A Court Without A Center: Kagan Laments Loss Of Swing Justice

Kagan was speaking at a Princeton University conference for women and observed:

“It’s been an extremely important thing for the court that in the last 40 years, starting with Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor and continuing with Justice Kennedy, there has been a person who found the center, where people couldn’t predict in that sort of way. That’s enabled the court to look so it was not all by one side or another and it was indeed impartial and neutral and fair. And it’s not so clear that I think going forward that sort of middle position — it’s not so clear whether we’ll have it.”

If Kagan believes that it is a good thing for the Court to be more centrist, one would expect her to move more to the center on issues. Instead she seems to want to continue to vote in a left block but have another justice keep the Court in the center.

Notably, Sotomayor said she “agreed wholly” with Kagan’s statement and also wanted someone to blunt the voting on the right and her own voting on the left.

237 thoughts on “A Court Without A Center: Kagan Laments Loss Of Swing Justice”

  1. “What is strange is that Kagan is not lamenting her own consistent vote on the left and unwillingness to take a more centrist position.”

    Wow, the entangled in our Courts seem to understand simple math better than yourself Mr. Turley. If ANY of the left moved to a more Central position we would ALL fall off the currently flat Earth. The losses have been tangibly felt and now even the Supreme Court has succumbed to partisanship, cutting themselves off at the knees and making them quite un-respected in the eyes of the rest of the Planet.. It is not for the left to move to balance the Court…It is for the left to hold, Like Atlas with the World on his shoulders and Sisyphus behind that stupid rock…it is for the left to HOLD to keep us from further peril……

  2. For shame!

    These two are complaining about the lack of a center, yet are unwilling to be that center themselves!

    Actually, the Supreme Court should be MORE predictable. The commitment of the nine Justices is to follow the law, not re-write the law. And this goes for all courts in the nation.

    In the end, this is similar to the way our legislators abdicate their proper role to the administrative agencies and the courts when they don’t want to take the hard road. Laws should come from the legislature, not from the administrative agencies or the courts. To rely upon someone else to “do the right thing” may result in them doing the wrong thing, since there is not 100% predictability of how they will decide.

    When Congress writes a law, it should stand. Unless it is so blatantly against established precedent and the writing in the Constitution like the Patriot Act, it should stand. Courts have properly recognized that it is Congress that writes laws.

    However, when they write a law like the Administrative Agencies Act that delegated some lawmaking duties to the different agencies of the Executive branch, that law should have been struck down immediately, since it transferred lawmaking to a different branch of the government. Similarly, any new interpretation of the law by any court (including the Supreme Court) should be rescinded by Congress, since it was not properly created.

    All this has happened because no one wants to do their job properly and take the hard position.

    1. You have no idea, these are all communists interested in complete globalization of communist dominion. They call themselves justices while they are agents executing the communist agenda. No facet or aspect of central planning, control of the means of production (i.e. regulation), redistribution of wealth or social engineering is constitutional in America. The unconstitutionality of the principles of communism must have been declared by all justices for the past 157 years yet it hasn’t; the principles of communism have been gradually and inexorably imposed on Americans and implemented in America.

      “Desperate times call for desperate measures.”

      – Obert Skye

      Do you hear the call?

      1. When you go down the list of the 10 communist planks within The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx, you will see that a portion or all of each of the planks have been enacted into law. By going to the early American Socialist Party, you can also observe that all of their Party Planks of both their 1928 and 1932 platforms have been enacted into law. Interesting to note, that the (ASP) with the assistance of the lamestream media was able to get all their planks enacted without a single one of their candidates ever being elected; Democrats and Republicans enacted them. Our Constitution was surely about securing our individual liberty, our inalienable rights and limiting governments size and scope of power to usurp them. There is the lawful way to alter the intent of our Constitution and Bill of Rights and there is obviously the Judiciaries way, which we have observed since our nation was created. You can either research the various planks on your own or they can be observed in Nobel Laureate economists Dr. Milton Friedman’s book “Free To Choose’.

        My favorite question to ask readers, is to name some of the rights alluded to in the IX Amendment. Just remember, the Judiciary throughout history has most often, especially with those issues relating to governments propensity to confiscate taxes and property and to protect the confiscators, a rubber stamp to greater centralized political power and thus the special interests that patronize that power. We now have over 110 different taxes and regulatory fees that feed a constantly expanding Federal Budget currently at about $4 Trillion annually.

