Democrats Pledge To Revive A Cadaver Synod To Remove Justice Kavanaugh

downloadBelow is my column in The Hill newspaper on the growing pledges from House and Senate Democratic members to investigation and possibly impeach Brett Kavanaugh if he is confirmed this week.  It would constitute a dangerous and reckless precedent for Democrats to pursue with any new majority.

Here is the column:

There is something vaguely familiar in the recent declarations by Democrats that they are prepared to hold post-confirmation investigations into Judge Brett Kavanaugh if he is confirmed. The idea is that, if given control, Democrats will order an effective redo in pulling Justice Kavanaugh back before one or both houses.

There is precedent for such a body. It was called the Synodus Horrenda, or the “Council Dreadful.” Used in medieval times, these tribunals could prosecute even the dead for long passed crimes. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) promised Kavanaugh that it does not matter if he is confirmed because “as soon as Democrats get gavels” the party will investigate and possibly impeach him. On the House side, Democratic representatives on the House Judiciary Committee, including Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), have declared that they will open up an investigation into Justice Kavanaugh as soon as they regain control over the House.

In other words, neither confirmation nor death will prevent a day of reckoning once power shifts hands. The implications are chilling for a system designed to insulate justices from political threats or retaliation. The most famous Council Dreadful (or “cadaver synod” or “council horrible”) was called in 897 when Pope Stephen VI wanted to try Pope Formosus for crimes that occurred decades earlier. The problem was that Formosus was already dead. His successor, Pope Boniface VI, died under controversial circumstances after only 15 days. Stephen then took over the papacy and the Council Dreadful, which dug up Formosus and propped him on his throne to answer for his crimes. Not surprisingly, he failed to convince the jury composed of his enemies. He was convicted, stripped of papal garments, and three fingers of his right hand used for blessings were cut off. He ultimately was thrown into the river Tiber.

Whitehouse seemed eager to put the dread back into the Council Dreadful last week in proclaiming that “the sand is running through Kavanaugh’s hourglass.” The pledge to effectively have a do over is playing well with Democratic voters even though the odds of a successful impeachment are remote. Being tossed in the Potomac may be one of the few indignities not awaiting Kavanaugh if such post-confirmation hearings are ordered. It would create precedent for justices to be retroactively investigated on allegations raised but rejected in their confirmations.

I previously said that I agree with Democrats that the withholding of years of background material for Kavanaugh was unprecedented and wrong. Yet, the degree of disclosures demanded by the Senate is, ultimately, a decision of the majority. Moreover, Kavanaugh’s answers about his work on controversial matters were sufficiently hedged to make any claim of perjury difficult to establish. Whitehouse, however, was not talking about Kavanaugh’s work as White House secretary in the Bush administration.

Whitehouse was suggesting that a potential Democratic majority after midterms would call a Justice Kavanaugh to answer allegations that he was a serial rapist. The problem is that the Senate already has heard from the witnesses cited by Christine Blasey Ford and none corroborate her accounts, or even remember the party in question. This is not dispositive, since Ford said she told no one until many years later. However, she cannot remember the date or the specific location of the incident, or the identity of the person who drove her home after she fled the party.

Republicans have not helped the process with their artificial limitations on investigating the claims. Rightfully irate at the Democrats for holding the allegations until shortly before the committee’s vote, Republicans refused to ask for a FBI investigation and then effectively waived serious examination of Ford by hiring a female prosecutor who was limited to questions in ridiculous five minute increments. The haiku style examination of Ford was wide and correctly derided. Similarly, Democrats had little ability to examine Kavanaugh in such brief segments.

Finally, the belated week long FBI investigation seemed more suited for political cover than actually uncovering new evidence. Nevertheless, a special hearing was held, declarations gathered, and a supplemental investigation ordered on allegations occurring decades ago. To call post-confirmation hearings on such allegations would expose all justices to lingering threats of investigation with shifting majorities in Congress. That is precisely what the Framers sought to avoid in establishing a high standard for impeachment and giving federal jurists a lifetime tenure.

It seems highly unlikely that Democrats would be as motivated in promising to pull back Justices Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan before Congress on discrepancies in their records. Democratic nominees have faced allegations of untrue statements before Congress without the threat of post-confirmation investigation. Some advocates objected that Kagan denied being asked for or offering her opinion on the “the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation” or “the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation” while she was solicitor general of the Justice Department during the Obama administration.

Later, critics argued that newly disclosed documents showed that, after the Affordable Care Act was enacted, Kagan was consulted on the challenge to that law and may have forwarded some possible arguments to use in litigation. While this became an issue in calling for her later recusal from hearing the appeal, there was no call for her removal.

Impeachments were primarily designed to address misdeeds or abuse in office. While a nominee clearly committing perjury in a confirmation hearing could raise grounds for impeachment, it would be in stark contrast to the past record of these very same members. Democrats did not call for such probe into figures like former National Intelligence Director James Clapper, who lied about a major and allegedly unconstitutional surveillance program before the Senate. He admitted that he had chosen the “least untruthful” option in his testimony. Whitehouse did not pull out his hourglass to menace Clapper.

