TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
Treating the Court as a Political Branch
.
Kavanaugh confirmed to Supreme Court
after bitter fight, securing rightward shift
by Adam Shaw
{foxnews.com} ~ The Senate voted Saturday to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, marking the end to one of the most rancorous confirmation fights in modern times... and securing a rightward shift on the nation’s highest court. The chamber voted 50-48 to confirm Kavanaugh, mostly along party lines, after a weeklong FBI probe helped settle concerns among most wavering senators about the sexual assault allegations that nearly derailed his nomination and led to a dramatic second hearing. Saturday’s roll call marked the tightest successful Supreme Court confirmation vote in over 100 years, closer than even that of Clarence Thomas who similarly faced sexual misconduct allegations. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. was the sole dummycrats-Democrat to vote “yes.” Sen. rino-Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, was a “no,” but voted “present” as a courtesy to Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., who was attending his daughter’s wedding in Montana. dummycrats-Democrats reacted to the vote by urging supporters to turn out to the polls in November for the midterms...Now That Kavanaugh is Cleared, Let's Look at THESE Dems
{americanactionnews.com} ~ Throughout the confirmation process, Senate dummycrats-Democrats have persecuted Judge Brett Kavanaugh with unsubstantiated allegations... When those came up short, the Left resorted to all but calling Kavanaugh an alcoholic. Speaking of dummycrats-Democrats and drinking problems, here are a couple of dummycrats-Democrats that tend to overindulge the media and electorate ought to look into: 1) Cocaine is a helluva drug, and Marion Barry had a bit of a coke habit. Of course, when we say "a bit" we mean police officers arrested the Washington, D.C. mayor in 1990 for possession of crack-cocaine. In 1991, Berry lost the mayoral race – but that didn’t stop him, he went on to win in 1995 though and take his D.C. seat back. 2) Ann Richards, The last dummycrats-Democrat elected statewide in Texas had a bit of drinking problem, so much so she went to rehab for it. Where exactly was the liberal inquisition of her? 3) Bobby Scott, This Virginia dummycrats-Democrat stands accused of sexual harassment by a former aide. The aide accused the congressman of touching her in inappropriate ways on two separate occasions. These allegations were never looked into and, tellingly, dummycrats-Democrats haven't made a peep. 4) Lyndon B. Johnson, Contemporaries knew Johnson to be a notorious drinker in the Senate and later the White House. His behavior never changed during his political career, even amid the quagmire in Vietnam. After his heart attack, Johnson told his doctor that he only enjoyed three things in life “whiskey, sunshine, and sex.” 5) Karen McCarthy, another heavy drinker and elected representative, wound up in rehab back in 2003. Notice the trend here? It seems dummycrats-Democrats are untouchable whereas Republicans are routinely crucified. Is this reality or just mere coincidence? Just a few, but you get the picture. https://americanactionnews.com/index
.They’re Women Who Support Kavanaugh.
So the Media Ignored Them.
by Kelsey HarknessNew York Grants Hundreds Of Thousands Of
Taxpayer Dollars To Islamic Terror-Tied Organizations
by PAMELA GELLER
{freedomoutpost.com} ~ Can you imagine any American city gifting Hitler’s U.S. proxies taxpayer-funded grants?... New York’s new grant program likely reflects the increasing influence that terror-tied CAIR has in City Hall. Worth noting is that CAIR-NY President Zead Ramadan is a significant donor to New York politicians, including Mayor Bill DeBlasio. These low lives so easily bought. We have long known the strategy of the terrorist strategy of Muslim Brotherhood groups ie CAIR, ISNA, MSA, et al for infiltration and stealth overthrow of American law, but it is the ease in which they achieved unimaginable success in a post 9/11 America that is astonishing — the level of access, infiltration and influence in the highest level of government and media. During the course of the largest terrorist funding trial in our nations history, the Holy Land Foundation trial, many incriminating documents were entered into evidence. Perhaps the most significant of these was “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” employing US Muslim Brotherhood … What the hell is wrong with you NY..
Trump calls on Tester to resign over Ronny Jackson
allegations: ‘His reputation has been shattered’
by Joseph Weber .
Treating the Court as a Political Branch
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
{townhall.com} ~ Harsh winds are blowing on Capitol Hill. The hoped-for and feared clash between Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh and his principal accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, has come and gone, with all of its calculated and spontaneous outbursts, as well as gut-wrenching emotion.
