Dems So Scared of Kavanaugh They've Just Used the Dumbest Attacks Ever
This article was sponsored by the Judicial Crisis Network.
On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee began the confirmation hearings that will almost certainly make Brett Kavanaugh our next Supreme Court justice.
His record is impeccable. His devotion to constitutional principles is unquestioned. He’s a decent man of incredible integrity.
And that scares the hell out of the Democrats — which is why they’re attacking him in the most ridiculous and underhanded ways possible. Many of them involve Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s former attorney.
“A president, identified as an unindicted co-conspirator of a federal crime — an accusation made not by a political enemy but by the closest of his own confidants — is on the verge of making a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court,” Democrat Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer said on the floor of the upper chamber. “A court that may someday soon determine the extent of the president’s legal jeopardy.”
The conspiratorial idea that Trump was appointing someone to the Supreme Court to get him out of legal jeopardy sounds pretty ridiculous, like something out of an Oliver Stone movie. Surprisingly and dishearteningly, we could find five dumber attacks Democrats have used on Brett Kavanaugh in a vain attempt to derail his nomination:
#1: Brett Kavanaugh bought baseball tickets for friends
Kavanaugh is a fan of the hometown Washington Nationals and decided to buy season tickets for the team with a bunch of friends. As is common, they would share the tickets. He put the charge on his credit card and they reimbursed him.
Sounds pretty reasonable, right? Here’s The Washington Post’s headline on this shocking, shocking revelation:
The Post’s slogan is “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” If this is “light,” I can think of other things more conducive to the mortality of freedom.
“Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh incurred tens of thousands of dollars of credit card debt buying baseball tickets over the past decade and at times reported liabilities that could have exceeded the value of his cash accounts and investment assets, according to a review of Kavanaugh’s financial disclosures and information provided by the White House,” the first paragraph of the story read.
The explanation of why he accrued these “tens of thousands of dollars of credit card debt buying baseball tickets over the past decade” is dealt with in one sentence in paragraph No. 2, and the rest of the story is innuendo regarding his finances.
Yet it’s clear that the debt was quickly paid off — because his friends paid him back for the tickets. This is their line of attack, folks — and it only gets dumber from here.
#2: “Brett Kavanaugh” sounds like a “frat boy” name
The image of the “frat boy” isn’t a terribly popular one. It suggests not only someone who’s in a fraternity, but one who engages in a kind of debauched lifestyle — where alcoholism, misogyny and “white privilege” play a certain role.
Does Brett Kavanaugh embody any of these things? Probably not, considering this is one of the most successful jurists in our country’s history. But his name sounds like it could be a frat boy’s, right? No? Well, just go with it, according to pro-abortion group NARAL.
We'll be DAMNED if we're going to let five MEN—including some frat boy named Brett—strip us of our hard-won bodily autonomy and reproductive rights. #StopKavanaugh #SaveRoe pic.twitter.com/22GYMTVLgj
— NARAL (@NARAL) July 11, 2018
Late-night host Stephen Colbert showed more restraint in making fun of Kavanaugh’s name, merely pointing out it sounded like a waiter’s.
“Now I don’t know much about Kavanaugh, but I’m skeptical because his name is Brett,” Colbert said. “That sounds less like a Supreme Court justice and more like a waiter at a Ruby Tuesday’s. ‘Hey everybody, I’m Brett, I’ll be your Supreme Court justice tonight. Before you sit down, let me just clear away these rights for you.’”
But, hey — Ruby Tuesday waiters can be frat boys too, right? In any event, they seem to think that his name ought to disqualify him. That should tell you a great deal.
#3: He’s going to take away abortion rights — just like every other Republican high court nominee ever
Since Roe v. Wade invented a right to abortion in the Fourteenth Amendment that hadn’t existed back in 1973, liberals have claimed that every judge ever appointed by a Republican is about to do away with a woman’s right to an abortion whenever she wants it.
During a July press conference, Dawn Laguens — the executive vice president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund — demanded that Kavanaugh affirm he would keep the ruling no matter what.
