Friends, you won't want to miss my latest Newsmaker interview with Brian O'Neil on WLEA 1480. We talk at length about the sexual assault allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh -- and why he is likely to overcome them and become our nation's next Supreme Court Justice. We also talk about Chris Collins' future as a Western New York Congressman, and the steady escalation in U.S. tariffs against Chinese goods. That presages, I feel sure, another win for the Trump administration, as sooner or later the Chinese will agree to revise our trading relationship and pay us greater respect as a trading partner. We also speculate on who might win the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2020, and we dissect the "Deep State". Check it out!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK424n6dSVo&feature=youtu.be
Dr. Waddy: I am much encouraged by your assertion that Judge Kavanaugh will win through; he would be a superb Justice.
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree with your comment that the Dems are prepared to "burn the house down" to derail Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. This is, on their part, classic "forward defense" (eg. the Brits in Afghanistan against Imperial Russia in the 19th century or us in SE Asia midcentury).They know there are many necessary steps in their yet unlikely defeat of the effort to return SCOTUS to its proper role and they are determined to vigorously contest each step. Chances are they will be stopped but the lesson we must learn from the ruthless manner of their effort is that it fairly and accurately predicts how they would RULE! They would be heartless, they would be bigoted in the extreme, they would use whatever method works because they are long since committed to the principle that the end ( in their view, unquestionably just) justifies unsavory means. We MUST take full account of this objective reality and view them with unadulterated recognition of their totalitarian intent.
Yes, Jack -- they aren't afraid to get their hands dirty, and they don't seem to care about the real human costs of their tactics either. Will Christine Blasey Ford come out of this debacle a happier, healthier person? I very much doubt it.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, though, a lot of it is theater. Probably many Dems have always known that they couldn't block Kavanaugh. They need to seem like they made a maximum effort, though, lest the Octasio-Corteses of this world start nipping at their heels...
Dr. Waddy: That's certainly plausible; perhaps Dems with half a grip on reality are alarmed by recent signs of inordinate influence by the overt far left in their party. They could go the way of the early 20th century Progressives (eg. LaFollette)and they know it. The courts are their only path to permanent dominance and that they recognize that their reign in the courts is existentially threatened,is proven by their increasingly desperate stand.
ReplyDeleteLuckily, Jack, I don't think the Dems, writ large, are as rational as you imply. Put another way, I think you're much smarter than they are. I agree that control of the courts is where the rubber meets the road. If the Dems agreed, they would be making a maximum effort to capture the Senate, and that, funnily enough, would probably mean counseling their vulnerable red state Senators to vote FOR Kavanaugh... But they don't act like they want the Senate. They act like they're more concerned with motivating their base, and capturing the House, because that's more realistic. My hope is that they've forgotten about governorships and state legislatures altogether. You have to ask yourself: where is the money going? My impression is that it's flowing into House races. The Left wants the House so it can pursue impeachment, above all. My attention, though, is focused first and foremost on the Senate.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: Kudos: (By the way, I shall announce my candidacy for the Dem Chair presently and will, if elected, lead them, lemming like, off the cliff).I like your analysis very much; it makes much sense.
ReplyDeleteDems know that the true danger to them in a conservative SCOTUS is not the incidental decisions such as Judge Kavanaugh might make but in the conservative conviction that the judiciary must defer to the legislative branch ( not reflexively but in full and appropriate recognition of the essential law making function of elected representatives). Should that principle be firmly reestablished, the Dems know that they are sunk. They cannot get their empirically bereft dreams through any legislature in the real America (eg. almost every state now "allows" concealed carry - so much for their anti self defense follies).
A prominent broadcast commentator opined today that the essence of the ever intensifying political conflict in America is manifested in the irreconcilable struggle between "pro choice" and "pro life". One can reasonably see this at the heart of the effort to derail Judge Kavanaugh.
Honestly, I think this issue approaches the existential importance of slavery in the 1850's. The left and especially its 1970's radical man hater faction, invited Nemesis on itself when it chose to bypass the democratic process and to impose this unendurable sanction on the real America. The inevitable reckoning may be at hand.
I hope you are right about the Dems' insane emphasis on the House. First, it could put the Empress Dowager back on the throne, from which she would croak with abandon, bringing her two year sojourn to a disastrous end in 2020 and inspiring untold millions to hasten to reelect President Trump.