Dr. Ford subjected herself to the public humiliation of revealing an intimate and horrific event, and she did so with grace and credibility. Judge Kavanaugh subjected himself to absurd questions about his youth, and he offered compelling denials with ferocity and indignation.
At the end of the Ford testimony, it seemed Kavanaugh was at the bottom of a pit. At the end of his testimony, it seemed he had climbed out. His denials of having sexually assaulted Ford 36 years ago lacked the dignity and impartiality that the law requires of federal judges, but his anger and political accusations were understandable for a man who believes he has been falsely accused in such a way as to taint his reputation for the rest of his life.
Whom should we believe?
In this setting, there were few rules and no burdens of proof. Ford surely did not prove that a youthful Kavanaugh assaulted her, and Kavanaugh surely did not disprove it. But the setting was not a court of law. It was a political setting utilizing legal tools -- taking oaths to tell the truth, confronting one's accuser, being subjected to cross-examination -- the goal of which was to create a general impression of believability. In that respect, both Ford and Kavanaugh succeeded.
Then a strange series of events happened.
After all interrogations were completed and after all Senate Judiciary Committee members made public statements, the committee voted along party lines, 11 to 10, to recommend sending Kavanaugh's nomination to the floor of the Senate. This was only a symbolic vote, because committee approval is not required under Senate rules as a precondition for a full Senate vote. Then the committee voted by consensus to ask the White House to dispatch the FBI to reopen its background investigation of Kavanaugh for seven days.
It is quite simply unprecedented and unheard of for the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask for FBI agents to investigate a nominee after he has testified about the subject of the investigation and after the committee has approved his nomination. If the new FBI investigation is a genuine search for evidence, there should be no time limit imposed. What will the committee do if the FBI finds evidence of unworthiness for office or if it needs more time? Will the committee reopen hearings and take another meaningless vote?
This is a perilous investigation for Judge Kavanaugh because he has already testified under oath about the subjects of the investigation. It would have been fairer to all involved had the FBI been called in before last Thursday's testimony as was done in the similar Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas episode in 1991.
In his testimony, Kavanaugh gave the clear impression to the Senate Judiciary Committee that in his youth he was not a heavy drinker who became belligerent or who blacked out. Drinking to excess and becoming belligerent or somnolent after drinking in one's youth are, of course, not criminal acts unless someone is harmed thereby.
However, lying about any of this under oath can constitute perjury, and giving a false impression about any of it to Congress or to congressional investigators -- even if one's words are literally accurate -- can constitute the independent crime of misleading Congress.
If the FBI finds credible evidence to substantiate perjury or misleading Congress by Kavanaugh, his nomination and his current tenure as a federal judge are doomed.
And the FBI will dig. Its agents have legal responsibilities and ethical obligations that transcend instructions given to them by their superiors. If agents come upon evidence of crimes, they are required to pursue the evidence, no matter the time consumed or the political consequences.
Why is this nomination the subject of such rancor?
I have argued countless times that the federal government has grossly exceeded the limitations the Constitution imposes on it. Wherever you are as you read these words, look around you and try to find something in your line of sight that is not regulated by the federal government. It will be nearly impossible. Today the feds regulate not only our personal private behavior but also the states that created the federal government. More than half of each state's budgetary expenditures are mandated by the feds.
And passing final judgment on all this -- ratifying the Wilsonian view of the federal government the feds may do whatever there is a political will to do, except that which the Constitution expressly prohibits and eschewing the Madisonian view the feds may do only what the Constitution expressly authorizes -- is the Supreme Court.
As the reach of federal power has expanded, the power of the Supreme Court to restrain or unleash that reach has expanded. Add to this the life tenure of Supreme Court justices and the mania for re-election of members of Congress and you can recognize the slow transfer of governmental power from the elected branches to the unelected one.
Should the right to life and the extent of the imperial presidency and whether the government is obligated to provide health care be decided by elected representatives or by the Supreme Court? From those who expect the high court to decide these issues -- a court now evenly split, 4 to 4, along ideological lines -- is it any wonder the Kavanaugh nomination is worth a bitter battle?
The Supreme Court should not be political. It is the anti-democratic branch of government. Its constitutional obligation is not to do the people's will but to preserve personal liberty from the tyranny of the majority.
Comments