Hirono’s Hedge: Kavanaugh Not Entitled To Presumption Of Innocence Due To His Ideological Views

440px-Mazie_Hirono,_official_portrait,_113th_CongressWith the addition of a second woman alleging sexual misconduct of Brett Kavanaugh, it is still not clear what factual disputes will have to be addressed before a final confirmation vote occurs in the Senate. Putting aside questions over late timing of the allegations, there is agreement that the Senate will have to consider both the allegations of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and the new allegations of Deborah Ramirez. What is far more troubling is the continued disagreement on the standard that Senators should use in considering the allegations. While objecting that their Republican colleagues are not prepared to give the women an “impartial hearing,” various Democratic senators have declared (before any testimony is heard) that they believe Dr. Ford – and thus do not believe Judge Kavanaugh. That is troubling enough, but Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., HI) has introduced a far more troubling element in suggesting that she may decide the factual question on the basis of Kavanaugh’s jurisprudential views.

Hirono has previously declared that she believes Ford even before hearing either in testimony before the Committee. She also told all men everywhere to “shut up” and just stand with Ford. In her latest interview, Hirono was pressed on whether Kavanaugh has “the same presumption of innocence as anyone else in America?” For most people, the question would be an easy one to answer in the affirmative, Hirono demurred and declined to say that she would afford Kavanaugh this core presumption of the rule of law. She said that she would “put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases.” She said that she would consider his “ideological agenda” and her view that “he very much is against women’s reproductive choice.”

Hirono’s mixing of factual with ideological considerations further degrades a process that is already deeply undermined by last minute allegations and partisan bickering. It is also curious to see a senator tie credibility on sexual misconduct to one’s view of Roe v. Wade. Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Al Franken and others were all reportedly pro-choice but also labeled as abusers.

Such a reference to an accused’s political or ideological views by a judge would be viewed as the basis for a mandatory recusal for bias. It is entirely immaterial how one views constitutional rights in whether they should be believed in denying the admmission of a crime.

There was, of course, a time when such a presumption of guilt on the basis for religion or nationality or other characteristics was an accepted (even celebrated) practice. During the Spanish Inquisition, who you were would determine whether you would be believed. It was not just suspected Jews but others like foreigners who faced an effective presumption of guilt. When Pedro Ginesta, an elderly man from France was arrested in 1635 for eating bacon on a day of abstinence, the indictment declared “The said prisoner being of a nation infected with heresy [France], it is presumed” that he is lying and part of “the sect of Luther.”

France for its part had the same difficulty with separating politics from law. During the French Revolution, the Law of Suspects was passed in 1793 relieving tribunals of the burden of minimal evidence in ordering arrests and any perceived counter-revolutionary views was enough to be indicted. Jacobins saw law and politics as inextricably linked. Of course, the desire to use legal or legislative means to punish political opponents becomes an insatiable appetite. One year later, the tribunals passed the Law of 22 Prairial, which stripped away remaining protections for the accused and allowed juries to convict on the ambiguous basis of “moral certainty.”

Hirono’s description of her approach comes dangerously close to the Jacobin use of “moral certainty” in judging facts. If Kavanaugh’s opposition to Roe can be used to subject him to a higher burden, would Weinstein’s support of Roe afford him a lower burden of proof?

It is not enough for Democratic Senators to simply say that they are not judges and therefore entitled to any standard of review no matter how pre-determined or unfair. Members of Congress do not have license to mete out punishments and judgments without due process to citizens. The Framers expressly barred Congress from passing “bills of attainder” – legislation that effectively singles out individuals or groups for special punishment for perceived offenses. Likewise, committees are subject to individual constitutional rights including the right against self-incrimination and other constitutional protections. In other words, there are rules.

More importantly, there are principles. When a member swears to uphold the Constitution, they agree to respect our defining values and protections. One of the most central protections is to be allowed a fair hearing. This is particularly the case when someone is accused of a heinous criminal act.

Unfortunately, “moral certainty” appears to be the growing standard for members who are rushing to assure voters on both sides that they are respective locks for either Ford or Kavanaugh. Proof then becomes a simple political head count. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) has even declared that he expects that, if Kavanaugh is confirmed, a Democratic majority would launch an immediate investigation and possible impeachment against him as an associate justice.

Thus, as Ella Wheeler Wilcox said, “no question is ever settled until it is settled right.” Yet, what is “right” increasingly appears like a simple question of math rather than principle in the United States Senate.

It is doubtful that Kavanaugh could be impeached absent clear proof of perjury before Congress. Thus, what happens next year may be less important than what happens this week. Senators on both sides must decide if they will act to further their constitutional institution or just their political instincts.

348 thoughts on “Hirono’s Hedge: Kavanaugh Not Entitled To Presumption Of Innocence Due To His Ideological Views”

  1. Is it not possible to have more than one reason for voting “no”?

    His ideology, just from his most recent legal position in wanting to deny a young immigrant an abortion for false reasons is one reason to vote “no” unless you’re someone who believes that women’s medical needs must be controlled.

