I find it utterly disgusting when people claim that due process does not apply unless the person is being charged with a crime. Note that the proponents of this twisted doctrine are always the same people who falsely equate the concept of free speech with the First Amendment.
The refusal to distinguish between a right and the government’s promise not to infringe upon that right is tantamount to saying that we have no rights but what the government allows us.
All right, everyone — listen up, because an astonishing number of you don’t seem to understand the overwhelming support behind Brett Kavanaugh, or how the SCOTUS confirmation process even works.
The President can nominate whomever he damn well pleases, and it’s up to the Senate whether or not to confirm. There isn’t an ideological litmus test, and it doesn’t matter how “mainstream” a nominee is, because the Supreme Court does not exist to represent YOUR interests OR mine. The only “interests” it represents are those of the United States Constitution. (Worth noting: Brett Kavanaugh is an utter caricature of Middle America.)
The only relevant concern is whether the nominee is capable of doing the job.
Think he lacks the experience to fill a seat? Fine. Think he doesn’t understand the Constitution, or how to properly apply it? That’s fine too. Have concerns about the candidate’s ethics, or do you otherwise question whether he can and will remain objective in his rulings? Then certainly, Senator, you should vote ‘no’.
But please, all of you screaming your heads off about Roe v. Wade — shut the fuck up already. You don’t actually believe Trump can be pressured into nominating someone who supports abortion; you’re just looking for an excuse to bitch about Trump.
If you had any serious concerns about Kavanaugh’s confirmation, you belonged taking them to your senator — not taking to the streets like savages or whining about it on social media.
(To anyone who contacted their senator’s office and THEN whined: 👍 But I hope they had the good sense to ignore you unless you actually had something constructive to say.)
I’m tired of all the mischaracterizations of Kavanaugh supporters, and of people reframing the issues around irrelevant topics instead of challenging our arguments directly.
This was NEVER about abortion — not for us. It was never about politics — not for us — and if you think this was a right-wing movement, you’re living in an echo chamber.
Standing With Brett was never about wanting him confirmed. It was never about the Patriot Act, or about Donald Trump, or the myth of male privilege, and we aren’t the ones seeking to politicize sexual assault.
Standing With Brett boiled down to three things:
(1) Upholding the integrity of the judicial nomination process.
(2) A reaffirmation of due process.
(3) A rejection of the #metoo movement and its underlying feminist ideology.
No matter where any one of us happens to stand politically, THESE were the three things we held in common.
Response to friend:
You obviously haven’t been spending much time on social media — good for you. The nut jobs are indeed demanding he be criminally investigated, and they’re being fueled by all sorts of re-shares claiming that it’s possible.
I’m a little stunned by your remark about due process — of course there is a need! The “due process” being referred to is the presumption of innocence and the recognition that guilt must be based on evidence alone.
It means he has a right to confront these accusations, and to do so publicly without being told: “Shut up, you’re not allowed to speak!”
It means not forcing the man to “bear witness” against himself, the way the Left is trying to present his anger and tears as evidence that he is mentally unhinged.
It means not convicting a man on the basis of an accusation, when not a single shred of evidence has been presented.
This is absolutely about due process. It a sense, that is the ONLY thing this is about. The Constitution isn’t simply a piece of paper — it represents a set of values one would hope the vast majority of us still believe in, even if we can’t always agree on how they should be applied.
This is essentially the same battle going on right now over free speech, only framed in a different light.
Some people think the free exchange of ideas is a good thing, regardless of the merit of the particular ideas being exchanged. Others believe there should be limits placed upon what is considered acceptable speech, but that such limitations should not come from the government. And others do not believe in free speech at all.