Republicans didn’t want Merrick Garland confirmed, so they just didn’t vote. Democrats don’t want Brett Kavanaugh confirmed, so they accuse him of serial gang rape. And that is the difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog
Tweeted on September 28, 2018
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Merrick Garland has pre-existing conditions.
“And that is the difference between Republicans and Democrats.”
Correction; that’s the difference between the outer appearances of Democrats and Republicans. It’s the exoteric difference, which masks the esoteric “difference” which is no difference at all.
The “good cop” does this, and the “bad cop” does that, seemingly in bitter conflict with each other, while in fact they’re pals working in concert and for the same boss, to send you to prison.
We get all wrapped up in the exoteric “battles” (Karl Marx’s “dialectic method”), which is pure theatre, and therefore we get frustrated and exasperated as “our side” (the one we see as the good cop), no matter how much or how often it “wins”, always seems to manage to fail to uphold the founding principles or reverse the slide into authoritarianism. In becoming thus engaged with their system, on their terms, reacting to their assertions and their premises, we utterly fail to discern the nature and identity of that system.
The “conservative” pundits’ job is to keep us thus engaged, and they do a brilliant job of it. They are the sports announcers, as it were in this coliseum of politics, religion and culture, keeping us focused on all the distractions.
The more outrageous the behavior, the more complete the distraction.
As effective as it is though, there’s a weakness in it; eventually they have to get so outrageous, so blatant, that many people will let go of their precious incredulity, and of their precious allegiance to one of the fake teams, and begin to see The Beast for what it is. Of course by then it’s usually too late.
For example; at what point would one of his victims see Ted Bundy for what he was? When he lured her to his windowless van which was strangely secluded? When he asked her to get into the van? When he closed the doors? When he asked her to put on the handcuffs? No; probably not until the knife cut deep enough to make denial impossible and at the same time death inevitable. Even then there might have been doubt in the minds of some victims, so powerful is our adherence to clever lies and outward appearances.
No, the difference is that the Republicans controlled the Senate in both cases and thus could both prevent Garland from getting a hearing and force a hearing and vote for Kavanaugh, forcing the Democrats to get as dirty as possible to have any chance at influence.
And the assertion that these are empty accusations is just wishful thinking on the part of Republicans. There’s no conspiracy here, the guy’s pretty clearly an infantile little douchebag — and hanging on to him was a big mistake. Women in both parties are now incandescent with rage and will make what was a likely moderate turnover of Congress into a landslide. After which point they’ll impeach Kavanaugh for perjury (his lies are now well documented…that testimony the other day will be the rope they hang him with) and the Republicans will have both lost Congress and the SOTUS seat they want so badly.
Until now, your comments were generally reasonable. But now you’ve joined the lynch mob of character assassins.
You sling mud without any basis in reality, with the explicit intent of destroying a person without due process. You should hope that the other side will continue to be the one that does not use such tactics.
You might read Prof. Alan Dershowitz’s op-ed in today’s WSJ. He explains quite well, from the point of view of a liberal Democrat, why presumption of innocence is correct and should be applied.
The only mob I’ve joined is that of the Founders, who believed the judiciary should be a check to legislative and executive excess. Even if you give no credence to his accusers, Kavanaugh has demonstrated with his testimony he’s explicitly a political agent, not someone interested in rising above politics to try and apply the law fairly. All judges have biases, but he has an agenda.
As for due process: this isn’t a court case, this is a job interview. As the person employing him, I have lots of reasons to believe his character to be entirely inappropriate for the job. If we were talking about putting him in jail for something, sure, due process is absolutely called for. But this isn’t that. There are plenty of other people more qualified for this job even among the list provided by Trump. There’s no reason as an employer that I have to take the first guy off the street who applies for the job….
It’s interesting to read your viewpoint on the situation. It is quite different from some others. I talked to a big Trump supporter (best president EVER!!) last week who saw the fallout from the Kavanaugh confirmation process to be a huge win for Republicans in the elections next month.
As Scott Adams puts it (paraphrasing), “People are watching the same screen and seeing different movies.” My QOTD post for tomorrow has a lot more related information but I think you probably get the idea.
To determine who is “watching” the movie which most closely matches reality we only have to wait a month until the elections and see which is the better match. I’m going to make your comment my QOTD post for the day after the elections to remind us to review the predictions. This will also allow us to explore the predictions made by the book “When Prophecy Fails“. Either my Trump supporter will have their “prophecy” fail or you will have your prophecy fail. It will be a great test! I’m really looking forward to it.
Yeah, well, I also claimed there was no way Trump would win, and you see how that turned out. I’d suggest not betting your house on my prognostications.
