Archive for the ‘Confirmation Hearings’ Category

Though she didn’t admit it during her interview with KSTP’s Tom Hauser, Tina Smith’s dipping and dodging said that she’s a yes vote for packing the US Supreme Court. When asked if she’d vote to expand the Supreme Court and blow up the Constitution, Sen. Smith said “It is completely premature to talk about what we would do with the Supreme Court because we don’t know what the situation is going to be. I’m going to wait and see what happens. But let’s be clear here. What is happening right now is the Republicans are packing the court by pushing through the Supreme Court nominee against the will of the American public who believe the next president, whoever that person may be, should be the one who appoints the next Supreme Court justice. They changed their rules in order to push people onto the Supreme Court that they want to have there and that’s what they’re trying to distract us all from now.”

Sen. Smith is dodging answering the question because she wants to have another 6 years in office for people to forget about her vote to dismantle the Constitution. Voting to expand the Supreme Court is a vote to dismantle the Constitution because the Constitution relies on consisting of 2 political branches and a judicial, non-political branch.

This past week gave Democrats 3 days to tell America that their preference for a Supreme Court justice was a politician in a black robe. Democrats kept asking Judge Barrett whether she’d take into consideration the impact her decisions might have if confirmed. Judge Barrett consistently said that it’s her job to interpret the law, not write the law.

If anything is obvious, it’s that Tina Smith votes with Sen. Schumer 95+ percent of the time. Here’s what Sen. Schumer recently said about destroying the Supreme Court and the Constitution:

Once you have unified Democrat DC government, the Supreme Court will become a political branch of government. The constitutional principle of checks and balances will disappear forever. The Constitution is supposed to be a limiting document in that it’s supposed to limit government. The more that government invades our lives, the fewer choices We The People have.

I’m positive that Sen. Jason Lewis would vote against expanding the Supreme Court, thereby dismantling the Constitution. I’m as positive of that as I’m positive that Tina Smith would vote for expanding the Supreme Court and dismantling the Constitution.

Because they’re the party of government, Democrats generally don’t like limiting government. The Democrats’ worst nightmare the past 5 years was RBG dying with a Republican president and a Republican majority in the US Senate. Now their worst nightmare has happened, they’re thinking of ways to change the rules. That’s why expanding the Supreme Court is imperative to Democrats. To do that, they need Tina Smith in the Senate so Democrats can become the majority. They need unified Democrat governance in DC.

This week, Judge Amy Coney Barrett conducted a 3-day Constitutional Law class. The excellent news is that it didn’t cost the public a dime. The even better news is that it cost Democrats momentum going into the election. The best news is that it taught America the proper functions of the 3 branches of government. When each Democrat started their questioning of Judge Barrett, it often started with an inquiry into the ACA. Would she be the 5th vote that overturned the ACA? Would she strip 10,000,000 Americans with pre-existing conditions of their health care?

They were met with a force of nature nicknamed ACB. She didn’t speak truth to power. She spoke truth to ignoramuses. ACB told Democrats that Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton assigned specific responsibilities to the 3 branches. ACB said that the Legislative Branch writes laws, the Executive Branch enforces laws and that the Judicial Branch interprets laws. Then ACB committed her greatest sin, saying that fixing laws was the Legislative Branch’s responsibility, not the Judicial Branch’s. Give Sen. Sasse an assist for teaching part of that class:

One Democrat question after another essentially pleaded with Judge ACB to change from her evil ways. Please Judge ACB, won’t you join Justices Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor in rewriting laws that we don’t like? As the confirmation hearings wore on, Judge ACB stuck with her principles.

It was a beautiful thing to watch. The best part of the confirmation hearings was knowing that Americans watching the confirmation hearings were getting a world-class civics and Constitutional Law lesson. The more people learn about the Constitution’s principles, the more likely it is that they’ll revert back to a limited government model.

The other thing that needs to be straightened out is the ‘Constitution is a living, breathing document’ thing. The Constitution is a limiting document. Madison, Hamilton and Jefferson wanted the Constitution to limit government while empowering people. It’s also a framework document. Laws are judged to be constitutional or unconstitutional (enforceable or unenforceable) based on the Constitution.

Laws should change through negotiation, not force. In a Senate with the filibuster removed, laws could be changed without negotiation. That’s a disaster waiting to happen. The Constitution shouldn’t be changed except in rare instances where a change is obvious to the entire nation.