    His general lack of veracity by denying acceptance and use of stolen Democratic documents, his denial in being involved in the confirmation of a judge, his denial in knowing the activities of Judge whathisname who was forced to resign, and his denial of any gambling problem in spite of gambling debts is another reason.

    Since he has already shown that he is willing to lie under oath, his denial of abuse of alcohol and women, in light of multiple claims, is more likely than not, just another lie. Another challenge to his veracity is that Dr. Ford is the one who wants an impartial investigation while Kavanaugh and his enablers don’t. Only the guilty would deny an investigation.

    He is being interviewed for a promotion, not being tried for a crime, although that may be coming since Maryland has no statute of limitations for assault or rape.

    1. Dr. Ford is the one who wants an ‘impartial investigation’ while Kav and his enablers don’t?

      There is a process in the Senate for investigating allegations like these. Calling over and over for an FBI investigation is a Dem talking point.

      Kavanaugh has given a sworn statement. He has appeared in a televised interview to answer questions. He has repeatedly made himself available to be questioned before the committee whenever and wherever. She has not. And my bet is that she never will. She will not show up on Thursday…nor was it ever her intention to testify under oath. The strategy was to cause delay, create chaos and raise questions about Kav’s character — not to tell her story or answer questions under oath.

    2. The Judiciary Committee is investigating the matter as it should and has taken sworn statements from each alleged witness with the exception of Blasey-Ford herself because she has refused to give one. Grassley offered to fly staff out to Calif or do it by phone to accomodate her. She refused. My take is that Ford and ‘her handlers’ want ‘the circus’ to continue as long as it can. She does not come across to me as a victim who wishes to tell her story. There is a political agenda and clear strategy at work here.


      The Committee asked Dr. Ford to participate in a confidential interview with Republican and Democratic Committee staff the day after learning of her identity. The Committee has reiterated that request over the last week.

      The Committee has therefore sought information from six individuals—five who were allegedly present at the party when the incident took place, and one who claimed to have secondhand knowledge of the incident. Four of those allegedly present at the party have provided statements to the Committee—Judge Kavanaugh, Mr. Judge, Mr. Smyth, and Ms. Keyser. Judge Kavanaugh has flatly denied the allegations, and Mr. Judge, Mr. Smyth, and Ms. Keyser deny having knowledge of any party matching Dr. Ford’s description. Ms. King subsequently recanted her claim of secondhand knowledge and publicly refused to cooperate with the Committee’s investigation.

      Dr. Ford is the only first-hand witness not to provide a statement to, or interview with, the Committee. The Committee expects to hear from Dr. Ford at a hearing on Thursday.

    3. Look at the facts and tell us who appears to be ‘denying an investigation’? Your words: “Only the guilty would deny an investigation.” Indeed.

    4. one would need to impanel a jury of women trained in feminist dialectics to convict Kav. on this stale charge of attempted rape or sexual assault and they are precious few and easily recognized., voir dire would weed them out and reasonable doubt in any normal human of decency would easily be obtained. however not even the craziest prosecutor would want to try this case on the flimsiest and stalest accusations imaginable.

      so let her go on down and file out a complaint in Maryland! go ahead DOCTOR Ford!

      1. Thank God there truly is Due Process for the accused in America, you can see why we need it! Conservatives remember that before you go too far down the road into the law and order stuff.

        Remember how this man is being treated like garbage. Protect the 4th 5th 6th and 7th amendment freedoms at all costs! If it’s left to Democrat civil liberterians they would throw them overboard as soon as they won enough seats to elevate their own Robespierre!

    5. I wrote about the accusation that Kavanaugh lied about receiving stolen documents.

      Let me sum up here. The accusation is provably false. It was based on the “Spying” memo, in which a colleague sent a letter to various people discussing a rather large Soros-funded campaign that she heard about from a little spy from the inside.

      In other words, she was passing on information from a leak. Just like all the newspapers routinely, and breathlessly, pass on information from leaks from the Trump Administration. Stolen documents were never mentioned in the email. She said this person told her about this big money fund.

      There is also no evidence that he knew that the Judge in question was sexually harassing women. In fact, the person who accused Kavanaugh in that Tweet also said they had no idea if he actually knew.

      Kavanaugh did not deny an immigrant an abortion. An illegal immigrant 17 year old was in custody in Texas, and demanded an abortion. The government required her to have a sponsor. Texas requires minors to get the consent of at least one parent prior to getting an abortion. Jane Doe then sued.Should illegal immigrant minors be allowed to do what legal residents and citizens cannot? When it reached Kavanaugh’s court, he wrote a dissenting opinion. One f the issues was whether illegal immigrants or foreign nationals have Constitutional rights. Another was Supreme Court precedent. Here is the actual case, which has a very interesting back and forth between the judges on the pros and cons of the final decision. Kavanaugh actually did not say that Jane Doe could not get an abortion. The Government’s position is that it is not required to provide an abortion on demand to a minor in Texas prior to expeditiously transferring her to a sponsor, who is often a relative. Thereafter, she can get an abortion. The majority decision actually granted special privileges to illegal immigrants, which may be a judicial overstep. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C81A5EDEADAE82F2852581C30068AF6E/$file/17-5236-1701167.pdf

      You are repeating false information. The trouble is, as Churchill noted, a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth has the chance to get his pants on.