        FYI: Some erroneously believe Marx was this great thinker and economic architect, who had given the workers a plan to gain greater benefits for their labor. He was actually a God awful person, financed by European oligarchs, giving them the blueprint in which to dupe the naive iworkers, in order to implement the required socialist policies to steal the wealth of nations. A brilliant but devious scheme well orchestrated since Marx’s book in the mid 1800s and the key has been the printing of almost endless supplies of money to gain greater centralized power using the central banking system as the lender to the government within the System. All international trading clears the funds through the Bank of International Settlement in Basil, Switzerland and all of the major central banks in the world, save Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Brasil, India, N. Korea and a few others are members of BIS that meet their secretly ever two months. My information is from an older book, so that informations could have changed. They may be doing digital conference calls today, for all we know. If you go to the BIS website, you will see they are pretty much hiding in plain sight. It literally took me years to put the necessary pieces of the puzzle together. If you think they are this altruistic consortium of international bankers, the various members of the BIS funded both sides of WWI and WWII, as detailed in the book Hitler’s Secret Bankers. None call it a conspiracy and yet they have legalized every single aspect of the entire system. How much does the U.S. contribute to the World Bank, IMF, the BIS, and to the Aid of various foreign Governments around the world while 100 million people here in the U.S. now live at or near the poverty line? We ignorantly think we have awoken as we fall into the pits of their propaganda. FYI: A Central Bank is the 5th plank of communism.

  3. Would she be lamenting the loss of the center if Hillary Clinton had been in a position to select the last two SC justices?

    Make me laugh some more…

      1. Excuse me, but who gives a rip? The Cannuck legal scholars might turn their passive-aggressive little heads to the decay of the political and legal culture in their own country and quit giving us silly advice.

      2. Becka G – the Canadians did a whole thing about how inclusive their courts were going to be and yet their are no Indigenious, blacks or disabled on their Supreme Court. Just very pale white men and women. Regardless, why do we even care? Why do they care?

        1. Why wouldn’t you care about your neighbors State? Even the New Trade (hahahaha…old renamed trade agreement….) shows that Trump realized he couldn’t be a total jerk off to Canada. But that is extraneous. I posted it because it is a pretty clear article of how we are currently being viewed by many other Countries…and with good reason.

      3. The key takeaway from that article is the overall impact of making public what should have been a privately conducted investigation. Once the Senate Democrats made the conscious decision to weaponize the allegation to undermine the confirmation process, they unleashed the worst impulses of their base. What was worse is those same members of Congress stoked the rage further by openly rejecting Kavanaugh’s (or any accused) presumption of innocence. If the Democrats actually cared about the accuser’s well-being, they would have worked to have the allegations promptly investigated. Kavanaugh would have then been removed or they would proceed with the process. The Democrats have been exposed and only their grubered-base believes the ends justify the means.

        Carol Baird Ellan, the the first female chief of the B.C. Provincial Court and now a family law mediator, expressed her disappointment in the process of confirmation as a while, and the way complainants faced public scrutiny.

        “Personally, I’m appalled at the amount of politicization in the process in the U.S. at this point — I’m dismayed by it, the fact that it’s all public and televised,” she said.

        Baird Ellan added that the Canadian system of judicial appointments is far more private, and thorough ,in their vetting of nominations.

        “By the time the nominee is presented for appointment, they have been vetted in a private way which allows these people to come forward without televised cross-examination.”

  4. The funny thing is, people like Kagan and Sotomayor are not objective people. They probably view Clarence Thomas as lacking in objectivity, but they do so without examining their own voting record. In their view, Thomas decides cases in a partisan manner, but they vote their conscience. To BettyKath, who suggests Thomas vote in favor of the people, I ask her what people? A generous view of the electorate suggests there are slightly more people who agree with his decisions than Kagan’s or Sotomayor’s.

    1. it would be refreshing if Americans did not need SCOTUS and were capable of making moral, ethical and grave decisions locally.

      Overturn Roe v Wade and let the locals decide. It’s what intelligent people do: think for themselves.

      Send the 9 Justices and all of the US Congress home for 1 year and let Americans rule their own lives privately and locally. If they can’t do it, then they become extinguished – survival of the fittest and Darwinian Evolutionary principles applies to us today as well not just Dinosaurs.

