Opuscula High school stupidity Haunts candidate Twenty years later

PERHAPS THIS SHOULD BE CALLED “Grasping at straws.” What it is NOT is a pass for bad behavior.

THE DEMOCRAT party’s leadership, more and more similar to Dilbert’s “PHB,” says it found a woman who, 20 years ago, claims Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee for the SCOTUS, molested a young woman while they in high school. He, allegedly in a drunken moment, (no excuse) tried to undress her in a bedroom at a “party.”¹

At least that is the part of the story the “leadership” presented to the “unbiased” media that ran to publish the disgraceful behavior and, both Democrats and media hope, derail Kavanaugh’s candidacy . . . at least until the mid-term elections in which the “out” party has high hopes of becoming the “in” party.

This is not the first time the Democrats have accused a GOP-sponsored SCOTUS candidate of sexual misconduct. Previously, they fought Clarence Thomas’s nomination, by President George H. W. Bush, and, at the time, lost by the narrowest margin to date: 52 yeas to 48 nays. Thomas is a conservative, as is Kavanaugh, and Thomas was accused of sexual misconduct.²

As with Kavanaugh, the misconduct was a last minute “eureka moment” for the Democrats. According to CNN³, Reports surface two days before the scheduled Senate vote on Thomas's confirmation that law professor Anita Hill told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Thomas had sexually harassed her while she worked with him at the Education Department and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Assuming the leftists again will lose and Kavanaugh will be confirmed, their next move, particularly if they take control of the House and Senate, will be to bring impeachment proceedings against Kavanaugh and, possibly, Thomas.

It’s interesting that no one uttered a word about FDR’s infidelity or JFK’s womanizing; even Teddy Kennedy’s Chappaquiddick accident that took the life of Mary Jo Kopechne was quickly dismissed and he was easily re-elected.⁴ Even Wm. J. “I did not have sex with that woman” Clinton was unscathed, as was his wife’s tenure as Secretary of State for which she is justly infamous for Benghazi and emails.

If Georgie Porgie⁵ ran for office in the U.S. he would be pilloried for his sexual escapade.

I suppose that in all the alleged instances of sexual misconduct – I am NOT considering rape or child molestation as “misconduct”; these are reprehensible crimes – the female took no part nor did she provoke the attack by any means. All the females are absolutely innocent victims, dressed like nuns going to meet the pope. I am suggesting that the male should have controlled himself despite any provocation. In Kavanaugh’s case, if the assault really happened, than his first mistake was getting drunk and losing control.

I’m curious why this alleged victim of Kavanaugh’s lust waited 20 years before going public. I’m always suspicious of very belated accusations. This sudden recall of things long past seems to be a Democrat trademark.

What has Kavanaugh done as a jurist; has he ruled fairly? Are his decisions reasonable based on the facts before him? Have his rulings been over-turned? These are the things the inquisitors should be considering. Sexual misconduct as a teenager 20 years ago? How doe that define the SCOTUS candidate today?

It’s time for the Democrats to get real and to vote on his judicial record.

In Hebrew the term for teenagers is “Te-pesh-esray.” Rough translation: Stupidteen.

Only a fool would condemn an adult for something he – or she – did as a teenager. That’s why the books are sealed on juveniles’ crimes.

---

Sources

1. http://tinyurl.com/y8ubca9r

2. http://tinyurl.com/ybvn5oyc

3. http://tinyurl.com/ydffatcd

4. http://tinyurl.com/yaqqw58w

5. http://tinyurl.com/ycu8fvfs

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.

Comments on Kavanaugh

Opuscula SCOTUS rules: Baker’s faith wins Vs. LGBTQ cake

HAS SANITY RETURNED TO AMERICA?
Perhaps a small step was taken in that direction by a recent Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) decision.

According to several media web sites^{1, 2, 3}, the Supremes reversed a Colorado court ruling that a baker is obliged to cater to customers who want a cake that violates the baker’s religious beliefs.

There are a number of similar cases that likely will come before the nation’s highest court.

In none of the cases this scrivener knows about, all the couples seeking a product that violated the vendor’s sensibilities could have gone to another nearby vendor for whatever product they desired. (In at least one case, another bakery; in another a flower shop.)

USA Today’s leed^cq paragraph reads:

A Supreme Court ruling in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex wedding could mark the first step toward allowing businesses to withhold certain services based on religious grounds, but it doesn't open the floodgates for widespread discrimination.

Reuters noted that:

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

The court concluded that the commission violated Phillips’ religious rights under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

But the justices did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religion. The decision also did not address important claims raised in the case including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the Constitution’s free speech guarantee.

The New York Times’ story noted that

“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote I the majority opinion, “all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

Reuters claimed that

Seventy-two percent of U.S. adults believe that businesses should not have the right on religious grounds to deny services to customers based on their sexual orientation, a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Monday showed.

As usual for such polls, information about how the questions were phrased, to whom and where the questions were presented were omitted from Reuters’ article.

Perhaps I’m just contrary, but if a merchant doesn’t want my business, I’ll go elsewhere, providing there IS an elsewhere to go. It’s the “flip side” of me not liking a business and going elsewhere. Should the business I elected NOT to patronize sue me for going elsewhere?

In my opinion, we are too quick to “Sue the B*st*rds” (the title of an interesting book). Are we looking for a moment of fame, or are we after “big bucks,” a small portion of which we might enjoy after lawyers’ fees and taxes.

It is not just real or perceived discrimination. We are “Johnny n the spot” to sue for anything that smacks of sexual harassment or abuse.

The other day a female cashier told me “Have a nice day, honey.” Perhaps I should find an attorney (there are several on my block) to sue the woman and the store franchisee and the chain behind the franchise for sexual liberties. Maybe I could sue the company that made the peanut butter I bought – and all the companies in the supply chain that handled the product from the peanut farmer to the truck driver who delivered the product to the store.

Of course the scenario above is ludicrous, but given some of the cases brought before the courts today, maybe “ludicrous” is too strong a word.

The Constitution and all its amendments guarantees equal rights to all citizens (even if that is largely wishful thinking). To my Edward Bear mind, that means if I have a business (and there is nearby competition) I can select to whom I wish to cater. If you are in the group whose custom I reject, you have the equal right to go elsewhere or open a competing business.

I’m waiting until someone from the LGBTQ community sues a house of ill repute in Nevada (where they are not illegal⁴) for discrimination.

---

Sources

1. http://tinyurl.com/y8tdme3q

2. http://tinyurl.com/ybpsy3uh

3. http://tinyurl.com/ybntg3na

4. http://tinyurl.com/ngruuvb

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.

Comments on SCOTUS