The web master of this website is a member of the SRQPATS, He has felt so uptight about this whole Kavanaugh thing, he didn’t watch a single word of testimony. It’s Sort of like having your home team in the Super Bowl and not watching. He’ll tune in afterwards to get the score. 

You may ask why: Like our web master, who submerges himself daily in politics updating this page, many members have paused to think about where this country is headed and their future might lie. Because of the leftist news media, "democratic socialists", lame brain snowflakes along with both felons and illegal aliens given voting rights, are taking us down a very dark path away from our founding principals. Add to that all the deviant, warped and perverted groups whose umbrella is the Democrat Party.  All of which would take away our God and guns. 

And if Kavanaugh is approved, his first disapproved SCOTUS vote by the aforementioned bunch will no doubt void the credibility of the court in their eyes and set our liberal cities on fire. Either way is's time to lock and load and store up on staples, as ominous clouds are on the horizon. The two OpEd's below say it all.

The Kavanaugh Stakes

A vote against the judge is a vote for ambush tactics and against due process.

By Kimberley A. Strassel   - WSJ

The Ford-Kavanaugh hearing consumed most of Thursday, and unsurprisingly we learned nothing from the spectacle. Christine Ford remains unable to marshal any evidence for her claim of a sexual assault. Brett Kavanaugh continues to deny the charge adamantly and categorically, and with persuasive emotion.

Something enormous nonetheless has shifted over the past weeks of political ambushes, ugly threats and gonzo gang-rape claims. In a Monday interview, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski noted: “We are now in a place where it’s not about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is qualified.” Truer words were never spoken. Republicans are now voting on something very different and monumental—and they need to be clear on the stakes.

To vote against Judge Kavanaugh is to reject his certain, clear and unequivocal denial that this event ever happened. The logical implication of a “no” vote is that a man with a flawless record of public service lied not only to the public but to his wife, his children and his community. Any Republican who votes against Judge Kavanaugh is implying that he committed perjury in front of the Senate, and should resign or be impeached from his current judicial position, if not charged criminally. As Sen. Lindsey Graham said: “If you vote ‘no,’ you are legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics.” 

The stakes go beyond Judge Kavanaugh. A “no” vote now equals public approval of every underhanded tactic deployed by the left in recent weeks. It’s a green light to send coat hangers and rape threats to Sen. Susan Collins and her staff. It is a sanction to the mob that drove Sen. Ted Cruz and his wife out of a restaurant. It is an endorsement of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who kept the charge secret for weeks until she could use it to ambush the nominee with last-minute, unverified claims. It’s approval of the release of confidential committee material (hello, Spartacus), the overthrow of regular Senate order, and Twitter rule. It’s authorization for a now thoroughly unprofessional press corps to continue crafting stories that rest on anonymous accusers and that twist innuendo into gang rapes. A vote against Brett Kavanaugh is a vote for Michael Avenatti. No senator can hide from this reality. There is no muddy middle.

The stakes go even further, to the core of this country’s principles. To vote against Judge Kavanaugh now is to overthrow due process. Contrary to Democrats’ claims, due process is not constrained to courts of law; it is central to employee discipline, professional standards of conduct, even evictions of tenants. It is owed to any individual in a civilized body politic. Under due process, the accuser has the burden of proof. Ms. Ford has not met the evidentiary standard even of a civil proceeding, the preponderance of evidence—yet this case is more significant than any that has been dealt with in a court of law for ages. How the Senate votes now will reverberate to all levels of society. A “no” vote on Judge Kavanaugh is an authorization to renew calls for a Justice Clarence Thomas to step down. It is an authorization to derail the life of any white-collar manager or blue-collar crew boss who is ever subject to a single uncorroborated allegation.

And this is to say nothing of the federal judiciary. Democrats know that if Judge Kavanaugh goes down, Republicans will have no time to install a replacement before the midterm elections. The ultimate goal is to take over the Senate come November and keep the high court at a 4-4 deadlock until 2020, when they hope to regain the presidency, and then sway the balance of the court for a generation.

Extremely few cases come before the Supreme Court, and by definition each is monumentally important—on labor law, tort issues, environmental policy. A “no” vote on Judge Kavanaugh risks a three-year high-court impasse, which would put the circuit courts in disjointed control of national policy. If you are Lisa Murkowski or Jeff Flake, a “no” vote on Mr. Kavanaugh means putting the craziest of these circuits, the Ninth Circuit, in control of legal questions involving your state’s development and well-being.

