Round Two of the Fight

Another accuser has come forward. Just in time to prolong the nomination hearing in the Senate Committee or again to stop it in it’s tracks. This is the Left’s goal.

They would rather have the Supreme Court empty than have one more of President Trump’s nominees on it. They will push this issue with Mr. Kavanaugh until he or the White House withdraws the nomination. And the Left will then viciously attack the next nominee put forth by President Trump as well. Pushing these strings of nominees and hearings all the way to the 2020 presidential election.

Then they will entrap Senator Grassley with his own words from 2016. “Let the next president decide.” Of course hoping that the next president is one of their own and not a re-elected President Trump. Make no mistake at all, that is the plan of the Left.

As for this 2nd accuser of sexual misconduct against Mr. Kavanaugh. It allegedly took place only a year or so later than the 1st alleged incident. When the alleged victim and perpetrator were both Freshmen in college. And this too happened at a party. No originality to the Left’s made up stories and I’m sensing a theme here too.

We are seeing a pattern of alleged behavior that is in close proximity to one other in time. This makes gives the illusion that Mr. Kavanaugh is a serial offender. Under-aged drinking is involved at wild parties. Again another painting of Mr. Kavanaugh wrongfully being presented as a heavy drinker and very irresponsible. And then the very alleged acts that take place leaves people to believe that Mr. Kavanaugh looses all self-control when he is drunk. All of these things paint the picture of someone not worthy to sit on the High Court.

And all of these things are a lie too. Carefully constructed by the Left to make it near impossible to dispute.

But since this alleged event took place at a college frat house. I’m sure there are plenty of witnesses that will come forward. And that a report was filed with the college at least. The name of the fraternity should be available. The date of the party should be also available. And it should be on record if Mr. Kavanaugh was even a member of the fraternity as a Freshman.

One should remind all parties that lying under oath at a Senate Hearing is a federal crime. This warning goes to the accusers, to Mr. Kavanaugh, and members of the Senate Committee as well.

We are in for a long fight against the Leftists.

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

It’s been a week and we are still no closer to confirming Brett “the Hitman” Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. This is mainly because Senate Democrats are insisting upon further investigation into accusations of sexual assault raised by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who alleges Kavanaugh did something at some time involving something else at someplace. Leftists state it’s only fair we delve into these accusations so we know whether Kavanaugh is a sexual predator.

Although there are a lot of subjects that can come from this situation, there is one word that the Left constantly uses whenever it wants to bend the will of the people to their causes: fair. Leftists want fair trade, fairness to address the wage gap between men and women, the rich to pay their fair share, to campaign at state fairs, and so on. (Okay, that last one was a reach, but you get the idea.) So, what does the Left consider fair?

Let’s find out!

fair

What the Left thinks it means – equal consideration to all possible points of view

What it really means – a concept the Left loves to use, but only when it favors them

Four little letters causing a lot of confusion, mostly self-induced by the Left. Americans have a strong attachment to fairness in part because our country was build on the idea. When the Pilgrims got a raw deal from the English monarchy, they left and landed on Plymouth Rock where they proceeded to die off due to the failures of socialism. (Read up on the Mayflower Compact if you doubt this.) When the colonists got another raw deal from the English monarchy, they fought back and started a revolution, if you’ll pardon the pun. Granted, we haven’t always been motivated by fairness (just ask Native Americans), but it is still one of the cornerstone ideals we’ve maintained throughout our history.

Which means the Left just has to manipulate it for its own ends.

Leftists play in the world of emotions, and fairness is a concept that invokes a lot of them. We want a level playing field for all and get angry when that doesn’t happen. What better way to whip the public into a lather than to claim something isn’t fair? And what better way to get people to vote for you than to tell them you’re all about fairness? It’s almost too good to be true!

Well, that’s because it is. When the Left brings up fairness, it’s always when they feel they have the most to gain. That’s why Senate Democrats want there to be an investigation. Not only do they look like defenders of sexual assault victims (unless the assaulter is a Leftist, of course), but they do so by claiming the fairness high ground, which can lead to votes, which Democrats desperately need in the midterm elections. To put it mildly, a room full of monkeys with a room full of typewriters could come up with a better campaign strategy than the DNC has so far.

