Friday, October 5, 2018

Ret. Supreme Court Justice: Kavanaugh should be disqualified


  1. I saw just the beginning of this horrible CNN missive.
    “That is because I forcefully and passionately denied the allegation against me. At times, my testimony—both in my opening statement and in response to questions—reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused, without corroboration, of horrible conduct completely contrary to my record and character. My statement and answers also reflected my deep distress at the unfairness of how this allegation has been handled.”
    I too must forcefully and passionately deny Susan’s false allegation against me. The Kavanaugh vote will be today.
    Oh, see
    “Aurea Vazquez Rijos was convicted Wednesday of offering millions of dollars to a hitman who killed her husband, Adam Anhang, less than a day after he said he wanted a divorce. Ms to me She subsequently sued Anhang’s parents in order to receive the $8 million she was owed under the couple’s prenuptial agreement”
    See, Adam Anhang was worth $24 million and wanted to divorce her without paying the prenuptial agreement and without her getting into his $24 million. She, a former beauty queen, and very rich, wanted much more money. She has to pray to God. May God have mercy on her soul. Lesson for us? Seems to me prenuptial agreements contribute to the high divorce rate.

  2. Now that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has been seated as the newest justice on the nation's highest court, it is time to take stock and realize the damage committed by those who make false accusations of sexual abuse or attacks. And recognize that unproven allegations must not be accepted as true.

  3. Allegations are what I call "data". Data is important when making decisions.

    The mistake the Radical Democrats made is to apparently think that because a singular data point convinced them that the data point should convince everybody.

    In this case the data point was an accusation by a woman that Brett Kavanaugh had attempted to force himself on her without her permission. But there were absolutely no other data points to corroborate her accusation.

    The place
    The time
    Her state of mind before the attack
    Her state of mind following the attack
    Her means of transportation to and from the alleged attack
    Others present witnessing the attack
    Others nearby at the time of the attack

    Not one of these data points could be presented to corroborate her data point.

    So, again, the issue isn't whether her allegation was true; the issue was how much was her allegation part of a convincing array of data points.

    And the answer was: not much at all.

    What is amazing is that the coaches on the accuser's side, like savvy Radical Dem Sen. Feinstein, thought they could pull this off with a singular data point.

    Either they hoped other data would pop up to help them, or they thought the mainstream media would do all the heavy lifting, or that some Republicans would cave; or they just did it the way a ballplayer tries one desperate attempt at victory when it seems all is lost. A hole in one, stealing home, an end zone pass sixty yards out, a basket from across the court (no pun intended): pick your sport and metaphor.

  4. The point wasn't to win. The point was to cause as much damage as was caused. No worries. The Democrats will be in an uproar about this on Monday. All part of the plan.

  5. Moe Ginsburg says “Now that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has been seated as the newest justice on the nation's highest court, it is time to take stock and realize the damage committed by those who make false accusations of sexual abuse or attacks. And recognize that unproven allegations must not be accepted as true.”
    Excellent. Bravo. May I connect this to the parsha.
    “The earth became corrupt before God; the earth was filled with lawlessness” (Genesis 6:11)
    “When Noah woke up from his wine and learned what his youngest son had done to him, he said, Cursed be Canaan; The lowest of slaves Shall he be to his brothers. And he said, Blessed be the Lord, The God of Shem; Let Canaan be a slave to them. May God enlarge[יפת] Japheth [יפת], And let him dwell in the tents of Shem; And let Canaan be a slave to them.” (Genesis 9:24-27)
    The radical democrats support lawlessness, men marrying men, false accusations to win their cause etc Was Noah right to curse Canaan?

  6. What is the basis for your assumption that the allegations were false?

  7. Actually, the reason why Kavanaugh was confirmed is because the Republicans could not care less if he assaulted her. McConnel said as much before the testimony of Ford, saying that Kavanaugh we be confirmed no matter what. There are statements from several people that Ford told them about the assault years ago, even telling them that the one who assaulted her was a D.C. federal judge. But the FBI did not interview any of those people, due to instructions from the White House. There are many many people who have issued statements contradicting Kavanaugh's claims about heavy drinking, but they were not interviewed by the FBI, due to instructions from the White House. If one covers his eyes and ears and does not allow himself to discover any evidence, it is quite easy to say that he did not find any evidence.