      1. Lead the way Amir! If you can figure out a way to make Americans less dependent on the Federal Government, any and all branches, I will be the first in line behind you, cheering you on. If the left is so angered by BK’s confirmation that they refuse to abide by SCOTUS rulings in a manner that undermines the government in a peaceful manner, I’m all for it. If they find a peaceful way to undermine Trump, Congress, et al, I’m there. I am a conservative, because this philosophy is grounded in individualistic principles that seek more federalism and less federal government. Turn it all back to the states, leftists, and have your locals decide what’s best for them, and you’ll find most a surprisingly large conservative contingent behind you screaming just as loud.

      2. You may recall the Republic was set up as a sphere withing a sphere with in a sphere in terms of politics which is a branch of philosophy, religioni being another one Our ‘representative’ ‘Constitutional’ Republic (of , by and for the the citizens-sometimes people works in that fashion. Which puts us leaps and bounds ahead of Darwins Dinosaurs

        The base for us is the family, followed by the clan or tribe perhaps but soon becomes the city, city state, country and more. each one an all encompassing sphere. Our system had checks and balances in both directions until the 16th and 17th Amendments destroyed that useful tool at the State government level and as a result Darwin came back to life. as our nation de-volved back into a somewhat tribal existence.

        The end goal had been the self governing citizen that went by the wayside to some extent as the individual became de-educated and the type of citizen even more so.

        Stil the fittest have survived largely due to some little noticed fittings in the warp and woof of society. Hardy pioneer colonist explorer became the farmer and rancher and miner then factory worker and hen computer operator.

        The input became those seeking freedom to those seeking a free ride. Mandatory military service probably delayed the dinosaur effect due to that very form of service but I still would dump the draft… or make it equal.

        In a vertical mode the Household family boss mom indoors dad outside became the village mayor and the city council . At that point the notion of democracy stops for it ‘s very existence depends on indivdual action and thinking with little or no reliance on others. Thus the city, county, state, country, form all interlinked gradually came into being, the Republic. Re-present The Public.

        How to make it work. Limited national laws and standards that truly do apply to al the spheres honed a bit finer on down through State, country , city and family yet controlled by citizens controlling delegates to all levels.

        Republic Of all citizens, by all citizens for all citizens through delegates controlled by ALL citizens

        A far cry from what they left behind in Europe or later all other places.

        It was the character or culture of ALL those immigrating citizens that provided each change and made those changes possible but the genius of the first groups who fashioned a method that through the ages allows those changes to occur.

        I see no reason to exchange that system for the one our families left behind.

    2. Well said, Rilaly. The Left are not the only people who count. Everyone does.

  5. So JT wants Kagan to give up her people oriented view of the Constitution in favor of having someone who is confused between deciding in favor of the people or the corporations. Or maybe Thomas, or one of the others should start deciding in favor of the people on occasion.

    1. Betty, if you are not happy with what the Constitution says pass an amendment and those guys you don’t like will rule based on what the amendment says. It is not a matter of deciding what corporations want. It is a matter of what the Constitution says.

      In the Kelo decision involving eminent domain it was your Liberal justices that decided that individuals had to sell to corporations at a fraction of the value the land was worth after the corporations got it and were able to build commercial property. That is how Liberals react. They take from the individual and give it away to their corporate friends.

    2. The flaw in the fly of the ointment is using people instead of citizens. just as using Conservative instead of constitutionalist or liberal instead of socialist or subjective instead of objective.

      Or ‘I think’ instead of ‘I believe’

        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. – why don’t you show us what you are talking about and cite your source.

      1. Tabarrok, tell us ‘who’ the swing vote was between 62-69. Then tell us why the mattered by citing critical decisions. Don’t play games where you’re coy and we’re supposed to play along. Only nerds pull those stunts.

      2. About 18 seconds to find that one. Burger Court in various phases then the Warren Court with the result being liberal dominance

        The Supreme Court History Project:The Burger Court

        by RW Galloway Jr – ‎1981 – ‎Cited by 28 – ‎Related articles
        Jan 1, 1981 – (1962-1969) (Supreme Court History Project, Publication No. …. voting. The data show a distinct swing to the right from the prior. Term.

        Third Period of the Warren Court: Liberal Dominance (1962-1969 …

        Third Period of the Warren Court: Liberal Dominance (1962-1969), The Supreme Court History Project: The Warren Court 1962-1969. Santa Clara Law Review, …

        As to who iwas the fulcrum …. I’ll let your due diligence find a way…

    1. David – no, the Court needs to stop legislating from the bench. It shouldn’t matter if a Justice is a Democrat or a Republican. What matters is the law as it is written, not what they wish it said. Making such tweaks are for the Legislative branch.

      Everyone should check their personal politics at the door of the Supreme Court. How many times has Professor Turley written about how the law demands a different outcome than he would have personally wished?

