RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/03/guilt-accusation-bruce-hendry/

Editors’ note: Below is Part 3 of a new essay written by Bruce Hendry: Democrats, Progressives and Socialists. Stay tuned for the ensuing chapters. [See links to previous chapters below this article].

 Guilt By Accusation.

Brett Kavanaugh is an outstanding jurist who was nominated by Donald Trump to the U.S. Supreme Court. Nothing from his judicial past could be seriously be challenged by the Democrats, so at the exact moment when it would cause the most damage, they charged him with groping Christine Blasey Ford at a party 37 years before, when he was all of 15 years old.

Ford, couldn’t initially remember in what year it happened, although she eventually decided on 1982, or where it occurred, or how she got to the party or home from the party.  She did remember the names of four people that were at the party, including her best girlfriend.  Not one of those four people, including her own girlfriend, remember the incident. Her girlfriend said that she had never met Brett Kavanaugh.

End of story, right?  To any fair minded person this woman is either mentally unbalanced or a liar, and the fact that this accusation was withheld for 37 years and then made at the precise moment that would cause the most damage to the Supreme Court nominee would strike any normal person as being staged. The Democrats, both Group Two Democrats, the politicians and Group One Democrats, the loyal but clueless big hearted group rallied behind this ridiculous and destructive tale.

“Guilty until proven innocent;” “she wouldn’t lie because she’s a woman;” “If you don’t believe her, you are insulting every woman that has been sexually assaulted;” they said. But to believe Christine Ford one would also have to believe that every accusing woman always tells the truth and that every accused man lies.

In a “how to sell” seminar one learns about the “assumptive close.” One assumes that the other party agrees with one’s assumption without actually talking about it, then one proceeds to the close. The assumption here was that if Brett Kavanaugh dry humped a girl when he was 15 years old, then 37 years later, as an adult, he would be disqualified from any responsible position. There is no evidence that he did such a thing, but even if he did, as a teenager, that certainly would not in itself disqualify him for responsible positions for the rest of his life. That’s ridiculous. But that’s what the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee argued.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-case-for-ginsburg-to-recuse-herself-11583367515?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

President Trump recently lashed out at Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “Both should recuse themselves on all Trump, or Trump related, matters!” he tweeted. He’s wrong about Justice Sotomayor but has a point about Justice Ginsburg.

In a lone opinion dissenting from the court’s order in Wolf v. Cook County, Justice Sotomayor said she wouldn’t stay a lower court’s injunction against a Trump immigration policy. “Claiming one emergency after another,” she wrote, “the Government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited Court resources in each.” (Three other justices dissented without issuing opinions.)

Justice Sotomayor’s opinion doesn’t disparage Mr. Trump. She criticizes the government’s position, but she’s harsher on her colleagues in the majority, writing that their “recent behavior on stay applications has benefited one litigant over all others.” Mr. Trump is the one personalizing a legal dispute, and it would pervert justice if litigants could force judges to remove themselves from cases simply by denouncing them publicly.

Justice Ginsburg is a different case. In public interviews in 2016 she called Candidate Trump a “faker” and said: “I can’t imagine what this place would be—I can’t imagine what the country would be—with Donald Trump as our president.” She even mused about fleeing the country: “‘Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.” She apologized—kind of: “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office.” She admitted her remarks were “ill advised,” and that “in the future I will be more circumspect.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/schumer-threatens-the-court-11583368483?mod=opinion_lead_pos

Democrats like to accuse President Trump of violating institutional democratic norms, and often he does with his rhetorical broadsides. But at least he’s never directly threatened the U.S. Supreme Court the way Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer did on Wednesday.

Speaking to a crowd on the Supreme Court steps, the leading Senate Democrat declared: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.” He meant Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the newest Justices who were appointed by President Trump.

Mr. Schumer was speaking before abortion-rights activists as the Supreme Court considers whether to curtail the ability of abortion providers to sue on behalf of women seeking abortions—a doctrine known as third-party standing. Mr. Schumer, still addressing Messrs. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, added: “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

The “whirlwind”? “What hit you”? We won’t go so far as to call that an incitement to violence, but it surely was a threat of political reprisal against the Justices if they don’t vote the way Mr. Schumer wants. Does he mean impeachment or packing the Court?