DISQUS Doodlings - This isn't how ANY of this works, Bruce! - Granite Grok

DISQUS Doodlings – This isn’t how ANY of this works, Bruce!

Scales of Justice

Well, Peter’s post “Republicans must not cower in the face of Democratic treachery” is getting a bunch of traction in the comments section and as I do from time to time, I mix it up in the comments instead of just putting my thoughts here on the front page.  This time, I just couldn’t help myself in keeping it short and when I was done with one comment by Bruce Currie.

Sidenote: one of the few Liberals that come here to joist with us, I give him the rubric of “honest Liberal” as he is almost always consistent in his views and tries to have a decent conversation; I am hoping he’ll come to one of our MeetUps so as to meet him in person!

Anyways, near the current end of the DISQUS section, he left this on the ongoing allegation concerning Trump’s SCOTUS nominee, Bruce Brett Kavanaugh (emphasis mine, H/T: To commenters Paul and Allen for spotting the error):

This isn’t a formal trial. Given the power dynamics here, it would have been easier, I think, for Blasey Ford to have kept silent. But given the high stakes, she chose to come forward. I certainly have reservations about letting one stupidly offensive, drunken incident at age 17 determine his fate. However, his denial of any knowledge of the incident, when we know about the alcohol-fueled and misogynist environment he inhabited, both in prep school and at Yale, makes one skeptical of his truthfulness, in light of his evasions in regard to other topics during the Judiciary committee hearing.

Well, what started off as an intention to write short, well, wasn’t all that short:

Again, you are already judged him guilty simply on an allegation. An allegation, I might add, in which the very BASIC of facts are unknown – date, time, location, conveyance, witnesses – and unverifiable.

You are willing to destroy someone’s reputation over something that cannot be proven? An alledged crime that to any sane person outside of the political / SJW world would be rejected out of hand BECAUSE there is no proof that can be substantiated? That is what our justice system is based on – the confirmation of innocence before guilt, that credible proof in either material or witness be presented, and that the accused has the right to examine the accuser. So far, in this case, our whole system is being turned upside down.

And why [a few more bon mots now added here]?

1) What is now the regular partisan hackery that our lame, dysfunctional Congress that concentrates on the latest Shiny Object that shows up in the media [instead of doing their actual jobs].

2) The reversal of Clauswitz’s famous phrase: Politics is war by another means. This is all out war by the Dems on the Rs [and anything other than what they demand].

3) Payback for the no answer on Garland – the Dems are still ticked that the answer, by way of silence (e.g., no vote) meaning “No”. [Advise & consent doesn’t always need a vote].

4) Abortion – the Dems are using the “possible” overturning of Roe vs Wade” in a demogoguey fashion. No, abortion won’t be made illegal. If such a case came to SCOTUS and it was overturned, the issue would simply return to the States. Dems want Power as high up, as centralized as possible, and as far removed from the Individual Citizen as possible. I will, for the time being, leave the morality part of this alone (but I have made my opinion already known on this). [Again, this would be a diminishing of that centralized Power and the use of the Judiciary as a supra-Legislative body – something that just cannot be allowed!].

5) The return, perhaps for decades, to an originalist interpretation of the text of the US Constitution as written by our Founders and buttressed by their own writings at the time (The Federalists and Anti-Federalist papers). We KNOW what they intended. [Dems hate it as it would mean they actually have to go back, as they did with the 16th and 17th Amendments, and change the Constitution by….wait for it….the Constitutionally mandated way of changing the Constitution (imagine that – following the rules exactly!)].

What WASN’T intended was the rise of the philosophy of the “Living Constitution” which also has turned upside down the meaning of the Constitution just as this case is attempting to turn our justice system into the equivalent of the French Revolution’s (an allegation can have one lose their head). Our Constitution was meant to be a set of regulations for Government in which to regulate and restrict its workings – and that all current and contemporary events were to fall back to its original intent and those EVENTS were to be interpreted by the Constitution.

Instead, we have been seeing, for decades, the Progressive rewriting of said document in that the “Living” says to take those current and contemporary EVENTS and to not be judged by the Constitution but that the Constitution WILL be interpreted and CHANGED by those EVENTS[I also add here that one should review Ian Underwood’s postings on this subject on the ‘Grok].

In effect, changing it into a Lewis and Clark-ian dystopia in which a Progressive leaning court can see pneumbras and emanations that lay unseen for centuries until “Oh, look at what we just found!”.

This, the Progressive / incremental Socialists in the land cannot abide or agree to. So, for all of those reasons, any and all things mud will be thrown against the wall to see if something sticks – as you have just said, Bruce.

Sorry, not buying it. While the Dems keep telling we Normals that they are the Science and Fact based community, I see no science, and I see no facts in this case on which, as an engineer, that I can see a root cause other than to support my 5 lines of reasonings above.

My conclusion is that the current Democrat “Resistance” is simply political and all’s far in love and war – and Dems are in a full out war.