Due process and other nonsense
I’m not going to bother to fisk this NY TImes op-ed by Alexis Grenell because Ann Althouse has already done it very well in this post. Instead, I want to concentrate on one phrase in one sentence of Grenell’s leftist, race-and-gender-obsessed screed [emphasis mine]:
Meanwhile, Senator Collins subjected us to a slow funeral dirge about due process and some other nonsense I couldn’t even hear through my rage headache as she announced on Friday she would vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.
This is what Susan Collins actually said about due process and all that other nonsense that Times writer Grenell couldn’t hear through her rage headache:
…[T]his debate is complicated further by the fact that the Senate confirmation process is not a trial. But certain fundamentally legal principles about due process, the presumption of innocence, and fairness do bear on my thinking, and I cannot abandon them. In evaluating any given claim of misconduct we will be ill served in the long republic if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness tempting though it may be.
We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy. The presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominees otherwise exemplary record. I worry that departing from this presumption could a lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward.
Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not at the allegations raised by professor Ford, but of the allegations that when he was a teenager Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facility gang rape.
This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. That’s such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our a American consciousness.
We’ve heard a lot from Democrats for the past couple of weeks about “due process” and how irrelevant it is when men are accused by women of the most serious sexual crimes in the court of public opinion. So that sentence of Grenell’s—which appears to be saying that due process is some sort of “nonsense”—is not some strange and idiosyncratic statement. Apparently the idea has become mainstream among Democrats, which is yet another sign (as though we needed any at this point) that leftists have taken over the Democratic Party.
Democrats used to champion due process. No more. But that was when there were more liberals in the Democratic Party than there are now. Alan Dershowitz just may be the only liberal left standing, because he actually does believe in applying the same rules to everyone accused, because he believes that process protects us all. But Alan Dershowitz seems pretty much alone in his own party, although Joe Manchin could at least claim that devotion to principle rather than naked self-serving political interest drove his vote for Kavanaugh.
It is completely understandable that the left thinks due process is “nonsense” when it might benefit someone they consider the enemy. If a political group is focused entirely on certain results and holds the banner of “ends justify means” aloft as their standard, then what would due process mean to them and why on earth would they value it? Due process is a process that is supposed to ensure the fairest possible end result, but sometimes a fair end result doesn’t benefit your side. If a political movement is only interested in what benefits its side it cannot possibly support a process that would be applied equally to all comers.
“Process” then becomes “nonsense,” mere meaningless babble that can be safely ignored because a person is having a “rage headache” at not getting the desired results. Results are the only thing that matter, after all.
The Left’s lamentable descent into insanity continues apace. (Oh, but freedom of speech!…at least for the “right-thinking” people.)
Let’s see:
– The nonsense of due process…
– The nonsense of presumption of innocence…
– The nonsense of habeas corpus…
– The nonsense of the Electoral College…
– The nonsense of the U.S. Constitution…
Because only Leftists make sense!
Because only the Liberal elites KNOW what’s good for us!
Gosh am I glad that the NYT publishes this tripe.
Let’s hope they can continue the pace. (At least several times a day.)
The Left/Democrats are merely the leading elements—now increasingly revealed for who and what they are—of pre-WWII Italian Communist Party member and Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci’s “long march through the institutions/culture” ; a slow, gradual, generation’s long, all- spectrum campaign to weaken, subvert, and then supplant the leaders, governments, cultures, and values of the West with those of the Left/Communism.
The frustration behind many of my political comments over the years has been that I perceived that the Left and Democrats were not playing by any of the accepted rules, only their “will to power.” That whatever lip service they might have given to this or that bedrock tenet of our American Republic, it was lip service only, and if one—or all—of the tenets—like “due process” or the “presumption of innocence,” for instance, stood between them and power, they would knock the tenet down, walk all over it, step on it’s face, to attain power.
Attaining that power also meant that, believing that “the ends justify the means,” the Left/Democrats could be as nasty, as underhanded as they wanted to be, with no regrets.
Frustratingly, though, it appeared that most Conservatives/Republicans continued to assume and believe that the Democrats did really believe in and subscribe to those bedrock concepts, and Republicans were too civilized, and “nice” to really fight against the Democrats and to respond in kind; they just folded.
I am really hoping and praying that this whole Kavanaugh opera—in which, I note, no Democrat objected to the attempted destruction of Kavanaugh and his family—has finally convinced, and will—in the days, weeks, and months ahead—convince even more Conservatives that the Left/Democrats couldn’t care less about our foundational principles, our Constitution, or the Rule of Law and, thus, Conservatives have to fight them—tooth and nail, and on every front—if we want our Republic to survive.