      Perhaps, one day, you may be on the receiving end of the Left’s brand of critical reasoning, and you may not like it very much.

    6. bettykath said, ” . . . his denial in knowing the activities of Judge whathisname who was forced to resign . . .”

      Alex Kosinski. [returning a favor]

      P. S. Why is Kavanaugh so keen on emphasizing his lack of vaginal penetration prior to marriage? Isn’t Kavanaugh the guy who asked Bill Clinton whether Monica Lewinski would be lying if she said that Bill Clinton had ejaculated in her mouth?

      1. L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – I think by the time he asked that he was no longer a virgin. And I think they were fencing over the definition of the word sex. Is oral sex, sex?

        1. You’re fumbling the question. Is sexual intercourse a necessary condition for sexual assault? That’s the question. And we all know the answer. Especially Kavanaugh.

          1. L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – we know it is not and that is why he covered all his bases, first, second, third and fourth. He never even got a courtesy walk in high school, it appears.

            1. If Kavanaugh signed his yearbook as a member of the “Renate Alumni,” then why would he mention his abstinence from sexual intercourse on Fox News as though it were relevant to the allegation of sexual assault against him? Is he more interested in saving his marriage than his SCOTUS nomination? He neglected to specify that he was a virgin on his wedding night. Even though his wife was sitting right next to him when he said that it was for many years after high school that he refrained from having sexual intercourse with anyone. He didn’t even specify that his wife was the first and only woman with whom he had had sexual intercourse. It sound like he’s setting up a “no penetration” defense.

              1. L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – there is no indication that she was the neighborhood bicycle. Even if she was, he may have been too shy to participate of the goodies on offer. For example, the girl asked me to the senior prom or I would never have had the nerve to ask. 😉

                Now, let’s get back to the original problem. Chrissy Blasey is in a house with 4 unknown boys, on her own. Is she the neighborhood bicycle? According to the therapist notes, Chrissy is in her late teens, so she is preying on younger guys according to the yearbooks. So, this is older girl, 4 younger guys. So, which younger boy is going to come forward and say Yah, Chrissy invited 4 of us to a house to pull a train. We were all pretty drunk.

              2. “Is he more interested in saving his marriage than his SCOTUS nomination? ”

                Kavanaugh is more interested in his reputation and is not worried about any family problem. Family migh be your problem because we all see how you deal in slime on the list so that is probably true in your personal life as well.

                Diane, you have pathologic voyeuristic tendencies wanting to know in depth the sexual relations between Kavanaugh and his wife. Maybe you aren’t getting enough or maybe you are getting more by paying for it than by having a loving affair.

  2. Thank you for reviving the cruel, arbitrary, and ultimately murderous ideology of the Jacobins.
    We simply cannot have a free, pluralistic and sustainable political culture if, as Sen. Hirono endorses, the legal system is weaponized to serve as an armament of political competition.
    That means that a firewall must be maintained compartmentalizing legal processes for conflict resolution away from political processes.

    That separation is built into the US Constitution. Those who swear to uphold the Constitution are obliged to defend legal due process for handling criminal accusations. The kangaroo court the Dems are running from behind the scenes in their Senate Offices is a serious threat.

    If due process is replaced by militancy, then the next step down that path is a US Reign of Terror, where ideological warfare lands people in prison for political crimes, or worse, where political vigilantes (fascists) use violence to harden loyalties and intimidate their opposition.
    The first step down this evil road begins with indifference to the facts and the law when it doesn’t give the desired result, or doesn’t deliver it fast enough.

    The culture of self-righteousness we’re seeing from progressives makes it impossible for zealots to appreciate how due process and the 4th Amendment protects THEMSELVES.
    That is, once you employ defensive thinking to paint yourself as a saintly figure incapable of wrongdoing, it becomes easier to dismiss your own need for due process protections.

    That’s what happened to the Jacobins in the French Reign of Terror. The zealots felt their zealotry protected them from the guillotine, until a fellow zealot denounced them.

    1. fascists are often considered reactionaries to revolutionary violence. true at times.

      Yet often crime and “Revolutionary violence” do not look very different if you are a victim.

      and as you call them “vigilantes” who form outside the government to provide self defense to the community, are not bad they are a simple consequences of social chaos.

      the Democrats have for some time now, engaged in using their positions inside the American state to make war on a segment of the American people. it’s been this way for a time now, just now it ripens into rancorous vitriol. it is incipient Civil war. they’re very bold now and increasingly unmasked in venom and intention.

      the would be “fascists” or “Vigilantes” or as some loser here calls Trump supporters– “rubes, dupes, klanwannabees, etc” who voted in the election– will they give up?

