Last night, in a bit of expertly crafted reality TV that showed President Trump’s mastery of the medium, he announced that he was nominating Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the DC Court of Appeals to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court.
While not the pick many staunch conservatives were hoping for (Kavanaugh’s rulings include finding that the government's mass gathering of metadata doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment and that abortion rights are settled law under Roe v. Wade; and one study ranked him the fifth-most conservative judge on the 11-member DC Court), he was widely considered the safest pick. Kavanaugh has a long history of reliably non-activist rulings that were upheld by the SCOTUS. Trump read off his sterling resume (educated at Yale; teaches law at Yale, Harvard and Georgetown, former law clerk to Justice Kennedy, etc.) He also gave examples of Kavanaugh’s sterling character: his mother was both a teacher at an inner city minority school and a pioneering female prosecutor and judge; and he tutors children in public school, coaches his daughter’s basketball team and helps his priest serve meals to the homeless.
Kavanaugh's telegenically-perfect family was also on hand to support him: his highly-accomplished wife and his two appealingly spunky daughters. He talked of his love of family, his devotion to community and the Constitution, and his goal of giving all cases a fair hearing. He even had bipartisan support in the past: he was appointed to the DC Court by George W. Bush (who issues a statement strongly praising Trump’s choice) and was hired to teach law at Harvard by then-dean Elena Kagan. You couldn’t have created a more perfect scene if you’d gotten Kavanaugh and his family from Central Casting and let Aaron Sorkin script it.
And what was the Democratic response? It reminded me of the “Simpsons” episode where the town of Springfield unveils a statue of Jimmy Carter and the citizens scream, “He’s history’s worst monster!” and riot. The gap between the overwhelmingly qualified, picture-perfect jurist, family man and community leader and the worse-than-Hitler demon depicted by the screaming left was enough to make your head spin. But then, as comedian Dennis Miller tweeted earlier, Trump could have nominated either Amy Coney Barrett or Vladimir Putin, “and the headlines would be exactly the same.”
In fact, the utterly predictable, over-the-top, end-of-the-world denunciations of this man by Chuck Schumer, MSNBC talking heads and all the other usual suspects (bear in mind, the Democrats stalled his DC Court nomination for three years before he was finally approved by the Senate by a 21-point margin) provided a perfect example of why it’s so hard for conservatives to do comedy these days.
Liberals would have you believe it’s because they’re the only ones with a sense of humor, a fallacy they disprove on a Daily (Show) basis. Actually, it’s just impossible for anyone on the right to make up a humorously exaggerated cartoon version of the left that they don’t surpass in reality almost as soon as the joke is made. Case in point: two days ago, I suggested with tongue-in-cheek that they’d already written the “Trump’s nominee is Hitler!” press releases and were just waiting to “insert name here” before sending them.
Not only did that turn out to be literally true, but someone at the Women’s March actually sent it out without remembering to fill in all the blanks first. They distributed a fire-and-brimstone denunciation of Trump’s “extremist” nominee, referred to in the opening paragraph as “XX.” One wag on the Internet said he couldn’t figure out why the feminists at the Women’s March hated the female chromosome so much.
In short: Grab your popcorn, the Grand Guignol political theater has now begun.
While Democrats would have you believe that the next Supreme Court will take up the issue of whether to put all immigrants into Matrix-like hives to harvest their body energy to power Trump resorts, the reality is much more prosaic. Here’s one of the cases they really will likely consider in the next session, but it would probably be difficult to gin up fear and outrage among the masses over a potential ruling on whether the EPA has the power to protect the dusky gopher frog by designating 1500 acres of privately-owned property in Louisiana as its critical, protected habitat, even though none of the frogs actually live there. A win for the EPA would require the owners to spend millions to make their land habitable for nonexistent frogs.
As ribbiting as this case sounds, I can understand why liberals are terrified of originalists sitting on the Supreme Court, since I can only imagine what the Founders would have said about a government that thought it had the power to tell citizens to spend their own money to turn their property into a Disneyland for invisible frogs.
Michelle Wolf's thoughts on abortion
This is what passes for a brilliant wit on the left these days: that alleged “comedian” who singlehandedly may have killed the White House Correspondents Dinner with her nasty, unfunny and inappropriate attacks on the women of the White House is at it again. This time, she lectured us all on how great and important abortion is by declaring, “Some people say abortion is ‘killing a baby.’ It’s not. It’s stopping a baby from happening.”
No, birth control or chastity “stop a baby from happening.” Abortion is “killing a baby that’s already happened.” Twitchy has a round-up of the Twitter reactions which they summarize in five words: “The stupid, it literally burns.”
A big Huck’s Hero salute to the rescue teams that have now miraculously rescued all twelve youth soccer players and their coach from a flooded cave in Thailand. At this writing, some of the rescuers are still in the cave. One lost his life in the rescue. Their bravery and sacrifice to save others is an inspiration to the entire world. Click the link to learn more about the astounding combination of high tech equipment and old-fashioned guts that made this possible.