      What are judges supposed to “swing” on, exactly? They apply the law; they don’t make it. “Open to interpretation” means open to legislating from the bench. Do you really want 9 lifetime appointed people to skip Congress and just create new laws from the bench?

      1. Karen S, it was a play on the word “swinger” but all the players here failed to notice that.

        1. What does spouse swapping have to do with the Supreme Court? I assumed you did not intend a double entendre.

          1. It was supposed to provide some amusement but all here are overly leaden.

  6. What a scam.

    Elena Kagan has a cushy, lucrative, affirmative action position in which she does little or nothing and absolutely nothing to promote the meaning and intent of the Constitution of the American Founders.

    All Americans (the ones the Founders intended to be entitled to vote in their restricted-vote republic) can comprehend the Constitution.

    Reduce the Supreme Court to one Chief Justice and remove the politics.

    Conduct strict oversight (i.e. appeals) for bias, favor and corruption through an enhanced and accelerated impeachment process in Congress.

    Return America to the literal “manifest tenor” of the Constitution.

    Allow freedom and free enterprise without regulation (regulate only the stream of commerce among the states, etc.). Implement private property immutably “…in the exclusion of every other individual…” including the government, excepting only Eminent Domain. Allow Congress merely the power to tax for “…general Welfare..” excluding the power to tax for individual welfare.

    Eliminate most governmental agencies and departments all of which conduct unconstitutional missions of regulation of free enterprises rather than the stream of commerce (i.e. control of the means of production), individual welfare (redistribution of wealth) or violations of private property (i.e. social engineering).

  7. Oh, dear Elena “softball pro player” Kagan, how can you lament the loss of a centrist Justice when you are a closeted lesbian? You should be lamenting not having another liberal like you on the court. Man up to it sweetheart. Lose those pearls, acknowledge your partner and stop reinforcing the conservative talking points that being a homosexual is a bad thing. Put on your big gurl boots and be proud of who you are. We LGBT are exhausted defending your cowardice.

    Kavanaugh is gay too of course now that we all know he was a virgin in high school. Ha. only gay men were virgins in high school. 😜🏳️‍🌈😬


    I Wish Elena Kagan Were an Uncloseted Lesbian

    “Elena Kagan (49), Solicitor General of the United States. The likeliest candidate, and it was somewhat of a surprise she didn’t get picked last time. Pluses: would please much of Obama’s base, follows diversity politics of Sotomayor with first openly gay justice (so would Karlan and Sullivan). [Update: While Karlan and Sullivan are open about it, I have to correct my text here to say that Kagan is apparently still closeted — odd, because her female partner is rather well known in Harvard circles”

    “And now that Justice John Paul Stevens, who is 90, plans on retiring? The front-runners appear to be federal appellate judges Diane Wood and Merrick Garland and U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, the lesbian former Harvard Law dean who’s held the post since March 2009 (and became the first woman to do so), and who was also a top contender in the race that eventually seated Sonia Sotomayor.

    As we understand it, Kagan is out, but has not commented on her sexuality for reporters. But most notable about Kagan is not her sexuality, but her status: While all the Supreme Court’s sitting justices have been judges, Kagan has never held a bench seat.“

    “To say the obvious about Elena Kagan: It’s the hair. Let the opprobrium begin, but who isn’t, in their own mind, putting it exactly so: She sure looks gay.”

    1. Why do you care so much whether Kagan is a lesbian or not? After all, our friend Tabarrack is gay (or Jewish) and that’s fine. Diversity is our strength!

      1. We care that she is a closeted lesbian for reasons already articulated by the commenter: she is a liberal and her farce for lamenting Kavanaugh not being a centrist is bullchips. Besides, she is Jew and she should have the courage of her religious ancestors for being proud and firm adherents to the Jewish Laws.

        As for Tabarrack, leave him alone. He is hung, furry and mucho macho. He’s all talk but in bed he just lays over and waits to be pounced…. much like Kagan pounces on her wife. ha

  8. I find it sad that BOTH Justices Kagan and Sotomayor never realized that the Supreme Court was designed to be the ONE Federal institution that was A-political. We DON’T need a ‘swing vote’—We need all 9 Justices to put their own PERSONAL political biases aside, and decide on issuses BASED on what’s PRESENTLY in the U.S. Constitution, NOT what one party or the other would like you to decide.

    1. well she had no experience as a Judge, which is why Onama picked her given her Solicitor General experience. She is young and fearfully naive and terribly closeted as a lesbian.