      A SCOTUS pick is their rightful spoil. This is not about sex nor abortion. This is about the Minority party betting they will gain a lot in the midterm, and denying the Trump voters their rightful spoil from 2 years ago.

      But if the Trump voters are not allowed the lawful democratic spoils that they have won, will not just be pushed aside. The situation will worsen as Democrats are emboldened.
      It could go hot. I would applaud if Trump arrested Rosenstein for treason and made him do a big perp walk on tv, that would be delicious. Just give him a fair trial and due process before he is hung~!

      but if chaos ensues, and once the ball is in play the Democrats may fare very poorly at keeping their side contained and oriented according to plan. By contrast Republicans have a lot more organic coherence and do not need the level of coordination and control that the Dems do.

      Know which side you are on before things jump off. Readers, you have time to make a choice but it won’t last long. Things are hostile and can go from hot to rolling boil in one day

  3. We must keep Hawaii in its proper perspective and realize the source of its people and inmates. Hironomo was born in Japan. It was after a day which will live in Infamy (when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour). Had she lived here in the U.S. states after December 7th she may have been put in a Japanese concentration camp set up in California by the U.S. Government. This huge round up and incarceration was for the entire war. The U.S. Supreme Court approved it. Hugo Black wrote that opinion. Korematsu is the name of the plaintiff in that lawsuit. He was later given a Medal of Freedom by Clinton or Carter. I forget which. Hawaii should never have been made a state. People who oppose Puerto Rico from becoming a state often think about Hawaii and how those folks do not fit in. I know very little about this Senator. Her comments on Kavannaugh are clearly Japanese. I really think so. There was a song which had those lyrics.

    1. liberty2nd, she was born in 1947. It is easy to find such details via web search.

  4. Deep state updates:

    The first report in this series featured Stuart Karaffa, a member of the Metro DC Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), who admitted to engaging in political activism while working at the Department of State.

    The second report featured Allison Hrabar of the Department of Justice, also a member of DSA, who reportedly used government owned software and computers to advance political activism. The DOJ reports that she is “no longer an employee.”

    The third report featured Natarajan Subramanian of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) who engaged in potentially illegal political activity as government auditor and self-proclaimed Communist. The GAO reports that he has been “removed from any ongoing GAO work.”

    TODAY’S NEW REPORT FEATURES two IRS officials: Thomas Sheehy, an IRS tax examiner and member of the Austin Democratic Socialists of America in Texas, and Jerry Semasek, an IRS attorney in Washington, DC. These officials talk candidly about the IRS’s unfair treatment of conservative non-profit groups, as well as deleted emails by former IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. These IRS officials discuss the prevailing views of IRS employees; they showcase their bias, and reveal the potential use of work benefits for socialist activism

    The newest report is at: https://www.projectveritas.com/deep-state-release-4/ and the rest can be viewed at that site.

    1. Allan,
      I used to believe the most effective way to convince people of the truth is to present evidence of it. The assumption in that belief was that people were interested in the truth. That is a bad assumption. What people want is to make easier what is hard. Their only concern is how to avoid pain; no matter how that is achieved.

      Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

      But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

      Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

      When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor. Bastiat

      And who do the victims of lawfare turn to once they’ve institutionalized the practice?

      1. Olly, Which one of the “leftist” fools on this blog has ever shown concern for the truth except when it benefited them personally? Eventually the truth wins out. That is what is happening in Venezuela even if people do not recognize the truth being demonstrated. It cost over 100 million lives in the 20th century to demonstrate the truth but to some that is not enough proof.

        One has to remember the words of Marx: “Of course in the beginning (communism) can not be effected except by the means of despotic inroads” that relied on the overthrow of ALL “existing social conditions”. The justification for the leftist view was Marxism, or “sharing” as the young might say, was never correctly tried but it was time and time again but first one requires despotism and the people to give up everything. That is exactly what happened.

        1. Eventually the truth wins out.

          I wouldn’t say wins; truth eventually emerges. Oftentimes it takes a terrible loss to understand the truth. That’s the path we are on. I used to believe the people supporting weaponizing our government against their ideological foes had no concept of what they were building. I’ve changed my mind. I believe they know the potential of what they’ve created and they have a rational fear that they’d better not lose control over it. Fortunately for them their enemies don’t want a weaponized government. So they are playing on house money…for the moment.

          If they persist in destroying the rule of law and removing any security we have of rights, they will soon find themselves holding the wrong end of the sh!t stick.

          1. “the rule of law”, Ollie? You mean like the law where President Obama, who, unlike Trump, was elected by a majority of Americans, and who nominated Judge Merrick Garland, was denied even a Judiciary Committee hearing by Mitch McConnell in order to stack the SCOTUS with non-mainstream judges? Is that one of the “rules of law” and “rights” you’re talking about?

              1. Natacha didn’t get what she wanted, ergo the law was violated. If that sounds childish, that’s because she is.

            1. Your screed failed to identify ANY violation of the rule of law.

              The Electoral College is how Presidents are elected; not popular vote. Senate rules on Advise and Consent is how nominations are processed.

