Brett Kavanaugh

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
The left has a rich history of politicizing and undermining the autonomy of the Supreme Court. Democrats put litmus tests on their sides appointments, and accuse the other side of doing the same -- but the truth is the right does not have to: their side fight for Constitutional originalism which limits federal power, while the left fights for activists who will invent laws from the bench (thus they need to know what those laws might be). This started with Samuel Chase and impeachment from the court in 1803 over judicial overreach and bad behavior. But in modern times the left invented slow rolling the other sides appointments, or outright blocking them on specious grounds. Then they invented the concept of "Borking" which is inventing lame excuses to slander justices to get them to withdraw, and undermine what is clearly a Presidential power. Ted Kennedy had actually tried it on Bill Rehnquist, immediately before Bork, but it had failed -- but the success of Bork'ing Bork, got them to repeated the effort with Douglas Ginsburg (successfully), and Clearance Thomas (unsuccessfully), and they still harass Thomas as a sexual deviant or Uncle Tom to this day. The latest was over Brett Kavanaugh. The far left had pre-printed posters to hate on whichever of the dozen Justices that Trump picked -- not for actual flaws in their character, or over bad rulings/behavior, but because they don't like constitutionalists on the court, and they were trying to get the Republicans back over their anger at not getting Merick Garland. They even leaked press releases with "{Insert Justice's Name Here}" in place of the actual justices name by accident. This wasn't about who was picked, it was that the far left (and their media) wasn't getting to stack the Supreme Court with anti-Constitutional radicals and so they found a far left activist to invent an unprovable claim of sexual harassment (back in the 10th grade: 36 years ago), and turned the process into a #metoo witch hunt.

Merrick Garland was a progressive judicial pick, that had the poor fortune of being picked by an unpopular President at an improper time: after his party had promised on multiple occasions that Supreme Court judges should not be placed during an election year. The Republicans force-fed the Democrats their wishes... and the Democrats went along because they thought their anointed Hillary would win the election, and they'd get to parlay into an even MORE leftist Judge (like Barack Obama, in exchange for his support of her). They lost, and had post-election meltdown that their gamble didn't work out the way they wanted, while ignoring that 30 of 113 appointments to the Supreme Court were never confirmed (25-30%). Despite the media's lies, no unpopular President's lame duck appointments has ever been approved while the opposition party controlled the Senate. Ever. In the 20th Century, the Republicans had never blocked a Democrat appointment, while the Democrats blocked 10 of the Republicans, 1 of their own, and tried to sabotage 2 others.


Initial Reaction

So because Kavanaugh will follow the law of the land (Constitution) and require that if you want to legislate, you have to do it through the legislature (not through a court of Oligarchs), the left is losing their minds. Some examples included.
  • NBC (reporter Leigh Ann Caldwell) invented a narrative that Kavanaugh was picked because of a backroom deal that Trump and Justice Kennedy made -- that Kennedy would retire if Trump picked Kavanaugh. It's an absurd conspiracy theory, and when even other far left stations started questioning it, they walked it back and admitted it likely didn't happen and they had no evidence to support their claim that it had. [1] Of course Hollywood liberals, all jumped and outraged at the FakeNews story.
  • ABC had prewarmed their outrage-machine engines, hours before the pick, by pre-announcing tonights coverage of "controversial" pick, hours before the pick was made. [2] Which goes to show they were prepared to be outraged, no matter who was picked.
  • CNN first warned that Trump would pick Judge Amy Coney Barrett because she was a woman, and so they started denigrating her in a campaign to undermine the eventual pick (like saying it was just because of her looks, etc). Then when Trump surprised them by going with Kavanaugh, they shifted to claiming it was a sexist snub to not have picked her. This was by the same person (Chris Cuomo) who had defended against the claim that CNN was an “anti-Trump” news media outlet. [3] Sure, because damned if he picks her, damned if he doesn't, is what fair and balanced looks like to CNN.

