Kavanaugh and the Honor of the Senate
Kavanaugh and the Honor of the Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has scheduled a vote in the Senate for Friday morning to close the debate and bring Brett Kavanaugh to a final confirmation vote on Saturday, and it's about time. The undecided senators have had their extra week for an FBI investigation, the review has found nothing to support the assault allegations against them, and now the senators must vote to put a worthy judge on the Supreme Court.
Democrats are complaining that the FBI report is incomplete, but no report would satisfy them unless they found evidence that it apparently does not exist. "The most remarkable part of this report is what is not in it," said Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. She believes that the accusations that have no corroboration are credible because the FBI can not prove that something did not happen.
***
The FBI always presented little new evidence because Christine Blasey Ford remembers so little about the assault that it says it happened 36 years ago. Witnesses she says were there, including her best friend, say they do not remember the party or refute what happened. There are no corroborating witnesses or incriminating evidence, and Ms. Ford's story about key details also keeps changing.
The best summary of her case is found in the memorandum of Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona prosecutor who specializes in sexual assault cases and who was invited to question Mrs. Ford by Republicans in the judiciary. "A case," he said, she said, "is incredibly difficult to prove, but this case is even weaker than that," Mitchell wrote. "I do not believe that a reasonable prosecutor brings this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the standard of preponderance of the evidence. "
You do not have to believe that Mrs. Ford is lying to vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh, and we do not doubt her sincerity. You can simply assume that memories may be wrong after so many decades, and that it would be a terrible precedent to disqualify such a distinguished candidate when he denies it categorically and there is no corroborating evidence.
The latest liberal attack is that the passionate defense of Judge Kavanaugh's integrity and his criticism of the Democrats in his second hearing shows that he lacks an adequate "judicial temperament". It is said that the Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski is upset about this point, although she did not mention it when she requested an additional week for the FBI to investigate.
Related
More WSJ Opinion coverage of the Kavanaugh nomination
Mr. Kavanaugh has exhibited an impeccable temperament in his 12 years at the federal bank, while teaching at Harvard and in the rest of his public life. Only after the Democrats accused him of vile behavior, and the media expanded it as if it were a fact, the judge reacted with indignation that any normal innocent person would.
According to this standard of temperament, Democrats have the right to accuse him of abusing women, being drunk and committing crimes, and he is supposed to take it with a smile and a thank you for the question, good sir. If he had advocated meekly for mercy in the Democratic court, opponents would have said he was guilty.
Then there is the claim that Mr. Kavanaugh did not get worse treatment than Judge Merrick Garland, the candidate for Barack Obama who was denied a hearing and confirmation of the Senate vote in 2016. So destroy the reputation of a Man and accusing him of gang rape is the same as leaving a nomination on hold for several months to allow voters to decide who should nominate the next Supreme Court Justice?
The idea of delaying a confirmation vote in a presidential election year was established by none other than the current minority leader Chuck Schumer. "We should not confirm any Bush candidate to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances," Schumer said in a July 2007 speech to the Society of the American Constitution. The Democrats occupied the Senate, and Mr. Schumer was placing a marker if someone in the High Court retired in the last year of George W. Bush as President.
***
Judge Kavanaugh is, by all accounts, one of the most qualified nominees for the Supreme Court in recent history. He has more experience in the appellate court than Antonin Scalia in 1986, and has had more of his judicial reasoning adopted by the Supreme Court. Nothing in his three decades of public life echoes the behavior his accusers claim to have seen in his high school and college days. As for the fund, confirmation is an easy vote.
However, the risks are greater due to the stains and the murder of characters. Rejecting Judge Kavanaugh would now ratify these Democratic tactics, with damaging consequences for the Senate, the Supreme Court and US policy. If the uncorroborated accusations of decades ago can destroy a distinguished career for political reasons, then the same can happen to anyone and many.
The Democrats have done great damage to the Senate that will take years to get rid of, but the crucial first step is to confirm Brett Kavanaugh.
.
.
SOURCE LINK ERESVIRAL.COM https://www.beviral.online
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario