RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-smears-begin-on-kavanaugh-1531438269

The political left is going to do whatever it can to defeat Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, and the smears have begun even earlier than usual. This week’s mud on the wall includes a claim of guilt by association when Mr. Kavanaugh was a law clerk 27 years ago.

In 1990-1991 Mr. Kavanaugh clerked for federal Judge Alex Kozinski on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Kozinski retired in December after he was accused by several women, including a former federal judge, of harassing behavior such as groping and showing them pornography.

The McClatchy news service reported Wednesday that a left-wing outfit called Ultraviolet is circulating a six-page memo demanding that Senate Democrats investigate whether Mr. Kavanaugh knew about Mr. Kozinski’s behavior a quarter-century ago. Think of this as the claims in the Christopher Steele Russia dossier without the evidence.

The Ultraviolet sleaze-slingers have no evidence that Mr. Kavanaugh knew about Judge Kozinski’s behavior and no witnesses to anything of the sort. They merely have insinuations that in the age of social media can spread around the world before the truth can even get a hearing. We’re told that journalists from several news organizations are also trolling former Kozinski clerks to see if they can find someone who will say that Judge Kavanaugh knew something, or should have known, about Judge Kozinski’s behavior.

All of which caused the White House to issue a statement Thursday addressing the smears by ancient association that are by now circulating widely on the internet and in the press corps. “Prior to the public reports late last year [about Judge Kozinski], Judge Kavanaugh had never heard any allegations of sexual misconduct or sexual harassment by Judge Kozinski,” White House spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in a statement.

The White House also released a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee signed by 18 of Judge Kavanaugh’s former female clerks attesting to “our uniformly positive experiences with the Judge as a boss on issues of gender and equality in the workplace.” Amy Chua of Yale writes nearby of her rewarding experience placing law clerks with Judge Kavanaugh.

It used to be that the press required at least some evidence to report a story, but now a politically motivated group can write a memo without incriminating facts and get it reported as news. Fair-minded Americans should treat it as the drive-by innuendo it is.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/facing-intense-gop-criticism-fbi-s-strzok-says-personal-views-n890876

Deepening tension between congressional Republicans and the Justice Department erupted in full public view Thursday, as a senior FBI agent sparred with lawmakers who suggested his bias against President Trump tainted the department’s Russia investigation.

Peter Strzok, the senior FBI official who oversaw the Hillary Clinton email investigation and helped lead the initial probe of ties between Russia and the Trump campaign strongly rejected claims that personal political views he shared with a colleague affected his official actions, while accusing Republicans of furthering Vladimir Putin’s goal of sowing discord in the U.S.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., noted that in August of 2016, within one week of the Justice Department’s decision to open the Russia probe, Page and Strzok exchanged messages that included “F Trump,” and Strzok saying: “I can protect our country at so many levels.”

“We’re not even a week into an investigation that you originated, approved, were the contact for, you hadn’t interviewed a single solitary soul until August the 11th, and you’re already promising to protect the country from that menace Donald Trump,” Gowdy said.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/nation-now/2018/07/11/how-went-donald-trump-critic-president-trump-supporter-column/774925002/
I admit that I was wrong about Trump. He’s not a clown, and he is delivering on his promises.

Over the years, my caricatures of Donald Trump have evolved but not as much as my opinion of him.

When Trump announced he was running for president, I admit that I didn’t take this millionaire, hotel magnate, reality TV show celebrity as a serious candidate. I doubted his ability to do the job. So I drew him as a clown. In fact, my cartoons were as critical of him as many of my liberal cartoonist friends.

Then Trump started a war with the news media, tagging major news outlets as “fake news.” Ahem, I’m in the media.

And while Trump promised to pursue conservative policies, this conservative cartoonist doubted his sincerity. After all, it wasn’t that long ago that he was on the left.

In the crowded primary field, Trump got the most attention by being the loudest. His tweets could not be ignored by the media and resulted in Trump dominating news coverage.

I found his personal attacks sophomoric. I mean, calling his opponents “Low-energy Jeb,” “Lyin’ Ted,” “Little Marco,” “Crazy Bernie” and “Crooked Hillary” was not presidential. It was childish, but it worked. He won and they lost.