    Then CNN went on to claim that because Kavanaugh has aligned with the majority of the court before on whether Presidents should be shielded from Litigation while serving, that this is why Trump picked him. (As if one justices opinion mattered). [4] They also do a lot of hand-waiving on Roe and Abortion -- but judges aren't supposed to rule on that, and they have nothing to back up their claims, or they would have put it in the article.
  • Gabby Giffords’ statement sums it up, "“In nominating Judge Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice, the Trump Administration is once again showing brazen disregard for the people it claims to protect. Judge Kavanaugh’s dangerous views on the Second Amendment are far outside the mainstream of even conservative thought and stand in direct opposition to the values and priorities of the vast majority of Americans."[5] What are the views that are so outside the mainstream? That he sided with multiple prior Supreme Court rulings that upheld that the right to bear arms is an individual right, and that you can't outlaw guns just because they have decorator parts that make them look scarier to the uninformed.
  • Elizabeth Warren showed up to an impromptu and spontaenous protest, with a pre-printed script that she read from. [6]
  • Kirsten Gillibrand (NY Senator) promised to stand by her pledge to violate her oath of office and the Constitution, by blocking any appointment by Trump (until after the election). [7]
  • Chuck Schumer followed suit, vowing to oppose Kavanaugh's nomination "with everything I have," and of course lots of hand-wavey stuff about Women's reproductive rights, and so on. Either he doesn't know what's the difference between the Judiciary and Legislature, or he's hope his gullible base doesn't.
  • Bernie Sanders promised, "Nothing is more important now than doing everything in our power to stop the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court". Um, why?[8] Never mind, a cranky millionaire socialists view of the Constitution isn't worth entertaining.
  • Five Democratic senators and Judiciary Committee ranking members were invited to the nomination announcement. In a show of bipartisan good faith and approaching this in an open and unbiased manner, all five declined: Dianne Feinstein (CA), Joe Donnelly (In), Doug Jones (Al), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Joe Manchin (WV).
  • Hollywood took it about how you'd expect a bunch of tantruming High School Drop-out and other drama queens might. The Constitution sucks, you suck, I'm going to fling dirt and pout. [9]

There were immediate pre-planned, "spontaneous" astroturf protests against the pick. With entire sets of pre-printed signs ready to go -- so no matter which of the 5 finalists was chosen, there could be equal outrage. But they were hostile, caustic, and FoxNews' Shannon Bream decided to flee the threatening place, rather than risk injury to crew. [10]

Their attacks on him cover a spectrum of reasons why he isn't qualified: his name is Brett, he drank beer in college, he likes baseball and bought season tickets once, he has two daughters, he might not vote how they want (he's a textualist that respects the Constitution as written), he's a white male, he will kill people (seriously), and while the media is OK calling Ivanka Trump a feckless cunt, Kavanaugh may have once mouthed the word "bitch" to Hillary Clinton (according to a single anti-conservative and anonymous source). Wow, how could anyone get on the Supreme Court with such a dastardly record of being normal? [11]

The conservatives are over the moon with the pick, and Kavanaugh's "Gold Plated Résumé. Black Leaders applaud Kavanaugh's nomination[12] As Mitt Romney said, "Esteemed by his colleagues, faithful to the Constitution, a record of thoughtful decisions, and already confirmed for the DC Circuit; Brett Kavanaugh has the right stuff." Even the New York Times (Akhil Amar) wrote "A Liberal's Case for Brett Kavanaugh", which agreed with Trump's assessment that Kavanaugh is "someone with impeccable credentials, great intellect, unbiased judgment, and deep reverence for the laws and Constitution of the United States.” But Liberal's don't rule the DNC, the Progressives and Socialists do.

When Kavanaugh was approved to the federal bench back in 2006, it was during one of the Democrats many fits of blocking all Conservative Judges for years. (3 years in Kavanaugh's case). Basically, this was just a tantrum that he was being appointed by Bush -- but he was finally approved 57-36. The Democrats later complained when the Republicans slow-rolled some of the Democrat judicial appointments for Obama, as a tit-for-tat play -- but since the Democrats have no memories for their bad behavior (and the media won't hold them accountable for it), they forgot why that happened.


The whole Kavanaugh hearings have nothing to do with Brett Kavanaugh, they have to do with rage over losing the election to Trump, and having Obama's, "Elections have consequences" crammed down their throats.