Meanwhile, the Left doesn’t give one tenth of one damn about fairness when they hold the power. Try getting Ben Shapiro booked at UC Berkeley if you doubt me. You’ll find it’s easier to land a 747 on the first floor of a parking garage than getting any conservative speaker on a campus run by Leftists. Then, there’s the flat tax, also called the fair tax, where taxpayers would pay the same percentage. Leftists hate that because their idea of fairness in taxes is the rich paying a higher percentage since they make more.

So, let me get this straight. Instead of paying the same amount, which by definition is fair to everyone, the Left believes the rich should pay more taxes to make things fair. Brilliant!

Bringing everything back to the Kavanaugh hearing, the Left wants us to believe similar logic applies. A fair hearing to them means Kavanaugh testifies first while Dr. Ford gets a chance to present her testimony after the fact. Also, the Left believes a fair investigation requires the FBI to get involved as ordered by President Donald Trump and Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court would have to be delayed until the FBI did its job. Oh, and Dr. Ford would have to travel from California to Washington by car because she doesn’t want to fly, so to be fair we have to allow her time to get there. And even if the Senate Judiciary Committee was to go to her, Dr. Ford might make other demands in the name of fairness.

Meanwhile, the one person who isn’t getting a fair shake in all of this is Brett Kavanaugh. Like him or hate him, the circumstances behind his nomination process have opened his family and him up to death threats, all sorts of vicious rumors about him and his past, aggressive attacks by Senate Democrats looking to grandstand and jockey for position to be the party’s 2020 Presidential candidate, and, worst of all, having to endure questions from people who wouldn’t know habeas corpus from a hole in the ground. And after all of that, he has to deal with Dr. Ford’s allegations, which are thinner than the plot of a mystery novel written by kindergarteners…or Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for that matter.

And who is it who tells us justice delayed is justice denied? Why, it’s the Left, who feel it’s perfectly fine to delay confirmation of an actual Justice under the guise of a fair hearing.

I’ll take Concepts Too Complex for Leftists for $200, Alex.

 

Burden of Proof

The alleged event took place 36 years ago. It was not a Federal Crime and therefore the FBI has rightly refused to investigate the matter further. Additionally it may have taken place in the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia. Even wrongfully assuming the alleged event was the highest felony sexual based crime. It has a statute of limitations of 15 years. So any charges or accusations should have been made at least 18 years ago it not before to be legally valid.

The Left insists that men who are accused of any sexually based crime are guilty until proven innocent. However, our Constitution and laws decree that the burden of proof is on the accuser and prosecution. And that all citizens are innocent until proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, guilty. The Left’s mindset is an abomination against Liberty and freedom within this Republic.

However we will look at the accusation to see if it has any merit what so ever, even though the accused cannot be charged or tried for the event due to the statute of limitations within the District of Columbia. According to Ms. Ford this is what happened 3 and a half decades ago.

When she was 15 years of age, she was at a high school party. This was a co-ed party with girls and boys attending. There was underage drinking going on and she admits that she had been drinking and was in fact drunk during this party.

Two boys, one being now identified as Supreme Court Nominee Mr. Kavanaugh, were also present. These 2 boys and herself were drunk and ended up alone in a bedroom at the house were the party was being held.

One of the boys covered Ms. Ford’s mouth to prevent her from screaming. The other boy, now identified as Mr. Kavanaugh, was on top of Ms. Ford.

However, since both boys had been heavily drinking they had fallen off the bed onto one another during their struggle with Ms. Ford. At this point Ms. Ford escapes from the two entangled boys.

What happened after that is not yet known. Did Ms. Ford leave the party or did she remain there? Where there any adults present at this party? These and more are questions that need to asked.

What is known is that the incident was never reported to an adult, a teacher, the police, or Ms. Ford’s parents. Had it been there would have been an entire chain of events that simply did not happen. It is believed that Ms. Ford did tell a few close friends about it but it was kept silent after that.

