Have we sunk to the new low that all you have to do to uncork an outstanding nomination to the US Supreme Court is to come up with some cock-n-bull story about high school dalliances? That’s why Senator Diane Feinstein has done by outing this Stanford University professor who is claiming that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh groped her (and according to her, would have raped her had he not been so drunk). I have one word for this whole kettle of fish.
Hogwash!
First of all, it smacks of Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill…to the point that Hill was also a college professor. Second, as in Thomas’ case, it was held until just before the vote. And third, unlike the Thomas case, it was a Senator that brought it to the forefront and outed the accuser. This really reeks of something bad I’m smelling.
Let’s look at it. Why are we only now hearing of this? Why, if this woman has been so tormented throughout her life didn’t she come forward when Kavanaugh was before the Senate for confirmation to the Federal Bench? If this was such a huge ordeal, why does this woman not have one soul that can also remember the incident? And let’s face it… it was supposedly happening 35 years ago when she and Kavanaugh were in high school. Are you kidding me? The FBI has vetted this guy and plowed into his past looking at everything he ever did not once, not twice or three times, but SIX separate times. They have turned over every rock. They have looked under every leaf. Hell, this guy is the squeakiest clean boy scout if there ever was one.
How can hundreds of women that he dated in high school, and college, and since his education, while a legal professional come forward and say that he has always been upstanding and treated them well.
And now we learn that this professor is a dyed in the wool snowflake who’s taken part in anti-Trump marches, signed petitions about separating children from their parents at the border, and has been a staunch donor of extremely liberal campaigns for not just a year or two…we’re talking decades.
The other problem I had with this is the fact that her lawyer seems to be as partisan as she is. While she rails against Brett Kavanaugh being such a bad person and trying to “rape” her client 35 years ago, she fails to mention that she was wanting to give Bill Clinton and yes, even Al Franken a pass on their sexual dalliances. Now wait a minute! If you’re such a fan of the #MeToo movement, and I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, how can you call it OK when a Democrat does commits sex abuse when there are plenty of witnesses, and go on the offensive when your client has NO witnesses, is a dyed in the wool liberal who’d do anything to see this guy not get confirmed, and it supposedly happened in HIGH SCHOOL? C’mon…can’t you get more creative than that?
You couldn’t have written a better script for a “gotcha” moment than this. And now the GOP has to hold this insane hearing next Monday to listen to this woman’s testimony. This has all the trappings of the typical Democrat “win at all cost, even if it’s a lie” mentality. The least they could do is come up with a different play, rather than some 27 year old play that led to absolutely nothing except Thomas’ confirmation.
Feinstein should be investigated and impeached!
Carry on world…you’re dismissed!
The Lone Cactus 
I think it’s apparent what this Kavanaugh confirmation issue is all about…abortion!
The LEFT seems to project the impression that if Kavanaugh were to be confirmed he could suddenly and singly overturn Roe v Wade. Look, I’m not the legal scholar that Snarky appears to be but my understanding of the situation is that first, a new lawsuit must first be filed, then it would first go to a State court, then a District court, and finally to the Supreme court should they decide to hear it! So no! it’s not so simple to overturn Roe v Wade.
My personal opinion is that the abortion issue is a 10th Amendment issue and belongs to the States! Let the People of each individual State decide.
Federalist 45:
“… The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State”.
There you have it. It once again appears that the Supreme Court was making the law and not just interpreting the Constitution.
Also, I think the timing of this whole Kavanaugh accusation is quite telling on more than one occasion. We all know that Feinstein had that letter for several months but held it until after the hearings. And I also find it very interesting how Professor Ford first stated that she simply didn’t want to come to Washington to testify and she offered no reasons for that decision, then suddenly, and only after Chucky Schumer called for an FBI investigation, did Professor Ford suddenly come up with the same excuse! You gotta love those lawyers!
Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, Keith Ellison!…The Left’s newly found sanctimony! How rich!
For GOD and Country
LikeLiked by 1 person
You make one hell of an argument, Tom! Why haven’t you run for anything???
LikeLike
Tom,
As to litigation, you are circumspectly correct on civil procedure, but it is a bit more complex than that.
