Tuesday, July 17, 2018

Killing Kavanaugh's Nomination

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

The Washington Post, in a story titled, "Democrats Divided On How to Attack Kavanaugh," laments the fact that the Left may not be able to kill the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court.

But they will try with all their might.

George Soros is putting up at least $5 million to help kill the nomination.

Is the Left really that afraid of Brett Kavanaugh, or is there something else they fear enough to risk their beloved political offices?

Jeff Bezos' Washington Post laments, "President Trump's Supreme Court nominee has amplified divisions in the Democratic Party, spurring competing views about how, or even whether to attack Brett M. Kavanaugh."

Can it be done politically?

The Post article is a long and winding one that begs for someone---anyone, to step up and kill this nomination---like Sen. Joe Biden killed President Reagan's Robert Bork nomination back in the 80s.

Washington's own Sen. Patty Murray told the Post, "We are out to make sure that people understand that with Judge Kavanaugh on the bench, five men will most likely vote to overturn Roe v Wade."

Sen. Schumer says Kavanaugh could undermine healthcare protections for Americans, and Sen. Brian Schatz from Hawaii says, "All of our values are at stake here..."

Senator Jeff Merkley from Oregon says Kavanaugh "has a massive view of the presidency that's more appropriate for a king and kingdom than it is for a democracy and a presidency."

In their own way, all these "public servants" are trying to figure out how to politically kill the nomination.

However, the facts---and a dose of political reality suggests the Left in Congress probably will not be successful.

Maybe money can kill the nomination.

George Soros, the far Left financier of such things as killing unacceptable conservative nominees and candidates, has stepped up personally with about $5 million.

The Daily Caller reported yesterday that a "Soros-linked group will spend millions to stop Kavanaugh."

The Caller gives a detailed and sourced account of how Soros and 3 other wealthy contributors have put up about $11 million (70% of the fund's total cash on hand) to create a "new shadow group" called "Demand Justice (DJ)."

The shadow group is multi-layered and not easily defined at a glance, but the Caller turns on the light and reveals all the threads in the carefully woven tapestry.

Given the structure, it's difficult to know how much money Soros has actually given to DJ, but it's at least $5 million.

The executive director of DJ told the New York Times that DJ hopes to "sensitize rank-and-file progressives to think of the courts as a venue for the activism and a way to advance the progressive agenda."

DJ is staffed with many from the Obama and Hillary ranks.

Clearly, their interests are not "justice for all" under the Constitution. It is the advancement of a far-Left agenda that is actually adversarial to the Constitution. It is a continuation of what Obama often referred to as the "remaking of America."

This group will be running ads in districts where they believe a Republican---Collins in Maine and Murkowski in Alaska---can be persuaded to vote against Kavanaugh's nomination---telling the public a vote for Kavanaugh is a vote against women's health, aka, abortion, because Kavanaugh will tilt the Court and it will abolish Roe v Wade.

In parallel fashion, Bernie Sanders told a receptive crowd at the American Federation of Teachers biennial convention recently that there is a "political revolution sweeping this country."

Included in Bernie's revolution was a pledge to fight against "Trump's nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh." And a reference to the classroom as fertile ground to further the resistance against conservatives.

Do these far Left warriors really fear Kavanaugh that much? Or is there something more?

In a speech given by Judge Kavanaugh in 2017, he shared his judicial philosophy.

He said, "It is sometimes said that the Constitution is a document of majestic generalities. I view it differently. As I see it, the Constitution is primarily a document of majestic specificity, and those specific words have meaning. Absent constitutional amendment, those words continue to bind us as judges, legislators, and executive officials."

He continued: "The Constitution quite specifically tells us that the people decide through their elected representatives."

He said that "pressure is often placed on the courts and the Supreme Court to update the Constitution to reflect the times."

Then he said,
"In the view of some, the Constitution is a living document, and the Court must ensure that the Construction adapts to meeting the changing times. For those of us who believe that the judges are confined to interpreting and applying the Constitution and laws as they are written and not as we might wish they were written..." the Constitution can only be changed by a vote of the people through the amendment process---"not by the courts snatching that constitutional or legislative authority for themselves."

The so-called progressive Left doesn't really fear Kavanaugh, they fear the Constitution.

The Daily Signal, an arm of the Heritage Foundation, says most "Democrats are going to get hysterical about any pick because any conservative pick is going to take the Constitution far too literally for their liking."

The far-Left so-called progressives, have, by their own admission, concluded that they cannot now advance their secular godless agenda by elections and a vote of the people, so they have transitioned to using the courts and the administrative state and coercion as a policy tool---forcing people to act, think and speak as the far-Left wants them to.

This has led to Roe v Wade in 1973 and so-called same-sex "marriage" during the Obama administration. The Constitution addresses neither, but activist judges have found a way to "discover" these rights by bending the intent of the Constitution to affirm their ever-changing, shifting, relativistic moral beliefs.

Normalizing the idea that the Constitution should be subservient to the fleeting will of politics and progressive conceptions of justice goes back to Barack Obama, who promised in 2008 to nominate justices sharing "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."

Few things undermine the secularist, socialist agenda of the far-Left more than adherence to the Constitution and its original intent.

Daniel Webster (1782-1852), said to be the most effective American ever to serve in the US Senate, said this about the Constitution and those who uphold it:

"Hold on my friends to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world."

"But," he said, "if we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper," however, if we neglect these principles, "no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity."

And he said,
"Let us not forget the religious character of our origin. Our fathers were brought here by their high veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary."

Webster said, "The hand that destroys the Constitution rends our Union asunder forever."

And he said, "God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it."

This is a time to guard and defend it.

Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Bold. Be Prayerful.