From my own experience, I too was 15 years of age at the same time. Back in 1982 when this event allegedly took place. I cannot remember a single thing in detail of what I did during that year. I can make some guesses of course but the accuracy would be in doubt. Add a drunken party to the mix and the odds go way down at recalling anything with any real accuracy about it.

Given that Ms. Ford admits to being drunk at this teenage party calls her entire accusation into question. Especially 36 years later. Did it happen as she said, did any of it happen at all? Or is it all a fabrication of lies?

Ms. Ford and her fellow Democratic Leftists call this alleged event “attempted rape”. That is very strong language to use on an event that was just “remembered” so recently from so long ago. At best, if was still chargeable, it would be assault.

Now I will admit that a teenage male has a lot of sexual tension, drive, and desires. That is indisputable, but not proof of attempted rape. And being drunk can lower ones inhibitions as well. This can happen with any drunk individual, teenager and adult. But it is still not proof of attempted rape. And no where in Ms. Ford’s telling of this event does it mention that either boy was without clothing or even had partial clothing. This does cast doubt on the attempted rape accusation.

On the accused side of this story is Mr. Kavanaugh. He states simply that the alleged event did not take place. But here, I do have to say that IF it did happen as Ms. Ford states, it is possible that Mr. Kavanaugh’s memory of the event is long gone and may not remember that it happened at all.

Also being drunk and being a minor does not excuse such behavior. It was assault if nothing more serious. But we will never know the true intent, if the event actually did take place. And as I stated at the beginning, this happened too long ago to be a legal issue.

In our political arena and climate this kind of accusation sets a dangerous president. To be able to accuse a member of an opposition party of sexual misconduct from an unprovable vantage point decades in the past in order to prevent that person from seeking and obtaining political office is evil. It destroys liberty and it undermines our Republic. It can ruin lives and careers both public and private. All from an accusation that is unprovable and in some cases maybe completely false.

The burden of proof is on the accuser or prosecution within our Republic. And this includes testimony before a Senate hearing.

Ms. Ford also does not state when and where exactly this party was located either. Casting further doubt on the event. Give this information and we can find where Mr. Kavanaugh was located then.

Ms. Ford has offered no proof and Mr. Kavanaugh denies the event. The 2nd boy is unknown. So there are no other witnesses to bring forth new information. There is also no DNA or other evidence at all. Nothing.

We only have the word of a Democratic Party member and donor. One who has been involved in protests against the current Administration. One who believes that the President is not her president. Ms. Ford’s own actions would indicate that she would be against any nomination made by the current Administration to the High Court, no matter the person’s character, qualifications, or even gender.

Ms. Ford has not protested or brought up accusations against Mr. Kavanaugh in his past appointments to the Federal Court system. He has been before the Senate Judicial Committee before and was confirmed by the Senate. No word of any sexual misconduct. Only now, when he is being nominated to sit on the High Court does she come forward with this accusation.

What Ms. Ford did do was to send a letter to Senator Feinstein, a Democratic Senator on the Judicial Committee. Senator Feinstein is a well known Leftist and her public statements show a strong bias against the male gender. Within Ms. Ford’s letter, she demanded that the FBI investigate the alleged event. Thankfully the FBI has refused this unauthorized demand on their time and funds. It accusation does not fall under FBI jurisdiction. Ms. Ford, if you want a private investigation, hire a private investigator to do it, the FBI is not at your disposal.

Senator Feinstein did exactly what the Democratic Senators accused Senator Grassely of doing on the 1st day of the hearing. Not giving out documents in time for them to be read. Senator Feinstein received Ms. Ford’s letter on July 30th. And sat on it until the 11th hour, only then revealing its existence in an attempt to stall the vote or deny the nomination in committee.

At the time of this writing, Ms. Ford has agreed to testify but not yet agreed to do so by the Monday deadline. She demands protections from the Republican Senators. Unless she is going into a witness relocation program, she isn’t entitled to any extra protections. She is not a witnesses but the accuser. Every citizen has the right to face their accuser.