“Clearly, saying ‘precedent’ alone can no longer be an acceptable answer or standard by which senators can accurately judge,” Laguens said at the news conference.
“That’s why today, Planned Parenthood and our colleagues at this press conference are calling for a higher standard. We are calling for a ‘personal liberty standard,’ that the Senate must only confirm a justice who affirmatively declares that they believe the Constitution protects individual liberty and the right of all people to make personal decisions about their bodies and their personal relationships, including the right to use contraception, the right to have an abortion, and the freedom to marry who you choose.”
Attacks about contraception and gay marriage haven’t worked, but Roe has stuck.
“I will sue when the Supreme Court acts,” New York’s Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo said shortly after that news conference.
“We now need to codify Roe v. Wade, which will actually increase the protections in New York,” Cuomo said. “I don’t want any gap in a women’s right to protections.”
Roe has been around since 1973, even though it’s a terrible decision. Even if it were reversed, abortion would go back to the states, most of which — judging by referendums in the past — would keep it legal. This has always been a fear-mongering tactic by people who now think that “The Handmaid’s Tale” is a reality show. Don’t buy into it.
#4 They’re misrepresenting statements Kavanaugh made about executive power
When Roe failed and the “frat boy” attack didn’t do too well, CNN tried another tactic: deliberately misinterpreting previous rulings Kavanaugh has made regarding the power of the president.
“Trump Supreme Court pick: Presidents can ignore laws they think are unconstitutional,” the outlet reported in early August.
“Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in 2013 asserted that it’s a ‘traditional exercise’ of presidential power to ignore laws the White House views as unconstitutional, as he defended the controversial practice of signing statements prevalent in George W. Bush’s White House,” CNN claimed.
“The comments could put a renewed focus on Kavanaugh’s time serving as White House staff secretary, who had a role in coordinating Bush’s statements accompanying legislation he signed into law. Critics contend that the Bush White House abused the use of signing statements to ignore laws passed by Congress, though Bush and his allies said such statements were no different than the practices of other administrations.”
Except it wasn’t true. The story noted that Kavanaugh wrote in his opinion that “the president can’t ignore the law ‘simply because of policy objections’ — and that the White House must abide by the law ‘unless the President has a constitutional objection’ to the issue at hand.”
“If the President has a constitutional objection to a statutory mandate or prohibition, the President may decline to follow the law unless and until a final Court order dictates otherwise,” the opinion reads.
In other words, the headline totally omits the fact Kavanaugh completely emphasizes the role of the courts. This is what the media are resorting to.
#5 Kavanaugh is outside the legal mainstream
The left has been nitpicking to try to prove that Kavanaugh exists outside of the legal mainstream. We’ve seen the Roe v. Wade nonsense, the executive power decision and other things like an offhand remark from almost 20 years ago involving the decision in United States v. Nixon in which he said that the court could have possibly decided wrongly, although the quote was used out of context and Kavanaugh ultimately defended the decision.
“Now, that opinion, that it was wrongly decided, is far outside the legal mainstream,” MSNBC’s Chris Hayes said.
But that’s merely what they want you to think. The facts are these: Eleven Supreme Court opinions have relied on opinions Kavanaugh has written as a lower court justice. Several of them involve agency independence and regulatory reach. These are critical issues the court will face in the years to come — and Kavanaugh has been part of shaping established precedent in these cases.
While the Democrats have been crowing about how far Kavanaugh is outside the mainstream, they haven’t really been able to come up with a decision in which that’s been the case. That’s because there isn’t one. He’s one of the most influential jurists in America, having written over 300 opinions for the D.C. Circuit Court, widely viewed as the second-most important court in the land. This attack might sound substantive — until you look at the facts.
But then, most of the attacks on Kavanaugh have no substance. Whether it’s his name or his record, there’s simply no denying that the Democrats will be willing to manufacture anything in order to delay the confirmation of one of the most qualified judges the nation’s highest bench will have ever seen.
Enough of the nonsense. Enough of the stalling tactics. Let’s get down to serious business.
Sponsored content is a service paid for by an advertiser and produced by Liftable Media.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.