              So YES, that rule of law.

              1. The “law” to which I refer is the right of the POTUS to nominate judges to the SCOTUS. We Americans voted for Barak Obama, and he made a nomination. McConnell stopped the nomination from even receiving a hearing, on the proffered grounds that it was wrong for Obama to be able to make a lifetime appointment of a jurist who could influence SCOTUS decisions for decades when he was a lame duck. Well, the current Congressional composition is likely to change in November, according to most polls, so the current Congress is also a lame duck. That’s why they are trying to push ahead to force Kavanaugh onto the Court before the majority of Americans can have any say-so. So, Olly, if President Obama had the right, as our elected POTUS to make a nomination, what right did McConnell have to deny a hearing? What grounds were there, other than political? What grounds are there for pushing ahead with Kavanaugh to force a vote before the November elections, other than political? You claim to have high regard for the rule of law, but only when it works in favor of what you want.

                1. Lame duck POTUS is not the same as Lame duck Congress. But given the uber presidency with Obama, I can certainly understand how you’d get the two confused.

                  You claim to have high regard for the rule of law, but only when it works in favor of what you want.

                  I have 7 years worth of comments on this blog, find one that proves your allegation.

                  Anyway, twisting yourself into pretzel won’t hide the fact you still haven’t identified a rule of law violation.

                  1. What allegation? McConnell admitted he wouldn’t schedule a hearing on Merrick Garland because he wanted to stop President Obama from filling the seat vacated by Antonin Scalia. That’s not disputed. What else do you question? That the majority of Americans voted for Barak Obama, that he had the right to make a nomination, or that McConnell stopped it for political reasons?

                    Lame Duck POTUS is the same as a lame duck Congress, in that both have to be involved for a SCOTUS Justice to get seated.

                    1. The Senate is under no obligation to grant advice and consent. Garland was treated courteously. You have no legitimate complaint.

                    2. What allegation?

                      Damn, you just throw so much sh!t up and hope no one calls you on it.

                      You claim to have high regard for the rule of law, but only when it works in favor of what you want.

                      Try again.

                    3. Barak Obama, that he had the right to make a nomination, or that McConnell stopped it for political reasons?

                      They both exercised their constitutional authority. It’s only called politics when you lose, otherwise it’s democracy in action. 🙂

  5. I am not completely familiar with Senator Hirano. But Hawaii is basically a one-city state. And that one city, Honolulu, is only mefium-sized.

    So I would imagine a senatorial campaign in Hawaii is not nearly as competitive as those in Big 10 states.

  6. The great achievement of the Hawaii delegation has been its blocking of proposed name changes of the J. Edgar Hoover FBI Building. That’s because Hoover tried to dissuade FDR from putting Japanese-Americans in internment camps. So the Hoover Building will likely survive the Washington Monument and the Jefferson Memorial.

  7. In essence, our country elected a Senator who does not understand the law or the Constitution. She believes that a different standard applies based on political preference. A dual system.

    That, in a nutshell, is one of the major problems of our country. What does voting for people like that say about our country?

    1. America is a Failed State! Our colleges and universities are tools of the Frankfurt School. The deliberate undermining of any Western values and ethics! America is Marxist, and its educational system is Marxist. The pre-cursor to the Marxists is the Jacobins. The revolutionary spirit marches ever Forward!

    2. it shows that we are disunified and lacking in shared culture.

      at least this lady has the guts to say she is biased. the other democrats like Chuck Schumer don’t believe or care about truth, they are just using this as a ploy. at least she admits it.

  8. Judge Kavanaugh is a Kulak. Kulaks are not entitled to due process but only to be destroyed and liquidated. A kulak’s guilt, actions, merit or lack thereof is irrelevant. What is relevant is his thinking and beliefs; it really does not matter if his accuser’s actions can be corroborated or not. He is guilty PER SE because he is a kulak.

      1. Karen too many of those on this blog have no understanding the Holodomor. Start with Marx who knew brute force was necessary to promote his ideas. “Of course in the beginning (communism) can not be effected except by the means of despotic inroads” that relied on the overthrow of ALL “existing social conditions” which includes democracy, family, religion, personal ownership and freedom. They all disappear to share or redistribute the wealth based on the notions of a despotic government. That brings us to Lenin and Stalin and the Holodomor. In Ukranian Holod = “hunger” and “mor” = “plague”. Moryty holodom means “to inflict death by hunger”. That is the end product of the sharing that so many naive people, especially among the young, promote today. That idea led to the death of over 100 million people in the 20th centruy and the enslavement of over a billion people.

        On this blog we probably have a few whose parents were Stalinists and they adopted that philosophy, but we probably have a lot more that misunderstand the political theory while following the Stalinist or Marxist viewpoints both of which require despotic means to control a population despite the fact that such types of control have led to massive death and destruction.

        1. Allan here you go again with another anti-communist harangue. It’s hard to see how that relates to Senator Hirano. As I’ve noted many times, you seem permanently stuck in a 1950’s time warp.