At least they are out in the open, calling due process “nonsense”. Referring to the Dems’ hard left as “Stalinists” may be an insult to Stalin, because even the Communists tried to pretend they were adhering to legal norms.
It is not hard to find idiots like Ms. Grenell who are willing to write trash. What is or used to be hard to find are editors of major publications that are willing to publish this type of trash. Rod Dreher makes my point here,
Then we have Jeff Bezos purposefully inserting Marty Baron, formerly of the Boston Globe, into the leadership of the WaPo some years ago.
Worrisomely, Rupert Murdoch, who owns the WSJ and FoxNews, has transitioned leadership to his sons James and Lachlan. While those two were no doubt raised with some kind of conservatives values, they both have married women on the far left. I’ve seen that dynamic enough to know how that usually works out.
“If a political group is focused entirely on certain results and holds the banner of “ends justify means” aloft as their standard, then what would due process mean to them and why on earth would they value it? Due process is a process that is supposed to ensure the fairest possible end result, but sometimes a fair end result doesn’t benefit your side. If a political movement is only interested in what benefits its side it cannot possibly support a process that would be applied equally to all comers.” Neo
It was some time ago I came to the conclusion that the elite within the Democratic party do not believe in the 10 commandments–beginning with the first one. Bearing false witness is a big deal and the Kavanaugh saga has shone a great light on why. I find it quite amazing that the “useful idiot” adherents to this party (I know so many and they exist in every race, sex, financial, educational and professional level) are “all-in”, utterly clueless to how dangerous this kind of political behaviour is to the citizens of our Republic. It is simply true that in so many important ways, one doesn’t realize the value of something they possessed until it is gone. Slowly but surely we watch as our foundational heritage of our Republic is undermined. Here’s hoping that a line in the sand has been drawn and that there can be a way back to Constitutional rule of law as intended.
To FOAF: No, they are not Stalinists. They are rather Leninists. And the crowds they lead on campuses are true Maoists of the time of Cultural Revolution, who called themselves Red Guards (khunveibins).
Never forget…power…raw unchecked unrestrained unmitigated power is the goal. All those “nonsense” things are but obstacles that the Left will gladly burn to the ground, and if they have to kill you and a few million others in the process…they will.
Act accordingly.
When a political movement declares that legitimacy lies only in what benefits its side, it has implicitly declared itself to be a mortal enemy of liberty.
What degree of disloyalty and criminality do democrats have to engage in before we can call them out for the seditious traitors that they have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be?
At what point will it be acceptable for Trump to act on it?
Snow on Pine,
“I am really hoping and praying that this whole Kavanaugh opera—in which, I note, no Democrat objected to the attempted destruction of Kavanaugh and his family—has finally convinced, and will—in the days, weeks, and months ahead—convince even more Conservatives that the Left/Democrats couldn’t care less about our foundational principles, our Constitution, or the Rule of Law and, thus, Conservatives have to fight them—tooth and nail, and on every front—if we want our Republic to survive.”
Other than the most dedicated of ‘neverTrumpers’, conservatives have long been aware of that reality and the need to fully invest in the fight against the Left.
It’s the RINOs, the ‘moderate’ establishment wing of the Republican party that has failed to grasp what faces America. As much through inaction as in their acts, they have repeatedly acted in Congress to prevent conservatives from fighting effectively against the Left.
Among that wing of the party, I’m a bit doubtful that the outrages against Kavenaugh will result in lasting changes. But they will remember and if Ginsburg goes during Trump’s time, I along with others expect the democRats to resort to extreme violence.
And that may indeed be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, a bridge too far to cross and the final acknowledgement that ‘bipartisanship’ is a dead letter.
I write today to register a dissent of sorts, perhaps a detail for some, but to me a distinction that ought to be observed.
Many commentators, especially but by no means limited to Sean Hannity, keep harping on “innocent until proven guilty” as a bedrock of The American Way.
“Innocent until proven guilty” is a necessary and vital component of how we proceed in court, in a criminal proceeding. I contend that if we’re not in court, we need not, and should not, adhere to a presumption of innocence, but what we should do is presume *nothing* at all. We need to examine the situation at hand thoroughly and let the chips fall where they may — and this is very different from presuming innocence.
If we’re not in court, we should (in normal circumstances) presume *nothing* at the outset.
(I say “in normal circumstances” because I have in mind, for example, if I’m in a dark alley in a questionable part of town, and there’s a large menacing figure following me and gaining on me, I’m certainly not going to presume innocence on his/her part, though innocent s/he may well be; I’m going to presume the worst and take it from there. I’d darn well better presume the worst, unless I’m harboring a death wish.)
