Friday morning to close debate and move Brett Kavanaugh toward a final confirmation vote on Saturday, and it’s about time. The undecided Senators have had their extra week for an FBI probe, the review has turned up nothing to support the assault accusations against him, and now Senators should vote to put a worthy judge on the Supreme Court.

Democrats are complaining that the FBI report is incomplete, but then no report would satisfy them unless it found evidence that apparently doesn’t exist. “The most notable part of this report is what’s not in it,” said Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. She thinks accusations that have no corroboration are credible because the FBI can’t prove that something didn’t happen.

***

The FBI was always likely to turn up little new evidence because Christine Blasey Ford recalls so little about the assault she says took place 36 years ago. The witnesses she says were there, including her best friend, say they don’t recall the party or refute that it happened. There are no corroborating witnesses and no incriminating evidence, and Ms. Ford’s story about key details also keeps changing.

The best summary of her case is in the memo by Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona prosecutor who specializes in sexual-assault cases and was invited to question Ms. Ford by Judiciary Republicans. “A ‘he said, she-said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that,” Ms. Mitchell wrote. “I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”

On the Question of Judicial Temperament By Michael Mukasey

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/10/04/on_the_question_of_judicial_temperament_138257.html

Last Thursday, we watched Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh vigorously defend himself against very serious charges of misconduct that he has consistently and unequivocally denied, and for which no corroboration seems to exist.

In the wake of that hearing, we began to hear murmurs, which then escalated into much louder criticisms, that Judge Kavanaugh lacks the necessary judicial temperament to serve as a justice on the Supreme Court.

From 1988 to 2006, I served as a district judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, becoming chief judge in 2000. Additionally, I have worked with many judges throughout my career, in private practice and in government service. So the concept of judicial temperament is not an abstraction for me, but one that I have had to give considerable thought to.

As it turns out, Judge Kavanaugh is not a newcomer to these concepts either. He had not one but two hearings to become an appellate judge on the D.C. Circuit. His first hearing was in 2004, but his nomination was initially filibustered by Senate Democrats for partisan reasons, based on his role in President George W. Bush’s administration. He was re-nominated and eventually confirmed in 2006, but not before being subjected to another round of intense partisan attacks.

With the bitter taste of partisan acrimony still in his mouth, Judge Kavanagh began his tenure on the D.C. Circuit — considered by some to be the second-most important court in the country. He has served in that role with distinction and earned widespread respect across the ideological spectrum. It was no surprise to those of us who know him that Elena Kagan invited him to teach at Harvard Law School when she was dean there; or that he was recently introduced to the Senate Judiciary Committee by leading feminist lawyer Lisa Blatt; or that he has been praised by leading legal liberals such as former Obama Solicitors General Don Verrilli and Neal Katyal.

Dems: ‘Give in to Our Worldview or to Hell With You’ By Robert Miller

https://amgreatness.com/2018/10/04/dems-give-in-to-our

As Democrats indulge in another high-tech lynching of a Supreme Court nominee, it’s worth noting that the fight over Brett Kavanaugh isn’t really about who’s qualified to serve on the nation’s highest court. The controversy is the latest manifestation of the Left’s effort to reshape or destroy American institutions. Now rapidly morphing into a leftist party reminiscent of those in Europe and Latin America, the Democrats and their activist supporters are not following a policy agenda focused on a specific issue or candidate so much as a grand strategy to discredit and redefine the institutions that make civic American life possible.

To beat the Left, the GOP not only must understand this reality, it must refuse to play by rules for which Democrats have no respect nor interest in maintaining. Not only that, conservatives and classical liberals should embolden themselves and re-engage the American cultural spheres long dominated by the Left. Fretting on the sidelines simply won’t do.

Designed for character assassination, the manufactured scandal Democrats arrayed against Brett Kavanaugh followed a simple formula based upon past leftist successes in politics and culture. Unable to find legitimate arguments over prior rulings or procedure to block Kavanaugh’s appointment, the Democrats accused him of a crime and capitalized on our culture’s moral panic du jour embodied in the #MeToo movement. The Democrats would have us pay no mind to the fact that the way someone was in high school, thankfully, does not often translate into the way a person will be throughout life. Nor would the Democrats remind us that the #MeToo movement only was made possible by the predatory behavior by powerful men in Hollywood, one of the most profitable of the Left’s occupied territories.

Fact is, the Democrats placed Kavanaugh in a position of having to prove he did not commit a crime. The only way definitively to prove innocence is to prove someone else committed the crime in question; otherwise, all that can be done is to cast doubt upon the notion of guilt. As with Hollywood, the Left controls academia and has done so for decades. If the Left comprises the erudite class that it so often claims for itself, however, its spokesmen would know that a nonevent couldn’t effectively be disproven. Was Kavanaugh at a party with Christine Blasey Ford or not? She says one thing, he says something else. There is no evidence either way—and so there is nothing an investigation might find to say he wasn’t there.

Science Shows People Regularly Remember Things That Didn’t Happen By Edward Archer

http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/04/science-shows-people-regularly-remember-thing

In 2015, the National Academy of Sciences released a report summarizing decades of rigorous evidence demonstrating that people regularly ‘recall things we never experienced.’