In 2018, Democrats insisted that then-Judge Kavanaugh shouldn’t be presumed innocent. Sen. Schumer, the Democrat Minority Leader, said that in this press availability:

By comparison, Nancy Pelosi insisted that Joe Biden be afforded due process rights:

Let’s be clear about this. Democrats are world-class hypocrites. During his disastrous interview with Mika Brzezinski, Joe Biden said that his life “was an open book.” Then he said that he wouldn’t let his congressional records be searched for any records related to Tara Reade. Biden insisted that they wouldn’t find anything because “it never, ever happened.”

First, Biden painted himself into a corner by saying that his Senate documents contained speeches from the Senate floor, in addition to white papers and other work-related documents. That means that the documents aren’t his. They belong to We The People.

Next and most importantly, Dr. Blasey-Ford’s friends didn’t offer corroboration that substantiated Dr. Ford’s allegations:

It wasn’t the quality of the allegation that led to this reaction. Blasey Ford had no evidence she had ever met Kavanaugh, much less that he had tried to rape her. She wasn’t sure about any detail related to the event other than that she had precisely one beer and that Kavanaugh had tried to rape her.

She didn’t know how she got to the alleged event, where it was, how she got home, or whose house it was. None of the four witnesses she identified to reporters as having been at the event in question supported her claim. That included her close friend Leland Keyser, who was pressured by mutual acquaintances to change her testimony that she had no recollection of the event in question. Kavanaugh had an army of close friends and supporters who testified to his character throughout his adolescence and adulthood.

Compare that with Tara Reade’s accusation:

For instance, Reade has evidence she met Biden. No one disputes she worked for him in 1993. Further, she has incredibly strong evidence that she told multiple people that Biden assaulted her at the time she claimed it happened. Her own mother called into CNN’s Larry King show to discuss the matter in 1993!

Democrat women senators unanimously insisted that Kavanaugh wasn’t fit to serve on the Supreme Court. Those same Democrat senators aren’t wavering a bit about Creepy Joe Biden:

The big question is whether those Democrat senators, starting with Mazie Hirono, will “shut up and step up”, then do the right thing. It’s time that she, especially, should apologize for her unhinged antics.

If people needed additional proof that today’s Democrats are hate-filled and fact-deprived, they need only check out E.J. Dionne’s latest fact-deprived column. Included in Dionne’s scribbling is this BS, which says “The costs of this approach were underscored this weekend by a New York Times report that offers new corroboration for charges by Deborah Ramirez that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her when both were undergraduates at Yale. In denying the charge, Kavanaugh told the Senate that had it been true, the incident would have been ‘the talk of the campus.’ Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly — drawing on their new book, ‘The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation’, write tellingly: ‘Our reporting suggests that it was.'”

I’d love hearing Dionne’s explanation for this column after this information came to light:

In a major revision late Sunday, a Times editor’s note added a significant detail — that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the purported sexual assault in question at all. The Times also stated for the first time that the alleged victim had refused to be interviewed and has made no comment about the episode.

“Significant detail”, my arse. That’s a bombshell that just dropped in the middle of the NYTimes’ building. That begs the question of where these ‘authors’ got this information from. Did they make it up? Did a third party spoon-feed them this allegation? Wherever it came from, it certainly isn’t truth-based.

Check this out:

Here is the institutionally devastating part of their story: Ramirez’s legal team gave the FBI a list of “at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence” of her story. The bureau, the authors report, “interviewed none of them.” Nor did the FBI look into Stier’s account.

It’s worth noting that “Stier” is a Clinton lawyer:

The Times did not mention Stier’s work as a Clinton defense attorney, or Stier’s legal battles with Kavanaugh during the Whitewater investigation, and simply called him a “respected thought leader.”

Keep that in mind when reading this from E.J. Dionne’s column:

Stier is president of the thoroughly bipartisan and widely respected Partnership for Public Service. From my experience, he is the last person who would want to get into the middle of an ideological fight — unless his conscience required him to.

Let’s speculate a little. It’s possible that Mr. Dionne’s perspective on Stier is shaded by what I’d call Washingtonitis, sometimes known as DCitis. Remember how often the DC media told us that Robert Mueller was a straight shooter and how Jim Comey was a “boy scout”? How many people still think that?

