As this linked story proves, Sen. Kamala Harris’ attempts to defend the protesters who disrupted the Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings were undermined considerably by the video showing how mindlessly disruptive they were. It reminded me of that moment in every old monster movie where the creature turns on its creator.
Not that the protesters were much more mindlessly disruptive than some of the Democratic Senators, at least on day one. By day two, I think they’d realized how thoroughly they’d beclowned themselves and tried to behave more like adults. Of course, for some, that just meant making the cheap shots in their “indoor voices.”
I was especially taken aback by Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s novel Constitutional theory that President Trump has no power to nominate a Supreme Court Justice because he’s an “unindicted co-conspirator in a federal crime.” By that, I assume he means the questionable, ever-changing allegation by a sleazy lawyer and his sleazy lawyer that Trump knew he was paying a woman who was demanding hush money to go away, a claim that remains unverified, as does the suggestion that it was even a crime at all if he did pay her to shut up and go away. All I know for sure is that after watching these hearings, I could name a lot of people whom I’d be happy to pay to shut up and go away.
On a side note, from Blumenthal’s kangaroo-like jumping of the gun on “federal crime” charges to both Trump and his critics accusing each other of treason, it’s obvious that just because you make or enforce laws, you can still be unclear on their meaning. I’m not an attorney, but you don’t have to be Perry Mason to know that “treason” is defined very narrowly in the Constitution. It requires someone to wage war against the US or give aid and comfort to somebody who is. So nobody is really committing treason, although if you include waging a war to overthrow the duly elected President, then Trump has a better claim on using that word than his critics do.
On a more positive note, in between the childish off-camera outbursts, Day 2 of the Kavanaugh hearings provided some very enlightening testimony for a change about the Constitution and how judges should approach their job and why a particular ruling has more to do with the evidence, law and facts of that specific case than with the opinions and prejudices of the judge (or it should, at least – I get the feeling the Democrats aren’t really worried that Kavanaugh will make rulings based on his personal political opinions, they’re just worried that his opinions don’t align with theirs.)
My favorite part of the day came when Ted Cruz exposed the empty political grandstanding of Kavanaugh’s opponents by pointing out that he and Obama’s blocked nominee Merrick Garland had supported each other’s opinions on the DC Court of Appeals more than 90% of the time. Yet according to the Democrats, Garland was an outstanding legal mind who should have been confirmed, while Kavanaugh is such a sexist, racist monster that they started condemning Trump’s nominee before they even knew who it would be.
Kind of makes you wonder if maybe they’re exaggerating about any of the other “end of the world” outrages that they’re constantly ranting about?
PS on the Kamala Harris story: she was asked about Sen. Ben Sasse’s description of protesters screaming that “women are going to die” as “hysteria” of a type that’s been going on for years on the left and that reflects a “fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the Supreme Court in American life now.” Instead of addressing his substantive point, she tried to deflect by accusing him of sexism for dismissing women’s concerns as hysteria. So to be clear that there’s nothing sexist about calling hysterical people “hysterical,” let me just say that the male protesters who were also yelling like loons were hysterical. In this particular case, “hysterical” in every sense of the word.