Some Quick Thoughts on the Kavanaugh Flake Delay

flake-inelevator-featured

Yes, if you’re a conservative or Republican, the delay in Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court is frustrating.  Whether it’s the case or not, the Left’s strategy of trapping a Senator in the elevator and yelling at him seems to have bought more time, following more time bought with unproven accusations and political theater.  That this new low for our politics has been rewarded is a problem.  If it succeeds in keeping this U.S. Senate from appointing a Supreme Court justice, the reward — and the incentive to repeat the behavior — will be hugely amplified.

Just last night, after the Democrats’ behavior, the Republican base seemed to be awakening, and anecdotal evidence suggested moderates were beginning to pay attention, too.  If Senator Flake’s delay this stops the Kavanaugh appointment, I agree with those who predict that the Republicans’ base will take it out on them, not the culprit Democrats.

Please consider a voluntary, tax-deductible subscription to keep the Current growing and free.

That said, the Republicans presumably have pulled Kavanaugh aside and asked, “Just so we know, there are absolutely no surprises to be found, right?”  That would mean that anything that does come up will be either a complete surprise or an unbelievable fabrication.  The first of these is unlikely but would reshuffle the political deck too dramatically to predict, and the second probably won’t change the dynamic much.  Who knows but that Republicans have reason to believe that exculpatory evidence exists, perhaps with one of the men who’ve already come forward to suggest that he was the teenage culprit, not Kavanaugh, and the consequence of the Flake delay will fall on that guy.

If the most likely version of the above turns out to be the case, what we’re about to see is another week of the Democrats and the Left behaving like scary, irrational nuts, followed with an FBI report that makes the whole thing seem like the overkill that it appears to be, followed by continued Democrat intransigence, followed by even more public dissatisfaction with the Democrats as we inch closer and closer to the election.

On the other hand, the FBI can no longer be trusted to be impartial… or competent.  So, the agency may produce an outcome that only throws more grease on the national dumpster fire and leaves us with another week of nail biting political twists concerning a high school incident that nobody would have treated with this much gravity a short while ago, even if it had been recent.



  • Floyd123

    Whats scary about the liberal way of thinking is that they rely on a heavy dose of emotional credibility to come an outcome.The conservative mind on the other hand puts more stock in factual credibility..Does anyone really believe that the Whitehouses and Bookers of the world will accept any outcome other than a no vote, no matter what the FBI findings are.

  • guest

    “the Left’s strategy of trapping a Senator in the elevator and yelling at him”…how do you the political leanings of the woman that claim they were sexually assaulted?

    “the FBI can no longer be trusted to be impartial… or competent”…based on???

    • Rhett Hardwick

      “the Left’s strategy of trapping a Senator in the elevator and yelling at him”
      I am reminded of a British kids book series, in which the girl frequently gets her way by threatening “I’ll scream and scream until I make myself sick”.

    • Rhett Hardwick

      “the FBI can no longer be trusted to be impartial… or competent”…based on???

      Well, you could start with the number of FBI agents, from the Boston office alone, who have been assigned Federal Prison I.D. numbers.

      • guest

        I believe the number is 1.

        • Rhett Hardwick

          Read the last line of this Wiki entry and tell me you don’t think the FBI was involved in this murder:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Castucci

          • guest

            Who, other than Connolly has “Federal Prison I.D. numbers”?

  • ShannonEntropy

    So the same FBI that hasn’t gotten to the bottom of the Las Vegas mass shooting that happened a year ago — the 1 yr anniversary of that event is Monday Oct 1st — is somehow in the next week gonna uncover probative new information about a 1982 high school party that prolly never actually happened

    Yeah right….

  • guest
    • Rhett Hardwick

      Hard to say. How would you feel about a judge who had no “bias” against murder, or neglect of children?

      • guest

        There are appropriate laws to deal with those charges. Bias isn’t needed. If there were convictions on those charges based on bias they would be subject to appeal and overturn.

        • Rhett Hardwick

          I would be more concerned about the severity of the sentence, or lack of it. “Appeals” are not free. Most judges have a known bias, or two. Lawyers maneuver to appear in front of a judge known to favor their cases.
          “Bias”? I mentioned elsewhere that I had been the victim of a fraudulent claim of “sexual predation”. The case was dismissed when the woman failed to appear to testify. The judge couldn’t help herself, she commented “you were lucky this time”. As though I was some sort of repeat offender.