          1. Peter Shill, you can’t see these things because you are a fool that requires predigested statements for you to repeat despite your lack of understanding. We have a Constitution and a set of values such as the ‘acused has a right to face his accuser’, ‘innocent until proven guilty’ a Constitution that dictates who appoints a Supreme Court nominee, etc. Much like what Stalin did many are trying to overturn present ‘social conditions’ in a fashion that is anti Democratic and anti American. Some of them espcially on the hard left are Stalinists at heart. I don’t you give you that much credit. You are just a simple fool.

          2. Peter Hill – is Communism or Socialism working any better today than it did in the 1950s? The failure or starvation of the people in every single country that has tried it has definitively answered that question.

            Today, we often see the elitist attitude that if only they were the dictators, they would be benign. If they ruled, and the people abdicated all individual rights, they would usher in utopia. Finally. Blessedly.

        2. On this blog we probably have a few whose parents were Stalinists

          Allan, in 1947, the Communist Party had a membership of about 100,000 in an adult population exceeding 100,000,000. Howard Zinn would have been among the younger cohorts in the Communist cells of the era. Zinn’s youngest child is 68 years old. There aren’t many red diaper babies floating around. The gliberal and leftoid commenters here take perfectly conventional stances and are differentiated by their intellectual level, their verbosity, and the degree to which they play games with other commenters. They do exhibit the poverty of contemporary liberal discourse, but that’s not because they’re reds. It’s because they lack an authentic perspective on policy at all (as opposed to rude opinions on what they fancy is the ‘benighted’ population).

          1. “but that’s not because they’re reds.”

            Tab, one cannot tell, however. I have a tendency to agree with you for on this blog the ones that would undo the Constitution are followers not leaders and appear quite ignorant and shallpw, but their ideas come from other sources that are subscribers to Marxist theory. Most of the follower children that think such forced sharing is good feel that way only because they have not experienced life and are poorly educated.

            Howard Zinn was both a professor and a writer of books one of which “A People’s History of the United States” (1980?) ended up some of which ended up as assigned reading in some public schools and universities. That book is a sad excuse of history being biased and factually incomplete to promote Zinn’s socialist/ anarchist ideas.

            1. but their ideas come from other sources that are subscribers to Marxist theory.

              No, no no.

              The very youngest cohorts who might have joined the SDS or the SNCC are now Medicare eligible. The Communist Party imploded demographically during the period running from 1947 to 1957 and has never had a recovery worth discussing. The Socialist Workers Party and the International Socialist Organization have never amounted to much. The ancient Socialist Labor Party finally ran out of members about 10 years ago. Fewer than 1% of the lawyers in the U.S. belong to the National Lawyers’ Guild (and it’s a reasonable wager that many of them that do are not working attorneys). The red haze unions booted out of the CIO in 1949 have faded away bar the west coast Longshoremen and the United Electrical Workers. Those two unions have about 70,000 members between them.

              The arts and sciences faculty I know best (which granted tenure to a grand total of 6 Republicans over the years running from 1986 to 2011, two of whom almost certainly checked the wrong box on the registration form). Had about 2 faculty members who taught courses on Marx. One of them was a congenial chap more interested in Keynes than Marx. (He had no gross interest in identity politics and held no influential position on the faculty). James David Barber was known to offer rude complaints about the number of tomes about Marx in his college bookstore, but that was a generation ago and before the Berlin Wall came down.

              Most of the follower children that think such forced sharing is good feel that way only because they have not experienced life and are poorly educated

              Few people have a satisfactory liberal education which they managed to retain, and for many of them its more a means to construct sophisticated falsehoods than anything else. The menu of regular contributors of a leftoid bent here is not numerous. Three I would wager are adolescents who do not know much, another appears addled by paranoia, two or three others trade primarily in emotional reactions to the day’s disinformation; one is an unintelligent woman who is unlike other unintelligent people in one respect: she’s highly opinionated about things of which she knows nothing (generally unintelligent people care about things palpable to them, about which they do know something); of two it wouldn’t surprise me to discover they had a retainer from Correct the Record as I seldom encounter people online who trade in what you’d expect the DNC press secretary to be trading; That leaves….Enigma, who has issues of his own.

              1. Marx had many insights into society and economics and they were mostly lost on communists. Equally now so where he is more of an icon than anything. And today the Leftist could care less about economics at all and mostly just acts as a patsy for certain factions of global capitalist oligarchs.

                Not that the Bolsheviks didn’t have their own faction of international capitalists backing them. I won’t wander down that road however or people will call me the usual names.

                The thing about ideas and thinkers and all that, is that they are rarely well understood and appreciated outside of specialists, however much their names are bandied about. Mostly there are just groups who are on the ground today and whatever their ideological flags are, they are more like pro football teams than anything, all competing for the same prizes and not really expanding the franchise, if you get what i mean

              2. Yes, yes, yes! The mass of people may not know their history and they may not know their politics but they are following a leftist trail. That is why we hear statements such as socialism isn’t bad, capitalism is bad, redistribution is good, the breakup of cultural norms, tribalism etc. etc. Every generation has its own form but in the end the politics leads to despotism and failure. When one traces this groups political identity back one finds Marxists along with other similar political theories.