I almost never bet. In the last 40 years or so I have only bet on things I thought I was certain to win. That was about a half dozen bets. No losses yet.
I’m not betting on either side of this issue.
I also don’t have a house of my own, so there is that too.
The “job interview” argument is a red herring. Dershowitz disposed of it explicitly in his op-ed. He said you can make that argument with the Bork case because that was “merely” an issue of ideology. (I think he’s stretching the point, but let’s admit it for now.) But here we’re not dealing with ideology, we’re dealing with accusations of heinous felonies. Those should not be entertained EVER without adequate evidence. “The accuser is a woman and the accused is a man” is not evidence. “He’s a little douchebag” is not evidence. “Believe women” is not evidence. “He is a conservative so I think he’s guilty” (the Mazie Hirono standard) is not evidence.
There are two things going on here, at the political level. (Here I mean, among the politicians involved — I’m not talking about Dr. Ford.) One is the clearly stated goal to take down every Trump nominee, especially one even slightly of the “constitution as written” ideology. The other is the desire to find a cudgel to beat Republicans with, with the hope of winning in November.
On the second point, you’re assuming that woman will generally assume that accusation equals guilt, and vote against anyone who argues otherwise. I’m not so sure. A bunch of them will believe, as I do, that accusations of major crimes should be accompanied by evidence. A bunch more will think “there but for the grace of God goes my father, or my husband, or my son, or my brother”. Some will have a relevant experience in their own past, such as the (female) lawyer who wrote an op-ed in the WSJ the other day about representing the (female) Dean of Duke U during the Rolling Stone fake rape case. Not only was the dean vilified for crimes invented by that rag, but the attorney was attacked for having the temerity of representing the dean against charges of being lenient on the alleged perpetrators of that fictional crime. We’ve seen that before — in Red China where lawyers are attacked by the government if they defend the wrong defendants.
On the notion of picking another person on the list — if this tactic works, that simply means the other side will repeat their tactics for every other person. We already know this has nothing to do with Kavanaugh, it has to do with who picked him and why.
>>There are two things going on here, at the political level. One is the clearly stated goal to take down every Trump nominee, especially one even slightly of the “constitution as written” ideology. The other is the desire to find a cudgel to beat Republicans with, with the hope of winning in November.
You realize this is exactly what the Republicans did to Obama for *years,* right? Dozens of federal appointments to the bench, and as a cherry on top – Merrick Garland. The notion that the Republicans care about “process” or “norms” is absurd on its face given recent history.
>> But here we’re not dealing with ideology, we’re dealing with accusations of heinous felonies. Those should not be entertained EVER without adequate evidence.
Agreed, hence the need for a thorough and complete investigation. This all would have gone a lot easier if the Republicans hadn’t resisted that. McConnell said he’s gonna ram this through no matter what. Where’s the respect for “evidence” in that? If you assume we don’t actually know if the guy is innocent or guilty, then you should find the idea of “ramming through” his appointment to the supreme court an anathema.
>> We already know this has nothing to do with Kavanaugh, it has to do with who picked him and why.
Well, again, the Republicans are in no position to criticize when it comes to politicizing judicial appointments. That horse left the barn well before Merrick Garland. And you can’t really argue it’s not at least partially about Kavanaugh. A female appointee would be highly unlikely to be in this situation (wrt sexual harassment allegations). Possible, sure, but statistically unlikely.
Mainstream conservatives have tried playing by the Marquis of Queensbury rules for a generation, while their leadership sold them out and colluded with the Dem leadership to expand government, while the progressives have been playing political Calvinball. It wasn’t until the last few years that the Rs even sort of fought back.
Trump and Kavanaugh believe in the rule of law, as in the law means what it actually says in the black-letter plain reading of the text of the law. The Progs believe the law is whatever they want the words to mean. Those two views are mutually exclusive. The socialist/progs know that this is do-or-die for them, as they have made nearly all their gains via court cases, not legislation. They will oppose anyone who will block their march through institutions via the Judiciary.
The Republicans finally have a leader worth the title. Would you rather they lose respectably, with a properly adjusted bow-tie, and let western civilization fall, or fight?
You’re wrong about Garland.
I said “take down”. I did not say “deny the office”.
An honest person understands the difference between “no” and “you’re a rapist”. The difference between rejection and assassination.
And if he does not get impeached, it will just be an excuse for every elected democratic official to ignore the supreme court rulings as illegitimate.
Welcome to our civil war II. It will be fought with weaponized movements like #metoo and new laws that will neuter non-leftists. And should you resist remember that you are guilty until you prove your innocence.