  • Justin Katz

    Not “Republicans.” Just the appropriately named Senator Flake.

    • guest

      Then perhaps the appointment to the committee by party leadership was a mistake.

      • Justin Katz

        Except that we all know that this performance would have applied no matter whom the Republican nominee happened to be.

        • guest

          Even if it was, another senator would not have added the condition on their vote and the full senate could have rammed it through this week.

      • Justin Katz

        Or do you mean the appointment of Flake? I’m not familiar enough with the politics of it to say.

  • Merle The Monster

    “So, the agency may produce an outcome that only throws more grease on the national dumpster fire and leaves us with another week of nail biting political twists concerning a high school incident that nobody would have treated with this much gravity a short while ago, even if it had been recent.”

    This may be the most callous comment about sexual assault that I have read lately. I only hope that the author adds a correction and explanation as to the thinking behind this regrettable post

    • Justin Katz

      Do you dispute that nobody would have thought much of the incident a short while ago? At the end of the day, she was felt up and scared. Incidents like that most definitely should not happen, but how dramatic the aftermath ought to be is a matter of cultural change, and even in the MeToo era we should continue to be able to draw distinctions between offenses of different extremity.
      Note, here, that we’re not mediating the aftermath for two individuals, but for a country that increasingly seems on the brink. To overstate things (maybe): Should we really be treating the 35-year-old incident described by Ms. Ford as so horrifying that even the possibility of its having happened should risk violence and further discord?

  • Rhett Hardwick

    I am currently re-reading Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall” and am struck by what I regard as parallels. After the fall of the Republic the Senate ceded all executive power to the emperor. From then on, it screamed and shouted but did nothing at all. After Pertinax failed to make a “donation” to the “deep state” (a/k/a the Praetorian Guards) they killed him and auctioned off the empire to the highest bidder. I have never believed that human nature changes.
    An aside, if every attempt by a 16 year old to “cop a feel” was criminalized, more than half the men I know, and not a few women, would be in jail. I am thinking of a girl that I barely knew at the time. After a group excursion to the beach, she demanded that we shower off together, she also demanded that I “shouldn’t look”. She is now involved in politics. When next she stands for election, should I “rat her”? Is my reporting this “courageous”?

  • Justin Katz

    No, that’s not the point. The point is that when we’re looking to mediate some dispute, some perspective is in order: Is the incident proven or asserted? How bad, objectively, was the incident? When did it occur? What is at stake in resolving the disagreement?
    If a nominee were proven to have violently raped a woman the year before, the disqualification would be beyond dispute (even putting criminality aside). Right now, we’re looking at an unsubstantiated accusation that 35 years ago a teenager groped a girl and scared her. Even if one considers that to be on the border between disqualification and not, it is reasonable to weigh the consequences of making the call.
    My view is that it is much more reasonable to say to the Left that this allegation is simply not enough to justify the consequences than it is to say to the Right that mere allegations are enough to derail their nominees… not the least because we all know this rule only goes one way.

    • guest

      Is the incident proven or asserted? How bad, objectively, was the
      incident? When did it occur?-That’s the point of the investigation. We’ll know in a week.

      What is at stake in resolving the
      disagreement?-Not much. Another nominee could be submitted today.

      • Justin Katz

        This brings us back to the context of what Merle quotes above. I wasn’t suggesting how things will or should come out, but offering one possibility — namely, that the FBI will come out with something that only throws fuel on the fire. In other words, there’s a possibility we won’t “know in a week,” but will only have our sore spots rubbed again.
        As to your second paragraph, the reason this is so contentious is precisely that the Right is fully awakened to the fact that this would happen to any nominee whom we might put forward.

        • guest

          “this would happen to any nominee whom we might put forward” Perhaps “the Right” needs to identify higher caliber nominees.

          If the senate had done the right thing and confirmed judge Garland, this circus before the mid-terms could have easily been avoided. Gorsuch would have been Trump’s first nominee and sailed through. Karma’s sometimes a bitch.