“Memory itself is an internal rumour; and when to this hearsay within the mind we add the falsified echoes that reach us from others, we have but a shifting and unseizable basis to build upon. The picture we frame of the past changes continually and grows every day less similar to the original experience which it purports to describe.” — George Santayana, “The Life of Reason: Human Understanding”

In 1975, a young woman was brutally raped in her home while she was watching TV. Shortly thereafter, she identified her assailant as Dr. Donald Thomson. On the basis of her compelling and apparently credible testimony, Thomson was arrested and charged despite having an irrefutable alibi.

In an ironic and exculpatory turn of events, authorities discovered that, prior to the attack, the woman had been watching Thomson on live TV discussing the inaccuracies of eye-witness testimony and simply confused his face with that of her rapist’s. As bizarre as this incident may appear, false memories in concert with compelling but false testimony is often the rule rather than the exception.

For example, the failure of memory and recall contributed to the wrongful criminal convictions of 75 percent of the first 250 cases in which DNA evidence exonerated the incarcerated individuals. In 2015, the National Academy of Sciences released a reportsummarizing decades of rigorous evidence demonstrating that common cognitive processes lead us to “recall things we never experienced.”

Cyber Criminals in the Kremlin Putin’s spies are exposed in cases around the world.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cyber-criminals-in-the-kremlin-1538685869

Several governments on Thursday made a coordinated release of new information about Russian cyber espionage, including an indictment of seven Russian intelligence agents from the Department of Justice in Washington. Authorities are performing a public service by lifting the veil of secrecy that usually envelops counterintelligence.

The Justice indictment names seven agents in the Kremlin’s intelligence agency, the GRU, for hacking attacks against sports antidoping agencies and Westinghouse Electric Co. As payback for investigations into Russian athletes’ use of banned performance-enhancing drugs, the GRU stole online data about hundreds of other athletes—even sending agents to Rio de Janeiro to hack the computers of antidoping officials at a conference. Then it leaked confidential information to embarrass innocent sportsmen and women.

Meanwhile, the Dutch government says four Russian agents showed up in April intending to hack the wireless network at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in the Hague. The plan appears to have been to place sophisticated equipment in a rental car and then park outside the building with the trunk pointed toward the offices to pick up wireless computer transmissions.

The OPCW at the time was investigating the Kremlin’s use of a nerve agent to try to assassinate a Russian double agent in the U.K.—an attack that killed an innocent civilian. The agency also was investigating the use of chemical weapons by Russia’s client regime in Syria.

There’s evidence that the spies would have headed to an OPCW-affiliated lab in Switzerland if the Dutch hadn’t nabbed them. The British government says the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Porton Down military lab also were targets of failed Russian cyberattacks at about the same time.

BRET STEPHENS: FOR ONCE I AM GRATEFUL TO TRUMP

In the president, one big bully stands up to others.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/opinion/trump-kavanaugh-ford-allegations.html

For the first time since Donald Trump entered the political fray, I find myself grateful that he’s in it. I’m reluctant to admit it and astonished to say it, especially since the president mocked Christine Blasey Ford in his ugly and gratuitous way at a rally on Tuesday. Perhaps it’s worth unpacking this admission for those who might be equally astonished to read it.

I’m grateful because Trump has not backed down in the face of the slipperiness, hypocrisy and dangerous standard-setting deployed by opponents of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. I’m grateful because ferocious and even crass obstinacy has its uses in life, and never more so than in the face of sly moral bullying. I’m grateful because he’s a big fat hammer fending off a razor-sharp dagger.

A few moments have crystallized my view over the past few days.

The first moment was a remark by a friend. “I’d rather be accused of murder,” he said, “than of sexual assault.” I feel the same way. One can think of excuses for killing a man; none for assaulting a woman. But if that’s true, so is this: Falsely accusing a person of sexual assault is nearly as despicable as sexual assault itself. It inflicts psychic, familial, reputational and professional harms that can last a lifetime. This is nothing to sneer at.

The second moment, connected to the first: “Boo hoo hoo. Brett Kavanaugh is not a victim.” That’s the title of a column in the Los Angeles Times, which suggests that the possibility of Kavanaugh’s innocence is “infinitesimal.” Yet false allegations of rape, while relatively rare, are at least five times as common as false accusations of other types of crime, according to academic literature.

Democrat Double-Speak By Marilyn Penn

http://politicalmavens.com/

During a fight at the Horizon Juvenile Center in the Bronx, twenty correction officers were injured by 16 and 17 year old boys who had been moved from Rikers Island due to a state law requiring that they be treated differently from adults in courts and jails. (”Officers Hurt at Youth Center, WSJ 10/4) Despite the fact that these young men were gang members, City Council members are concerned that staffing the Juvenile Center with correction officers and juvenile counselors is too similar to replicating the jail experience. In other words, 16 and 17 year old hoodlums are still just boys.

I wonder whether Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, to name a very few vociferous democrats, would be abashed to discover that they are dealing with the purported behavior of a boy the same age as these youngsters, and insisting that if the allegations against him were true, the 53 year old man he had become must be held responsible for acts performed 36 years ago. His punishment would be his unsuitability for the lofty job he has held for the past twelve years to unanimous acclaim and his certain removal from consideration for the higher post to which he had a presidential nomination. The Administration for Children’s Services which runs the Horizon Juvenile Center claims that none of the 20 officers was seriously injured, so despite that large number and the background of these boys, the spokeswoman argued for greater understanding of their issues and less concern for the safety of those who must control them.