  9. I’ve heard the arguments being made that this is not a court of law, that this is a lifetime appointment and the nominee should be measured against a different standard. I can certainly understand there are objections to confirming him based on his legal opinions. That standard is an expected part of the confirmation process. But if we accept the premise that the accused is always guilty unless they can prove their innocence, what standard is being set for public office? It certainly isn’t a fidelity to the constitution standard.

    An entire industry will arise out of this new standard and it will be used in both private and public affairs. Every candidate for public office will be subject to accusations that he or she will have the burden to prove are untrue. The only defense will be to return fire until the whole idea of truth is obliterated. Who will be elected to office? Not the principled man or woman that is innocent. We’ll get the most vile of characters and that will eventually make this new standard acceptable in a court of law.

  10. Maisie Hirono and Sheldon Whitehouse exhibit a mixture of intellectual mediocrity, mendacity, fanaticism, and viciousness. And they are perfectly normal specimens of the genus ‘partisan Democrat’. Nat Hentoff and George McGovern are dead. Alan Dershowitz and Jeralyn Merritt are both past 70. Partisan Democrats with some degree of critical distance, an appreciation of procedural norms, and an appreciation of ordinary courtesy are likely to be dead or old. For the rest it’s all about their feelz and all about what they want. You don’t think the dunderheads walking around with “I believe Anita Hill” lapel buttons 27 years ago actually devoted any serious thought to her account? It’s an affirmation, a marker which delineates in-groups and out-groups in a certain subculture. It was bad then and it’s gotten worse in the intervening decades.

  11. But Kavanaugh is an honorable man.

    See what Mark Anthony had to say, according to Wm Shakespeare.

    1. DBB

      Yes, of course he is. Just ask most of the customers here or any GOP member (not their wives).

    2. “did he not the general coffers fill?”

      You go see what he had to say and understand it in context.

      the context is that wolf packs have alphas and they fight for leadership.

      the point is not that Caesar was good or bad; nor Brutus nor Cassius nor Mark Antony.

      we by contrast are not a wolf pack like the Romans— we are a pack of fat pigs and the cleverest ones get the most slop

    3. “See what Mark Anthony had to say, according to Wm Shakespeare.”

      the biggest controversy is whether your understanding of the confirmation process or your understanding of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar is more deficient.

  12. This obscene debasement of Constitutionally guaranteed due process/equal protection rights will be seen as a threat to all but the Marxist fringe. Kavanaugh will be seated as the next Supreme Court Justice. However, even if the Jacobites win this skirmish they will lose the war. The left has revealed what they have become and their totalitarian metamorphosis will alienate middle America. Thank you President Trump.

    1. It is not a court of law. Kavanaugh is not charged with any crime. Yet.

      The Senate simply grants or withholds it’s Advice and Consent.

      1. DBB:

        “It is not a court of law. Kavanaugh is not charged with any crime.”


        We’re not in a courtroom but his accuser has charged him with a crime. Still, we have basic cultural rules when issues are in dispute whether in a courtroom, hearing room or board room. First, it’s he who asserts must prove. And second, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

  13. How can you Investigate when 1. There are no facts submitted on which to investigate, 2. Co creditable witnesses to interview, only hearsay, 3. Brainwashing by the dem’s lawyers who see this as Custer’s Last Stand.
    Can you imagine if another vacancy were to appear on the Supreme Court during the Trump Administration? Hell, the Dem’s might as well as jump off a cliff.

    1. trust me cops have to run down stupid leads all the time. they can do it. just let them, it will make the Dems look very stupid when it comes back empty

  14. Setting a new standard of investigation.
    This is nothing more than guilty til proven innocent. Senator H from HI should resign as she has broken the oath she took when she was sworn in as a Senator to uphold the Constitution. I am not sure she even knows what the Constitution is. I wonder how much her fund raising stock went up with those stupid remarks she made in front of the cameras? Notice the Rep shy away from having the media try their case. It’s largely about Fund raising, Fund raising, Fund raising. Hell, just hold out your hand to G Soros, who should be tried on Sedition, IMHO.

    1. She’s a deeply mediocre individual. Doesn’t bother her constituency

      1. such persons usually do well in elections; when a private person who is highly competent in his private sector wheelhouse wins an election it’s usually an outlier like Trump

        Hawaiian men should fire her, but, too busy smokin “maui wowie” and “kona gold” and gorging on poi I guess

        pot weakens the testosterone

        1. No, I think politics is such that capable people are not motivated to enter it. You get people who want to be…politicians. This is more of a problem in the Democratic Party (at least in New York). At one point we had 10 members of Congress from my part of the state. All five Republicans had had a professional or business career of consequence before taking up electoral politics f/t. Of the Democrats, one had no employment history other than elected offices and political staff jobs, one had very little he admitted to (he’d had a couple of years in the military, about four years in ordinary wage jobs in different settings, the rest a blank), one had been a public prosecutor elected DA, one had been a hospital microbiologist decades earlier (she held elective office from 1972 to 2018 w/o interruption). One of the lot was a civil engineer for about 20 years (he had no family, worked for public agencies, and had held p/t elected office from age 28).