None of this is meant to suggest either certainty or satisfaction with the status of these allegations. Like many, I found both Ford and Kavanaugh’s testimony compelling. I would have preferred that Democrats revealed the allegations earlier. I would have preferred that Republicans provided more time for questions and investigation. Moreover, it is still not clear what, if anything, the FBI might uncover or how this will end.

Yet, end it must. There needs to be finality in some parts of our government, even as chaos reigns in all other parts. If senators are troubled by the lack of disclosures or time, they can in good faith vote against Kavanaugh. However, a confirmation vote shows that the requisite majority of senators were satisfied enough with the record to confirm.

Democratic members should consider the potential political cost of endorsing retroactive reviews of confirmation hearings. It certainly did not work out well for Pope Stephen VI, who was eventually arrested and condemned to death by strangulation. Watching this unfolding spectacle in Washington, many voters know exactly how he must have felt.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

266 thoughts on “Democrats Pledge To Revive A Cadaver Synod To Remove Justice Kavanaugh”

  1. Let’s get one thing straight here:
    The one who is primarily responsible for blowing up the confirmation process, as well as for the dramatic increase in partisanship over the course of Obama’s term, is one Mitch McConnell. His clearly stated strategic aim was to do all he could to cause Obama’s initiatives to fail — regardless if they had been popular with republicans beforehand.
    He completed his disgrace by denying Obama a vote on his Supreme Court nominee.
    This was unprecedented in the history of the Senate.
    What he showed was that you can play dirty and win.
    And anything that comes of this hyperpartisan era can be laid squarely upon his shoulders.

    1. Do you remember Bork?
      Do you remember the Biden Rule?
      Do you remember which party changed the number of votes needed?
      Do you remember Clarence Thomas’s hearing?

      I guess hyperpartisanship with SC nominees started long before McConnell’s actions.

    2. Wrong.

      What was unprecedented was a president who did not have two parents who were citizens, a father who was a citizen or was a “natural born citizen” as required by Article 2, which all Presidents prior to Obama were. Obama, at best, was a simple “citizen,” the inferior form – “natural born citizen” being superior to “citizen.” As the Founders did, you will find the definition of “natural born citizen” in the legal text and reference of the era, the Law of Nations, 1758, which Ben Franklin wrote “…was continually in the hands of the Members of our Congress, sitting.”

      You can’t handle the truth!

      1. How is it that the Constitution knows what a “natural born citizen” is but democrats don’t? Democrats don’t know anything about the Constitution, do they?

  2. “The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh”

    “Signed, 1,000+ Law Professors (and Counting)”

    OCT. 3, 2018

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html

    The following letter will be presented to the United States Senate on Oct. 4. It will be updated as more signatures are received.

    Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service explains, a judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.” The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our founding; in Federalist 78, titled “Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for “the integrity and moderation of the judiciary.”

    We are law professors who teach, research and write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. We regret that we feel compelled to write to you, our Senators, to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on Sept. 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.

    The question at issue was of course painful for anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy, Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. Even in his prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan, referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” rather than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information, to try to understand what had transpired. Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.

    As you know, under two statutes governing bias and recusal, judges must step aside if they are at risk of being perceived as or of being unfair. As Congress has previously put it, a judge or justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These statutes are part of a myriad of legal commitments to the impartiality of the judiciary, which is the cornerstone of the courts.

    We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.

    Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:

    1. Anonymous – what is really fun is only the SCJustices themselves decide if they need to recuse themselves. “Release the Kraken!!! Bring me an abortion case to overturn!!!”

    2. Ditto for every judge presently engaged in various and sundry forms of corruption, which necessarily includes almost every single judge employed in the United States of America.

    1. McConnell doesn’t have 51 votes for cloture, yet, let alone 51 votes to confirm. You can tell by the way McConnell is whining about how unfair it is. Cheater’s proof.

      1. “McConnell doesn’t have 51 votes for cloture, yet, let alone 51 votes to confirm.”

        Another one of Diane’s premature conclusions. Most of her previous conclusions were wrong so Diane’s batting average is very low. Based on Diane’s record one has to believe Kavanaugh will be confirmed but there is no certainty.

  3. You know, throwing out all the good for nothing thieves sporting black nightgowns who share the same beds with their lawyerly brethren, fixing cases, denying the average citizen his day in a just court, is just what this country needs. Heaven knows these wolves in sheep’s clothing cannot destroy the public’s faith in the judiciary any further.

    How does a good and decent and scholarly lawyer like you find the strength to turn a blind eye to this catastrophe?

  4. Absolutely amazing video. Leftwing “Academics expose corruption in the humanities”

    They are warning some of you guys that what you are reading is garbage.

    1. “You can read a good summary of the story in the Wall Street Journal today. If you’re not a subscriber, here are a couple of highlights from Jillian Kay Melchior’s fine report:

      Beginning in August 2017, the trio wrote 20 hoax papers, submitting them to peer-reviewed journals under a variety of pseudonyms, as well as the name of their friend Richard Baldwin, a professor emeritus at Florida’s Gulf Coast State College. Mr. Baldwin confirms he gave them permission use his name. Journals accepted seven hoax papers. Four have been published.

      There’s also an excellent Twitter thread about it from Yascha Mounk of Harvard (another liberal) worth reading.