      1. She was 50 at the time, and is 58 today. She isn’t young. She may be naive about many things, but climbing the greasy pole to be dean of Harvard Law School tells you she’d not naive about the milieux she works in.

        FWIW, public records searches of some street addresses she’s had over the years do not yield candidates for a Boston marriage. Whitepages and MyLife searches turn up no associates other than family members.

        1. Her partner is fairly active in gay circles in DC. Then there is this tidbit from Esquire no less:


          Whispered: the descriptive phrase “single, never married, no children,” applied to a fifty-year-old woman, can only mean one thing.

          In truth: Absolutely. It means, “I know exactly where the remote is.”

          Whispered: Kagan reportedly mentioned to colleagues at Harvard Law that she found a guilty pleasure in watching professional wrestling.

          In truth: Unlikely. Probably related to a 2005 legal symposium on the 20th anniversary of the Claus von Bulow case, when she famously introduced winning litigator Alan Dershowitz as the man who “went all Triple H on the jury’s ass.”

          Whispered: witnesses recall seeing Kagan at several Indigo Girls concerts.

          In truth: Possible. Kagan briefly filled in on percussion during the “Rites of Passage” tour during spring break while teaching at the University of Chicago Law School in 1992. Interestingly, this confluence of rock music and jurisprudence was not a first for a high-court appointee. See also: A Flock of Seagulls, Scalia.

          Whispered: Kagan is reportedly fond of poker and is said to have enjoyed an occasional cigar.

          In truth: Really? That is so freakin’ cool.

          Whispered: Kagan once chased down and tackled a world-famous female celebrity in order to get an autograph.

          In truth: Somewhat true. As a Clinton administration aide in 1996, she was responsible for getting the secretary of state’s signature on an important memo. Why Madeleine Albright wouldn’t stop running around the perimeter of the Oval Office remains unclear.

          1. Again, a Whitepages search turns up no associates except her family-of-origin. It’s a reasonable wager she’s not been sharing digs with anyone, unless the lease or the mortgage is always in her name only.

            1. You are a single gay man unlike me. I’m middle aged, partnered, and my partner’s name appears no where on an internet search since we hold nothing legally in common.

              Find a boyfriend and you’ll understand.

              by the way, why did you block my friend on Grindr? he thought you were fine! 😍

      2. A couple of commenters have said that she is a closet lesbian. How does anyone know this. She looks like that might be the case.

          1. Liberty2nd – I cannot speak for lesbians, however as a straight person I have had sex in a closet. 😉

        1. Liberty2nd – who cares if she is in or out of the closet? Who cares if she is straight or gay? The Constitution says nothing about your sexual orientation as a qualification. Although, I would like a couple of the more prominent closeted gays to come out and be loud and proud. Janet N. I am looking right at you.

  9. Off topic news from Canada:

    “The Ontario government recently introduced legislation to scrap the Green Energy Act, acknowledging that the act has resulted in skyrocketing electricity prices in the province. This will help prevent further price increases but will not bring the GA down. The logical next step for the government would be to use its legislative powers to cancel funding commitments under the FIT contracts. This would reduce the GA by almost 40 percent, resulting in an approximately 24 percent reduction in residential electricity prices.”

    1. Allan – would you mind posting a link, please? Sounds like an interesting article I would like to read.

      1. Karen, I have a subscription to the Fraser Institute and get emails from them on a lot of different topics. I threw the email out already but this I think links to the link to the study. It is very interesting to read their reports especially on healthcare since they provide detailed analysis on waiting times in the various provinces of Canada along with a whole bunch of things. We are often compared negatively to Canada by leftists so this provides another viewpoint from the Canadian side.


  10. I wouldn’t be surprised if Clarence retires. He has health issues (hypertension), and more importantly, he has a life outside the Court. He and his wife own a motor home, and they’ve been touring the U.S. for the past 20 years. He enjoys staying in RV parks where he can talk to regular folks who don’t know who he is. Retiring under a Trump admin would assure that he would be replaced by a conservative.

    Sotomayor also has health issues; she has fallen twice recently due to lightheadedness and broke her shoulder in the fall. She is suffering from diabetes, but I can’t imagine she would retire under Trump. RBG is elderly, but she works with a trainer everyday, is very careful with her diet, and is determined to hang in there. I’ve seen her roaring around DC in her Land Rover.