She has been given a deadline, she either meets such deadline or doesn’t. She is then either subpoenaed and brought before the Senate Judicial Committee or is found in contempt if she does not appear and goes to jail. If she elects not to testify, then the Senate moves forward with their confirmation and the accusation is stricken from the record.

I personally would like her to come and testify. If the alleged event actually took place there are unanswered questions about it that need answers that only she can give. Yes it will be hard. That happens anytime someone in an other’s accuser. And I know there is a negative stigma attached to victims of sexual assault. That is unfortunate, but she needs to be strong.

I have already written about how I don’t think Mr. Kavanaugh should be on the bench at any level in our courts. He is part of the problem of black robed tyrants based on some of his testimony and other statements prior to his hearing. However, he is the best available candidate that can be put on the High Court bench at this time and place in our history.

And if such testimony of Ms. Ford removes all doubt to her accusation, then I will join those in stating Mr. Kavanaugh should not be confirmed. But that burden of proof is on Ms. Ford and Ms. Ford alone.

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

During the recent confirmation hearings for Brett “the Hitman” Kavanaugh, reporters became fixated on a particular gesture, not by Kavanaugh himself, but by a woman sitting behind him. She was caught on camera making what appeared to be the “OK” sign with her hand. Which means, according to Leftists, she was a white supremacist because the “OK” sign has been co-opted by white supremacists. Therefore, according to Leftists, Kavanaugh cannot be confirmed because…white supremacists.

Is it just me, or does it seem like the Left is seeing white supremacists under every rock, bed, and bedsheet? (Well, in some cases, they can be found under bedsheets, but not that often.) Even though the woman in the video, Zina Bash, is Mexican, Jewish, and had grandparents who were Holocaust survivors, she has to be a white supremacist. I mean, who else would work in the Trump White House, right?

This week’s Leftist Lexicon will delve into white supremacists and see whether the Left may be onto something. Or if they’re just on something.

white supremacists

What the Left thinks it means – racist alt-right conservatives who have been emboldened by Donald Trump’s Presidency to come out and cause trouble

What it really means – a small group with bullhorns convincing people they’re bigger than they actually are

One of the great Leftist narratives against President Donald Trump is that he is a white supremacist because he hired Steven Miller and Steve Bannon, both of whom either identify as or hold views similar to white supremacists. Of course, his years of being lauded as a friend to blacks gets, pun unintended, white-washed with this approach, but when you have a narrative to push, facts just get in the way. Hence, guilt by association.

Funny how that doesn’t go in a different way, say…oh, I don’t know…with a religion that has members who are violent and want to kill people who are different than them. Oh, well, #NotAllMuslims and such.

Depending on who you ask, white supremacists are either popping up in greater numbers or are inspiring other white supremacists to become emboldened and embrace their hatred. The Southern Poverty Law Center has been keeping track of white supremacist activity for decades and they’ve been some of the ones who have lead the charge to let people (read: Leftists) know about the wave of white supremacy across the country. Granted, this is the same Southern Poverty Law Center who labeled the TEA Party a hate group, but had to be shamed into including black, Muslim, and other racist groups in their hate watches, but hey. Credit where credit is due.

While the SPLC tends to have a hair trigger when it comes to white supremacists, it is safe to say there are such people out there in America right now. Whether they’re as prevalent and as pervasive as some on the Left suggest is subject to debate. Personally, I don’t see white supremacists as frequently as Leftists do because, well, I’m just not that bat-crap cray-cray. The Left has taken themselves so seriously that they can’t recognize when they’re being trolled.

And that’s the case with the “OK” hand sign. Contrary to Leftist belief, it didn’t originate with white supremacists nor was it coopted by them. As with many things these days, this idea started with the Internet and a group called 4chan. They created an operation titled “Operation OKKK” where they tried to convince people the hand sign was a symbol for white power. And, buddy, it caught on like wildfire! No matter how many times it’s debunked, the Left (and certain members of the white supremacist movement) treat it as gospel.

Remember, kids, the Left are the smart ones who only want facts and say reality has a liberal bias.