      And the three authors explain the whole effort in an article out yesterday entitled “Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship.” It’s very much worth reading the whole thing, but here is the lede:

      Something has gone wrong in the university—especially in certain fields within the humanities. Scholarship based less upon finding truth and more upon attending to social grievances has become firmly established, if not fully dominant, within these fields, and their scholars increasingly bully students, administrators, and other departments into adhering to their worldview. This worldview is not scientific, and it is not rigorous. For many, this problem has been growing increasingly obvious, but strong evidence has been lacking. For this reason, the three of us just spent a year working inside the scholarship we see as an intrinsic part of this problem.”

      Full story at: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/10/my-critical-critical-theory-theory.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+powerlineblog%2Flivefeed+%28Power+Line%29

      1. Allan – my personal favorite was the 3000 word article that was cribbed from Mein Kampf and passed peer-review.

        1. Paul C……………..Rep. Jerry Nadler is on the House Judiciary comm. I saw him interviewed yesterday and made a startling discovery; in fact I am shocked it has not become a front page story but…………. I swear his left eyebrow is a dead ringer for Trudeau’s left eyebrow…my hand to God! It’s spooky!

          1. Cindy Bragg – maybe Nadler has been to Canada lately? However, I think it was the alt-media that picked up on the wandering eyebrow of Trudeau, not the Lame Stream Media. The LSM would never take down one of their own. BTW, did they ever solve what it was? That way we can solve Nadler’s problem before it becomes too distracting. 😉

            1. LOL Paul……..I have not heard a follow-up story re: Trudeau’s……..but, I swear I was mesmerized and didn’t hear a word Nadler was saying ( probably something about impeachment!)
              Btw……how about Sheila’s aide breaking into offices! Makes the story about the envelope she gave to Ford’s attorney really interesting now!

              1. Cindy Bragg – missed the story about Shelia’s assist as burglar. Get me up-to-date.

                1. Paul I`’ll look for link…….next up on Ingraham show……..a body language person!

                  1. Cindy Bragg – either somebody is paying this guy or he is trust-fund baby. Nobody works for free for that long. Thanks for the link. 🙂 Now we can really wonder what was in that envelope.

                1. Paul. C……..well darn…it wasn’t Mandy……I think she would have been better than the guest who was on..

        2. That is why those with similar degrees are suspect from the start. I’ve had to deal with them at times and most of them like so many on this blog are very superficial.

        3. Oh, Lord. I’ve often said that most of the Socialist underpinnings of the Fascist and Nazi party platform would be loudly cheered at modern Democrat rallies…which is essentially what a university is today.

  5. Sexual harassment and assult linked to worse physical/mental health among midlife women
    University of Pittsburgh Schools of the Health Sciences
    2018 Oct 03
    medicalxpress.com

    probably should be read by all here, but won’t.

    1. “A new study by researchers at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine suggests that experiences of sexual harassment and sexual assault could have a significant impact on the physical and mental health of midlife women.” [Oct 03]

      No one denies the impact of sexual harassment and abuse on women. That has little to do with Ford’s accusations where her own facts have changed over and over again and denied by others who she said were present when the incident happened. You ought to read Mitchel’s report which is quite damning to the veracity of Ford and Mitchel’s conclusions are based on an interview many feel should have been more aggressive. The facts that are documented demonstrate Kavanaugh to be a responsible and good jurist. That is what you should be focussing on.

      1. Last Thursday’s debacle demonstrated that Kavanaugh is not fit to be a jurist. He is not impartial. See the letter from over 500 law professors and others in the legal profession.

        I hold that he prevaricated both at this hearing but also the hearing for his current circuit justice position. Start impeachment proceedings.

        1. David Benson is the King of Making Stuff Up and owes me twelve citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after eightteen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – there is very strong evidence that professors, as a group, lean left and hire left. Yale Law would be no different. Nor would law professors at other institutions. Just because they lean left does not mean he would be biased or has been biased.

          “Release the Kraken. Bring us an abortion case to overturn!”

        2. David, what do you mean he is not impartial? He has a record of over 300 cases and his cases aren’t overturned. That is probably one of the best records of any Supreme Court nominee in the past 50 years. Why don’t leftists and you admit you don’t like the way he interprets the Constitution. That is what this is all about. The letter from 500 biased lawyers is meaningless. I have plenty of family and friends that are lawyers and ALL believe him to be an excellent jurist even though some disagree with some of his viewpoints.

          Impeachment proceedings are just plain sillyness. I’ve me Sotomayor at a meeting and I’ve heard her speak. When Donald Trump talked about the Hispanic judge and got pounced on I noted that Sotomayor said essentially the same thing and that was claim that she said made her into a good judge.That might be true for a bench judge, but that is not a good recommendation for the Supreme Court where the Judge is deciding not on personal experience but on what the Constitution actually says.

          1. He has at least one overruled by a panel of fellow circuit court justices.

            But it won’t be up to the likes of you and me.

            1. Yes and he may have had another, but overall he has been consistent and in accordance with the law.

              It won’t be directly up to you and me, but indirectly it is when we vote. One reason for Trump to have won regarded the fact that there was a Supreme Court position available. Today for the most part the public seems to be behind Kavanaugh, not necessarily in agreement with everything he believes. That might very well translate to a much more favorable outcome for Republicans at the midterms.

              You might like a Supreme Court that legislates from the bench but that was not the intention of those that wrote and signed the Constitution.