If the Democrats had any wits at all, they'd have kept their powder dry and saved their histrionics for when RBG or one of the liberals on the court dies or retires, and Trump tries to replace them. Instead they waste their ammo firing wild. Like:

  1. They first stupidly used the Nuclear Option (no filibuster) back in Obama's term on a few lower level circuit judges -- and Republicans warned at the time, if you set this precedent, we'll use it when we win. Dems did it, and howled when the Republicans used the new standard against them.
  2. Then when Neil Gorsuch was picked off the list, as Trump had promised during the campaign, the Democrats had a fit. The election was won with the public knowing what they were getting, and the Democrats screamed unfair. It was a stupid waste of energy that helped them in the short term, but diluted the impact they'd have when the next guy got picked.
  3. Then Justice Kennedy decided to retire, and since he was a Constitutionalist/Conservative, he would be replaced by another Constitutionalist (instead of leftist activist, which is what the Dems wanted). Trump again went to the list he'd promised voters, and picked another moderate Constitutionalist, Brett Kavanaugh, and the left had this fit of unsportsmanlike conduct, that showed everyone they're irrational children, crying because they didn't win.

All this dilutes their power for the next one. And if one of the anti-Constitutional far-left justices dies in office, or retires during a Trump second term, it'll be delicious to watch. The boy who cried wolf, will be ignored, because his screaming the last few times, was over nothing. Everything they promised about women being marginalized in society, and shoot outs on the streets because of respecting the 2nd Amendment will have not come to fruition -- and another generation will be taught to ignore the hysterical left, and their media.


  1. Democrats screamed bloody murder when Kavanaugh was announced, how dare the Republicans appoint constitutionalist judges
  2. The leftist media spins the argument as far right versus liberal Judges. But the left isn't liberal, and that's a false spectrum. There might be far right Judges in theory, but for the last 50+ years, while the left appoints activists who imagine what the Constitution/Law should have said from a progressive leftist PoV, that's not what the right does the other way. The right appoints judges who will do their jobs, not politicize the court, and just interpret the law/precedent and Constitution as written, not as they imagine it should be. That doesn't mean they are flawless in all cases, and some rulings do get bias leak in. But in general the spectrum is far left versus centrist/originalist, and no far right judges have been appointed in my lifetime (or that I can remember).
  3. Not 5 seconds into the announcement of the meeting, Democrats had interrupted in a coordinated attack to create distractions and obstruct the process by demanding a recess/dismissal (60 times) so they could read "documents", and assess whether the Justice was worthy -- after already pledging that they would vote "no", no matter what. [13]And ignore that they had 2 months before this hearing to do their research -- and that more documentation had been released on this judge, than any in the last 30+ years.
  4. Then the Senators coordinated with (and paid?) outside agitators' to come in (like far left anti-Semitic terrorist sympathizer Linda Sarsour and and create disruptions and screaming fits, over 100 times (in the first couple days), and disrupt proceedings.[14]
  5. There has been nothing like this since a Democratic congressman strode into the US Senate chamber and beat a Republican senator senseless with a cane in 1856--while a second Democratic congressman prevented other senators from interfering. Now back to constant talk of President Donald Trump's flouting of our civility norms.
  6. Then you had a series of far left Democrats, who had already committed to voting no on the Constitutionalist Kavanaugh, demanding time to be heard, and making stupid statements showing how little of the law they understood. Including:
    • Corey Booker (a big mouthed hypocrite that epitomizes the far left) was screaming that it was unjust that secret documents weren't being revealed and they proved that Kavanaugh was a horrid and unfit Justice because of his racism (racial profiling), and that he was going to break the Senate rules and release the documents to save the American Public, to the cheers of his colleagues on the far-left. Which he did. But the documents had already been cleared for release, and they didn't show any of what multiple days of histrionics had implied -- proving Booker to be just another loudmouthed liar, and the people that believed Kavanaugh was a racist, to be rubes. [15]
    • DiFi (Diane Feinstein) tries to lecture a district court judge and law professor on case precedent and gets owned. She tries to argue that while Americans widely owned semi-automatics, that doesn't mean they use them, and thus they are covered under Heller. It means exactly that, and it's precedent/case-law, and real Justices follow precedent. Democrat Justices may or may not. Of course Diane then went on to caterwaul about how people would die if he interpreted the law correctly and respected the Constitution. [16]
    • Kamala Harris and others on the far-left, all invented a FakeNews story the CNN and other far-left outlets ran with. It happened when a far left activist and father of a Parkland shooting victim (Fred Guttenberg), tweeted that he was going to go to the hearings to get Kavanaugh disqualified. Then he claims he was snubbed by Kavanaugh because "he didn't want deal with the reality of gun violence". Of course he's a Democrat activist which means he lied. What actually happened (because it was caught on tape) is that a stranger who nobody knows by sight, talked to the back of Kavanaugh (who was already leaving) and when Brett turned out, security was already intervening, and he went on his merry way. He, like most people had no idea who Guttenberg is, not does he want to touch the grimes paws of some activist stranger who was only there to play gotcha politics. Of course the FakeNews media all jumped on it as a story, by omitting the context of what happened. But sadly for them, the video showed how dishonest they were. (The video wasn't shown on CNN). And another Parkland father ripped Guttenberg for trying to weaponize their tragedy. [17]
    • Of the best of all, all the far lefties and FakeNews outlets claimed that a lady (Zina Bash-Gelman) sitting behind Kavanaugh, was giving White Power hand signs, because she may have picked her nails and accidentally made the "OK" gesture. Never mind that the invention that the "OK" gesture means "White-Power" was a 4Chan creation to troll the gullible left, or that Zina was actually half Jewish and half Latino. The far left was apoplectic and tweeting about #StopKavanaugh because he was a Racist Judge, with Racist friends. Hey, when the facts aren't on your side, then you grasp at straws -- and virtually all the left picked at this straw. [18]