  8. Hearsay evidence wasn't going to carry the day for the Dems. That's as far as Dr. Ford's confidantes giving evidence.

    And someone can act wild and out of control even without ANY alcohol added to their system orally -- how much more so if they drink just a little.

    Anything short of these college friends being able to present measurements of how much was drunk, in what time span, and how often also wouldn't carry much weight.

  9. And let them roar! The more they churn, the more they turn off voters on their side.

    President Trump knows just how to prick their skin to get the Dems to make more and more mistakes.

    The problem the Dems have is that they are loathe to criticize the extremist elements within their own ranks. Or perhaps don't even recognize at this point how extreme their extremists sre. And so the Dems end up kowtowing to these elements.

    Has anyone here evidence of the Dems ever condemning Antifa violence? Or criticizing the unseemly behavior of the rogues in the Senate gallery?

  10. May I continue with Noah, my theory. Why did Noah curse his grandson, Canaan’s progeny with slavery? 1. Canaan’s progeny takes what’s not his! 2. Canaan’s progeny does wife swapping!
    "And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was a priest of God Most High [לאל עליון]" (Genesis 14:18).
    רש"י בראשית י"ד י"ח
    ומלכי צדק - מדרש אגדה הוא שם בן נח
    Noah gave Israel to Shem, yet Canaan progeny stole Israel by force from Shem progeny, the rightful owners. “Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem, at the terebinth of Moreh. The Canaanites were then in the land” (Genesis 12:6).
    רש"י בראשית י"ב ו'
    והכנעני אז בארץ - היה הולך וכובש את ארץ ישראל מזרעו של שם, שבחלקו של שם נפלה כשחלק נח את הארץ לבניו, שנאמר (בראשית יד יח) ומלכי צדק מלך שלם, לפיכך (פסוק ז) ויאמר ה' אל אברהם לזרעך אתן את הארץ הזאת, עתיד אני להחזירה לבניך שהם מזרעו של שם
    “The descendants of Ham: Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan” (Genesis 10:6).
    “the Pathrusim, the Casluhim, and the Caphtorim, whence the Philistines came forth.” (Ib. Ib. 14).
    רש"י בראשית י' י"ד
    ואת פתרוסים ואת כסלוחים אשר יצאו משם פלשתים - משניהם יצאו, שהיו פתרוסים וכסלוחים מחליפין משכב נשותיהם אלו לאלו, ויצאו מהם פלשתים
    The Canaan progeny did property theft and wife swapping --- slavery is a measure for measure punishment.

  11. Nothing would have carried the day for the Dems. The Republicans are in the majority, and they would find a way to support the nominee no matter what. But at least one hopes that eyes have been opened to the fact that in order to keep the nomination going, they had to have the FBI run a sham of an investigation, not even interviewing the two principles. They knew that a real investigation would sink him.

  12. Whut?! Who? Which "principles" -- "Lie at All Costs" and "Whatever it Takes to Win"? Or principals like...Dr. Ford and Judge Kavenaugh??????

  13. You are correct; principals.


    Glad that we now know squarely where the good Doctor Eidensohn aligns with.

  15. Funny how those on the right have to dig up tweets from random nobodies to make their point, while those on the left can point to the tweets and words of the Supreme Leader of the Republican party, President of the United States.

  16. Ford and Kavanaugh.

  17. You've got to be kidding.

    The two who were interviewed by the Judiciary Committee you feel should have been interviewed by the FBI and that had they been interviewed then the FBI's report to the Senate would have sunk the nomination?

    Do you believe the FBI has some power to uncover things that had not been discovered previous? Please, tell us, what you imagine might have been found out? What possible discovery?

    I'm not asking you for details, obviously. Just in the abstract: what in the world would the principals have told the FBI that wasn't told to the committee already?