            2. No, David. That is not true. His decision was not overruled. A panel voiced a majority opinion, and he wrote a minority opinion.

              That is entirely different from ruling on a court case, and having it overturned on appeal. This occurs on the Supreme Court each and every time there is not a unanimous opinion.

              Surely you must understand that. He really does have an incredible record.

              1. I thought David was referring to a Supreme Court decision involving the EPA where I believe his prior ruling was overturned. It didn’t make sense the way David said it so that is the case I thought he was referring to. Kavanaugh’s record is fantastic.

        3. Last Thursday’s debacle demonstrated that most of the Democrats on the committee are not fit to serve in Congress. If they fail to grasp basic justice, then how are they to legislate for our country?

          They lost an election, so they are trying every dirty trick in the book to force their will upon the nation. Disgusting. All they are missing is their beret, aviator glasses, and eCigarettes.

          1. Well, that’s your opinion. Authentic American patriots understand that the Democrats are the valiant defenders of liberty; who revere our beloved country and its institutions enough to protect the sanctity of the United States Supreme Court from the depredations of a manifestly unfit party hack who has perjured himself in his zeal to gain a sea–merely so he may protect the day glo bozo from justice and his day of reckoning. So sorry for your lack of cognitive ability.

            this is to “but hannity acts like the buffoon is a real president” karen – cindie

            1. Marky M said: “Democrats are the valiant defenders of liberty; who revere our beloved country and its institutions enough to protect the sanctity of the United States Supreme Court…”

              Is this a joke? You’re joking, right? I mean, my god, you can’t be this blind, stupid and deluded can you?

              1. TBob – the answer to all of your questions is YES, he can be that blind, stupid and deluded.

            2. “Authentic American patriots understand that the Democrats are the valiant defenders of” slime ball tactics, violence, and destruction though some are just plain Democrats. It’s good Mark M. that you recognize the type of person you are. If we dump you and the rest of your roadkill type the country would be much better off.

    2. Did you think that sexual assault was linked with better physical or mental health?

      Is anyone saying that sexual assault is good for you? Or are people stating the obvious, that Ford had glaring contradictions in her story, zero of her named witnesses corroborated it, Kavanaugh produced evidence of his whereabouts, she changed her age when it happened so that he would be in the area, she had no issues with front doors or anxiety according to her former boyfriend and flew often, she put in the 2nd front door for Google interns 4 years before she discovered her repressed memory, and repressed memories created a big scandal in psychology for actually being false memories created in a deep relaxed state open to suggestion.

      What is also intuitively obvious to the most casual observer is that the Democrats withheld the accusation until the 11th hour in order to scuttle the investigation, demanded a 7th FBI check, then complained about that, then moved on to his throwing ice, or how much he drank in college.

      This is political warfare using sexual assault as a weapon against an innocent man.

    3. David B Benson:

      It would behoove you to research the myriad studies and research on the effect of bullying and harassment on the physical and mental health of the victim. Intense, unrelenting false accusations can lead to severe consequences for the victim.

      This is why there are so many anti-bullying programs in schools. Sadly, it appears that many did not attend. Nor do they see a problem with convicting on the basis of a claim that fell completely apart.

    1. Haha. Please post more materials Just. Like. This.

      this is to “Barack HUSSEIN Obama is diverting electricity from my meter” georgie – paulie

  6. The most recent Anonymous comment was actually from me. This device appears to suffer from dropouts.

    1. “to suffer from dropouts.”

      Did you just describe yourself? I don’t think you meant that. There were several mentions of it and you were posting in close proximity and were a part of the discussion. I brought that up before.

  7. Prof Blasey-Ford’s Study into False Memory Creation, Mind Control

    Published on October 1, 2018

    Written by John O’Sullivan

    Christine Blasey-Ford, ‘sex assault victim’ of Judge Brett Kavanaugh gave powerfully emotional testimony to the US Senate, and now implicated in perjury. Ford has just been exposed as a published expert in how to use hypnosis to create false memories and mind control.

    New revelations show that in 2008 Blasey-Ford, a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University in California, co-authored a respected scientific study on self-hypnosis and how to create false memories.

    In addition, Christine Blasey Ford is said to currently head up the CIA Undergraduate Internship Program.

    None of this information was thought important enough to disclose to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

    She is today reported to have refused a new FBI request to disclose her therapy notes, which she referred to in the nearly nine-hour hearing had the nation transfixed.

    “Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. He had a hard time because he was so drunk,” Ford told senators in her opening statement.

    “I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from screaming. This was what terrified me the most,” she said.

    But these allegations have been turned on their head in a bizarre twist to one of America’s worst political scandals, after a fresh FBI investigation was ordered last Friday (September 28, 2018).

    Did Professor Ford Use False Memory Mind Control Trickery?

    What is now not in any doubt is that Professor Blasey-Ford has extensive professional knowledge of how to create false memories under hypnosis and use them to advantage.

    Blasey-Ford has extensive academic experience in the study of clinical application of self-hypnosis for the purpose of altering personal memories. This may explain her professional ties to the CIA, as detailed here.

    She co-authored ‘Meditation with yoga, group therapy with hypnosis, and psychoeducation for long‐term depressed mood: a randomized pilot trial‘, published (May 05 2008) in the Journal of Clinical Psychology. It is one of her 50 co-authored scientific publications.

