What Democrats Have Become
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
It is still true: What begins as tragedy can end as farce. So it is with the case of Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of assaulting her when she was 15 and he was 17.
As of the most recent available moment in this episode, Ms. Ford’s lawyer said her client would not appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee until there is a “full investigation by law-enforcement officials.” Like the Mueller excavations, that could run to the horizon, unable to find anything but unwilling to stop until it finds something.
Let us posit that the one thing not at issue here is the truth. As a matter of law and fact, Ms. Ford’s accusation can be neither proved nor disproved. This is as obvious now as it must have been when Dianne Feinstein and the other Democrats came into possession of this incident.
Surely someone pointed out that based on what was disclosed, this accusation could not be substantiated. To which the Democrats responded: So what? Its political value is that it cannot be disproved. They saw that six weeks before a crucial midterm election, the unresolvable case of Christine Blasey Ford would sit like a stalled hurricane over the entire Republican Party, drowning its candidates in a force they could not stop.
In #MeToo, which began in the predations of Harvey Weinstein, Democrats and progressives finally have found a weapon against which there seems to be no defense. It can be used to exterminate political enemies. If one unprovable accusation doesn’t suffice, why not produce a second, or third? It’s a limitless standard.
The Democrats’ broader strategy is: Delay the vote past the election; win the Senate by convincing suburban women that Republicans are implacably hostile to them; seize power; and—the point of it all—take down the Trump government.
This is the “resistance.” This is what Democrats have become. Resistance is a word and strategy normally found in a revolutionary context, which is precisely the argument made by the left to justify its actions against this presidency since the evening of Nov. 8, 2016. Anything goes. Whatever it takes. Brett Kavanaugh is not much more than a casualty of war.
Rather than try to argue or win public issues on substance, the Democrats have become a party that seems to think it can win with muscle alone. Environmentalism emerged in the 1970s as a worthwhile idea that attracted the interest and support of both parties. From Al Gore onward, it became a bludgeon to beat up the other party. Now sexual abuse, an issue originating in utmost seriousness, has been quickly captured and fashioned into a political weapon by the Democratic left.
Politics as trench warfare has relieved the Democrats of the burden of thought. Extending the Pelosi Rule—we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it—we now have the Gillibrand Standard.
Commenting this week on Ford v. Kavanaugh, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, another 2020 presidential aspirant, said, “I believe it is disqualifying, given what we know.” In other words, what she believes is based on next to nothing.
Put on defense by these accusations, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley unsurprisingly agreed to a hearing in which Ms. Ford would tell her story and Judge Kavanaugh would speak. Then the senators would vote.
Consider the spectacle: Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court, the embodiment of a modern rule of law, is being decided in the Senate by the medieval practice of trial by ordeal, such as surviving immersion in fire or ice. Trial by ordeal was outlawed by the Lateran Council in 1215.
Or worse, the standards of the mob in the Roman Colosseum, turning thumbs up or down on the combatants. Though unlike the Senate Democrats, the Roman mob at least had an open mind.
Incidentally, the standard trope that Donald Trump has degraded our politics? We don’t need to hear that anymore. Or about the moral certitudes of the religious right.
Is there a sadder figure in the modern Democratic Party than Sen. Dianne Feinstein? Elected to the Senate in 1992, Mrs. Feinstein has produced a creditable career. Her above-it-all reputation was never quite deserved, but she has at least performed with dignity.
Now, seeking re-election at 85, she is getting heat from the progressive-dominated Democratic Party in California, the world capital of identity-only politics. By withholding from the committee the accusatory Ford letter that came into her possession nearly two months ago, Sen. Feinstein ensured the nomination’s descent into such a hapless, cynical moment. This will be the most remembered event in Sen. Feinstein’s career.
The Kavanaugh nomination, “given what we know,” has come down to an undiscoverable accusation. The defeat of a Supreme Court nominee on this basis would be a victory for a level of conscious political nullification not seen in the U.S. for a long time. Republicans in the Senate shouldn’t allow it, and voters in November should not affirm it.
Write henninger@wsj.com.
Tags
Who is online
90 visitors
There's no reason for that.
To be clear, I'm not saying there couldn't be an FBI investigation. But her ability to testify is not dependent on there first being an FBI investigation. The only thing she is going to testify to is whatever she remembers. In fact, testimony from her could either prompt an investigation or be part of one. The idea that we need an investigation as predicate to hearing her testimony is stupid. It sounds as though she needs notes from the FBI to help her refresh her recollection. That's nuts.
If he is innocent, there is nothing to hide, correct? So an investigation should be nothing more than a small delay to further vet him. Remember, we have seen less than 10% of his, "resume". Would you hire someone if you only saw the cover page of a resume? I sure as hell wouldn't.
Who is hiding? Kavanaugh has been ready and eager to undergo scrutiny since the day this came out. It's his accuser we can't seem to even get an interview with.
So then he wouldn't be opposed to the investigation, or taking a polygraph like Dr. Ford did.
And that can only be achieved via an investigation.
They handle FBI investigations for potential SCOTUS nominees now? Local PD, I didn't know that.
There is no evidence of a crime much less a federal crime
this is part of the systematic attempt byDemocrats to destroy the careers and personal lives of conservatives. It’s been the playbook of the left for decades.
it demonstrates that they are contemptible persons who remain a threat to our lives, liberties and the Republic.
He hasn't expressed opposition to anything as far as I have heard. Although, I would object to a polygraph. Those things are bullshit voodoo.
The committee has seen all of his judicial record which are the only relevant documents to his confirmation process.
political activities including those in the employ of an elected official have zero relevance to either judicial temperament or insight into judicial philosophy
further despite your previous false accusations that he is not qualified, he has the left’s gold standard approval, “extremely well qualified” by the ABA and his 12 year record as a federal judge.
I support the move to end a future judicial committee hearings on Supreme Court or other Federal Judgeships and cast up or down votes. This should be regardless of who controls the White House and Senate. It has bec9me so partisan it is relegated to political theater and nothing more.
IF she ever testifies. Right now Grassley is letting them make a damn fool out of himself
This is a liberal law professor in the New York Times:
What matters here isn’t law as much as politics — though not (or not just) partisan politics. Confirmation hearings are also about constitutional politics — the debate, involving both institutions of government and the polity, about what the Constitution means and requires.
“ So what standard should the Senate use in evaluating the claims made by Dr. Blasey and in deciding how they bear on Judge Kavanaugh’s fitness for a seat on the Supreme Court? The Senate’s approach to its constitutional “advice and consent” obligation has always depended on context. A number of factors matter: the timing of the vacancy; the justice being replaced; the nominee’s likely impact on the ideological makeup of the court; even the popularity of the president (very popular presidents have always had more leeway when it comes to picking justices).” emphasis added
As Chris Reeves points out:
Not only did Shaw argue that her own profession’s primary factfinding mode is unnecessary for figuring out whether accusations of serious criminal conduct are true, she openly said that nakedly political considerations — including Trump’s popularity and Kavanaugh’s potential ideological impact on the Supreme Court — should help determine whether Ford’s claim of attempted rape is true. Shaw’s epistemological approach here thusly resembles that of a Bolshevik commissar far more closely than a dispassionate lawyer or legal expert.
It's an opinion piece. Nothing more.