    Yehoshua, I'm enjoying our back and forth. Your insistence that some fraud has been perpetuated on the American people is fascinating. The opportunity to actually discuss this "fraud" rationally with someone who believes it occurred is a wonderful opportunity. You seem to be thinking things through.

    By way of contrast, many of the others who subscribe to the "fraud" theory seem to be just numbly repeating talking points.

  18. I say without sarcasm, that I find it useful to put the Left's predicament in context.

    Their lives, they feel, are ruined to some extent by the Trump Presidency. And these Democrats, Leftists, cultural marxists -- whatever term we use -- are like wounded animals just flailing around. They deserve sympathy. Their attacks on the nominee were personal because they, in their current state of mind, seem to believe he is some kind of monster willing to use his judicial powers to make their lives even more miserable.

    Meanwhile, evidence is mounting that many people who used to identify as Democrat butvwho sre NOT cultural marxists, are abandoning the donkey ship. The decision to un-dem for some of them seems to have been building up for awhile and the nomination hearings are just giving them all collectively an excuse to scoot out of a party they no longer feel any identy with.

  19. That's no random nobody.

    And let's make that Emperor of the United States.

    The raw power EOTUS wields is amazing. He has tens of millions in his camp. And the camp is apparently growing with Democratic defectors.

    I am humbled to have had the opportunity to vote for him. This is an exciting moment in history. The Democrats are going *kablooey* which I actually think is a bad thing. It's awful to watch their slow motion disintegration. The country is not going to be better off as a one-party nation.

    Something will have to replace the Dems. The question is, what will it be?

  20. Not a random nobody? It is some writer for a late-night television show.
    I think this defection of Democrats is all in your active imagination. We will see in November.

  21. No, not kidding.
    First: FBI agents are trained in interviewing people, and could have asked follow-up questions that might have elicited more information from Ford. Second (and more crucial): The structure of the hearing allowed the senators to question Ford and Kavanaugh for no more than five minutes each. This enabled Kavanaugh to fillibuster and avoid answering questions, as well as precluding the development of a line of questioning that would last more than a couple of questions. Had the FBI interviewed him, they would not have had those limitations.

  22. A random 'nobody' who happens to write for a 'nobody' whom the good doctor found valuable and 'insightful' enough to quote and give him a platform here.

    Only a lier would deny the fact that a significant amount of liberals - of which you may be included - share her sentiments.

    I don't dedicate the kind of time that you do to argue in circles over here. Good luck though.

    The reality is, you were opposed to Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation for the moment he was nominated. All the 'new' info that supposedly came out during the shameful process were not in any way the reasons you opposed him.

    רפואה שלימה

  23. Of course I was opposed of Kavanaugh's nomination from the outset. He is a conservative and I am not. I would prefer not to have the likes of him on the court. But I realize that with a Republican (in name) president and a Republican Senate that abolished the 60 vote threshold, he would be confirmed. The same with Gorsuch.
    Once Kavanaugh repeatedly lied under oath to the Senate, I had a slight hope that this would be viewed as disqualifying even by a couple Republicans. And once Flake called for an investigation, I had the hope that it would be a real one, not one intended to discover nothing new. Alas, I was wrong on both counts. But I hope that there will be a Democratic majority in the House soon, who will be able to conduct a proper investigation and at least expose his lies under oath.

  24. The Senators presented the nominee with hundreds and hundreds of questions, all of which he answered. In writing. No limit. Yet some FBI agent was going to find something that would then be turned over to the Senators that would then sway at least a couole of Republican Senators.


    The big mistake the Democrat Senators made, apparently, was waiting till the last minute. Had Sen. Feinstein not sat on the letter for six weeks, a full, in depth, FBI investigation could have been initiated that would have sunk the nomination.

    Of course, never know who Mr. Trump would have nominated next.

    But one thing for sure. The FBI agent doing the investigation would not have been partisan. Because the FBI doesn't tolerate any partisanship in its ranks being displayed in its work. Right? Right? Right?