Well, OK, they win the House and they pass articles of impeachment, on the most tenuous of justifications. That gives Mitch McConnell leave to sarcastically reprise Charles Schumer's disdainful declaration at Slick Willy's trial ("let's get this ridiculous process over with"). OK, suppose a Dem Senate prevails - what would they get? Mike Pence. Good luck there Dems.
Ha! Good point, Jack. A President Pence would be a very Pyrrhic victory for the Dems indeed. Anyway, keeping in mind that two-thirds of Senators need to vote to convict in order to remove a President, I don't think Trump is going anywhere. I find it very hard to imagine that anything that Mueller has to say will change our political fundamentals either.
ReplyDeleteIs the Kavanaugh battle all about abortion? I'm not sure. The Democratic Party is only secondarily about ideology, if you ask me. It's primarily about winning. Thus, Democratic Senators are castigating Kavanaugh because they need "progressive" votes. They're embracing Christine Ford because she gives them an outside chance of blocking Trump's (very solid) pick. A win is a win, in their eyes.
Incidentally, the Dems are already giddy about taking back Congress AND the Presidency in the next few years, all of which they regard as a near certainty, at which point they intend to EXPAND the Supreme Court, making Kavanaugh irrelevant. You and I both know that, if they get half a chance, they'll do that and worse!
Dr. Waddy: I see your point. Such a change to SCOTUS could achieved by statute alone, not requiring a Constitutional amendment for which the approval of the state legislatures of the real America would be needed. But also needed would be the signature of a Dem President.
ReplyDeleteSurely the Mueller probe, though conceivably guided by a principled lawyer, is in effect simply an effort to muddy the waters, induce generalized chaos and to yield benefits of which Dems might be quick to take advantage. What classic guerrilla warfare this is. But the guerilla can be defeated; the Brits proved it in Malaya and the real America can do it here.
Dr. Waddy: A factor I failed to consider is that the abortion battle lacks the macroeconomic aspect that slavery had even though individual lives can be seriously impacted by the availability of the "procedure". The moral stakes are just as high though, I think. We need a new Gettysburg Address, delivered by President Trump or Vice President Pence, to define and inspire the pro life cause and its relation to our nation's very soul.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: Also, I am wrong about the Presidential signature. Article Five does not require it.
ReplyDeleteJack, if you're right that the Supreme Court can be expanded by statute, that's still a pretty high bar for the Dems, as it would require control of both houses of Congress (with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate) AND the presidency. Having said that, I suspect old Chuck would do away with the filibuster in a heartbeat, and a Democratic sweep in 2020 can't be ruled out.
ReplyDeleteAbortion is an issue of vast importance, I agree, but I'm not so sure that the fate of Roe vs. Wade is as significant as many people seem to believe. Overturning it would, I suspect, only marginally affect the number of abortions performed, because many states would fail to criminalize it, and many citizens of those states where it was criminalized would simply travel elsewhere to have the procedure performed. In my view, only an evisceration of the Democratic Party would facilitate a major shift in abortion policy.
Dr. Waddy: There is, perhaps, a test case of that prospect in American history. When slavery was outlawed, new forms of quasi slavery appeared (eg. contracted convict labor, Jim Crow laws and assured very physical extralegal sanctions) which kept southern blacks in 10th class citizenship. But our country eventually recoiled from these wrongs, due to moral outrage, not irresistable coercion. And the same American moral strength that wrought that justice will, I think, eventually relegate the Dems and especially their sociopathic radical feminist faction, to the phantom zone now populated by those who enabled the execrable oppression of racial minorities which has had such a profound and onerous effect on our national life.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: I'm confident that abortion, except in the most extreme of circumstances, will, when our country returns to its senses, be seen as a wrong fully comparable to slavery and the effort to oppose it as essentially American.
ReplyDeleteBoy, Jack -- you possess a level of optimism I just can't match! You have such faith in the wisdom of the American people. My view of human nature is a lot darker, I must confess. I also view America as an organism like any other. It has a lifespan, and someday, much as we may love it, it will shrivel up and die.
ReplyDeleteHmm. What a downer I am. I take it all back. I embrace Jackism, now and for all time. :)
Dr. Waddy: Pish tosh! Your view is at least as plausible as mine.
ReplyDeleteJack, let's wait a hundred years, and if America is still going strong I will gladly eat my hat!
ReplyDelete