The Republicans got a few good counter-shots in, calling out the stupidity, like Ted Cruz [19], or Ben Sasse just calling the left on their bullshit[20], or Republicans pointing out that none of these Democrats that care so much about Kavanaugh, bothered to meet with him ahead of time (as is the norm and was offered). Not one of them. And most of the drama just made the Democrats look dishonest or stupid. I mean everyone rational had to laugh at their whole White Power conspiracy theory stuff.



As was expressed in my Supreme Court article and others, Democrats aren't afraid of the Conservative bias, they fear a Constitutional bias. If they don't have enough over-emotional partisans that rule based on feelings, then the Constitution might reign supreme: and the rule of law is definitely against them. It means they'd have to pass things through the legislature. So that's why they're mad at Trump and Brett Kavanaugh: they both promised to follow the rule of law, and not the emotions of partisan Democrats. So the chart[21] shows where the justices fit on that spectrum, and Kavanaugh is hated because he takes an unreliable swing vote away from the activist side of the court, and delivers a more reliable constitutional (originalist/textualist) jurist that will protect against further progressive corruption and politicization of the court. And they hate that.

There is no other jurist that is as qualified as he is: deep judicial record, having written about 300 opinions. No one has sent more of his law clerks to clerk for the justices of the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh taught courses at leading law schools and published notable law review articles (so is both academic/scholar and practicing Judge). And technically that's the only thing the Senate is filtering for: is he qualified. The answer is yes. All the histrionics of the left, shows that they don't care what the law actually is, they just want to get their way, or will have a meltdown like the immature little children than they are.


📚 References
  1. NBC:
  2. ABC:
  3. CNN:
  4. More CNN:
  5. Giffords:
  6. Warren:
  7. Gillibrand:
  8. Bernie:
  9. Hollywood:
  10. FoxNews:
  11. Disqualifications:
  12. Black Leaders:
  13. 5 seconds:
  14. Disrupt:
  15. Booker:
  16. DiFi getting PWND:
  17. Guttenberg:
  18. Latino-Jew and White Power:
  19. Ted Cruz:
  20. Ben Sasse:
  21. Chart:

More Links

Red Flags - 1. The accuser uses the press instead of the process. 2. The accuser times releasing the accusation for an advantage. 3. The accuser attacks the process instead of participating. 4. When the accused’s opportunity to mount a defense is delegitimized. 5. The accuser seeks to force the accused to defend himself or herself before committing to a final version. 6. The accused makes a strong and unequivocal denial. 7. The accuser makes unusual demands to modify or control the process. 8. When the accuser’s ability to identify the accused has not been properly explained. 9. When witnesses don’t corroborate. 10. When corroborating witnesses simply repeat the accusation of the accuser but don’t have fresh information.


Title IX / Campus abuses against men and due process

Male Rape Victims more common than female (or at least than expected).

Kavanaugh - Confirm

Written: 2018.07.10