  8. Christine Blasey Ford is a covert agent of the FBI/DOJ/Intel “deep state” conducting a

    political assassination mission as the “tip of the spear” of the Obama Coup D’etat in

    America.

    Christine Blasey Ford has never been assaulted, raped or had assault and/or rape

    attempted against her.

    1. Monica L. McLean is a covert agent of the FBI/DOJ/Intel “deep state” conducting a

      political assassination mission as the “tip of the spear” of the Obama Coup D’etat

      in America.

      Monica L. McLean, Christine Blasey Ford’s “best friend” whom Ford “prepped” for

      a lie detector test, is an ex-FBI/DOJ agent who abruptly left the FBI/DOJ to

      become a “consultant” upon the election of President Donald Trump.

      1. Jay S – she is listed as running a CIA training program out of her home.

  9. With all of this going on I cannot vote for any Democrat for House or Senate in my state. I think I won’t vote. I have a friend who calls himself No Show Dago. And no he is not Italian. The last word has something to do with computers. No Show voted for Hillary and is upset for doing so. He was one of the first to buy and distribute Hillary Toilet Paper. I am going to put up two separate rolls in my outhouse. One with Hillary and one with Donald. It is a choice and not an echo.

    1. “the people are nothing but a great beast…

      I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

      -Alexander Hamilton

  10. So the report is about to go to the WH. At that point, I believe there are going to be a whole group of privileged people who will finally realize there is no justice is the US. They will see what the rest of us have been saying for many years now, that the voice of the most powerful is the only one that counts.

    Once they understand this, I hope they will start letting out the reams of information they have on the powerful as they have been their handmaidens. I hope they will join with all people of conscience, of every class, who so desperately have wanted our nation to be just, to be good. We are a shitpile right now. I am hoping the majority of people ln our nation want something far better than a small group of evil people shoving their ideology, cruelty and lawlessness on the people of this nation and the rest of the world.

    It is past time to speak out.

    1. Do not just speak out. Organize. Find decent people to be candidates. Vote them in and the corrupt out.

      1. David, voting is only a small part of what needs to happen. I think we need a Constitutional Convention. We haven’t had a real, elected govt. running the US for a very long time.

        Speaking out and providing information on the corruption that is known to any person with that knowledge is vital.

        1. You’ve had an elected government. It just isn’t giving you what you fancy you deserve. You can improve the electoral system and that will have some salutary effects. It still isn’t going to give you what you think you deserve, because a shrew is never satisfied.

        2. You want a Constitutional Convention run by the 1%? Be careful what you wish for. The last Constitutional Convention was charged with some modifications to the Articles of Confederation. It was taken over by those who wanted something different and they forced what we have.

          1. bettykath – that is exactly why every with sense is scared to have another one. 😉

  11. I do not know how Kavanaugh’s Greek Tragedy will end, but there is already a confirmed casualty – the friendship and trust between American political parties, at least for a good long while.

    For years, our parties coexisted, happily dueling political ideas at dinner parties, and everyone having a wonderful meal. Every once in a while, politics turned deadly divisive. The Revolutionary War saw those who supported the King lose their land, their lives, get maimed, assaulted, or driven out. Mistaken identities, false accusations of spying, and all sorts of mixups led to the end of a hemp rope. If you read the historical accounts of the time, there was paranoia and pandemonium. Shopkeepers would be beset by mobs if they did not agree with the Revolution, or if their establishment carried any leaflets in support of the Crown. Any peaceful day could end in the fire of arson. Rebels were set upon, as well, and many of their leaders hanged before the war was won.

    The Civil War similarly tore apart friends and families over politics. Bosom friends shot each others family, friends, and brothers of arms. Everyone was unforgiven.

    I grieve to see the rise of such a sharp divide again, decades in the making and now gathering steam with unstoppable forward motion. All Republican presidential candidates have been called Fascists since before Reagan. All of them. It would take a complete and total lack of understanding to think that Republicans are Fascists. Socialists complain that Socialist countries never quite got Socialism right. Fascism was yet another experiment, choosing the dissolution of individual rights to work for the common good, replacing the mechanics of inevitable class warfare with nation warfare. Fascism directed Socialism for the common good of a nation. Most of the tenets laid out by Gentile would be loudly applauded at any Democrat rally today. So Republicans brushed off the label as nonsense. But extremist Democrats had infested the education system from preschool to grad school, and they taught their malleable students that such slander was real. Republicans were really evil. They were all racist phobes. Fighting terrorism wasn’t reasonable, it was Islamophobic. Their criticism of strict Puritanical Islam isn’t in defense of women, gays, and freedom; it’s Islamophobic. They wore grooves in the argument that if anyone disagreed with any far Left idea, policy, or strategy, they were clearly evil. One must not debate facts with evil. So they never learned to discuss an argument. They learned to label conservatives some “ist” or “phobe” and flounce off in moral superiority.

    This became part of the general sub conscience of Democrats – Republicans wage war on women, they want to hurt the poor, they don’t care about kids…Really ridiculous arguments that no reasonable person would ever consider true. But they were trained not to reason. Not to question.

