Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Apocalypse-Part II

September 19, 2018

The recent, explosive new allegations concerning President Trump's SCOTUS pick Brett Kavanaugh which details an alleged sexual assault in high school and an incident of indecent exposure at Yale, has thrown a massive wrench into the proceedings for his nomination to the United States Supreme Court.

__________________________

The already contentious nomination process for Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump's Supreme Court nominee to replace the retiring Anthony Kennedy took a turn towards Armageddon.  A letter from California Senator Diane Feinstein detailed testimony from a woman who alleged she was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh during a high school party at someone's home in 1983.  This woman, Christine Blasey Ford, said that during a party attended by Mr. Kavanaugh and his friends from Georgetown Preparatory School, Mr. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.  The incident allegedly describes Mr. Kavanaugh forcing himself on Ms. Ford, to a point where she feared for her life.  Senator Feinstein knew of the woman, and the letter was submitted to her by Representative Ann Eshoo, Ms. Ford's local member of Congress.  Many are wondering why Feinstein did not mention the letter or the incident during two days of hearings with Mr. Kavanaugh with the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Democratic progressives were upset that Senator Feinstein treated him with a soft approach.  Conservatives are curious why she sat on the letter and did not bring up the issue when she had a chance to aggressively question Brett Kavanaugh's character at the time.

This new development, in the #MeToo era, is new territory for the country.  For Republicans, there are no women who serve on the Judiciary Committee. If they are not careful, this will resemble the Anita Hill questioning during Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's hearings before his eventual confirmation in 1991.  The perception of white men interrogating a woman accusing a controversial nominee of the Supreme Court of sexual assault can have a bad outcome for Republicans.  They need to be respectful but firm in their questioning of the alleged incident. As currently planned, an attorney experienced in sex crimes will ask questions on behalf of the Republican majority on the committee. If they are clumsy in how they handle this difficult situation, it will rally Democratic voters and allow the party to portray Republicans as sexist, misogynistic and inconsiderate towards a woman who requires respect and sympathy.   Right now, polls show that Democrats are poised to win back control of the House of Representatives. Republicans and Democrats are both using supportive media platforms to protect their own political positions.  Democrats, however, are attempting to destroy the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh and to use this nomination fight as a campaign issue to sway the upcoming election in their favor.

Ms. Ford should be allowed to state her case and give uncomfortable testimony to the alleged incident detailed in the letter.  However,  because America is a constitutional republic, a nation of laws, each citizen has equal protection under the law, and Mr. Kavanaugh should be allowed to defend himself.  The women members of the Senate Judiciary Committee want the FBI to open an investigation in this accusation against Mr. Kavanaugh.  Republicans feel that this is a waste of time since any investigation would include the two people involved in this alleged sexual assault, along with the other person in the room, Mike Judge, who was a friend of Brett Kavanaugh, and purportedly a witness to what happened. Anyone else's testimony would be second-hand, and would not provide compelling testimony other than the people who had been involved.  

In one view, Tucker Carlson, a Fox News commentator, feels that since the alleged incident regarding Ms. Ford and Mr. Kavanaugh took place in the 1980s in Maryland, state and local law enforcement authorities should take the initiative to look into the matter.  Mr. Carlson feels that it is not a federal crime, as of now, and that any actions should be undertaken by local prosecutors.  He also feels that since the incident took place nearly 35 years ago, the statute of limitations does not provide cover for any proposed charges.  Conservative activist Ed Whelan has also made public statements on Twitter defending Brett Kavanaugh, alluding to the assault by someone else who lived close to the house where the incident took place and could have been mistaken for Kavanaugh.  This could be defamatory since a person who has not been investigated or charged with any crime is being linked to a sexual assault and is based essentially on conjecture.  For Congress to reach a respectable conclusion, a calm and careful approach is desirable.

I think the Judiciary Committee needs to be careful about how they move forward, though.  Both Ms. Ford and Mr. Kavanaugh were not adults at a party where there was alcohol. Accepting testimony from people who were teenagers at the time has to be treated delicately. I also feel that if they rush the speaking opportunities for both Brett Kavanaugh and Ms. Ford to provide details, the Republican party runs the risk of pushing the confirmation of a man whose assault allegation was not investigated thoroughly by law enforcement.  I fully understand the seriousness of a lifetime appointment of a Supreme Court Justice, especially one whose conservative credentials is paramount to getting him confirmed. It is important for the Republican party as a whole.

In addition to Ms. Ford's allegation, per CNN, this one from a student at Yale, Deborah Ramirez, who said Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a freshman dorm party. At this time, these are unsubstantiated stories, but that could later reveal to be a troubling behavior by Mr. Kavanaugh.  If these articles start to carry weight, show merit and discussed at length by the mainstream media, with Ms. Ford and others being convincing and credible witnesses, it could spell the end of Brett Kavanaugh's nomination. Additionally, it could energize Democrats to rally their voters to give the party its desired political opening to win back the lower House.

A new plot twist to an already contentious political climate in Washington, D.C. could mark a new era in which a public official's behavior, supported and influenced by online discussion, could dictate a new methodology for future Supreme Court nominees, Brett Kavanaugh notwithstanding. Both conservative and liberal media outlets and individuals are using spin and accusatory language to support or disapprove their preferred candidates.  Consequently, it could also damage the prospects of well qualified and honorable men and women whose life experiences will be dissected and destroyed.  It would be sad for the country if impressive lawyers and judges are turned away from public service. Precisely at this point in our nation's history, these very types of people are needed in America right now.

