Kavanaugh wasn’t merely borked
I’ve seen a lot of pundits referring to what happened to Kavanaugh as his having been borked. But that’s not entirely correct.
In the earlier part of the hearings, he was indeed borked. In other words, his judicial record was criticized and distorted in a way that could be described as deceptive and alarmist. But he seemed to sail through that section of the hearings, so the opposition had to up the ante.
After that he was Clarence Thomased, only more like Clarence Thomas Squared. That doesn’t fall as trippingly off the tongue as “borked,” but it’s what happened, although of course it’s hardly a perfect analogy. Anita Hill’s charges against Thomas were relatively mild and fairly specific compared to what was launched against Kavanaugh by three women in a series of escalating and ever-less-believable stories, although only one of those women testified publicly.
With Thomas, Anita Hill described events that she alleged had happened about ten years earlier. With Kavanaugh, Ford described an event that she claimed had occurred over three times further back than that. Hill alleged acts that would have occurred when Thomas was a mature man, but Ford alleged events from when Kavanaugh was in high school and had not reached adulthood.
Ford’s accusations were both more serious and more preposterous, and were even harder to disprove than Hill’s because of the antiquity and vagueness of the Ford accusations as to place or time, or even how many people might have witnessed them.
So the plan for Kavanaugh, if necessary, was a kind of one/two punch—first the borking and then the Thomasing.
One big difference between Bork and Thomas was that Thomas was confirmed and Bork was not. Why was Thomas confirmed? I’m not sure, actually, because at the time the Senate was controlled by Democrats. However, it seems that enough Democrats felt uncomfortable about refusing to seat him.
That may have been because Thomas was a black nominee and the Democrats who ultimately voted to confirm him came from states with very sizeable black populations. If you look at those eleven Democrats who voted “yea” on Thomas, you’ll see that most of them came from the South and one from Illinois, all states with very sizeable black populations. The only other Democrats who voted yes on Thomas were from Nebraska and Arizona, and I don’t have a theory about them:
The final floor vote [on Thomas] was not strictly along party lines: 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats (Dixon (D-IL), Exon (D-NE), DeConcini (D-AZ), Robb (D-VA), Hollings (D-SC), Fowler (D-GA), Nunn (D-GA), Breaux (D-LA), Johnston (D-LA), Boren (D-OK), and Shelby (D-AL) now (R-AL)) voted to confirm while 46 Democrats and 2 Republicans (Jeffords (R-VT) later (I-VT) and Packwood (R-OR)) voted to reject the nomination; John Glenn was particularly vituperative in his rejection. Ironically Packwood himself would later be engulfed by sexual harassment allegations which ended his Senate career.
I also find this interesting:
Some of the public statements of Thomas’ opponents foreshadowed the confirmation fight that would occur. One such statement came from African-American activist attorney Florynce Kennedy at a July 1991 conference of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Referring to the failure of Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Robert Bork, she said of Thomas, “We’re going to ‘bork’ him.
So that expression was used approvingly by Florynce Kennedy, describing the plan for Thomas’s hearings. And then there was this, another resemblance to what awaited Kavanaugh and what the political issues were for each nominee:
Under questioning during confirmation hearings, Thomas repeatedly asserted that he had not formulated a position on Roe v. Wade, or had any conversations with anyone regarding the issue
A significant amount of this behavior on the part of Democrats apparently comes down to their fear of losing Roe, and of course of losing SCOTUS cases in general.
Now this, this is how you bork someone—no holds barred. Note the first allegation in the list:
https://americanmind.org/essays/our-revolutions-logic/
The Codevilla piece is a must read. One small part:
“The revolutionary import of the ruling class’ abandonment of moral and legal restraint in its effort to reverse election results cannot be exaggerated. Sensing themselves entitled to power, imagining themselves identical with legitimacy, “those general laws to which all alike can look for salvation in adversity“—here the US Constitution and ordinary civility—are small stuff to them. Their ruling class’s behavior regarding Judge Brett Kavanaugh’ nomination to the Supreme Court has been a further, epochal step in this regard.
…
The anti-Kavanaugh campaign’s power and significance lies precisely in the ruling class’s perpetration of an in-your-face hoax. Making someone pretend that your patent lie is true may be the most humiliating of assertions of power.
…
The “resistance” succeeded in showing: if we can do this to this man on this basis, we can wreck anybody, as may be convenient to us. It showed Americans what today’s Progressive movement means for those it dislikes: “If they can do this to him, they could do it to me.” The campaign has been part and parcel of the resistance’s ever growing violence against the rest of America. This has changed America. Like lost virginity, it cannot be undone.”