    Moderate Democrats and Republicans argued with good nature about what is the best way for the most people to have a good life, and to ensure that the poor don’t starve in the hedgerows. Is it big government, big spending, and big taxes, or limited government, fiscal conservatism, living within a budget, low taxes, and regulation restricted to what was necessary for important goals like public safety.

    But the extreme Left gained ground. It wasn’t moderate Democrats who took over education; it was extremists. Those are the ones who made universities some of the most dangerous, antagonistic places in the country for conservative students. Those are the ones who produced an entire generation of whom a significant percentage believes Socialism is a fair and just system. The amount of history and government studies they would have to be ignorant of to come to that conclusion is staggering.

    I have seen the far Left claim the Republican Party is the Klan, that a President with a Jewish family and strong friendship with Netanyahu, was an anti-semite, if you don’t recognize the “Sheriff Badge” text box as a Star of David, you’re an anti-semite. Then, moderates because to say things like death vans would come, minorities would be killed on the street, the economy was going to crash, Trump was insane, Trump assaults women on the street, Trump voters are all evil (except, of course, for maybe one or two of their friends and family), and Trump wants to rip children from the arms of their parents.

    They parrot one ridiculous assertion after another. When it’s disproven, they seem to go all glassy eyed, no one says, oops, sorry, we were wrong. I don’t even think it registers that they were wrong, and then they move on in lockstep to the next baseless accusation. At the exhausting end of it, they have no access to facts, but a very strong faith that Trump and his voters are pure evil. Friends who are Trump voters clearly need either a beating or to be saved.

    The left was over whelminging positive that Trump was an anti-Semite during his campaign. Remember the “sheriff’s badge” text box proof positive, “dog whistle” story? Only, wait, he’s still close with Netanyahu and did what his predecessors failed to do – make good on our promise to move the embassy to Jerusalem. Wait! You mean we were supposed to actually KEEP that promise???? I thought those were words? Then it was, if we moved the embassy, there would be WWIII, and it would be Trump’s fault, not the terrorists. Then it was that Trump was mentally ill. Then he tested healthy. Then it was the economy was going to crash because Trump was economy. Economy still booming and Dow breaking records. Then it was Trump hates black people. (Forget all the black people who used to love him, and praised him for holding gender or skin color as no barrier to advancement in his companies back when the glass ceiling was 8 inches thick.) Oh, wait, black unemployment has broken records for being its lowest ever recorded. Latino unemployment also low. Black favorability ratings doubling. Then it was he hates Latinos because he wants to stop all illegal immigration, and only allow legal immigration. Because, apparently, having immigration laws is totally xenophobic and if we don’t invite ISIS and Boko Haram to come on over, everyone’s welcome, then we’re “phobic.” Getting tired of getting bombed by us? Just want a better life for you and your family, then bring your bomb making manuals and come on over! Open borders!!!

    They try and abandon one assault after another. Conservatives like me are exhausted from it all. And now we are getting really, really angry. I silently watch my moderate Democrat friends spew more and more hateful rhetoric against all conservatives, and I am getting so tired of taking it. The hatred and intolerance on the Left has inspired a grassroots abandonment, #WalkAway. It’s inspiring to see that reason and hope springs eternal, as people have their red pill moment and snap out of it. I wish more people would do so.

    I miss believing that the only difference between Democrats and Republicans is the role in government in people’s lives. I don’t think that anymore. I think the Democrat party has tipped way too far Left. I grieve for the destruction that is only going to get worse as the political divide experiences the seismic event of extremism, which ruins everything it touches.

    1. Karen

      “The U.S. has ONE party: the Property party…and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat.”
      Gore Vidal said that, and he is correct. That’s why those two wings coexisted so well with each other.

      1. Gore Vidal was a talented screenwriter who knew nothing of other endeavours (apart from liquor consumption and sodomy). See Thos. Sowell: the left confounds expertise with intelligence and then confounds intelligence with articulateness. Seeing Vidal as a sage is a manifestation of that.

          1. He lived in Italy much of his life. As a youth, he was lodged in boarding schools betwixt and between stints with his affluent father and wealthy stepfather. His military service was unremarkable. He never married and had no children. He had no ordinary wage work after 1946. His time in the U.S. was spent around Washington, then New York, then Los Angeles, hanging with literary types.

            He didn’t have the chops to understand and interpret statistical data. His facility with historical data seems to have been consumed with an interest in biography. And, of course, he adhered to the notion that you discredit an idea by lampooning its exponents.

            There’s been a tacky quarrel over his property because in his terminal will he dumped it on Harvard University, an institution to which he was a stranger. He had 4 notional siblings, all of whom had children (quite apart from his chum Howard Auster’s family), but he didn’t care to bequeath anything to him, even to his sister Nina’s poofy sons.

            Sorry, don’t buy the idea he ‘knew plenty’ about anything but his own rancid social circle.

            1. lampooning your adversary is a time tested effective technique of communication and you mock people all the time so don’t pretend you’re above it

              he wrote several fine books of historical fiction, and in them a lot of truth.

              Often, you can wring truth out of fiction more easily,
              than you can pick the fiction out of supposed truth.

              1. lampooning your adversary is a time tested effective technique of communication and you mock people all the time so don’t pretend you’re above it

                Lampooning people is a rhetorical game. It is not an argument. Vidal never knew enough about social processes to argue with people. He could only conceive of them as plots and characters.