    1. How old is Clarence? I like the news that he and wife like travelling in an RV.

  11. Justice Kahan was acknowledging the truth about Bart Kavanaugh, which is that the only reason for his nomination is his extreme right-wing view of the law, especially as to whether the rodeo clown can be subpoenaed to testify and produce records. By virtue of their writings, Justices can be viewed as leaning right or left. Kennedy tended right, but often voted left of pure center. Kagan has recently voted with the right-leaning members.

    Kavanaugh, however is not only right-leaning, he is to the extreme right. His rulings are often a dissent to the majority of his colleagues. His demonstrated view of the law is an outlier, which is all Justices Sotomayor and Kagan were acknowledging, along with the public perception created by allowing onto the bench a judge who engages in partisan political rhetoric, and who lacks judicial temperament. Setting aside all the other reasons why Kavanaugh is unfit to serve, his lack of proper temperament and clear political agenda are disqualifying. So say thousands of law professors, Republican commentators like George Will, and the council of Christian Churches.

    What a tragedy it is that Kellyanne’s strategy worked. There has never been any proof thar Dr. Ford was induced to come forward for any reason other than the one she provided: to do her civic duty. So, a credible woman, with multiple degrees and a prestigious job, testifies that a nominee for a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS tried to rape her, admittedly many years ago, but she is sure of his identity. She says they were both in high school, and that he was very drunk. He not only denies the incident, but also that he drank to excess in high school. His yearbook entries make contemporaneous references to heavy drinking and sex with multiple people simultaneously. Kavanaugh denied the truth of the words he himself wrote at the time.

    What is the Judiciary Committee supposed to do? Assume she not only is lying, but that the Democrats put her up to it? That’s essentially what Republicans are saying. They refuse to allow a full investigation, and Kellyanne came up with the strategy that Kavanaugh was a victim merely by being questioned about his high school behavior. Susan Collins bought the argument, even though she opined that Al Franken should resign at the mere accusation of sexual impropriety. Her rationale? Innocent until proven guilty, and the Trump -controlled “investigation ” didn’t corroborate Dr. Ford’s testimony. Of course, the American people aren’t allowed to look at the FBI report to determine whether it was thorough, and 40+ witnesses aren’t going to be allowed to be interviewed or their evidence considered, all to avoid the change in power coming in November. Anyone who thinks this is fair is truly stupid or wiifully ignorant.

    1. LOL! In the warped mind of Natacha, it is perfectly rational to change her name to Anonymous and then continue posting the same unhinged blather. Reminds me of a 5 year old covering their eyes thinking no one can see them. 🙂

      1. Dr. Ford was either lying, telling the truth or mistaken. The only sure way to know is to thoroughly investigate, which Republicans wanted to avoid at all costs. So, the Kellyanne strategy was: calling her a liar outright would look bad, as would having old white men go after her, so they got a female surrogate who did the questioning, but also gratuitously threw in her opinion, so she’s really just a political hack providing cover.

        Therefore, give Republicans a hook: yes, Dr. Ford was assaulted, but she’s mistaken about the identity. Well, that’s almost calling her a liar, so let’s investigate, but control the investigation, so that the outcome would be certain: no corroboration . That’s to give the Susan Collinses of Congress a cover: you got your investigation, but there’s nothing there. Anyway, if anyone is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, it should be Kavanaugh. That’s where Turley’s little op-ed comes into play. He made up a fourth standard of proof that doesn’t exist, nor should it when a lifetime position is at issue. Turley: it’s wrong of you to abuse your credentials by claiming the existence of a burden of proof that is not recognized by law without qualifying your piece as purely your opinion. You didn’t sufficiently do that.

        Without a totally-unfettered and thorough investigation, all you have is politics as usual and Dr. Ford’s brave and credible testimony discarded. The same for Ms. Ramirez and the 40+ witnesses who want to be heard. Now, there are witnesses who are saying that Kavanaugh tried to round up former friends and acquaintances of his and Ms. Ramirez from Yale to get them to deny he exposed himself, and this was back in July, before she ever came forward. At the end of the day, it comes full circle after all: Dr. Ford is a liar, AND there’s the added bonus of blaming Democrats for turning Kavanaugh’s confirmation into a circus.