In this braggadocios “I’m the greatest” culture, Trump became the Muhammad Ali of politicians. His claims of, “I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created,” “I’m really rich,” “I’m very highly educated,” “I’m the best (fill in the blank)” stretched credulity but was certainly entertaining.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2018/07/11/catalyzing-innovation-via-centers-labs-and-foundries/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

The cornerstone of collaboration is based on knowledge transfer; sharing of research tools, methodologies and findings; and sometimes combining mutual funding resources to meet shortfalls necessary to build prototypes and commercialize technologies.

Collaborations often involve combinations of government, industry and academia who work together to meet difficult challenges and cultivate new ideas. A growing trend for many leading companies is creating technology specific innovation centers, labs, and foundries to accelerate collaboration and invention.

As the development of new technologies continues to grow exponentially and globally, collaboration has more value as a resource for adapting to the rapidly emerging technologies landscape by establishing pivotal connections between companies, technologies and stakeholders.

In the US Federal government, the National Labs (including: Lawrence Livermore, Oak Ridge, Argonne, Sandia, Idaho National Laboratory, Battelle, and Brookhaven, and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC’s), and federally funded Centers For Excellence have been outlets for innovation and public/private cooperation. The benefits of the Labs’ role include experienced capability in rapid proto-typing of new technologies ready for transitioning, showcasing and commercialization. The Labs are a reservoir of specialized skills and capabilities with the best state-of-the art facilities for testing and evaluation of technologies.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/07/gunning_for_judge_kavanaugh.html

It’s not just the wrongly decided Roe V. Wade decision that liberals fear is in jeopardy with the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. They also fear their crusade against “semi-automatic” weapons may be exposed as the semantic, visual, and judicial fraud that it is:

“If you care about common sense gun violence protection, Judge Kavanaugh is your worst nightmare. If you want background checks, a ban on assault weapons, or any of the other common sense measures that we have in Connecticut, or California or New York, Judge Kavanaugh will strike them down.” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, who used to clerk on the court. “That’s in his record, it’s indisputable.”

“Give him a seat on this court, and you can say good-bye to the common sense measures in Connecticut, California and New York that have helped save lives,” he added.

President Trump may very well have picked Brett Kavanaugh to be his second nomination to the Supreme Court based on his clear-thinking opinion that there is no asterisk next the phrase “right to keep and bear arms” that says it is okay for that right to be infringed based on a “scary” appearance or advancements in technology:

Kavanaugh, who has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit since 2006, dissented from a 2011 decision in which a three-judge panel upheld the District of Columbia’s ban on so-called assault weapons and its requirement that all guns be registered. Kavanaugh disagreed with the majority’s use of “intermediate scrutiny,” saying an analysis “based on text, history, and tradition” is more consistent with the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment precedents.

http://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/396307-Did-FBI-get-bamboozled-by-multiple-versions-of-Trump-dossier%3F

Like dandelions in an untreated lawn, the now infamous Russian dossier apparently multiplied in numbers — and emissaries delivering it to the FBI — the closer Donald Trump got to the White House.

We know from public testimony that dossier author and former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele shared his findings with the FBI in summer and fall 2016 before he was terminated as a confidential source for inappropriate media contacts.

And we learned that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) provided a copy to the FBI after the November 2016 election — out of a sense of duty, his office says.

Now, memos the FBI is turning over to Congress show the bureau possessed at least three versions of the dossier and its mostly unverified allegations of collusion.

Each arrived from a different messenger: McCain, Mother Jones reporter David Corn, Fusion GPS founder (and Steele boss) Glenn Simpson.

That revelation is in an email that disgraced FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok wrote to FBI executives around the time BuzzFeed published a version of the dossier on Jan. 10, 2017.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/brett-kavanaugh-mueller-insurance-trump-no/

Senate Democrats are misrepresenting a 2009 law-review article.

Yes, the judicial-confirmation silly season surely is upon us.

In 2009, Brett Kavanaugh wrote the following words in a characteristically well-reasoned article for the Minnesota Law Review: “No one is above the law in our system of government. I strongly agree with that principle.”

It is based on this article that Senate Democrats claim— I kid you not — that President Trump’s nominee is unfit to serve on the Supreme Court because he believes the president is above the law.

This is so barmy it is difficult to know where to start. I do have a suggestion, though, about where not to start. In rebuttal, Kavanaugh supporters have been quick to remind us that the judge served as a prosecutor on Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s staff in the criminal investigation of President Clinton. This, they say, makes it self-evidently silly to say that Kavanaugh is against such investigations.