  25. It is obvious to me that answering questioned posed by experienced investigators, face to face,is a totally different animal than filling out answers on a paper. Also, you are ignoring the possibility of follow-up questions raised by answers given, which can lead to exploring other questions, etc.
    And you are 100% correct that the FBI strongly slants Republican, but I still think that they could do their duty in a professional, non-partisan, manner.

  26. Have you been following the news? A number of people at the FBI got caught for communications indicating they had a bias against Donald Trump being President.

    In any case, do you think that Judge Kavenaugh would speak to the FBI without his lawyer present? Do you think the lawyer would allow the Judge to answer any question that could ultimately lead to real or perceived damage? Meaning, the FBI would have gained little new knowledge from speaking to the Judge.

    I get where you are coming from. Your approach would have been for the investigators to keep churning and probing and stirring till they find something.

  27. I do follow the news. As I wrote earlier, the FBI strongly slants Republican.
    And if Kavanaugh is not able to get through an interview with them without lawyering up, that speaks for itself. There is a vast difference between having interviews with the accuser and the accused and "churning and probing and stirring till they find something," and I find it hard to imagine that you do not comprehend that. Admit it, conducting an "investigation" into a purported event without interviewing the two people most directly involved is nothing less than a farce. But that is what Flake et. al. wanted, a fig leaf they could use to justify their predetermined vote.

  28. I give in! You win. Judge Kavanaugh is unfit to sit on the Supreme Court -- given today's standards of the Left.

    I say that unironically.

    Our country is so split, no one is fit to sit on the Supreme Court. Because of multiculturalism and mass immigration, we now have two camps that are so split, that a leader chosen from either one is unfit simply because each leader wants to utterly undo the side he or she is opposed to.

    We have a civil war which is neither civil nor war.

    Pres. Trump cannot select someone for the court who satisfies both sides somewhat. And the same would be true if it were Pres. Clinton.

    This is a great flaw of democracies. Sooner or later the extremes gain power and the vast middle ground is lost. Then power shifts back and forth between the extremes until the whole thing flies apart, like a washing machine on the spin cycle with the drum off kilter.

    Yehoshua, I have no doubt if we met in Shul we'd have a common good feeling. But the minute we meet on the playing field of political analysis we are unable to progress anywhere since each of us has solid, legitimate grounds for our beliefs we've formulated based on history, our personal experiences, and our understanding of Torah.

  29. I disagree with you on this point. I believe that Gorsuch was fit to sit on the Supreme Court, despite my not liking his views. Same with Roberts and Alito. I think that most conservatives would say the same about Garland and Kagan. The problems with Kavanaugh in terms of his fitness to sit on the court relate to his fuzzy relationship with the truth, not his judicial views.

  30. Really? Skeptical here. If there were only "liberals" (that is Democratic nominated Justices) on the court, and he was nominated to be the only "conservative" Justice, I wonder if you would have found such a willingness to opppose him with such gusto.

  31. It is true that the stakes are much higher in this case than in most cases, but I think that lying under oath is disqualifying in any nomination.

  32. Yehoshua says “It is true that the stakes are much higher in this case than in most cases, but I think that lying under oath is disqualifying in any nomination.”
    “That is how these things work. Time heals wounds, and time settles accounts. Liars become exposed over time. Few learn history. Even intelligent young adults today do not know who Bobby Kennedy was; just ask them. Alas, even outright public scoundrels and thugs like Al Sharpton, after a few years, end up as TV news pundits; people forget his thuggery, anti-Semitism, and his race baiting. Meanwhile, good people gain public respect over time.”
    I agree with Joseph Orlow, Honesty etc comments to Yehoshua. Thanks Yehoshua for your part.

  33. 'FBI strongly slants Republican'
    The director interviews the leading Democrat after, not before, writing his final report. Doesn't follow protocol of a transcript of the interview. After his boss meets with her husband on the tarmac of LAX (after first denying the meeting.)
    ?Republican Slant?

  34. As if Obama only nominated liberals, Clinton the same, and Bush moderates.


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.