When two people contradict each other, the only thing you ought to think is, at least one of them is saying something that is not true. If someone is accused of a crime and asserts innocence, our people have traditionally said that the accusation must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Some people do actually commit crimes. They are acting outside of the law and disregarding the feelings, safety and property of the people they attack. It happens every day. These criminals should be identified, accused, and swiftly punished.
Some people do falsely accuse other people of crimes. It happens daily in divorce courts. Spouses are accused of doing terrible things to their family members, which if true would be criminal behavior, yet at the end of the day the judge still gives them some form of custody.
It is standard practice for divorce attorneys to encourage their clients to tell lies. Picture a bored judge listening to the daily litany of fantastic accusations as she stifles a yawn.
Look up Mike Nifong and the lacrosse team. This case is actually worth several hours of your time reading. It demonstrates what can happen when a prosecutor believes the victim at the outset and at all costs. The victim in this case was a liar.
What about “legislating from the bench”?
Some people look at the courts as the only way to get laws written the way they want them to be written. The more judges on the bench that will do what they want, the better they like it. Judge Kavanaugh does not suit their taste.
But this can go for you or against you. If you rely on the courts to be your champions in life, you will fight very hard to get the right sort on the court. If you lose the court, you lose everything. Read about Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) and Roe v. Wade (1973).
You can spend many days considering how court decisions have affected lives. How they can act without regard or consent of the governed. They say it and it must be so. We had to fight a war to demonstrate to the judges that the Dred Scott decision was not in their hands. It was decided on the battlefield.
The peaceful alternative to an all-powerful court is to write good laws, debate the language, vote on them, then hold the legislators accountable for their work (by voting). This is slow work. But it is better to not pass any law than to enforce a bad one.
What is the big deal about Judge Kavanaugh?
Many people hate President Trump and will do whatever they feel they can get away with to destroy him. They will lie, cheat, steal, anything at all. They will encourage perjury, they will do anything and everything to embarrass and ruin him. They will use tactics such as delaying the vote on confirmation of a judge that he nominated, hoping they can win enough votes to deny him.
Rachel Mitchell, the sex-crimes prosecutor who Republicans hired to question Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, concluded that the case would not hold up in a courtroom. She said there were many holes in Blasey’s testimony. She would not charge Kavanaugh and would not even seek a search warrant.
The Democrats have no interest in the truth. They only want to delay the vote. Their calls for a full FBI investigation is merely a stalling tactic. Judge Kavanaugh has already passed six FBI background checks, including for jobs previously held in the White House, and also before he became a federal appeals judge.
Now is not the time to sit idly by and watch unsubstantiated accusations destroy Judge Kavanaugh and his family. The Senate should vote now to confirm the President’s appointment.
What is at risk?
Senator Jeff Flake, who had earlier announced that he would vote “Yes” on Judge Kavanaugh, was cornered in an elevator and bullied by Democrats until he agreed that there should be an FBI investigation into the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh.
If only a few Senate Republicans cave to Democratic liberals in their attempt to derail the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh, merely on the basis of unfounded allegations, then liberals will use this same method to destroy future conservative judicial nominees.
If Republicans like Jeff Flake who are on the fence, are swayed to vote against Judge Kavanaugh because of liberal intimidation and unsubstantiated allegations, then every conservative judicial nominee will be subject to the same type of attacks.
If the only judges that a GOP-controlled Senate can confirm are the ones approved by radical liberals like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Diane Feinstein, then the judiciary will be stacked with rogue judges.
How should this matter have been addressed?
A person who is accused of a crime has a constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial by a jury of one’s peers. This relentless trial by social media is more akin to a lynch mob.
If anyone has anything to accuse Judge Kavanaugh of, they should take it to the police precinct in the jurisdiction where the crime allegedly took place. File charges against him, and if the prosecutors think there is enough evidence to hope for an indictment, they will convene a grand jury.
If the grand jury issues a true bill and he is indicted, now he stands accused by the state and a day will be appointed where he can answer the accusation. If he is condemned by a jury, he will be put in jail.
Hearsay is not admissible evidence for the truth of the matter because it is inherently unreliable. Secondhand testimony, or evidence of the “he said, she said” variety, would be hearsay and considered inadmissible during a trial.
Will it ever end?
Now that the Democrats realize their evidence is lacking, they are focusing on Brett Kavanaugh’s drinking. A habit which, while not ideal, is not illegal. (The minimum drinking age was 18 where he lived at that time.)
Besides, this argument is hypocritical, since Barack Obama admitted that he drank booze and even smoked dope in college – and yet he went on to become President!
How would you like to be punished the rest of your life for something stupid you did in high school or college?
How would you feel if you went in for a job interview and they cared more about seeing your high school yearbook than your qualifications for the position?
Judge Kavanaugh is highly qualified, respected by his peers, and known to uphold the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, needs justices who will base their decisions on the rule of law, not judicial activism.
President Trump tweeted: “Judge Kavanaugh showed America exactly why I nominated him. His testimony was powerful, honest, and riveting. Democrats’ search and destroy strategy is disgraceful and this process has been a total sham and effort to delay, obstruct, and resist. The Senate must vote!”
I hope whatever happens, however this plays itself out, that all the people involved act with integrity, disregarding personal gain to do the right thing.