                1. DSS – I had the privilege of the Vidal v Buckley food fight live. It was worth every dollar I did not not pay. Too bad it was not in Living Color. Vidal lost the law suit. 🙂

            2. Tabarrok obviously doesn’t know the first thing about Gore Vidal’s military service.

              But then, he pontificates on all issues, irrespective of the state of his knowledge. A universal shotgun and as intelligent.

              1. Tabarrok obviously doesn’t know the first thing about Gore Vidal’s military service.

                He had non-combat Army service during the 2d World War. Like about 5 million other people born between 1903 and 1928. Nothing wrong with that. It’s just not the same sort of education as Wm. Manchester had. (I dislike Manchester, btw).

              2. about Gore Vidal;s military service. i read a little bit about it and that he served on an army ship and it inspired a book.

                i guess you might say that melville’s time as as seaman was unremarkable too, except it inspired a book. or jack london’s.

                there are plenty of things you might otherwise say about london and melville, for me, they are just two of my favorite authors.

                now he is not on their level, but he was a very good writer if not a great one.

                the homosexual side of his life is perhaps exaggerated by homosexuals who always want to claim talent as allied to their particular inclinations. I reject that notion and even though he was, at least bisexual, i think Vidal rejected it too. Today homosexuals claim Melville too without any solid evidence. I don’t hold his peculiar tastes against him, nor do I have any wish to praise him for them. He was from an earlier generation of them which had the grace not to make an issue out of their tastes and inflict them on others. Too bad that didn’t continue.

                he was an alcoholic for sure. that was too bad for him. I am not sure that it matters today.

                I think a lot of people called him an antisemite, but then again, he criticized others for antisemitism. I can’t make heads nor tails out of that topic. I sprained my brain trying to figure it out in years past, and clearly it’s above my competency to understand.

                he was a critic of American imperialism and I think that is a legitimate viewpoint and a conversation that should be welcomed. he was confident to criticize America having come from an American family with a proud history. That is certainly not a demerit to him, even though he repeated it a little too often.

                he had a facile mind to understand things that most “men of letters” could not. He clearly understood MacVeigh and a generation of “angry white males” who were enraged over the unjust, oppressive, and homicidal actions against the Dravidian cult at Waco.

                at the very least, he was brave to explain his own viewpoints eloquently and without deferring to the tastes of the socalled left, which dominated and dominate the editorial and publishing staff who had control over whether or not he made it into print. Where are the writers who will defy the media bosses today?

    2. America, 1789, upon adoption of the Constitution indicating the design of and intent for the nation in perpetuity:

      – Preamble to the Constitution: “…to ourselves and our posterity.”

      – Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795 and 1802; citizens must be “…free white person(s)…”

      – Private property is possessed and disposed of by the owner “…in the exclusion of every other individual…” including the government.

      – Article 1, Section 8 Congress merely the power to tax merely for “…general Welfare…” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power of Congress to tax for individual welfare.

      – Commerce Clause provides merely the power to regulate the stream of commerce in order to assure its free flow and to assure the absence of bias and/or favor to any state or entity. The Commerce Clause omits and, thereby, excludes any authority by Congress to regulate private property and/or the design, engineering, production or marketing of products.

      – Courts to resolve crimes and civil claims.

      – Charity (i.e. redistribution of wealth) as industry conducted in the free markets of the private sector.

      The entire contemporary American redistributionist welfare state, including affirmative action, is anti- and unconstitutional.

      Where is the America of the Constitution with freedom, free enterprise and self-reliance, completely and totally bereft of the central planning, control of the means of production, redistribution of wealth and social engineering of the Communist Manifesto?

    3. I didn’t waste time on your cut-and-paste folderol, but I could easily see that you not once referenced the most salient question for you, your ilk, the gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make: “what is that ticking sound”?

      this is to “when you sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind” karen – cindie

      1. Definition of “cut-and-paste folderol”: “you, your ilk, the gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make: “what is that ticking sound”?”

  12. To those wholly involved in this perceived crisis it is really pointless to waste time presently on the Kavanagh situation. Just save your collective strength for a few days and see what the actual confirmation vote’s outcome is. You will then have greater energy to vomit whatever outrage or joy in a catharsis your soul demands. Then, move on to your next supreme crisis in life fully recharged–that is if you choose to consign yourselves to be nothing more than a parrot for other people’s rhetoric.

    It always astounds me how much power people give to politicians and news outlets to control their lives and their thinking. You hand them the keys to your happiness and then throw a big fit when your gatekeepers go against what you want. If instead you possessed the fortitude to retain your own keys you could enjoy freedom from others’ tyranny of ideas. But if you choose to remain a slave don’t expect to be respected by your masters, or for that matter by most others who can think for themselves.

    Nobody respects sheep or sycophants, not even the sheep if they are honest with themselves.

  13. Once again, it is significant that you choose to ignore Trump’s actual bad behavior in attacking a female witness while focusing on the nascent threat to Kavanaugh from the Democrats.

    1. What’s Trump’s ‘bad behavior’ got to do with the controversy at hand?

      Attacking the ‘female witness’ is perfectly appropriate. She’s lying her tuchus off.