Like the NYTimes, I’m betting that E.J. Dionne is wiping egg off his face. This is pretty much the only thing in Dionne’s article that I agree with:

But it was such a sharply constrained investigation that neither Kavanaugh nor Ford was questioned, and the other allegations against Kavanaugh were ignored. “The process was a sham,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), a member of the Judiciary Committee who is seeking her party’s presidential nomination, said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” She was not being hyperbolic. In the wake of the new revelations, three other Democratic contenders quickly called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment.

There’s no question that the process was a sham. At the last minute, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats brought forth one unsubstantiated allegation after another. What’s most disgusting is that they’re still bringing forth unsubstantiated hate-filled allegations after Justice Kavanaugh has been confirmed.

Initially, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats wanted to disqualify then-Judge Kavanaugh the ‘normal way’. When it became apparent that wouldn’t work, Democrats chose the unsubstantiated allegations path. This is a slimy path only used by hate-filled ideologues. Thank God for Lindsey Graham’s speech:

Lindsey Graham laid out the crap that Justice Kavanaugh and his family went through. That’s the real sham. Democrats should be obliterated for their vicious conduct. May E.J. Dionne and Senate Judiciary Democrats rot in hell together.

While campaigning, then-Candidate Trump would say that Americans would get tired of all the winning if they elected him. As the 2020 election nears, Victor Davis Hanson has written this article that’s appropriately titled “Trumped Out?” I’m not. Give me 4 more years of this. I’m loving it.

Hanson is apparently loving it, too:

The August jobs report “unexpectedly” reminds us that never have so many Americans been at work. The 3.7 percent unemployment rate continues to be the lowest peacetime unemployment figure in 50 years. Black and Hispanic unemployment remain at record lows. Workers’ wages continue to rise. Talk of recession is belied by low interest, low inflation, low unemployment and a strong stock market. The result is that millions of Americans enjoy far better lives than they had in 2016.

If President Trump isn’t re-elected, what will happen? Here’s Hanson’s opinion into that:

When we look to alternatives, all we seem to hear is multi-trillion-dollar hare-brained schemes from radical progressives and socialists masquerading as Democrats at a time of record national debt. The Green New Deal, Medicare for All, free healthcare for illegal aliens, reparations, the abolition of $1.5 trillion in student loan debt, and free tuition for all—are the stuff of fantasies and either would have to be repudiated by any of the Democratic nominees who actually was elected, or would destroy an already indebted nation.

That doesn’t sound attractive. That’s what would likely happen with a Democrat president. Democrats control the House. The woman who really runs the House is so radical that she thinks this isn’t radical enough. I’m not talking about Nancy Pelosi. I’m talking about AOC. This is what awaits us if AOC ever assumes total control:

But these are not normal times. There is (for now) no longer a Democratic Party. Instead, it is a revolutionary Jacobin movement that believes socialism is our salvation, that identity politics is our creed, that gun confiscation is our duty, that the abrupt end of fossil fuels is coming very soon, that open borders is our new demography, and that the archetypical unmarried, childless, urban hipster is our model woke citizen.

Over my dead body. President Trump has had quite the effect on otherwise timid Republicans. Check out the ‘Trump effect’ on Lindsey Graham:

It’s important that traditional-thinking people decimate today’s AOC Democrats. They’re despicable. They’re the antithesis of fair-minded. Today’s AOC Democrats don’t see the United States as the greatest protector of human rights or civil rights. Check out what Robert Francis O’Rourke thinks of your right to protect your family:

Prof. Hanson is a historian by trade. When he makes statements about history, I pay attention. That’s why I paid attention to this statement:

I cannot remember a moment in U.S. history when a presidential candidate conspired with the intelligence community of the lame-duck administration of the same party to destroy a presidential rival.

Robert Mueller forever discredited the idea of a special counsel, given his unprofessionalism, bias, and apparent incompetence that ate up 22 months of the Trump presidency. Even in the crude post-1960s, we have never seen anything like the current assassination rhetoric of Hollywood celebrities and the boasts of doing bodily harm to the president by his political opponents.

That’s what AOC’s Democratic Party is about. They’re mostly interested in trampling anyone, whether it’s a Republican, a Democrat who isn’t sufficiently woke or an apolitical person, who doesn’t march in lockstep with them. I don’t agree with each of President Trump’s tweets. I certainly disagreed with his idea of bringing the Taliban to Camp David. But I’ve literally thanked God that he’s our president. I thank God because he’s a fighter. As Prof. Hanson said, “After all that, the strange thing is not that Trump can be occasionally wearisome, but that he is even still breathing.”