        What boggles my imagination is how Republicans like Collins can buy the argument that Democrats orchestrated Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez and the others to lie without there being any proof, and why, therefore, it’s OK for Kavanaugh to go on a partisan political rant about a political hit job with no proof whatsoever, which brings us back to Dr. Ford. She testified credibly that Kavanaugh attacked her while drunk. Were Democrats not supposed to be allowed to ask him about his drinking in high school, nor probe into references to sex and drunkenness that he himself wrote? Apparently not, according to Collins, because of the Kallyanne-orchestrated performance of phony righteous indignation she bought hook, line and sinker. Therefore we’re back to the premise that Dr. Ford is a liar, without actually branding her as such immediately when she came forward, which would have offended too many Republican women. Therefore, you get what you want, plus a dig at the Democrats, all while feeling right with God and your constituents.. That’s political gamesmanship at its finest.

        1. Natacha, the content of the investigation (of an event supposed to have taken place in 1982) is to record the statements of the people whose names she herself provided. They did not substantiate her claim. One bit. Another name she provided was Christopher Garrett, who might indicate something about whether or not she had been introduced to BK’s social circle. There is no indication from the statements of Swinestein and others that he said anything useful.

          You want the ‘investigation’ to continue because the actual investigations haven’t given you what you wanted. And, of course, the truth is not what you wanted.

          1. tabbarock

            Anyone that’s studied the coup d’etat on 11/22/63 in Dallas knew that the key element in the success of the conspiracy to assassinate JFK was using the FBI to conduct a bogus investigation. FBI = Fake Background Investigations.

        2. If Natacha only thought as much as she wrote she might trip over what actually happened and then, perhaps, a lightbulb would shine.

        3. “The only sure way to know is to thoroughly investigate, which Republicans wanted to avoid at all costs.”

          Riiiight. That’s why Republicans begged and begged Ford to come and testify on camera, testify off camera, testify in a private room, testify in a private room with one person at a time questioning her, testify in a private room with only a female questioning her, or testify over the phone in the comfort of her own home.

          Then, the only reason why we discovered that none of her named witnesses supported her story, was because Republicans investigated it. That’s also how we found out about her boyfriend, who said she was with him 6 years, flew often without complaint, lived in a tiny studio apartment with one door without a problem, and never talked about or showed any signs of being a sexual assault victim.

          Republicans also tried repeatedly, and failed, to obtain copies of her therapist notes, which she was happy to share in part with the media. She refused to share it with the committee.

          The FBI was given two directives – follow up on all credible allegations, and get it done within a week. Remember when Democrats said the FBI could investigate in just a few days like they did with Clarence Thomas? That they only needed a brief delay? The FBI finished in even less than a week. They followed up on her hours long testimony before the committee, done under the threat of perjury. They were unable to confirm any of her accusation. Nor could the committee. Nor could the frantically seeking Democrats.

          I think “wanted to avoid at all costs” does not mean what you think it means.

          Dr Ford scrubbed her social media of all traces of her extremist Democratic activism. Her husband said that when she first mentioned Kavanaugh’s name to him, she said she was afraid that he would get on the Supreme Court on day, indicating a political objective from day one. Her story was based upon a “repressed memory” which has been debunked by science as fake memories. She made material changes to her story, because the original two versions precluded Kavanaugh from even being in the same state. Originally, she was in her late teens, and 4 boys were in the room assaulting her. But Kavanaugh was off at college at that time. After a few changes, it became that she was 15 (the last year that he was even in the area). Her reason for finally settling on that timeline, stated on camera and under oath, was because after she got her license, she liked to drive herself. She does not remember driving to the party or back home. Of course, she does not remember how she traveled 20 miles back home. That is how she is certain that she was 15 – she does not remember how she got to a party 36 years ago, but if she had a license, she would have driven. We are to believe that, even though she liked to drive, she never once, not a single time, was a passenger to a party. Considering her own yearbook has extensive references to getting drunk and passing out, that means that she drank and drove, as a teenager. Passing out = gaps in her memory = gaps like not remembering how she got home.

          Of course, since this is a repressed memory, it’s a red flag for having never taken place. Her background as an extremist Liberal activist Trump hater, her changing story, her lack of tears during testimony while pretending to cry, none of her witnesses supporting her story, all add up to a lack of credibility.

          Unless we want to have a lynch mob travesty of justice, you don’t believe anyone. You don’t believe Kavanaugh and you don’t believe Ford’s testimony. You can be sympathetic, but you don’t believe any stranger. You only believe evidence. Evidence like witnesses contradicting her story. Her story changing is evidence. His calendar showing extensive records of his whereabouts. His list of 65 women who’ve known him for over 36 years, and they all said that he did not assault women. Men who assault women tend to…assault women. That’s what nailed Cosby. He kept doing it. There was a long history of women making similar accusations over the years. A chronological history. Plus, he admitted to drugging and sleeping with women.