    2. Tyll, it is quite clear you don’t like Trump, but what did Ford say that was consistent and demonstrated any proof whatsoever? Even the names she provided said her accusations were false. What is clear is that Ford’s complaint (not denying that she might have experienced a bad incident) is tainted, embellished and fantasy rather than reality. Let’s deal with the question at hand.

  14. Monica McLean: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

    https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/monica-mclean/

    Christine Blasey Ford’s (daughter and sister of CIA officials) former boyfriend has written a letter to the U.S. Senate claiming he had seen Ford coach someone on how to take a polygraph test.

    Monica McLean, the “lifelong best friend” of Christine Blasey Ford, has denied that Ford ever coached her on how to take a polygraph exam while applying for Department of Justice jobs. Monica McLean came forward Wednesday and said in a statement, “I have NEVER had Christine Blasey Ford, or anybody else, prepare me, or provide any other type of assistance whatsoever in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at anytime.”
    _________________________

    Here’s what you need to know about Monica McLean:

    1. She Went to Holton Arms, the Same High School as Ford

    2. Ford Is Accused of Coaching McLean While She Was Interviewing for Jobs with the FBI & the US Attorney’s Office, but McLean Denies It

    3. McLean Worked for the Department of Justice for 24 Years, Leaving Just Before Trump Took Office

    4. A Man Named Geral Sosbee Says McLean Helped the FBI in a Bizarre Cover-Up

    5. McLean Now Works as an Independent Consultant in Washington DC

    McLean stepped down from the Department of Justice in 2016. In 2017, she went to work as an independent consultant.
    _____________________________

    McLean’s name is featured on some shadowy websites run by a man named Geral Sosbee. Sosbee says that he is a former FBI agent who started working for the agency in the late 1970s. He claims that he was later investigated by the FBI and the CIA; his sites also make dark and incoherent references to “death squads”. He says that McLean helped the FBI to cover up the alleged investigation against him.

    1. People on the Internet say a lot of things. Explaining what to expect on a polygraph, and teaching relaxation techniques to calm nerves, is not the same as teaching someone to lie for a polygraph. That said, Dr Ford denied all knowledge of polygraphs in her best little girl voice. She also lived just fine with only one front door until 2008, which was then used for Google Interns. Her “repressed memory” wasn’t discovered until 2012, long after Door Gate.

      There are legitimate holes in her story. In addition, the old adage of live by the sword, die by the sword, applies. Democrats have actively solicited stories condemning Kavanaugh, and credibility is not an issue. Now we have desperate ploys, like an accusation that some party at Kavanaugh’s fraternity, at some point, may have had a prostitute perform a sex act for the audience. He has no idea if Kavanaugh was there, but by golly, he might have been. Might have been a prostitute, might have been a stripper. Before we can seriously consider appointing Kavanaugh to the highest court, we now have to investigate every single frat party from his undergraduate to his graduate school years, interview everyone who may, or may not, have attended, and ask if anything salacious happened. Kavanaugh being present is a plus. They could drag this on for decades.

      Of course, perish the thought that Sotomayor would have her high school jokes, high school yearbook, and every single party, club, or dance she went to from high school to the last day of law school scrutinized. That would be sexist and totally unfair.

      1. Allan – I don’t think electrical engineers understand irony. I know they can’t speel.

        1. David is still dealing with tubes and he can’t get replacements for the one’s that don’t function.

      2. Allan, that is cribbed from Mark Anthony’s funeral oration in Wm Shakespeare’s play “Julius Caesar”. It is irony at it’s finest.

        Try reading the oration; it is online.

        1. David, I had to memorize that passage in grade school. Paul was right. You don’t understand irony.

            1. David Benson is the King of Making Stuff Up and owes me twelve citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after eightteen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – in my time in education and life, I never found anyone like me. I really think I am a one off, unique. Not that I do not appreciate the comparison to Allan, I am glad to be thought to be in the same class as Allan. However, there is only one me. My mate is a polar opposite.

            2. Boring David.

              But I remember when I quoted from an article where you were one of the authors. You didn’t seem to recognize it nor did you seem to recognize your co author. Sometimes I wonder if you are all there. Maybe you are not who you say you are. I think you are but unfortunately you probably are just losing it.

              1. Hard to follow the narrow gutter. Sorry not to have the time to be clever.

                Never noticed the citation to the only paper you are likely to have cited. Start a new comment if you want me to see it.

                1. It’s surprising you say you can’t follow (“narrow gutter”) when it seems that is where you live.

                  You lie all the time so whether or not you say you saw the article or the citation is inconsequential. You can’t even use one alias and now you are using a generic one. That tells us you are ashamed of your own aliases and can’t stand up for any of them.

                  1. More awesomeness. Who is this “us”? You echo-chamber dupes seem to misaprehend how many other marks still remain fooled. A few dozen disconnected wackjobs posting nonsense on a political forum isn’t a movement; it’s more a comical example of the moral bankruptcy you and your ilk are left with. But by all means, keep believing that grievous damage inflicted on my beloved country by the hardy 36% of gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make won’t be corrected very soon. In any event, just ask yourself: “what is that ticking sound?”

                    this is to “ya, he’s an imbecile and likely a traitor, but at least he talks mean to the smart people” allan / allen

                    1. “Who is this “us”?”

                      The intelligent folk that excludes the roadkill. That ticking sound that follows you around is your suicide vest.

Comments are closed.