1. Are you freaking out? President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh for the vacancy on the Supreme Court, a choice which, we had been assured by a succession of shameless hysterics on the Left and in the mainstream news media (but I repeat myself!) would doom women in the United States to living out “The Handmaiden’s Tale,” even before the judge, a case or the legal issues were a twinkle in Lady Justice’s eye. Why are hyper-partisan, irresponsible crazies like this taken seriously by anyone?
Here are some of the media freak-outs that have already arrived: The Daily Beast: Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s Supreme Court Pick, Is Probably the End of Abortion Rights and Same-Sex Marriage. Slate: How Brett Kavanaugh Will Gut Roe v. Wade.
More to come, of course. At least they waited for the actual name of the judge: ABC tweeted out this before the announcement:
Facts? We don’t need no stinking facts!
(Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias….)
If you are freaking out, it means that you are a Democrat, either ignorant or dishonest about the legal system, and suffering from the late throes of Anti-Trump Mania, in which everything that this President does becomes an evil plot. Get help. It is unethical to spread panic and fury among your friends and associates.
A Facebook Friend, a woman, and a lawyer, was on social media within minutes of Judge Kavanaugh’s name being uttered calling for everyone to “write their Senator.” There is only one way, just one, this reaction can be justified: if you believe that only one political party has a legitimate role to play in American politics, and you deny the right of any citizen who disagrees with you to have a voice in what is supposed to be a pluralistic democracy. Elections have consequences, and are supposed to have consequences. One of them is that the elected President gets to appoint judges. If the judge is qualified—and even the most slobbering wacko talking head on MSNBC cannot deny that he is qualified-–then it is fair, appropriate and right that the President’s nomination should be consented to by the Senate.
2. What a gift to a President when he can shock his opponents by behaving responsibly! Kavanaugh is as mainstream a conservative pick as one could imagine. He was nominated to the appeals court by President George W. Bush. Kavanaugh was widely regarded as the least controversial conservative judge that Trump could nominate, which led the usual gang of anti-Trump idiots to conclude that the President would nominate someone else. Allahpundit, the anonymous conservative blogger who is resolutely a NeverTrumper, predicted that Trump would choose Judge Amy Coney Barrett precisely because she would cause the most controversy, and because Trump’s advisors were telling him not to. It was poor commentary and prognostication based on anti-Trump bias, and sure enough, the President made Allahpundit look stupid.
3. Wait, what? The New York Times actually ran an op-ed by Yale Law School professor Akhil Reed Amar praising the Kavanaugh nomination! He writes,
“The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice is President Trump’s finest hour, his classiest move. Last week the president promised to select “someone with impeccable credentials, great intellect, unbiased judgment, and deep reverence for the laws and Constitution of the United States.” In picking Judge Kavanaugh, he has done just that. In 2016, I strongly supported Hillary Clinton for president as well as President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland. But today, with the exception of the current justices and Judge Garland, it is hard to name anyone with judicial credentials as strong as those of Judge Kavanaugh.”
How did THAT slip through? Here was the Times’ ridiculous headline this morning: FORMER BUSH AIDE IS TRUMP’S PICK FOR THE COURT.
The man is a lawyer, legal scholar, judge, law professor, and former Supreme Court law clerk…and “Bush aide” is what the Times thinks its readers most need to know about him?
4. Ethics 101: Revenge isn’t ethical. Make no mistake: the Democratic and progressive fury is mostly fueled by anger regarding Mitch McConnell’s successful and unethical refusal to let the Senate vote on the Merrick Garland nomination. This is Rationalization 2 A., Sicilian Ethics, or “They had it coming,” in its purest form, short of hanging Republican leaders on hooks:
“This argues that wrongdoing toward a party isn’t really wrong when the aggrieved party has aggrieved the avenger. The victim of the unethical conduct no longer deserves ethical treatment because of the victim’s own misconduct. But the misconduct of a victim never justifies unethical conduct directed against that victim.”
5. Well, there goes any remaining respect I had for law professors….This has to be read to be believed. A real LSU law professor, Ken Levy, argues that the “McConnell Rule” is now a law of the land, and that Senate Democrats can sue Mitch McConnell for violating it. Then, when a court agrees, it can prevent the Senate from considering Trump’s nomination, and force the Senate to reverse the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch. One doesn’t have to be a lawyer to pick this insane theory into pieces. It makes no sense, and at its threshold, Levy’s crackbrain theory begins with a mistake: “The McConnell Rule” was based on the specious argument that nominations shouldn’t be considered before Presidential elections, not mid-year elections.