A Reminder: Kavanaugh's Election Law Warning

Andrea Widburg, in her article that I linked earlier this morning, provides a variety of links to articles that bring us up to date on Trump's challenge to The Steal. One of those links is to an article that Widburg wrote back near the beginning of October. That was, you'll recall, during the post-Ginsburg pre-Justice Amy interregnum at the Scotus.

In The Supreme Court and appellate courts are drawing back from voting madness Widburg summarizes the SCOTUS' handling of an Obama judge's attempted election meddling in Texas. What transpired in that case reinforces the case I made for optimism this morning, regarding Justice Kavanaugh's jurisprudential views as they will impact the election cases that will surely arrive at the SCOTUS. In The New SCOTUS, which dealt with the Free Exercise case in New York, I wrote:

Why is this [Kavanaugh's rejection of Roberts' dissenting opinion] so important and why do I think Kavanaugh's conservative views extend beyond Free Exercise? Because Kavanaugh also dissented from Roberts' laissez faire approach to the PA Supreme Court's rewriting of election law--another 4-4 pre-Justice Amy opinion. Not only did Kavanaugh dissent at that time, but in another opinion very shortly afterwards, regarding the situation in Wisconsin, Kavanaugh went out of his way to bring up the PA case and to emphasize, once again, his disagreement with Roberts. So, for all his dialed down rhetoric, this conservative solidarity may bode well for the Trump challenges. If I had to guess, I'd say that the SCOTUS will ultimately hear these cases and Trump will get a sympathetic hearing from the conservative majority.

Now, read what Widburg wrote a month and a half ago. Note that the SCOTUS was, in fact, in broad agreement, despite Roberts' later fall from grace over PA election law:

UPDATED: Why Kavananaugh Now?

Sheer malice might be one reason, but some commenters believe there's more to it. A specific objective. For example, commenter Unknown writes:

They know RBG is dying and want [Kavanaugh's] seat.

And commenter Tom S. writes:

What I see is a movement to delegitimize his vote on the Court there by providing an excuse for nullifying SCOTUS rulings they disagree with, much like the Sanctuary movement among the States does to the Executive. Seemingly a dangerous move unless the end goal is dysfunctional chaos and the collapse of our system of Gov't. At the least they hope to cow Kavanaugh into recusing himself from any "Womyn's issues", at the most they will be happy with "burn it down and we'll fight to see who rules at the other end."

I've long been of the view that much of the political theater on the Left that we've been witnessing since the Mueller Dossier was released is triggered by the knowledge of what is coming--just how bad the information re the Russia Hoax that will be released really is--and thus is motivated by the desire to 1) distract the public from the coming Russia Hoax trainwreck, or 2) use a flurry of wild allegations to support a claim that it's all just politics as usual, and both parties are equally bad.

This morning we see multiple Dem presidential aspirants calling for Kavanaugh's impeachment, and New York Magazine already has an article out on this angle: Kavanaugh’s Impeachment May Have Just Become a 2020 Issue. In other words, having lost this fight badly in the court of public opinion already, Dems want a do-over of the Kavanaugh fight as the centerpiece of the 2020 campaign. Presumably to hold on to wavering "suburban" women.

So far it's not going well. Nevertheless I'll repeat: Kavanaugh should have sought vindication in court. Not to have done so reveals a dangerous naivete that GOPers should long ago have gotten over.

UPDATE: I want to highly recommend Margot Cleveland's article today--Lindsey Graham, Start Fighting For Justice For Brett Kavanaugh: Yes, Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed. But that isn’t justice. Justice requires consequences for those who tarnished the man and lied to Senate Judiciary investigators and committee members.

Cleveland takes out after Graham and all the other "pantywaist politicians who refused to punctuate their conclusion that Ford had lied about Kavanaugh with a perjury investigation." She's absolutely right about the damage to our political process that is done when witnesses are allowed to lie with impunity during the confirmation process. Senators who fail to defend nominees in this basic way. I still believe, however, that Kavanaugh himself has a duty to defend himself in the face of such a defamatory attack that goes far beyond difference of opinion.

Briefly Noted: The New Kavanaugh Smear

Perhaps you've heard that two NYT reporters have launched a new smear against Brett Kavanaugh? If you haven't, you can read about it here: Democrats Haven’t Given Up On Smearing Kavanaugh. Mollie Hemingway--who wrote the book on the Kavanaugh nomination--has tweeted:

Mollie
‏
Verified account

@MZHemingway

NYT Reporters’ essay about a supposed second Yale incident omitted their own book reporting that completely undercuts it: alleged victim denies any memory of it. Journalistically indefensible, though gullible additional reporters are spreading it of course.

5:26 AM - 15 Sep 2019

Two points.

1) I want to be on the record, FWIW, saying that I find Kavanaugh's hiring only female law clerks to be deeply creepy. Maybe I'm wrong and it's simply deeply craven and gutless, but absent an explanation from Kavanaugh himself I'll go with deeply creepy. 

2) Kavanaugh is clearly a very slow learner. He did the right thing initially by hiring a prominent defamation lawyer, but then failed to follow up on it. Acting like a punching bag for liberals only encourages liberals to ... punch you some more. 

Confirmed: Kamasutra Harris Is Very Dumb

There are two articles out which expose Harris' really appalling lack of basic understanding of the law and--not surprisingly for one who traded sex for political favor and/or a fancy BMW--ethics. This came out very clearly in her attempted interrogation of AG Barr, and I bring this up not for any inherent interest that her statements contain but because at least one commenter stated an impression that Barr was "set back" on his heels by Harris.

The first article is by Brian Cates: Senator Harris Misses Huge Revelation From Barr During Senate Testimony. Cates provides an extensive transcript of Barr's testimony, but focuses on a different aspect than I intend to focus on. Cates focus on the fact that, in the second half of the transcript, Harris attacks Rod Rosenstein for what seems to be a conflict of interest in participating in the Mueller inquisition. What Harris doesn't seem to get is that that conflict--Rosenstein is a key fact witness in the Mueller inquisition--if it raises any question at all must raise questions about the very legitimacy of the entire Mueller inquisition--not of Barr's impartiality.

However, what I want to focus on is the simple fact that Harris very clearly doesn't understand what "conflict of interest" means. Bear in mind that this is a woman who passed the bar exam in California (on the second try), served as District Attorney for a major city for 7 years, and was the Attorney General of this nation's largest state for 6 years. Here's a definition of "conflict of interest":

1. A situation that has the potential to undermine the impartiality of a person because of the possibility of a clash between the person's self-interest and professional interest or public interest.
2. A situation in which a party's responsibility to a second-party limits its ability to discharge its responsibility to a third-party.

Note that a conflict of interest involves a "situation," a structural factor that "undermines" or "limits" the very ability to be impartial because of a clash of interests. It is not at all the same thing, contra Harris, as bias, or prejudging, or--as really seems to be the case here--having a different opinion than someone else, such as the questioner.

Here's the transcript (I've left some of Cates' interjections). You'll see what Cates is interested in, but pay attention to the part where Barr, clearly nonplussed, asks "What's my conflict of interest?" and Harris attempts to explain. Barr is far too polite to say what clearly must have been in his mind, but patiently tries to explain what the issues are.