In spite of their relative small portion of the population as a whole, let alone the white portion of it, white supremacists are getting more attention. But it’s not because they’re getting bolder and don’t have to hide anymore in the era of Trump. It’s because Leftists give them the attention in the first place! By looking for white supremacists everywhere under the sun, the Left has given them the opportunity to perform for them (or at least give the appearance of performing). And given how the Left doesn’t let facts get in the way of a good crisis narrative, I wouldn’t be surprised if real white supremacists felt they had to come out and correct the record, if you’ll pardon the expression.

But being more prominent doesn’t mean actual numbers. That’s where I think the Left gets it completely wrong by design. They need white supremacists to be numerous to justify their “Trump is a white supremacist” narrative, and they have the tools (read: the media and political figures) to make it seem real. Frankly, though, I think it goes deeper than that.

Think about it for a moment. What ideology promotes the idea that “The Man” is keeping minorities down while never actually investing in the futures of those minorities? What ideology promises to empower people of color while never really giving them positions of power? What ideology has white people claiming to be “woke” without them giving up anything of value to the people they believe are being oppressed?

Can you say “Leftist”? I knew you could.

Maybe the country’s biggest white supremacy group is the DNC and its Leftist allies.

 

Supreme Court Nominees

Although Brett Kavanaugh isn’t a bad choice. I do have some reservations about him as a potential Supreme Court Justice. Or any potential or active Judge for that matter who believes any of the following statements.

Roe v. Wade or any opinion by any court is established or settled law.

This is a dangerous falsehood. The Courts do not make or enact laws. That is the power granted to the legislature alone. Any opinion issued by the Courts is jut that, an opinion. It is not law, established or otherwise.

As a people, we have given way too much power to these un-elected black robed tyrants than what was ever envisioned by our Founding Fathers. We need to educate the American people properly on the role of the Courts as they were created by the Founding Fathers.

Our Founding Fathers knew of the dangers of a run away court. So the purposely limited the power of the judicial branch. It is not co-equal to the legislative or executive branches. It is kept separate to limit powers from being held by one group or one man. The Courts powers are very specific and spelled out in whole within the pages of the Constitution.

The Courts do not interpret law. This makes me cringe every time I hear this lie. The power to interpret law is part of the powers granted to the people because it is not explicitly granted to any branch of government. In fact this is exactly what a jury does when they deliberate the outcome of a trial.

The role of the court and the judge is to determine to what extent the law was violated by anyone’s actions. In other words, the role of the courts is to apply the laws.

Do not believe the Leftist lie that the court interpret anything. They do not.

Likewise the courts do not have the power of “Judicial Review”. This power was not granted in the Constitution for good reason. With it, the courts can subjugate the legislative and the executive branches in a complete reversal of power. This is a power the court granted to itself in the opinion of Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

So the courts changed the powers it had by a simple majority vote between just 6 people. This was and is a blatant power grab and completely unconstitutional. And why the Founding Fathers did not grant this power to the courts at the founding of our nation.

Although the opinion issues is half correct. Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution. It is not the Courts job to interpret the Constitution or any other law passed by the legislatures.

Any potential justice or current judge who believes these lies is not qualified to site on the bench in my opinion. And further more they are a danger to the continued existence of this Republic and it’s liberties, and they should be removed from such appointments.

Brett Kavanaugh is not the best man for the high court. But he is the best man we can currently get appointed to it. There is still a long road and a lot of work to be done before we can ever hope to have the Republic restored to its founders vision.

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Even before most of America knew Brett Kavanaugh’s name, Leftists were more scared than a Frenchman at a World War II reenactment that the new Supreme Court Justice would overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that made it legal for women to get abortions. Whether it was talking about a “woman’s right to choose” or “healthcare for women”, the Left has it bad for protecting the Roe decision under any and all circumstances.

Including making themselves look like jackasses in the process.

I try not to delve too much into these serious issues much for two reasons. One, I will invariably evoke an emotional response out of a reader which tends to devolve into an online shouting match and open questioning of my lineage. And before we get there, my mother was not a female dog, so you can just drop it. The other reason is because trying to find a lighter touch on a hot-button issue like Roe v. Wade is like asking Lindsey Lohan to babysit while you’re off on a two month European vacation; it might be okay, but more than likely it’s going to wind up badly.

