Christine Blasey Ford trivializes rape; the Left’s Orwellian doublespeak

I listened to NPR this Sunday morning. (I make myself do it every day or nearly so.) The commentators sounded as if they believe that but for a small sliver of testimony lacking, it would have been definitely proven that Justice Kavanaugh was a rapist at seventeen. There was no hint of recognition that Ms Ford is a proven public liar. (I distinguish carefully between hazy, confused, or artificial memory on the one hand, and lies, which are deliberate conscious constructions, on the other.) Ms Ford lied about being claustrophobic and she lied about her fear of flying.

She should not have been believed at all because a person who tells untruths about yesterday cannot be treated seriously about what she said happened thirty-five years ago. These lies are treated by the media as insignificant inaccuracies and Justice’s Kavanaugh’s six previous FBI investigations as unimportant. We should have been spared the whole undignified circus except for the mendacity, the bad faith of the Dems, beginning with Sen. Feinstein. By the way, Feinstein used to be my model of an honest elected liberal. Finished; I don’t have such a model anymore.

We will soon know if I am wrong. As I have said before, if Ms Ford is telling the truth, she won’t let the outrage of Kavanaugh’s confirmation go unpunished. She will use the million-dollar war chest she was gifted, her notoriety, and her good team of lying attorneys to sue Mr Kavanaugh. I am told there is no statute of limitation for attempted rape where the imaginary event took place. If she does not sue, what are we supposed to think, that the rape wasn’t that bad after all?

I don’t rejoice much in the ultimate victory. Much damage has been done, including a degree of legitimation of the idea that the presumption of innocence is not actually central to civilization. And the rage of the fascist hordes we saw displayed in the Capitol is not going to dissipate. Those people are going away sincerely convinced that not only did a rapist get away with it (as usual!), but that he is going to be the deciding vote on the elimination of women “reproductive rights.” In fact, Roe and Wade is nowhere high on the Republican agenda. In fact, the Supreme Court does not reach out for cases; a relevant case would have to come up. In fact, in the unlikely case Roe and Wade were reversed, the issue would go back to the individual states where it belongs, constitutionally speaking.

It’s hard to tell whether those people are genuine imbeciles, or fooling themselves, or simply lying. Incidentally, note the Orwellian language we have come to accept: “Reproductive Rights” refers to the right to terminate a pregnancy surgically, like my driver’s license gives me the right to not drive! (In case you are wondering, I am for keeping abortion legal by virtue of the ethical principle that we must accept big evils to avoid even bigger evils.)

Of course, predictably, I will be accused of making light of gang rape. No, Ms, YOU are trivializing the violent crime of rape. Even if we took Ms Ford’s words for granted, at 15, after “one beer,” a 17-year old boy groped her through her clothes but fortunately she happened to be wearing a one piece bathing suit! In the meantime, thousands of women suffer real rape in war zones and American feminists keep shamefully silent. The probable idea here is that if you are a woman violently raped by soldiers who are black or brown skinned, it does not really count as rape.

I hope the next partial elections, a month away, turns from a referendum on Mr Trump to one on the Democratic Party’s new fascism.

Please, think of sharing this.

RCH: law schools and Thurgood Marshall

Yesterday’s RealClearHistory article was all about law schools, with a little bit of Thurgood Marshall thrown in for good measure (he took his seat on the US’ highest court Oct 2, 1967):

If the Supreme Court’s liberal and conservative justices all come from one of two law schools, the prevailing mode of thinking about the law is going to be not only out of touch with most of the legal profession (and general populace), but also with the idea of a judicial branch dedicated to overseeing the laws of a vast, continent-spanning republic. Marshall’s supreme courts were elitist and aristocratic, which is what they were supposed to be, but what do you call a court that is so insular and so self-selecting that only two law schools are represented?

This is not a plea to lower standards in order to broaden the field, but there are a lot of good law schools in America, which is, after all, a republic governed by laws, not men. If the Kavanaugh debacle proves too much of a problem for federal politicians (Kavanaugh went to Yale’s law school), perhaps President Trump should think of looking elsewhere for a nominee.

Please, read the rest. In it, I include 3 people who would be good SCOTUS Justices. Feel free to add your own…

RCH: 10 most divisive Supreme Court justices in American history

It turns out that SCOTUS appointments have had a long history of dividing American society. An excerpt:

9. Roger Taney (1836-64). Taney rose up the political ranks as Andrew Jackson’s right-hand man. Jackson tried to get him on the Supreme Court in 1835 but his nomination was rejected by anti-Jacksonian Whigs in the Senate. After the Whigs were swept away in the 1836 election campaign, Jackson renominated Taney, but this time for the position of Chief Justice, and he was confirmed 21-15 after a bitter debate in the Senate. The Taney court is responsible for the Dred Scott case that tore the fledgling republic apart, and for helping Jackson abolish the national bank. Taney and Lincoln clashed often, too, as Taney ruled that Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional, but Taney never did go home during the Civil War and served out his term as Chief Justice until his death in 1864. He holds the second-longest tenure of any Chief Justice.

Please, read the rest, and try to remember: this divisiveness is a feature of the system, not a bug.