Democrats say they only want fairness.


They want you to believe that only an FBI investigation will be fair and impartial, even though the only outcome they’ll accept is that Kavanaugh is guilty. What about fairness on their part?

As each democrat senator questioned Judge Kavanaugh, following his blistering testimony last Thursday, he was asked as a matter of principle why he didn’t call for an investigation by the FBI.  Senator Dick (that’s not a typo) Durbin asked him to talk to White House counsel and ask the President to request an FBI investigation. After all, what’s the harm?

The role of the US Senate is “advice and consent” to the President for all nominations.  In the past, this meant a fair and impartial review of the nominees qualifications. For judicial nominees, this includes being impartial and free from political influence in rendering judgments.  The committee itself has investigators to look into issues raised under federal penalty of felony.  While not the FBI, they do carry the legal weight of the Government behind it.

Senators spend hours trying to fish out whether the victim.. er.. nominee has the qualifications, impartiality, and integrity for the job.  In the end,  most senators would confirm the nominee unless they maintained imaginary reservations.  One was Clarence Thomas.  He eventually was confirmed after, coincidentally, an FBI investigation found that sexual harassment claims against him were unsubstantiated, but not before the nomination process took an emotional toll on both him and Ms. Hill. The spectacle is considered a black eye in the process by irrational liberal activists. To this day, liberals believe an injustice was perpetrated against Ms. Hill.

Over 25 years later, the same scenario is front of us again, but the process itself has changed for the worst.  While Judge Thomas was expected to easily pass before the allegations surfaced, Kavanaugh’s nomination was different.  On the night of his nomination, democrat senators were positioned at various places around Washington D.C. alongside activist groups ready to reject whoever was named.  Posters were created that had Kavanaugh’s name, but many more were printed with blanks so that the name could be filled in with black sharpies.

Within an hour, almost every democrat senator issued a press release or social media post opposing the nomination. So much for deliberation of “advice and consent.” At stake, as raised by the democrats, was Roe v. Wade – the corner stone of women’s rights.. um.. yeah – as if somehow this is the only issue women care about.

Almost immediately, Senate Minority Leader, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer, issued an edict that all measures would be take to ensure Kavanaugh is not seated. Who would have thought that advice and consent included open resistance and defiance of senate decorum and rules by the leader of a political party?  Is that “fair?”

Many conservatives knew this was coming.  The left has been seething from Trump’s victory for so long they believed this would be their moment to make a stand. Democrats still harbor a grudge for Merrick Garland, butt-hurt so painful that rational thought and acceptance never had a chance.

Public polling had shown that Democrats were energized even though very few special races had flipped.  Media outlets were reporting that the GOP would lose the house. In the weeks up to Kavanaugh’s hearing, some pundits were saying the Senate was now in play, potentially dealing a severe blow to the GOP and Trump’s agenda.

Kavanaugh’s nomination could be the final battle in their war to deny Trump undoing the failed legacy of the Obama years. They believed that many who had not voted for Hillary would come out in support of blocking a nominee they could paint as too toxic in support of their political agenda.  Taking the Senate would help to ensure the balance of power on the court would not tip towards conservative judges.

Kavanaugh already had been through confirmation hearings with relatively little fanfare in previous appointments, but this hearing would be very different. Democrat’s resistance began in the form of outlandish procedural requests to slow the process per the plan.  The GOP gave in, most likely on the premise that if democrats get what they ask for, they’ll have nothing to whine about. It’s almost as if they believe the same tactic works with toddlers.  The Democrats didn’t disappoint in showing the GOP just how wrong they were. Still, the process pushed on.

It was not that the democrats would do anything with their requests.  They were going to use every procedural trick as directed by Schumer.  Some in the GOP may have believed letting the democrats set a precedent, one that could be used against them in the future.  Seems rather an odd play since the republican majority had the ability to stop it from the start. Instead, the GOP placed it’s backbone in the closet, locked the door, and forgot where they placed the key.

It was during this time that Senator Dianne (I don’t leak) Feinstein received Christine Blasey-Ford’s letter from fellow California representative Anna Eshoo.  There are conflicting accounts of how it actually ended up on Feinstein’s possession but what is not in dispute is that she had the letter before the hearing and kept it from other committee members, ironically, to keep it .. confidential.  This deprived the Committee from being able to act upon the investigation.

Ford maintains she didn’t want the letter released, but it was clear she wanted to say something because she contacted the Washington Post on multiple occasions. However, Feinstein’s acknowledgement of the letter comes after the Washington Post revealed her name, and then, conveniently Feinstein releases the letter to the committee and the FBI.

The resulting chaos lends credence to their earlier complaints for slowing the process to allow for a full investigation into his background.  In other words, had Kavanaugh had just been pushed through (a knowingly false description of the process) the allegations would have come out in hindsight and we would have a questionable jurist on the Supreme Court who would damage our democracy and our country.


This, of course, begs the question:  How could they foresee such an allegation if Feinstein kept the letter in confidence?  If Schumer’s edict was to block him at all costs, wouldn’t a sex allegation help to slow if not derail the nominee?  How is it that Ford received the assistance of two democrat activist attorneys at the suggestion Dianne Feinstein before the Post published its article?

While many people believe that Ford’s testimony was compelling, that isn’t a substitute for facts or truth.  Anyone can tell a good story and still lack credible evidence.  Credibility is a feeling. Credible evidence is tangible.