That list of Democrats voting to confirm consists of conservatives and political temporizers who commonly voted with the Republicans. You see eight Southerners and three others. Of the others, DeConcini and Dixon voted with the American Conservative Union about 35% of the time and James Exon about 50% of the time. Wyche Fowler was the only mainline Democrat on that list of 11, and he represented Thomas’ home state. Both Republicans who voted against were political temporizers. Robert Packwood made a particular point of promoting the abortion license during his years in electoral politics. The only Republican left in the Senate with a voting record like Packwood’s and Jeffords’ is Susan Collins. Sens. Donnelly, Manchin, and Nelson’s records approximate those of DeConcini / Dixon. No one’s anywhere near Exon.
Thomas’ nomination was far more consequential than was Kavanaugh’s for the balance of opinion on the Court. He replaced Thurgood Marshall, a quondam public interest lawyer who had no conception of legal construction and interpretation other than ‘gimme what I want for my clientele’. Kavanaugh is replacing the Judge for whom he used to clerk. It may be that Kavanaugh is a threat in a way Kennedy was not because of distinctions of character and personality. Thomas Sowell tells of having dinner with friends in 1987 who knew Kennedy personally. They tell Sowell that Kennedy is an other-directed man who will be readily influenced by prevailing fashions in his social circle. I doubt you can shift Kavanaugh that easily.
The anti-Kavanaugh campaign’s power and significance lies precisely in the ruling class’s perpetration of an in-your-face hoax. Making someone pretend that your patent lie is true may be the most humiliating of assertions of power.
I can give you the name of a liberal evangelical on the faculty of Bethel College who swallowed this hoax almost whole. Motivated reasoning at work. Nothing coerced out of that man (or out of most of the Chrissy votaries, I’d wager).
Clarence Thomas was confirmed on Oct. 15, 1991. At that time the senate was winding down their investigation of the Keating Five scandal about the S&L disaster. Three of the 5 senators, including DeConcini were part of a long term investigation, and on Feb. 1991 DeConcini and Riegle were judged that,
The last findings of the Keating investigation were released in November, just after the Thomas confirmation.
So I think DeConcini’s career was largely over. Still, it’s definitely a sign of the times that the partisan crossovers were substantial then, and almost nil now.
Packwood and Kennedy are part of the reason why no one on the right (with the possible exceptions of Flake & Collins) believed that the Dems were introducing their “concerns” about Kavanaugh’s character in good faith.
By the way, in the category “subtle spin,” notice the difference between two ways of describing the allegations.
(1) the usual formulation that I see even in right-wing sources (sloppy grammar) as well as left-wing (sloppy or stealth, YMMV):
30-year-old allegations of sexual misconduct.
(2) the correct grammar:
allegations of 30-year-old incidents of sexual misconduct.
The first implies that people were talking about it (your choice of accusations) at the time they allegedly happened, and the hint lingers that they might have been true, even though all of those hear-say “witnesses” have been invalidated.
“So the plan for Kavanaugh, if necessary, was a kind of one/two punch—first the borking and then the Thomasing.”
And now Trump is being “Kashoggied”.
The Democrats have got to keep the pressure on. They must continue the attack, continue to flail away, slander and sucker punch.
And lie.
And intimidate.
And shriek.
The stakes are incredibly high: they must do whatever they can and whatever it takes to distract the American people from learning about the Obama/Clinton conspiracy to deny Trump the presidency and the related conspiracy to prevent him from governing.
And the extraordinary conspiracy to cover it all up.
They have got to make sure that this distraction continues at least until the first Tuesday of November 2018.
The American people must not know. It must be airbrushed out of the narrative for as long as possible.
As if it never happened.
And should the American people somehow find out, the Democrats hope that after almost two years of non-stop demonization, they and their allies and supporters have so effectively demonized Trump, so clearly demonstrated his monstrousness, so successfully dehumanized him, that anything they attempt (or have attempted) to do in order to destroy him is / was / would be seen as perfectly, morally justified.
As desirable.
As necessary.
Hence, the two-year (and counting) hate.
Grammar is hard and boooriiiing.
“The Codevilla piece is a must read.”
I concur.
It’s not just Roe, with regards to abortion. It’s both abortion and the follow on from that. If Roe is over-turned, the whole courts making up the law rather than the Senate or the States comes into question.
Of course if there is a majority of conservative judges, then the Democrats will presumably back-flip and always have been against judges making the law.
The Democrats realized that the Thomas accusations were too recent, as 14 women testified that no such thing had ever occurred in Thomas’s office. So this time, they found (or ginned up) an accuser for events so far in the past that there could be no witnesses who would come forth out of the woodwork. I think they expected that the witnesses that Ford alleged were present either wouldn’t be found, or would back up her story, or wound be discredited as drunks if they didn’t.
Of course, the whole circus was pure stageplay, since the vote was exactly as it would have been (and everyone knew that it was going to be) on the day of the nomination — a straight party line vote with the possible exception of Heidkamp, Manchin, Collins, or Murkowski. Quelle surprise!