And of course the Senate Judiciary Committee was the equivalent of a dark alley and of course it was not a trial, but other than that who needs to assume those stuffy inconvenient conventions of common law and civilization. The mob is faster, and of course the charge is believable and compelling, especially if you have the power behind you (media for example).
J’Acuse anybody? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%27Accuse…!
Oh, I can give the benefit of the doubt* all I want to the follower in the dark alley, but while I’m doing that I’ll be following the dictates of common sense and scurrying on out of there.
*”Benefit of the doubt” is not the same as “the presumption of innocence.” It is rather what we in the Court of Public Opinion grant to persons until a “preponderance of the evidence” indicates (to each of us, individually) that the B-of-the-D is not supportable. But the Benefit bears less and less weight as the consequences of holding judgment in abeyance seem more and more likely to be dangerous.
And om, just above, makes the point well.
Common sense has become uncommon. Deja vu, welcome back to the days of the Weathermen. When the blue wave fails to reach the shore those dangerous times will reoccur 10E6.
“MN Special Ed Teacher Placed on Leave After ‘Kill Kavanaugh’ Tweet”
The offending tweet read, “So whose gonna take one for the team and kill Kavanaugh?”
In the comment section was one of the most brilliant responses I have yet seen.
If there ever is a Civil War between Conservatives and Liberals…
GB,
I am not worried, but the nation will be torn asunder. No state is totally red or blue. I have a few blue neighbors, if (a big word) they take up arms against the Republic, I will find no satisfaction in putting an 8MM round into their solar plexus. Never thought 20 years ago it would come down to that, but that may come to pass in the next few years. Trump has blow down the house of cards and the left has been unmasked, they may be stupid enough to believe (not think) they can prevail.
M J R; Julie from Chicago; om:
I wrote a post that addresses those issues, here.
Neo, Firefox doesn’t seem to recognize that the link is a link. >:(
“To FOAF: No, they are not Stalinists. They are rather Leninists. ”
I’ll meet you halfway. Let’s just call them commies.
OT, but maybe not: Neo, your site has been difficult to access today (in two different browsers); error messages, very slow loading, the usual problems that plagued the site last week. Another bot crawler attack, maybe?
I sent the following letter off to a local newspaper about 12 hours ago.
Dear Editor
“It’s only a job interview”, therefore accusations don’t need to be proven like in a criminal case? (Letters, 9 Oct) Therefore, those who personally dislike a candidate for a job, can simply make a false accusation without too much qualms of conscience, because, after all, it’s not the same as getting an innocent man a criminal sentence. Add politics and historical outcomes at stake, and hey, a false accusation against a “job applicant” is actually a noble act in service of a higher cause!
In these circumstances it will also earn lifelong celebrity status with the beautiful people on the Left. But the contrasting treatment of any accusers of a left-wing political idol is glaringly obvious. The default-setting defense strategy then, is “conspiracy of perjury” and “smash the accuser”. Republicans are positive gentlemen by comparison. Ordinary American voters get all this.
Good for you, Philip. I just hope you’re right in your conclusion.
Parker: You sound like the conservative anti Obama folks who wanted to take their country back. Back from what??? I will never understand. trump and his ilk have shown us that the American voter is not very well educated and often very afraid. trump is a master manipulator much like Spain’s Francisco Franco. Most of us Liberals know that this country has never lived up to its promises and rump isn’t taking us there. In a Civil War I know whose side I will be on.
Toby H,
The Kavanaugh hearings constituted character assassination of a man through vicious slanders that were entirely lies. The Democrats attempted to use those lies to grasp at political power by ruining an innocent man’s reputation and life. It is only the latest example; Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Miguel Estrada were all earlier victims of what appears to be becoming the Democrats’ standard operating procedure. That is the behavior of the side you would choose.
Trump has been very successful in his policies and actions in the last two years, much more so than I expected. Don’t believe me? Ask some of the black people who got jobs in the rising economy in which the unemployment rate for black people is now at its lowest in 49 years. If you want to make ordinary people more prosperous, there is no alternative to capitalism. By using economic policies that benefit the American people in general, he has done more for black people than both President Obama and President Clinton.
I voted for Trump despite his faults because the alternative was Hillary, a criminal. Better a vulgarian for president than a criminal who also promises a continuation of the foolish and even downright dangerous policies of the Obama Administration.
You compare Trump to Franco. Perhaps FDR would be a better comparison; he was a master manipulator too.
Back from what, you ask? From arrogant statism to Constitutional government.