And it is lacking in her case.  There are numerous contradictions from her statements both in reporting and in her testimony. Gaps exist in her memory of events that took place.  And no witness she names remember the event or has a recollection that matches her own evolving statements.  By definition, fairness would mean that Ford endure the same scrutiny as Kavanaugh since she made the allegations, a principle rooted in the foundations that started our country.

Kavanaugh, though, was never going to have a fair hearing from the democrats as ordered by Schumer. Kavanaugh’s powerful testimony exposed their hypocrisy. The obvious dirty tricks were slapped aside while the members retreated to their scripted use of “fairness”.

The only fairness ever uttered by the democrats was to Dr. Ford. Add to that the media’s assistance to make Kavanaugh the face of the sexual assault predators, you have the makings of a political fundraising message that also targeted moderate female republican senators (Flake included) and make them susceptible to activist outrage to influence the nomination.  Interesting coincidence that paid protesters were at all the hearings and even applauded by the democrats.

The only question was for vulnerable democrats who could vote yes to protect their re-election and still sink the final vote.  After the hearings, democrats up for re-election in red states who declared they would vote no suddenly saw their poll numbers drop.

The weirdest result of the hearings gives the liberals and media pundits more fodder to say that if Kavanaugh is confirmed, then liberals have reason to ignore rulings by the Supreme Court. ABC’s Terry Moran even proffered that if Roe v. Wade is overturned by a majority of men, the ruling would be invalid, as if somehow gender is now a requirement on overturning legal precedent.  If I’m not mistaken, it was an all male Burger court that brought us Roe v. Wade.  What a stupid argument.


It’s not enough that liberals have used the Supreme Court as a means to implement social justice law as seen by the Oberfell v. Hodges and Roe v. Wade rulings; it’s that Kavanaugh *might* overturn these progressive precedents.  It’s as if liberals are teaching civics in schools.  But, suppose a case does come before Justice Kavanaugh, and the legal arguments presented causes the Supreme Court to overturn a precedent where he votes with the majority and is perhaps, the deciding vote. Is it automatically void because of a unsubstantiated allegation against him during the nomination doesn’t have a scintilla of corroborating evidence?

Uh – no.

Many constitutional scholars have said that in Roe v. Wade, the court went too far.  It removed the ability for elected officials to enact legislation wanted by it’s constituents.  In effect, the Supreme Court could extract constitutional rights based on interpretive readings of the constitution and its amendments, something the Berger court did liberally in Roe.  Liberals see this as a means to enact laws in support of social justice without having to use the legislative branch.

The nomination and ultimate confirmation of Kavanaugh drastically reduces the use of the courts by liberal activists to circumvent the legislative process in enacting it’s social justice utop–er.. fascist state.  We’ve already fought a world war against this kind of ideology.  It behooves us to ensure we don’t allow them to gain traction in this country, their tantrums to be damned.

Liberals were shocked when the voters decided their filibuster proof majority, created on the wave of Obama in 2008, had gone too far and pushed them back into having to compromise just two years later. This left a bad taste in their mouths.

In 2016, the continued rebuke of their policies gave Republicans the house, senate and presidency, as well as Trump.  Outraged, the democrats moved to “resistance by any means necessary” while the media provides cover.  The Kavanaugh hearing show where their limits are – none.

While democrats stand on the pile of horse manure they created, calling it the moral high ground, they cannot hide it’s stench.  If a nominee is to have a fair hearing, how is it fair when the process itself is used to destroy the life’s work of an innocent man?  As they say, elections have consequences. In their case, it may have election consequences.

Obama is traveling the country speaking at rallies where supporters number in the hundreds. Trump still draws tens of thousands in large arenas.  In the movie “Trumped“,  John Heilman, Mark Halprin and Mark McKinnon had posited that people were showing up to rallies because of Trump’s celebrity.

Early on, they dismissed the crowds as indicative of a political movement.  The shock on their faces towards the end as Trump won Florida was movie gold.  It almost appears as if the same things are playing out now, although Trump is now President and despite polling suggesting his approval numbers are down, he still manages to command large audiences.

On a side note,  both Halperin and Charlie Rose, who was featured in the movie, were victims of the #MeToo movement the following year.  Bill Clinton still is immune and Ted Kennedy is still revered as a champion for women.  Apparently, some must be sacrificed for the greater good.

Advice and Consent requires each senator to deliberate in fairness to the nominee.  The President has the privilege of making an appointment. It is expected that he or she will nominate individuals with sufficient credentials and integrity for the role being nominated.  If the Democrats want to claim fairness, their version should scare anyone.

We are dangerously close to acceptance of denying the presumption of innocence.  The #MeToo movement is an affront to that fundamental constitutional right afforded to all Americans, even to Brett Kavanaugh.  The slanderous and vile attacks by democrats and the liberal activists to decent people must not go unchallenged.  Confirming Kavanaugh is the only FAIR response to the vicious charade of the democrats.  This is the only viable outcome for their flagrant failure to uphold their constitutional duties.

Also, go vote and remove them from any chance of power.

5 thoughts on “Democrats say they only want fairness.

  1. But they DO want fairness. Dems and their Leftist constituencies want things to be fair. They’re sick and tired of we untermensch having what should be theirs just because we successfully worked for it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Two-year-olds want fairness, too, just like the Dems. And just like the Dems they only want it when it works in their favor. Their arguments and premises hold no more water than a two-year-old’s!

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s