You are right on about first filing a suit in the lowest State court (I say this as they have different names in different States, I.e., Circuit Court in Illinois, where I am from, Superior Court in Arizona where I currently reside along with Cactus, Supreme Court in NY). If you lose or win, depending on the circumstances, the next level in an Appellate Court and again depending on the circumstances, the next level is the State Supreme Court. If either side wishes to appeal further, it is not necessary to go to a Federal District Court (criminal case are different), you can file what is known as a Writ of Certioria with the U.S. Supreme Court. Here is where things get a bit tricky, unlike lower Appellate Courts, the Supreme Court does not necessarily have to hear the case on appeal. the justices vote on merits of the case and I believe that it takes four justices to agree to hear the case and not necessarily will there be oral arguments. Decisions can be made through reviews of the briefs or if the case is refused, the decision of the lower court stands. Mind you, this is a thumbnail description of civil procedure as there are rules of procedure that must be followed that are issued by the individual courts. Hope this helps you out, as Cactus is aware that I have been associated with the legal profession both personally and professionally for over 40 years. One of my best friiends has argued before the Supreme Court five times, all on criminal matters.
Now to the subject at hand, abortion always a sticky topic. Cactus and I have discussed this at length an you may be shocked to find out that we come down on opposite sides, he taking Christian Bronze Age stories approach that we somehow need the uterus police. I find this position ridiculous as the whole pro-life moment is a fraud. They force their views on you and have no responsibility after the outcome. Better put, they are concerned about zygote/fetus until it is born and then you are on your own. Unless your children, if you have any, are all adopted unwanted children born in the U.S., you are a fraud. The Pro-life movement should adopt the Vito Corleone saying, “I’m not interested in things that do not concern me.”
Now your argument utilizing the Federalist Paper Numer 45 is specious as Federalist Papers were written regarding the Constitution when the Bill of Rights did not exist, except in Virginia.Then quote the Tenth Amendment.
My position is that this is a First and Fourth Amendment issue. Of course you know that the Fourth Amendment is in regarding to a right to privacy “in person, houses, papers and effects.” A person’s body belongs to the individual unless a compelling State interest has been established, say a blood test for alcohol regarding drunk driving. So what is the compelling State interest in FORCING women to have babies, what are they, the new Joy Division? To take them away if they have a drug addiction problem? To have a baby as a 14 year old with no hope of adoption consequently sentencing this child (both are children) to a life of poverty, especially if they are poor already? Rape, incest, life of mother in danger?
As for the First Amendment, there is a legal theory called intimate association, think attorney-client privilege, psychologist-client privlege, doctore-patient privilege. Now please explain to me why a woman forfeits this privilege to the State in no other instance than when she becomes pregnant. As an aside there could be an argument under the Fourtheenth Amendment of equal protection as only a women forfeits this right while meant do not in any situation. If you lean towards Libertarianism, you should be behind the pro-choice movement.
The thing with Kavanaugh, aside from perjuring himself and not explaining some personal issues, is that abortion is a right under Roe. The view of the right wing pro-life movement is you may have the right but we are going to make sure that you cannot utilize it through idiotic rules without outlawing it. Brett is a weasel and are his Republican ilk. The real reason Republicans want Brett on the court is for ruling in favor of corporations and against workers. Abortion is the piece of raw meat for evangelical crowd. You are being played and conned my man and you do not even realize it. Democracy is slowly being chained in ways you never suspected. It is a stealth movement.
Hope you enjoyed the discussion, you too Cactus.
For the Constitution and Country!!
Sorry dude, I’m an atheist.
LikeLike
Make that “forfeits this right while men do not” Sorry, not a good eye day.
LikeLike
And there we go with that “white men are trash” argument. Nope…never flew with me…shouldn’t with you either since you’re one of them. Are you implicating yourself? Frankly, I find that extremely offensive and hate-filled speech that these women are using, and they need to be prosecuted for it!
LikeLike
I always found it interesting that the Dem’s want to abolish the death penalty yet their so ready to kill the unborn! Wow! Where’s their right to life?
For GOD and Country
LikeLiked by 1 person
And that’s the reason why I’m against the death penalty…it’s all about consistency.
LikeLike
Cactus, you must have found my old mescaline dealer here. How did you ever pull that argument out of some orfice? I know we disagree and you are entitled to your opinion on the subject which is based on who knows what, but don’t use your religion to run other people’s lives and that is what the abortion issue is all about.
Again, you attack me but do not argue my logic. Typical conservatives, no smarts.
Currently watching the Voter Values Summit on CSPAN and the parade of religious and right wing hucksters, very entertaining. Do you actually believe this crap?
Have fun storming the castle.
LikeLike
You make my point for me! Thanks!
LikeLike