So, with that in mind, let’s take a look at Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade

What the Left thinks it means – A Supreme Court decision that is essential for women’s autonomy, healthcare, and self-worth

What it really means – Bad law based on lies

Hopefully, I wasn’t too subtle with my opinion on the subject matter. I occasionally get accused of being obtuse.

In my younger days, I was pro choice for the same reason Bill Clinton is: to score with the ladies. Unlike Bill, however, it didn’t equate into so much as a second glance from women. On the other hand, I didn’t get impeached for using an immature intern as a personal humidor, so I got that going for me.

As I got older, I decided to do some research on the matter and read some of the legal arguments made in the Roe decision because I know how to party! Anyway, the gist of the arguments in favor of allowing a woman to have an abortion came down to an interpretation of when life began. The lawyers arguing in favor of abortion said British common law made it clear a baby could be terminated within the womb because it wasn’t recognized as a true human being.

Yeah, about that…seems British common law says nothing of the sort. In fact, there is a concept known as the “quickening” referring to a human’s life or spirit. To put it simply, our British ancestors believed a child in the womb had quickening and, thus, was a life. Kind of a problem for the pro choicers who say it’s just a “clump of cells”, wouldn’t you say?

Beyond that, the Supreme Court turned abortion into a federal issue because it broadened the Constitution to include a right that wasn’t really in there: the right to privacy. The arguments made to invent this right were based off the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which has nothing to do with privacy at all. Here’s what it says:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In other words…no state can make a law that doesn’t apply to everyone…which still has nothing to do with privacy.

For all of the legal, Constitutional, and emotional arguments in favor of keeping Roe v. Wade as is, there is one hard fact that the Left doesn’t want us to consider: abortion kills a baby almost every single time. It’s not a clump of cells. It’s not an unviable tissue mass. It’s not a part of a woman’s body. It is a baby. Full stop. With all of the blatant dishonesty and excuses, it’s hard to imagine how much fear the prospect of a child being allowed to come to term puts in the Left.

That’s because the Left makes serious bank off keeping Roe v. Wade in place. Any time a politician suggests even a slight restriction on abortion, the Left whips its supporters into a frenzy and asks them for money. The supporters send money (and dress up like giant vaginas for some reason) to Leftist politicians who will defend the right to kill babies in the womb. Then, sometimes these politicians get into positions where they can allocate federal tax dollars to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood (not directly of course because it would be illegal) who then pays executives with said funds who then turn around and donate money back to the politicians who got them the tax dollars to begin with. No matter how much the Left tries to launder the funds they use for abortion clinics, it is literally blood money.

As much as I disdain abortion as a practice, Roe v. Wade will remain unaffected at least for now. Even with Brett Kavanaugh’s potential appointment to the Supreme Court, it would still take a legal challenge to Roe before any judge, let alone a Supreme Court Justice, would get a chance to render a verdict. But the Left still needs to keep that sweet abortion cash flowing into its coffers (especially considering the DNC makes Arthur Andersen look fiscally responsible). That means maintaining the lies they’ve told since the original court case was settled.

But now that you know some of the ins and outs of the lies, you can be ready to address the lies when they’re told.

 

Concise Conservative Comebacks for Loony Leftist Lines

With the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to replace the retiring Anthony Kennedy, Leftists have been throwing out all sorts of arguments why we (meaning they) can’t allow this to happen. Don’t you wish you had a handy dandy guide to help you refute those arguments?

Well, I’m going to try to provide one. Granted, I try not to think like a Leftist for too long because it makes my head hurt and I might not come back, but for you, I’ll make an exception. Let’s take a look at some of the Left’s arguments (which I have put in bold to separate them from my responses) and some of my responses (which I have not put in bold to separate them from the Left’s arguments). Yes, I know that last one was redundant, but when dealing with Leftists, it’s best to make absolutely sure. Where applicable, I have tried to make it into a back-and-forth conversation, but if the Leftist jumps to a different argument than the order in which I have written responses, just jump to the appropriate response and go from there.