          1. DSS, did you change your name again? I thought Taboarrok’s sudden appearance along with his syntax might be you earlier, but now I am sure.

            1. OFCOLA. That Tabarrok to the Pillory is Desperately Seeking Susan is intuitively obvious even to the most casual of observers.

              1. ” is intuitively obvious”

                In other words you wanted to make sure everyone knew you figured it out. I guess you believe that raises your status among the fools you so frequently are in agreement with.

        2. “pot weakens the testosterone”

          Suddenly I feel like I’m back in seventh-grade health class (1974) with Coach Rich.

    2. “Senator H from HI should resign as she has broken the oath she took when she was sworn in as a Senator to uphold the Constitution. ”

      She’s definitely a fatuous, Benson-level ignoramus. But I don’t think that requires resignation or expulsion from the senate.

  15. what terrifies me is the thought that the dems have already lined up “accusers” for each successive name on Trump’s list and that accusers will keep appearing until each and every nominee has been withdrawn or quartered.

    1. i hope they have, i hope they do it until every single man in America has become a Republican. it’s headed in that way already except for monorchids and other hormonally challenged manlings who get to ride in the back of the bus and like being house-boys

    1. shes a democrat which means she only favors affirmative action setasides for blacks, hispanics, and women. she probably has little or no ethnic feeling for japanese americans who as a group are pretty assimilated already.

      also, sometimes white people misunderstandinly believe that “asians” have a lot of affinity for each other here– i think generally not except in their own national groups. Generally, maybe in some places there is more of a meld. But – it’s not like the affinity that latinos from various countries have, asian ethnics are very different with stronger national identities, so “asian” as a social group often means a lot more to us non-asians that it means to them,

      take the movie “crazy rich asians.” its not about Asians it’s about Chinese people. well they may call it something different to pander to American audience taste and words but it’s very much not about Asians but Chinese, Chinese here and there and wherever. Chinese are very proud and don’t like being confused with other Asians. they may not complain if you misunderstand, because they think you are a stupid American, but if they are nice they will let you know that you’ve offended them by confusing them with Vietnamese or whomever.

      Referring to Chinese and Japanese as “Asians” like some tight group is not realistic; or maybe it’s as realistic as referring to Israelis and Palestinians as “Semities.” Well sure they have some ancestral DNA proximity that forms a racial affiliation; sure, they all like hummus and pita bread and live nearby and speak a semitic language, but other than that “Semite” is not a very useful term…… [end of rant]

      however, using the political groupings here such as they are, “asians” should wake up and all see that their fate is about on level with where white people are stuck, and become Republicans

      1. she probably has little or no ethnic feeling for japanese americans who as a group are pretty assimilated already.

        She’s from Hawaii. She’s not a Hawaii native however. Hawaii Japanese are not California Japanese. They have their own distinct culture and outlook in counterpoint to the other social segments in Hawaii. The ‘Tiger Mother’ is most certainly not a Hawaii Japanese type.

        1. its funny you mention tiger mom. that was a book by Yale Law prof Amy Chua who is Chinese. And she has been dragged into this too. She is considered an offender aligned with Kav. somehow.


          of course! Chinese are notorious for their “patriarchy”

          i recommend Amy Chua’s book


          a very very good book!

        2. tiger mom is the type of a strong asian american mom who is very involved and hard working who thus helps the kids get a lot done in their education.

          it is very much a Chinese phenomenon i think. but i think may Koreans are same. Koreans and Chinese share many positive cultural values and habits. Japanese are few now in America but observe that both Koreans and Chinese dislike the Japanese for ample historical reasons.

          Americans need to get fine tuned into this tribal stuff. Individualism is a historically successful cultural ideology but in a fight, a war, a civil war, it’s group organization power and numbers that count.

          Dems look like they want CW2, and they may get it. At least we have a Dux Bellorum that knows how to fight.

          1. The Tiger Mom phenomenon is Chinese and Korean American. They are the highest performing of the Asian students. Japanese are generally less ambitious, but tend to have better social skills. Vietnamese are somewhat less successful, but are often on par with Japanese. Filipinos, Samoans, and other Pacific Islanders, are generally not academically inclined, and Hmongs are at the bottom.

  16. Let me get this straight. The Dems in the Senate want the FBI to investigate a college drinking game. I thought that members of the Judiciary Committee were lawyers or at least trained in the law. Sen. Mazie “Thumper” Hirono doesn’t talk like it.

    I like the idea of having non-committee members question the witnesses. I personally think Hillary Clinton should question Judge Kavanaugh and Bill should do the honors for the accusers. Or maybe it should be the other way around.

Comments are closed.