Kavanaugh Hysteria

in The Political Slant by
*On Saturday, October 6, Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed by the Senate for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States, but not without controversy. Mr. Kavanaugh faced charges for something that he supposedly did thirty-five years ago. The “star witness” against Mr. Kavanaugh was someone who stereotypically not only sides with, but openly advocates the liberal agenda, a college professor. I’ll just rack that one up to another strange coincidence in life.

Would you like to be denied a job for which you have strived for your whole life because someone claims you did something thirty-five years ago, has virtually no evidence, no corroborating witnesses, and openly dislikes you, bringing up the issue at a last-minute?

While Supreme Court justices are held in high regard, there are other, shall we say, “judiciary figures” with personal “agendas” who are, in my estimation, some of the most despicable authorities in this nation.

In the courtrooms of these judiciary figures, justice takes a back seat to agendas that they will never admit to; they also will resort to any tactic to win, fair or unfair. When in their court, they do anything to win, by even the most underhanded and despicable means. These judiciary figures are best described as willing to do anything to win; nothing is beneath them.

If you’ve ever wondered why the most prominent motorcycle gang in America calls any fight where they win a fair fight, one needs to look no further than the examples that some of the judiciary figures have provided, for which our Democrat senators have offered no respite. Locally we call these judiciary figures the court officials who build careers on the backs and wallets of citizens, guilty or not, and there are plenty of examples of citizens run over roughshod by local officials looking for a seat in the governor’s office. Nationally, we call them senators, of the same breed, only older, more successful, and even more ruthless and unprincipled.

Kavanaugh - Dr. Christine Blasey Ford
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford

I feel genuine sorrow for Christine Blasey Ford.

Psychologically, it makes no difference if her alleged event took place or not, her psyche at this point makes no distinction, because what you believe to be true is true in your mind regardless. If Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation was concocted to suit the liberal senators, and I am in no way implying it was, she would best take it to her grave, which I hope for her sake is a long time from now.

The senatorial review of Mr. Kavanaugh came to a point where slang terms from high school became issues of debate and clarity, giving ad absurdum a new definition, hopefully to be used in outlines for what not to do at government hearings. What’s next Mr. Schumer, middle school yearbooks? How about elementary school yearbooks? Can we find evidence the person in question looked up the skirts of the girls in nursery school? Troubling evidence indeed. Many of the more historically cognizant harkened back to Joseph N. Welch asking Joseph McCarthy: “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”

Brett Kavanaugh’s position has no expiration, because our founding fathers wanted a judiciary that could not be influenced by politics.”

Brett Kavanaugh’s position has no expiration, because our founding fathers wanted a judiciary that could not be influenced by politics. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, like it or not, influenced the Supreme Court by threatening to pack the court in his favor in 1937. Bear in mind that there is no specific number of Supreme Court justices outlined in our constitution; the number nine has just been agreed upon for some time now. There have been Supreme Court justices who didn’t like being on the highest bench in the land. Charles Evans Whittaker served on the Supreme Court for only about five years, resigning after the stress of the job gave him a nervous breakdown. I think Whittaker would have withdrawn from the nomination had he been treated in the manner of Kavanaugh.

I especially liked when the FBI investigation found nothing, the senators found it “troubling.” Yes, troubling because they had no more cards to play. No evidence, no corroborating witnesses, and, at times, sketchy recollections from Christine Blasey Ford as to specifics such as who drove her home that night.

The Democrats have lost, and this time they stretched the rules of the game as far as they could.

Be happy that they lost. How anyone, in clear conscience, could vote to reject someone from public office based on uncorroborated, unsubstantiated, and categorically denied accusations of a crime committed some thirty years ago, does not represent an objective viewpoint, nor competent representation of the people. Rejecting a nominee due to unsubstantiated accusations such as those directed against Mr. Kavanaugh would have set a dangerous precedent and set this nation on an even more perilous course. Political correctness has seen its apogee, and common sense as well as objective legal reasoning has finally prevailed.

Like many a grandstanding prosecutor looking to sharpen their image, they (no names necessary) stretched the rules as far as they could go, and since they risked nothing, they return to their quiet public lives, all the while, I suspect, scheming to try something like this on our elected president. Perhaps this was just the test case, to test the waters.

While I feel sorry for Christine Blasey Ford, there are others for which I not only feel no sorrow, but contempt and resentment.

The elections are coming up soon. If you aren’t part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.

The Democrats provided no solution, only problems, and if this case is any example, it only proves the decrepitude of their position, trying to prevail on nothing but innuendo.

It’s all they have left.

 


Jeffrey Neil Jackson

Jeffrey Neil Jackson is an
Educator & Literary Mercenary