Ready? Here we go!

Donald Trump shouldn’t be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice while he’s under investigation.

What investigation is that?

That he conspired with Russia to help him win the Presidency.

Oh, that investigation! Seems former FBI Director James Comey and special prosecutor Robert Mueller, both of whom you’ve lauded in the past, have both said Trump is not under investigation. In fact, of the indictments to date, none have been against Trump, nor have they been linked to Trump’s 2016 Presidential campaign. All the accusers have at this point is guilt by association, which doesn’t stand up to legal scrutiny.

But what about all of those connections between Trump and Russia? Surely they prove collusion!

Not quite. Much of what you’re focusing on occurred before Trump was President. It could be argued the terms of impeachment spelled out in the Constitution, along with Article 1 Sections 9 and 10 which prohibit actions that punish an individual retroactively (a little thing the kids call ex post facto), mean Trump’s alleged actions would not be legal grounds for impeachment. As a private citizen, which Trump was at the time of the alleged collusion, Trump could conduct business with anyone he chose, even the evil Russians (which people like former President Barack Obama defended against allegations they were bad folks). And, on top of all that, collusion isn’t expressly illegal. That’s where the bar of “high crimes and misdemeanors” comes into play. If no laws were broken, impeachment isn’t a good and true option.

So what? If Trump gets to pick the next Supreme Court Justice, he could be picking someone who would rule on any case involving him!

Strangely enough, you have half of a point here. Appointing a Supreme Court Justice means that Justice might have to hear cases involving the President who appointed him or her. That’s why it’s expected any judge with conflicts of interest recuse themselves from any case that they have a personal stake in the outcome.

See? You’ve just made my point for me!

I’m not finished. Just because you should recuse yourself doesn’t mean you will. In my lifetime, there have been cases where a Justice should have recused himself or herself and didn’t. Clarence Thomas should have recused himself during cases involving health insurance since his wife works in that industry. On the other side, Justices Kagan and Sotomayor should have recused themselves from any rulings on Obamacare because both had direct impacts on it. And let’s not forget Justice Ginsburg, who officiated a same-sex wedding before she ruled on a Supreme Court case involving same-sex marriages. If you’re afraid of a Justice being influenced to vote a certain way because of who appointed him or her, you’ve had plenty of opportunities to say something.

But Kennedy’s son was Trump’s banker!

So what?

So that means Trump could have put pressure on Kennedy to retire early! Doesn’t that trouble you?

The operative words are “could have.” Trump could have talked Kennedy into retiring, or Kennedy could have come to that conclusion on his own. Without plausible evidence to confirm the President pressured Kennedy into retiring, we have to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Well, that and the fact further evidence shows Kennedy’s son did not do business with Trump directly. The bank he was working for at the time did. That’s like blaming Ford for having trouble with your Chevy Volt.

Let’s go back to the appointing of the Justice ruling on a case Trump’s involved in. How can you reconcile that?

Easy. Precedent states the President cannot be charged legally with a crime while in office. That leaves impeachment as the means to remove Trump, and of all the Supreme Court Justices that would be involved, it is only Chief Justice John Roberts who would be involved, since the Constitution states the Chief Justice presides over the Senate portion of impeachment. And since Roberts was appointed before Trump was even a nominee, there is no conflict.

What about Mitch McConnell denying a confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland? Shouldn’t we wait until the elections are over, as McConnell said in 2016?

There’s a big difference between a Presidential election and a mid-term election. In 2016, McConnell relied upon what is loosely called “the Biden Rule”, but one that is backed up by Senate history. Traditionally, no Supreme Court nominations are made in Presidential election years since there is a chance the incoming President would not get to choose a nominee, which undercuts the power of the Presidency as outlined in, surprise surprise, the Constitution.

This year, there is no Presidential election; only the election of House and Senate members. There is no affect on Presidential powers, so there is no reason to hold off on the process. Not to mention, there is a current Supreme Court Justice who was appointed in a mid-term election year. Elena Kagan was appointed in 2010…with support of Republicans. Not liking who is President is not an excuse to delay the process.