This is one of those stories that you’d swear had to be “fake news,” if conservative news sites made up fake news the way liberal sites do. You know the type: the stories that depict your opponents as such flagrant, stereotypical hypocrites that, from a propaganda standpoint, they’re just “too good to be true.” But no, this one is apparently true:
There’s a clothing line called “Feminist Apparel” that is the Gap of in-your-face, virtue-signaling PC leftists. They sell T-shirts and such emblazoned with such slogans as “Trans Rights are Human Rights,” “Misogyny Kills” and “Don’t Tell Me To Smile” (as if there were ever any chance that someone who would wear this stuff might smile.) It has become the go-to fashion accessory, along with anatomically-correct hats, at such anti-Trump events as the Women’s March.
Well, last month, the staff at Feminist Apparel discovered that founder and CEO Alan Martofel had an admitted history of sexually abusing women, such as “grinding up” against women at concerts and “making out with a drunk chick” at parties, and after learning about “rape culture,” he was so ashamed that he started the line as a way to repent. Forgiveness not being one of the PC left’s strong suits, his dozen or so employees were naturally filled with righteous rage over his “toxic masculinity” and demanded he step down and make a public apology. He agreed.
But then, this staffers discovered their company credit cards weren’t working. Then they were shocked to discover why: after promising to step down in shame, he’d apparently remembered it was his company, so he’d fired the entire staff instead. Or as he put it, while he had “always strived to be a safe and welcoming space,” he’d discovered his employees “unequivocally, do not share my views on either business or feminism,” so he’d made the “difficult decision to proceed without them.” See, they obviously didn't feel safe there, so he was protecting them from being triggering by giving them their walking papers.
Or to put it in plain terms: it turns out not even the most self-righteous leftists can shame their own boss out of the company he owns and they don’t. This is what it feels like to be smashed in the face with the pie pan of reality.
I must warn you, this link to the full story with all the schadenfreude-tastic details is to a liberal feminist site that quotes his former workers verbatim, so it contains the type of filthy language you’d expect from that ultra-sensitive culture.
A more positive take on the Awan plea deal
The news of Imran Awan’s sweetheart plea deal emerged quietly during Fourth of July week, but it hasn’t gone unnoticed here, even with the predominant story right now being President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. My initial thought about the Awan deal was, “Oh, man, the DOJ has buried another scandal,” and many readers agreed, some commenting that they were disgusted and even literally sickened by the outcome.
But one response offered an interesting take. Mind you, it involves giving Jeff Sessions the benefit of the doubt and picturing him as working steadfastly behind the scenes to ensure that justice is eventually done. Not easy, I know; it’s like being the kid who gets a pile of manure at Christmas and just KNOWS there has to be pony in there somewhere! But for the moment, let’s try to do that and take the ride with reader Bonnie Robinson.
“When you want to catch a fish, you use a smaller fish,” she reminds us. Of course, we already knew that’s been the strategy behind the treatment of Paul Manafort –- were you aware he’s spending 23 out of every 24 hours in solitary confinement before he’s been tried, even though the only charge against him is unrelated to the “Russia” investigation and goes back many years? –- to get cooperation against President Trump, but it applies here as well. Awan was allowed to plead guilty to one measly charge of bank fraud when he could have been charged with much more: espionage, perhaps, or theft of government property, just for starters. I would note that he’s also alleged to have attempted to evade justice by hopping a plane to Pakistan. Robinson points out that since plea deals come as part of an agreement to cooperate with investigators, Awan has likely provided them with information relating to the Democrats who hired him. If she’s right, that means that for a deal as sweet as the one he got, he’s likely been singing like Pavarotti.
But Robinson goes on to address another aspect of this case: namely, how unlikely it is that an objective grand jury could be empaneled in Washington, DC, for a case against congressional Democrats charged with something as serious as (perhaps) treason. The same would go for prosecutors and judges assigned to such a case. She reminds us that with all the evidence against the FBI presented in the IG report, the Inspector General left out that same part: the prosecution part. “Do you think this was going to be litigated in this setting?” she asks.
So, if it’s not going to be handled in DC, where WILL it be handled? Robinson suggests that it’s moving from DC to Utah, under U.S. Attorney John Huber, who was selected by Attorney General Sessions to handle cases related to the IG report. Remarkably, Huber operates with a staff of 470 investigators, far exceeding the investigative power of a special counsel. One other possibility, if the cases relating to Awan include allegations of treason or other matters of national security, is that they will be tried in a military court, away from the media and the chance of compromising sensitive information, sources or methods. That lessens the likelihood that any “big fish” will get away on a technicality.
“Rest assured,” Robinson concludes, “this entire case is being handled with the utmost care.”
It’s hard to have confidence in that, especially when we’ve watched certain people skate for so long, but let’s hope she’s right. Sessions’ decision to call upon John Huber to team up with the IG and conduct a full-fledged criminal investigation in Utah, in the clean mountain air far from the stinky DC swamp, may turn out to be every bit as brilliant as top legal expert Jonathan Turley said it was in March.