N. A. Halkides
Author, Commenter

The Topic

4 Nov 2018


e can keep this short and simple, because despite what David French thinks (and we won't waste any more time bothering about that), the issue here is incredibly un-complicated: Democrats want to keep Brett Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court. In fact they're desperate to keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court, and they're down to their last at-bat in the ninth inning.

Lacking the sheer numbers in their own caucus necessary to deny him confirmation, they have instead targeted weakling RINOs like Senators Flake, Murkowski, and Collins, and their own Senators McCaskill and Manchin. Flake is, well, a flake, while the others are worried about re-election and could (Democrats calculate) be swayed by any change in public opinion (as shaped by the Democratic media). So how to use this to stop Kavanaugh's confirmation?

They can't argue that Kavanaugh isn't qualified. They've asked misleading questions about school shootings and beaten the drum for the preservation of Roe v. Wade until everyone is tired of hearing about it. They can't sway Republicans (and possibly not even Manchin and McCaskill) by admitting the truth, that they want Left-wing justices who will help them shred what remains of the Constitution and are afraid of conservative justices who will rule that the Constitution means what it says. So what can good little Democrats do? Of course - concoct a spurious allegation of some sort of sexual misconduct (the vaguer the nature of that "misconduct" the better) that supposedly happened so long ago it can't possibly be disproven!

True, this allegation can't possibly be proven either - that's the problem with things that never happened - but how is Brett Kavanaugh supposed to prove that he didn't try to remove this woman's clothing on an unspecified date at an unspecified time nearly forty years ago? And of course the answer is, he isn't. On the other hand, in this the MeToo era, proof is no longer considered necessary - a "credible allegation" is sometimes enough to destroy a career. See Roy Moore, who definitely dated younger women and on that basis was judged guilty (by French and the Democrats) of having sex with underage girls even though there was only one (unsubstantiated) claim to that effect.

The timing alone here is enough to conclude that the whole thing is a lie (again, see the Moore case, where the accusation was made late enough in the day that there was no hope of undoing the damage the allegation caused). The bias of Christine Blasey Ford, progressive activist, is further reason to dismiss her complaint. (Progressives think they're justified in lying to advance their cause. In fact, their mental functioning is so pathological that they probably believe in an approximation of their own lies: "Kavanaugh is a horror, therefore terrible things about him must be true". cf. Dan Rather's "fake but true" memos, andr the testimony of Anita Hill).

Now since there will never be corroborating evidence, and since the whole case rests on the unsubstantiated word of the accuser, Republicans should refuse to take testimony or hold hearings and proceed with the vote. "Should". Anyone willing to bet money that they will? I thought not.