          Compare and contrast to Kavanaugh, who was never accused of such a thing until he committed the mortal sin of accepting the nomination to the Supreme Court as a conservative. We all know what Liberals do to conservatives. His confirmation flipped a seat. Democrats openly bragged about their strategy to block him at all cost, and they sure tried. It was disgusting what they did.

          Such a case as Ford’s should have been brought to the committee when it was first made known to Feinstein. Then it should have been examined privately by the committee, Ford questioned behind closed doors, and her anonymity preserved. Her case would have fallen apart then, as it did now, and the committee would have been secure in the knowledge that her accusation did not hold water. Ford would not have been pilloried as an activist weaponizing a sexual assault accusation, or a liar, or someone who was just a very fragile person who got mistaken or taken advantage of by the Democrats.

          1. Excellent summary as usual, Karen. I think all these deniers ought to take the time to listen to Senator Collin’s speech on You Tube. I think it was around 40 minutes long but that might have incuded some prior and post discussions. She speaks slowly so one can speed it up to 2X and listen to it in 20 minutes or less.

            It was a fantastic speech and should have answered everyone’s questions but there are those that are doornob dumb where no amount of evidence will ever have an impact.

            1. Thanks, Allan. I’ll be sure to look up that speech when I have access to better WiFi.

    2. Anonymous – Chrissy’s yearbooks do not make her out to be a Girl Scout. And it appears her “Beach Friend” helped push the issue. The “Beach Friend” was the one Chrissy helped pass the polygraph. There is also about $1m in the GoFundMe accounts which cannot be traced back to the donors (Clinton Cash?).

      1. Why not let the FBI investigate all of these things instead of rushing a vote to fill a seat that has been vacant for way over a year?

        1. Because we only pretend to care about the truth. It’s in short supply in this country. Many don’t realize it.

        2. The FBI has investigated Kavanaugh seven times and it’s investigation into Blasey’s claims has been adequate. There’s no point in investigating the other accusers because their accusations are blatant rubbish.

        3. Anonymous – why not let the FBI investigate the possible/nigh probable perjury allegations against Chrissy and all the accusers?

      2. What the heck is a GoFundMe account set up for Ford? She’s a well to do professional living in Elite San Francisco. Her attorneys and travel were already paid for. Now she’s profiting off of her accusation?

        1. Karen S – there appear to be 5 GoFundMe accounts set up on Chrissy’s behalf that have raised about $1 million combined to this point. According to her testimony she does know how to access them. That could be true and someone else set them up on her behalf. That does not mean she will not benefit from them. Some Hollywood celebs have publicly said that they donated $10k each to the account. Supposedly, the attorneys are working pro bono. Bromwich the bearded one, resigned from his law firm to work on this (he had formerly been with the IG’s office) and really can’t afford to take a pro bono case. Katz is vp of a Soros-funded Resistance organization, plus she heads her own firm, so she can afford to take a pro bono case. I do not know anything about the third attorney.

          Because of the way GoFundMe is set up, we do know know who is donating or how much.

    3. “the only reason for his nomination is his extreme right-wing view of the law,” Such a statement requires a complete lack of knowledge about Kavananaugh’s career, which was highly endorsed by the American Bar Association, hardly likely if he was some extremist luny. But, don’t let the facts get in the way of spreading malicious gossip, Mean Girl.

      1. Kavanaugh never looked credible, never appeared to have the dignity required of a judge. He is just another rethug strategist nominated to insure Trump an easy time. Ford was far more credible. If Kavanaugh were decent why was he hiding most of his record? Why was the background check limited and one that ignored so many with knowledge of incidents? No this man is nothing more than a republican opportunistic operative and justice is the last thing on his mind

        1. He’s passed 7 background checks. As for Blasey, the tale she tells to the counselor in 2012 does not match the tale she tells Eshoo in 2018. She provably lied about ancillary matters – about the offer to give her statement in California, about her fear of flying, and about her home building project. All four people she names as having been present at this ‘incident’ have no memory of it, neither her name nor her initials appear on Kavanaugh’s surviving 1982 calendar, and no one has come forward with any evidence that she was ever acquainted with Kavanaugh or Judge and nothing in their pattern of associations suggests it is at all likely that the would be acquainted. Her BFF was explicit that she’d not met any Brett Kavanaugh that she could recall.

          That’s what passes as ‘credible’ among partisan Democrats. They’re not worth much anymore.

Comments are closed.