Okay, okay, but shouldn’t Merrick Garland get a hearing, given how Senate Republicans sat on his nomination?

I actually have no problem with this, mainly because it’s pretty much a guarantee Garland wouldn’t get out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

But Garland never got a hearing! That’s a stolen Supreme Court seat!

In order for something to be stolen, it must first be owned. The Supreme Court is not owned by any one President or political party, so President Obama didn’t get an automatic appointment because he was President at the time the vacancy occurred. Thanks to a bit of Senate history, Supreme Court Justices aren’t nominated in Presidential election years. Only when that bit of history comes back to bite the Left in the ass does it become an issue.

To go even further into this, the Constitution states the Senate gives “advice and consent” for judicial nominees. Nowhere is there a requirement for any nominee to go through a confirmation hearing. Really, the hearing is for grandstanding politicians to look like they’re doing something when they’re acting like hams.

Well…okay, but what about Brett Kavanaugh? Don’t you right wingers want Roe v . Wade overturned?

First off, Kavanaugh said he considers Roe v. Wade to be settled law and would not consider overturning it. Even if he’s changed his mind, there would need to be a legal challenge to Roe that would need to get through multiple judicial layers before it would even reach the Supreme Court. Will that happen? We don’t know.

Even if Roe gets overturned, the decision to allow abortions would go back to the states. We can argue whether that’s good or bad, but it’s a discussion that should be welcomed by all parties involved. Until Roe comes back before the High Court, though, it’s still just theoretical.

But Kavanaugh is a practicing Catholic! Don’t they want abortion outlawed?

Nancy Pelosi is a practicing Catholic, and she doesn’t want abortion outlawed.

Kavanaugh’s faith plays no role in determine whether he’s fit for the Supreme Court. Remember, the Constitution states there is no religious test to serve, so he could be an atheist and still not be disqualified.

What about gay marriage, civil rights, and other important issues? Kavanaugh will set us back on those and a lot more!

Again, there has to be a legal challenge that makes its way through the courts before it even gets heard by the Supreme Court. And that process isn’t quick, kids. It might be years before such a challenge gets heard.

Didn’t Kavanaugh say a sitting President shouldn’t be indicted or tried?

He did.

So, why should he be a Supreme Court Justice if he feels that way? No President should be above the law.

Because in that same piece you’re quoting from, he goes on to say Congress should change the law. In other words, Kavanaugh feels the current system needs to be changed and wants the body charged with making laws to do it, just as the Constitution dictates.

You keep talking about the Constitution. That’s outdated and should be revamped to reflect current values.

The Founding Fathers already accounted for that. If you can get enough support for your ideas, you can call for a Convention of the States and have the Constitution changed. With today’s political climate, I wish you the best of luck.

Even if you don’t want to go through the trouble of amending the Constitution, it should be pointed out the Constitution has already been interpreted to address many of the issues you hold dear. You may not feel like it’s progressive or conservative enough, but the judicial branch can be persuaded. How far those interpretations deviate from the source material may be an issue, but to call the Constitution outdated is to ignore the framework it provides us to change with the times.

Well, the Constitution doesn’t say how many Supreme Court Justices there need to be, so we should add more Justices so there is a better balance of ideologies.

That is a good point, actually. However, that has the potential to backfire. Remember, when you allow one President to do something, future Presidents can pick up that permission and run with it. Want to see 25 Antonin Scalia-type judges sitting on the High Bench?

Well, maybe we should put term limits on Supreme Court Justices.

Although it might seem like a good idea to limit the terms of Justices, the reason Justices have lifetime appointments is to avoid political favoritism. And when we look at the current Supreme Court makeup, the Justices who lean Left put their ideology above the Constitution. The Justices who lean Right tend to do the opposite. Besides, if we put term limits on Justices, we might be looking at another Merrick Garland situation, especially if the terms are to be 19 years, as is what is being suggested. Then, we might be right back where we started from and nothing will be solved.

Stop talking to me you racist/sexist/homophobe/bigot/Trumpster/insult-du-joir!


And there we have it. Use this as a guide, and may the fates be ever in your favor!