To the contrary, Kavanaugh’s article (only a small part of which deals with this topic) is a reflection on lessons learned from his experience not only in the Starr investigation but also as a staffer in the Bush White House. He observed the grind up close, the relentless pressures and constant life-and-death decision-making that makes the presidency like no other office. Having been seasoned by that experience, he now believes “in retrospect” that it “seems a mistake” to take a doctrinaire position that presidents should be treated like any other person when their duties are unlike any other person’s — and when we routinely make accommodations for persons with far less consequential duties.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-senate-deadline-for-kavanaugh-1531265850

Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination now heads to the Senate, and the most important fact to understand is that the debate in the world’s greatest nondeliberative body is not about the future of the Supreme Court. That’s a sideshow. The real debate is about the future of the Senate—specifically, which political party will control that now narrowly divided chamber in 2019.

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has already said he will “oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have.” Nice to know he’s given it such careful thought. But Mr. Schumer knows defeating the judge is a long shot, especially after Maine Senator Susan Collins made encouraging comments Tuesday about Judge Kavanaugh’s lower-court opinion on ObamaCare and his statement in 2006 that Roe v. Wade is a binding precedent.

In any case, what Mr. Schumer cares about more than defeating Donald Trump’s nominee is to be the next Majority Leader. Toward that end he wants to help his 10 incumbent Senators running in November to navigate between a political base that demands opposition to all things Trump and broader state electorates that might come to think that Judge Kavanaugh is an excellent nominee.

The best way to do that is to postpone a confirmation vote beyond Nov. 6. That way Joe Donnelly in Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota and Joe Manchin in West Virginia wouldn’t have to take a politically difficult vote before Election Day.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2018/07/10/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-penned-healthcare-dissent-focused-on-tax/#72fd0b0f4d6c

President Trump has announced his nomination to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) created by Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement. On Monday, the President gave the nod to District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has close ties to the Supreme Court. He clerked for Kennedy in the 1990s with another Supreme Court Justice, Neil Gorsuch. For the past dozen years, he’s been a fixture in the D.C. courts, which have produced other SCOTUS Justices, including Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Chief Justice John Roberts.

SCOTUS Justices typically don’t cut their teeth on tax cases, and Kavanaugh would be no exception. There is one tax-related case in his career, though, that stands out: Seven-Sky v. Holder (Susan SEVEN–SKY, Also Known as Susan Sevensky, et al., Appellants v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., et al., Appellees, No. 11–5047).

The case was a challenge to the Affordable Care Act (also called “ACA” or sometimes “Obamacare”). The Act was passed by Congress on March 21, 2010, and signed into law by then President Barack Obama two days later. A number of lawsuits followed, including Seven-Sky, which involved a challenge to the “minimum essential coverage provision.” The minimum essential coverage provision required that folks purchase and maintain healthcare insurance. It’s more commonly known as the individual mandate, and if you don’t have coverage—and don’t qualify for a waiver or an exemption’you’re subject to a penalty. (Er, tax? Keep reading.)

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270704/trumps-stellar-supreme-court-pick-joseph-klein

President Trump has nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to fill the seat vacated by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who announced his retirement late last month. Judge Kavanaugh, 53, who has served on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for 12 years, said that he was “deeply honored” to be nominated to replace Justice Kennedy, for whom he once clerked. If confirmed by the Senate, where the Republicans hold a razor-thin majority, Judge Kavanaugh, a principled strict constructionist, will help solidify a reliably conservative Supreme Court.

The left is in full resistance mode. It believes that the judiciary should serve as an additional but unelected political branch, whose duty it is to enact the left’s progressive policy agenda. They want activist justices who will treat the Constitution as a malleable instrument that can be twisted into the image of what the left thinks society should be.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, kowtowing to his base, wasted no time in viciously attacking Judge Kavanaugh, claiming that his nomination puts abortion rights and health care protections for women “on the judicial chopping block.” Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon declared, “There can be no mistaking Trump’s Supreme Court nomination for anything but what it is: a direct attempt to overturn Roe. v. Wade.”

This is only a small taste of the demagoguery, outright lies and outrageous ad hominem attacks against Judge Kavanaugh we can expect in the weeks ahead. Those who revere the Constitution, and who believe, like Alexander Hamilton, that the “rules of legal interpretation” should apply the laws in “conformity to the source from which they are derived,” must get out in front with the truth about this eminently qualified “judge’s judge.”