Will the Democratic Party fracture before the 2020 Election?

September 8, 2018


Even though most Democratic voters are uniform in their disgust with President Donald Trump, will that translate into a solid voice for the November Midterms and the 2020 Presidential Election?

___________________________

The year 2018 has been an interesting one for Democrats.  They saw a young, photogenic and passionate first-time candidate in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and a few other similar candidates who won their primaries in Georgia (Stacey Abrams, Governor), Florida (Andrew Gillium, Governor), and Massachusetts (Ayana Pressley, Congress).  These wins were the first wave of more progressive and socialist-style candidates who are going to transform the Democratic party; perhaps into a more compassionate and effective party of legislators who would advocate for and win legislative victories for the country at large.  The grassroots of the Democratic party is certainly more passionate about issues that the Democratic Establishment give lip service to, such as affordable healthcare, power for organized labor, and restraint with foreign wars and nation-building.  

Although these ideas have a sound background and merit, the Democratic Establishment does not publicly put up a fight whenever one of these issues come up in Congress, such as for Appropriations bills. The party is not the party prior to Clinton who challenged Republican presidents for their foreign policy decisions.  For instance, the investigations into Iran-Contra was due to a Democrat-controlled Congress.  Currently, the Democratic grassroots wants the Democrats to fight President Trump on almost every issue, from investigating Russian collusion with the 2016 election to voting against every Supreme Court nominee.  However, with the current make-up of the Republican-controlled Senate, unless two GOP Senators join the Democrats, Robert Kavanaugh, President Trump's nominee to replace Anthony Kennedy on the United States Supreme Court, will get approved.  Where does that leave the Democrats and their major factions?

With the upcoming 2018 Midterms, Democrats are poised to win back the House of Representatives, according to several polls.  That being said, it could be an election where the lines of division are drawn within the Democratic Caucus.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the unofficial leader of the Democratic Socialists, and after November, their numbers could grow.  There is also talk that the influx of younger, more progressive Democrats could seek to find a new leader, since Pelosi has been around for quite some time, and she is a polarizing figure nationally. Additionally, new Democrats may push for someone younger and closer to the views of Millennial voters. 

Some of the values and policies that the progressive and socialist Democrats want to pass are Single Payer (Medicare for All), $15 minimum wage, equal pay and narrowing the wealth gap.  Some of these ideas have good intentions, like making health care affordable, and improving the pay for low-income jobs in the food service industry, and trying to find a more equitable pay structure for the workplace, but I don't see the Establishment Democrats forcing any votes for legislation to make any laws in benefit on these policy goals.  The Establishment Democrats cater to the same wealthy and corporate donors that give to the Republican party, and those donors do not want higher taxes or more regulations that police the workplace.  I see a sizable rift between the Democratic leadership and the new progressive and socialist Democrats who are going to push for more policies that the activists and grassroots of the party will want to see.

What will become of this fracture?  Well, I think the same problems are developing within the Republican party as well.  There are grassroots organizations who are even more right-leaning than the current leaders of the GOP (Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell), and some of them have decided to retire (Speaker Ryan), rather than deal with the thought of getting challenges in party primaries by this new wave of ultra-conservative Republicans.   I personally feel that this is a good thing for the country.  Right now, Congress is so polarized that very few items of bipartisanship get handled, outside of support for the military and its operations. 

What this means for both the Democratic and Republican parties is that these fissures will slowly grow, and the only logical solution is the advent and formation of new parties.  Grassroots activists in both parties will find the corporate donors and party establishments cater to a small select group of people and any benefits that result go to those very same people.  This is one of the reasons why Donald Trump won, in that many Americans did not share the spoils of success with those who exploited the government and its spending.  I don't foresee any future bank bailouts (TARP, 2008), especially in the current climate.

I feel it is in the best interests of the country if the two major parties forced the formation of multiple new parties.  This will help with alliances of convenience. Political factions will support other factions who share commonality with specific issues (health care, law enforcement, military spending) and oppose each other on issues they disagree. How does this help run the country?  Well, it will force the Democrats and Republicans to form temporary alliances with smaller parties in order to get laws and legislation passed.  For instance, if the Republicans want a law passed regarding lower taxes for small businesses, the new, more liberal political party (Democratic Socialists) will ask to increase the minimum wage to $15 in order to get support for the legislation to pass.  This type of compromise was done between Democrats and Republicans in the past, but it is not going to change back any time soon.  That is why the formation of new political parties, caused by rifts in ideology and policy goals, that will transform how our government functions for the better.  Wealthy donors and corporations who heavily lobby Congress will fight new movements because the new parties mean more money will need to be spent to protect their financial interests. 

The pushback will be fierce, but the political cracks in the Democratic party will be far-reaching, which will include similar breaks in the Republican party.  However, in the long run, the country will have a working government in which the legislative process fulfills the Founder's intentions:  separate branches of government, with different political parties and individuals, who come together, and pick alliances based on the issue (albeit temporarily) to pass effective legislation. Then the cycle will continue anew with new partnerships that will benefit the American people overall.