    • Merle The Monster

      ” Should we really be treating the 35-year-old incident described by Ms. Ford as so horrifying that even the possibility of its having happened should risk violence and further discord?”

      The possibility of the 35 year old incident having happened disqualifies Judge Kavanaugh of being confirmed to take a place on the Supreme Court.
      The possibility of its having happened means that the violence you write of has already occurred. The violence was done to Ms. Ford.The possibility of its having happened means that the person you think should be granted a place on the highest court in the government for decades to come has lied repeatedly
      “My view is that it is much more reasonable to say to the Left that this allegation is simply not enough to justify the consequences than it is to say to the Right that mere allegations are enough to derail their nominees”.
      So you admit that this is really about one ideology placing one of its own on the Court. All the talk about the fairness and the dedication to interpreting the law impartially that this nominee espoused is just talk.

      ” If a nominee were proven to have violently raped a woman the year before, the disqualification would be beyond dispute ”
      How good of you to admit that. But a rape that involved less violence or a time longer than a year would keep the door open in your estimation. Incredible.

      • Justin Katz

        Why do you always argue in such bad faith?
        I did not say that rape more than a year ago would not be disqualifying. I laid out a spectrum from one extreme to the other.
        It’s telling, too, that you skip a key point of logic. “The possibility” of the incident doesn’t disqualify the judge. The proven reality of it might. Similarly, “the possibility” does not mean “that the violence… already occurred.”
        It seems to me that you join the rest of the Left in asserting your politically expedient “possibility” as a fact. That is, if it serves your ideology, it is a fact until proven otherwise, which isn’t how justice is supposed to work.
        Indeed, you inadvertently raise the central difference. The ideological imperative of the Right is precisely that people on the court should interpret the law impartially. The likelihood that Kavanaugh would do just that is why you all oppose him to the point of raising a high school year book entry as if it is some sort of criminal evidence.
        (The contrast to that which was overlooked with Obama is breathtaking.)

        • Merle The Monster

          It’s bad faith to comment on the words that you use? Why is this nominee so important to you? This country has more than one person that is qualified to receive the privilege to serve on the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh acted in his emotional appearance before the Senate committee as though this appointment was owed to him. He has been a partisan warrior for Republicans and acted as though there shouldn’t be any question as to his right to ascend to the Supreme Court. We only have his word about his judicial impartiality and his alleged diary he tried to use as evidence. And we now have the indelible image of a self pitying elitist one minute and the belligerent the next. I don’t think that temperament is what we expect of a judge. Is this the type of behavior we can expect when he does not get what he wants? Like questions from Democratic Senators?

          ” Should we really be treating the 35-year-old incident described by Ms. Ford as so horrifying that even the possibility of its having happened should risk violence and further discord?”

          Direct quote from you. your words.

          A 15 year old physically restrained by a 17 year old athlete with another althete as an accomplice and you question that as being horrifying is horrifying. The extent that you and the Republicans and those on the right have deviated from principles about character and decency to support this choice for the Court and support the President who choose him will be what is remembered.

  • Rhett Hardwick

    I guess not. I didn’t go along with it. She was too loud and public about it, something seemed amiss. Granted, she didn’t drag me into the shower booth. My friends did chide me a bit. Could I claim to be humiliated?

    • Christopher C. Reed

      Could be you dodged being tagged a sex offender?

  • Merle The Monster

    Katz thinks that attempted rape is no big thing.

    “At the end of the day, she was felt up and scared.”- Katz

  • Justin Katz

    No. Unlike the Left, the Right does hold politicians to a standard for behavior even if they advance our goals. But a single person’s assertion with absolutely no contemporaneous evidence over an incident like this from high school doesn’t make the cut. It’s absurd that this has gone as far as it has.

    • guest

      It’s not that complicated, Justin. You aren’t going to find “contemporaneous evidence” if you refuse to look for it. Let’s see what happens now that their hand has been forced and we have at least the appearance of an investigation.

      • Justin Katz

        The FBI has already done six background checks. Democrats and left-wing activists have been beating bushes looking for dirt. The left-wing news media has been contacting anybody who might have ever met the guy. Ford has testified, and the people she cited as having been there could not confirm her story.
        Nobody has refused to look. This is a dilatory tactic to continue investigating for political reasons.

