The aftermath of the Judge Kavanaugh Judicial Hearing Circus

Written by on October 8, 2018

This event really separated the sheep from the goats.  As I watched this whole charade play out I knew the entire time what the outcome would be, so I wasn’t expecting some bombshell proof to come out and ruin Brett Kavanaugh.  I knew as did most people (even those on the left) that this whole circus was designed to delay the hearing and if nothing else, to attempt to ruin the credibility of Judge Kavanaugh.  Clearly the delayed release of the data, the involvement of the Washington Post, the lack of the reporting to the Maryland police, or the FBI, and the outrageous nature of the testimony from Christine Blassey Ford, with her ever-changing details and conflicting evidence.  There could be no doubt what the outcome of this would be.  The only difference now is that Brett Kavanaugh will forever look like some raging drunk rapist to those who somehow were able to believe the accuser.  However he is still an associate Supreme Court Judge, and the process of nominating and confirming future judges will forever be marred with this whole incidence.

As for Christine Ford, she says that she no longer wishes to pursue this case, either in politics, in the media, or in a legal procedure, and she rides happily into the sunset as a hero to the left, and with a HUGE gofundme payout of over 1.5 million dollars from at least 5 gofundme campaigns.  That is not to even consider the possibility of book-deals and other opportunities from this whole thing.

She clearly had no case to begin with based on the lack of evidence.  Some say that the reason that she won’t pursue this, is because the statute of limitations has expired on these crimes in Maryland.  However that is definitely not the case, I looked it up, and not only are the police in this district willing to open the case, but looking at Maryland law, there is no statute of limitations on these alleged crimes.

Since the option for a police investigation is still available and on the table, and since local police are willing to investigate, it is clear why she didn’t go to the police, and why instead she went to politicans and publishers about these allegations.

It is at least slightly possible that there is still more to this than “he said / she said”?  But, could there be more underlying reasons for such an emotional appointment to the Supreme Court?

I will say that Trump is no politician, he is a wildcard and that’s without question.  However I do not believe he is dumb, and I do not think that he is operating independently in regards to policy making, or Judicial appointments.
There have been two things that Trump has done regarding Second Amendment rights that have me nervous.  While he is clearly not as anti-gun as Obama, he has said a few things that make me think that he picked Kavanaugh knowing that Kavanaugh is weak on the Second and Fourth Amendments.  Color me surprised if I am wrong.
The first thing that Trump said/did that got me nervous about gun rights, is when he said about potentially mentally ill people,

Trump says take guns first and worry about ‘due process second’ in White House gun meeting

Trump is quoted as saying:  “I like taking guns away early,” Trump said. “Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

Reference this from an opinion he gave on a 2010 case regarding DC waiting periods and bans on certain kinds of semi-automatic guns.    Heller vs District of Columbia

Although Kavanaugh indicated that he would have struck down the ban on semi-automatic rifles and the registration requirements, his discussion of the proper test to use to review gun laws suggests that he might be willing to uphold some gun laws, such as those requiring a license to carry a concealed weapon, as long as they are consistent with the history and tradition of regulating guns. He contended that a test that assesses “gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition” will often give governments “more flexibility and power” than a balancing test, because “history and tradition show that a variety of gun regulations have co-existed with the Second Amendment right.

So there is good and bad here.   I disagree with him, regarding the interpretation of the second amendment in regards to carrying/concealed carry.

The Second Amendment says:   “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

There are not many varying interpretations of this.  It is extremely self-explanatory.

Then with the fourth amendment and the massive data collection of the government without a search warrant, Kavanaugh wrote this.

Kavanaugh argues that even if the government’s collection of millions of Americans’ telephony metadata did constitute a search it would nonetheless not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment:

Even if the bulk collection of telephony metadata constitutes a search,[…] the Fourth Amendment does not bar all searches and seizures. It bars only unreasonable searches and seizures. And the Government’s metadata collection program readily qualifies as reasonable under the Supreme Court’s case law. The Fourth Amendment allows governmental searches and seizures without individualized suspicion when the Government demonstrates a sufficient “special need” – that is, a need beyond the normal need for law enforcement – that outweighs the intrusion on individual liberty. Examples include drug testing of students, roadblocks to detect drunk drivers, border checkpoints, and security screening at airports. […] The Government’s program for bulk collection of telephony metadata serves a critically important special need – preventing terrorist attacks on the United States. See THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004). In my view, that critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program. The Government’s program does not capture the content of communications, but rather the time and duration of calls, and the numbers called. In short, the Government’s program fits comfortably within the Supreme Court precedents applying the special needs doctrine.

I believe strongly in the Fourth Amendment and I believe that this is very clear and hard to vary the interpretation;

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Those two things I highly disagree with both Trump and Kavanaugh.   I feel that the Second Amendment disagrees with both Trump and Kavanaugh in regards to the points that I made above.

So, in my opinion, there could have been far worse appointments, but my particular preference is for someone that is a strict constitutionalist.  I reference Judge Andrew Napolitano, and Judge Jeanine Pirro, which are both strict constitutionalists and reasonable and adept Judges that would be a great fit for the job.  However, there is also Amy Coney Barrett who is stronger than Judge Kavanaugh on the constitution and has been a top choice for awhile for SCOTUS.  I am just getting acquainted with Amy Coney Barrett, but what I have researched of her, I would have much rather preferred her than Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

With all of that said, I am sure that this could not have turned out better than it did in this period of time in our country, with issues like the #metoo movement that is bringing out the details of what is truly going on with both “rape culture” and “false accusations”.  For too long we have heard that “Only 2% of rape accusations turn out to be fake”, and that reference has no empirical data to back it at all, and when analyzing the data more, it is clear that the fake rape statistics are far more likely to be above 10%, and could be as high as 41% if we go by the actual peer-reviewed data on false rape accusations.

Also when we look at actual peer-reviewed data on actual rapes, the media and many government studies classify rape in prison separate from rape on the outside.   On “the outs” (outside of prison) rapes in the USA for 2017 were 99,856 total rapes reported.
In prison, there were over 200,000 rapes.   The prison population is made up of 97.3% men.  It is also notable that men on “the outs” report sexual assault almost as much as women.   With these details, it is clear that rape of men happens at about twice the rate of that of women.

Rape in prison reporting

Rape out of prison reporting

My main reason for considering this a victory is that I believe now that two sitting SCOTUS judges have had fake rape allegations waged at them, that false reporting will be treated much more harshly in the future.

The Democrats, namely Nancy Pelosi ready and blatantly admit to using fake facts to smear someone, then leak it to the media, and then reference the media as a “source of facts”.  Nancy Pelosi calls it “The Wrap Up Smear“, see the video below to listen to how the Democrats use character assassination to destroy opponents.

Brett Kavnaugh will judge for 40 years after being falsely accused

Brett Kavanaugh will judge for 40 years after being falsely accused


Reader's opinions

Disruptarian Radio

Disruptarian Radio

Current track