The Democrats realized that the Thomas accusations were too recent,
Disagree. The Democrats used who fell into their lap. I doubt the culture of the Democratic Party was so far gone in 1991 that the Democrats on the Judiciary committee would have tried to run with Christine Blasey. In the Thomas / Hill hearings, there was no doubt the two were acquainted and had worked in the same set of offices for 3 years. I’m wagering, however, that David Laufman has the answers to some unanswered questions, and that Blasey’s participation in this game was solicited. One hypothesis floated about Hill was that Susan Hoerchner (having confused Thomas with an attorney who worked at Hill’s previous employer) put contacts in the world of professional feminism onto Hill. Would wager that did happen and that the Hoerchner role was played in this case by Monica McLean.
For the hundredth time
Iago:
Othello Act 3, scene 3, 155–161
No, i dont think anyone has brought up the worst parts of this… I know from first hand, it destroyed my life from end to end… turned down juliard, went to bronx science ,won state fair, and had a really great career… when it was over, i was alone, career unrecoverable, people continued to hate, background searches still cause issues, went chapter 13 so never had a home, went homeless, was told by the custody judge i have no rights, lost venue illegally, paid twice child support for the same kid to insure his future, never went on vacation, stopped dating (by the time i did marry, my employer a very iberal college took it upon themselves to basically torture me, and deny me raises and promotions, so my wife and i are barren), the relationship i had with my son is something very different, i only got to play catch with him once, never taught him anything, only saw him summers…
the best part is the officer who tried to frame me was angry at her, but since she showed up before arrest, i got all the pain and no one to sue, or get recompense or anything.. completely destroyed…
i can go on
but since that…
been killing time till time kills me
just trying to make things ok for my mom, and my wifes family
and hope, god does not torture me with a long life… (but he will)
no, i could give you the ins and outs and all that
and most of us, well, we have NO ONE on our sides or discuss us
in fact, you try to bring it up, and cause your just a nobody now, a never been, not a been who is falling, you have no voice, you are nothing…
its like screaming in space…
so loud, but no one can tell
my inventions and designs lay un done..
my artwork exists for no one to see
my photography stolen and on the net making money, but not for me
my career is just being used and treated bad for the autism that gives me the skills that they want so badly (sad part is they get tax money and instead of givbing me raises, pocket that too… neo has watched this for over a decade… (i guess all you have left is pity) )
if you want to read about this in the past, you have to know when the words changed… dumbed down.. to insults… before it was called libels…
Defamation, calumny, vilification, or traducement is the communication of a false statement
some of what neo talks about is not what its labeled its under “False Light”…
The feminists practice and are familiar with famacide!!!
i give neo two places to find it, or anyone else
Ballentine’s Law Dictionary
Black’s Law Dictionary: 2nd Edition
Slander has always been womans greatest weapon…
having the power to destroy small men, and take down lords and ladies.
you guys should read the letters about essex, elizabeth, and secretary of the time… changed history… not that anyone reads that or cares… otherwise i would have someone to talk to about these things…
have great day
I think Clarence Thomas’s speech helped him. He really did a great job and made it very difficult for several people to vote against him without thinking of the black men who had been genuinely, literally lynched based on false accusations.
from African-American activist attorney Florynce Kennedy
Diversity schism. Certain African factions are known to lynch and hang necklaces with care on their competitors.
It does seem likely that Monica McLean was a key force in putting together this story.
Art Deco,
Sounds like the very image of an Ayn Rand second-hander.
Richard Saunders on October 18, 2018 at 5:55 pm at 5:55 pm said:
Of course, the whole circus was pure stageplay, since the vote was exactly as it would have been (and everyone knew that it was going to be) on the day of the nomination — a straight party line vote with the possible exception of Heidkamp, Manchin, Collins, or Murkowski. Quelle surprise!
* * *
All of that agony for so many innocent people, because the Dems found out they couldn’t buy Collins with a blatant bribe, and neither party could count on the votes of any of them until the bitter end.
Sounds like the very image of an Ayn Rand second-hander.
???
The roadkill in this case: Kavanaugh’s wife and children, who now have security personnel shadowing them; and Mark Judge, whose addle-pated employer got spooked and fired him. Are Blasey, McLean, Laufman, Schumer, and Feinstein feeling the least bit guilty about that?
He really did a great job and made it very difficult for several people to vote against him without thinking of the black men who had been genuinely, literally lynched based on false accusations.
May have swung a few votes. Or not. Again, the Democrats who voted for him were (bar Wyche Fowler) people who voted with the Republicans frequently if not usually.
Art Deco…a conformist…someone preoccupied with social status…someone who’s self-worth is dependent on how other’s think of them.
Art Deco — I’m wagering, however, that David Laufman has the answers to some unanswered questions, and that Blasey’s participation in this game was solicited.
We don’t disagree. That’s what I meant by “ginned up.”
Julie— Through a convoluted set of circumstances, I represented Kennedy briefly just before he joined the Supremes. He was an asshole then, and I don’t see that he changed any on the Court.