        • guest

          You know that the six background checks were all done prior to these allegations. You also know that the only person that can corroborate the story has not spoken to the FBI. There’s no need to spin the facts, they are all out there for everyone to evaluate.

          It this is purely a “dilatory tactic” then then maybe it’s time to submit another nominee without this baggage. There’s no reason to believe that they wouldn’t be confirmed as timely as the Gorsuch nomination. I also love your newfound criticism of dilatory tactics, where were you during the disgraceful and unprecedented Garland delay? Can you say hypocrisy?

  • Monique Chartier

    On a bigger picture matter, with regard to verifying her allegation (and I believe her that this happened to her; the issue is whether Brett Kavanaugh was the person who did it), those on the left indignantly say that this is not a criminal trial so the level of proof doesn’t have to be that high (and, therefore, everyone has to believe her).

    Sorry, this is erroneous. You cannot say, on the one hand, that this alleged event is disqualifying and, on the other, dramatically lower the level of proof. If it is so serious as to be disqualifying, substantial corroboration is needed. Dr. Ford has provided none of that. Her four named witnesses blew up on her and she cannot even say when and where this took place. Again, I believe that this happened to her. But the second part of her claim, that it was Kavanaugh who did this, is completely up in the air.

    • Rhett Hardwick

      The “standard” in a civil matter is “preponderance of the evidence”. Testimony is “evidence” but it is not necessarily “proof” when it is contradictory or inexact. There seems to be a lack of “proof” that the man involved was Mr. Kavanaugh. With the passage of time, I doubt that Mr. Kavanaugh can conclusively “prove” that he was not the man involved. He is not even given a time frame to “alibi”. In an actual civil action, Dr. Ford would have the “burden of proof”. (I am not sure how to classify this matter. To call it a trial is probably unfair to litigants the world over. It is probably an extended “employment interview”. But, there are rules on what you can’t ask there.)
      It is not for nothing that we have Statutes of Limitation. There is probably a further Constitutional question as to how far “advise and consent” goes. The saying is “Bad cases make bad law”. This isn’t bad, it is awful. Theater might best describe it. Allowing that “conservatives are liberals who have been mugged” this will probably effect Mr. Kavanaugh’s outlook if he succeeds to the bench. A Constitutional Law professor once remarked to his class that “you will see the Court rule laws to be unconstitutional, and you won’t understand why. The reason is that they know what kind of people will be enforcing them”. As I watch the Senators, I fully expect one to rise and yell “Kavano delenda est”.

    • guest

      Sorry, but “and I believe her that this happened to her; the issue is whether Brett Kavanaugh was the person who did it” makes no sense. Why is THAT the issue? It’s the only thing in her testimony that she is 100% sure of, but the only part you choose to disbelieve. I wonder if that has anything to do with your politics?

      In any event, we should feel proud of our part in the proceedings as Rhode Islanders that it’s our senator that got the judge to perjure himself regarding his yearbook. If he’s lying about that, what else is he lying about?

      • BasicCaruso

        In fairness, this is a tough situation for Monique. You have a credible, accomplished woman, risking everything to testify under oath she is 100 percent sure that Kavanaugh attacked her. On the other hand, the liberal media reported all of this soooo…

  • Rhett Hardwick

    I felt compelled to add this. I think it is a reasonable statement how most guys think about the situation.
    https://fredoneverything.org/kavanaugh-gang-rapes-collie-in-satanic-ritual-college-boys-in-kkk-robes-chant-hitler-hitler-hitler/

  • Rhett Hardwick

    Pres. Trump, re: Dr. Ford “She has a lot to gain”.

    The Washington Post reports that Dr. ford’s “Go Fund Me” account is now up to $679.124.00

    • guest

      Sometimes telling the truth pays. What’s Kavanaugh’s projected take for the next 40 years (if appointed)? At least make an effort to appear “fair and balanced”. Justin, you enjoy figuring that kind of stuff out.

      • Rhett Hardwick

        And what compelling evidence do you have that Ford is telling the truth? I’ll give you this. Today I read a blog by Carol Greenwald (Comm of Banks in Mass, now Brookings Inst). I remembered a party where she shot me in the eye with a water pistol (she was a Democrat then), but I can’t remember the year.

Quantcast