Republican senators didn’t ask for this monumental choice—fair enough. Those demanding Ms. Ford be heard simply wanted a fair process. That has happened; she has been given every courtesy and then some. Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has worked with steadfast professionalism to investigate the claims of every other so-called accuser—despite crazy accusations, runarounds, delays, threats and obstruction. His committee majority has done its job. 

It’s Democrats who have pushed the nation to the brink. This is no longer about one unvetted accusation, or who looks more “credible,” or discrete political calculations. Republicans need to understand that their voters know this goes beyond the question of one man and a Supreme Court seat. It goes to basic principles.

Write to


The Kavanaugh Standard

A defeat based on these accusations will divide the country for a generation.

By Daniel Henninger   - WSJ

Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to replace Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court is a watershed event that will define America’s politics for years. If the Kavanaugh nomination fails because of the accusations made against him by Christine Blasey Ford and others, America’s system of politics, indeed its everyday social relations, will be conducted in the future on the Kavanaugh Standard. It will deepen the country’s divisions for a generation.

The Kavanaugh Standard will hold that any decision requiring a deliberative consideration of contested positions can and should be decided on just one thing: belief. Belief is sufficient. Nothing else matters.

Rape is already a prosecutable crime. Definitions of sexual harassment are undergoing a reconsideration that may yet produce new legal standards to determine liability or suitability for employment. Right now, we are not close to a consensus.

Once the decades-old accusations had been made against Judge Kavanaugh, with no corroboration available or likely, the Senate Judiciary Committee had no practical or formal basis for enlarging the discussion about his nomination. For everyone, the way forward was into a fog.

Then something new happened. Half of the Senate Judiciary Committee created this standard: “I believe Christine.”

It is an inescapable irony that the Kavanaugh Standard—“I believe”—is being established inside the context of a nomination to the highest U.S. court. This new standard for court nominees (and surely others in and outside politics) would be that judgment can be rendered in the absence of substantive argument or any legal standard relating to corroboration, cross-examination or presumption of innocence.

In fact, the Kavanaugh Standard would have less intellectual content than liberalism’s previous judicial gold standard—agreement with the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. The new, operative standard, assuming two Republican senators abandon Judge Kavanaugh, will come down to a leap of faith.

For a political cynic, like Chuck Schumer or Dianne Feinstein, all these considerations are pointless and irrelevant. Just win, baby. A bloodless political actor such as Sen. Schumer would say: Look, if there’s a problem of some sort with compromised legal standards, we can make adjustments later. They won’t do that.

If Democrats regain control of Congress and the presidency, this is how they will govern—with belief alone sufficient as justification for imposing policy.

Something like a politics-by-belief emerged with the Obama presidency’s remarkable number of broadly applicable executive orders issued by the Labor, Education and Justice departments and the Environmental Protection Agency. But even these orders, however coercive, permitted challenge as a misreading of available facts. The defeat of this Supreme Court nominee would be simply asserted. It would have about as much political legitimacy as a one-man-rule decree.

I have been wondering what the rest of the nation’s sitting judges are making of the Kavanaugh proceedings. Or more specifically, what Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan think of what they imply for the future of the law’s role in the U.S.

Looking at what has happened recently to university professors accused and then abandoned by their schools and colleagues for alleged racial offenses, or at the spectrum of proof in #MeToo incidents, it is clear that the political and academic left are contesting centuries-old standards of evidence.

Liberal jurisprudence and its arguments with conservatives, for example over Fourth Amendment search cases, is being displaced by a Democratic left—there is no other way to describe it—that prefers rough justice.

Rough justice is what the political left and the media left, notably the New Yorker and New York Times, is meting out to Brett Kavanaugh. Hawaii’s Sen. Mazie Hirono has emerged from this hearing as a hero of the new rough justice.

Professors at Yale Law School canceled classes this week so that much of the student body could travel to Washington to support Ms. Ford’s allegations, which suggests that the most popular class at Yale these days must be “Legal Principles from the Stone Age to the 10th Century.” It’s not a joke. In 20 years, a President Ocasio-Cortez will be naming these advocates of faith-based reasoning to the federal appeals courts.

In a more conciliatory atmosphere, one might say that even if the claims of a high-school offense were true, surely there is a case in adulthood for forgiveness. But these are unforgiving times, and that virtue is out the window.

Ultimately, this drama comes down to the choices about to be made by Republican Sens. Jeff Flake, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. The question is whether the Senate’s advice and consent for appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court should be reduced to simple secular belief. More important is that the entire country is watching now, and we’ll find out soon what the American system of law is going to look like for the next 25 years.