Cage match rules need up­date

The Republican Herald - - OPINION - Ann Coul­ter

It’s time to up­date the GOP’S Mar­quess of Queens­bury Rules.

If you saw Ruth Bader Gins­burg at Brett Ka­vanaugh’s swear­ing- in cer­e­mony, you know that we may need to fill her seat in about 4 1/ 2 min­utes. Nat­u­rally, I hope she lives to be 300 — al­though par­en­thet­i­cally, it seems she al­ready has.

The con­fir­ma­tion hear­ings for Ka­vanaugh made Robert Bork’s hear­ings look like a day at the beach. At least lib­er­als only lied about Bork’s ju­di­cial phi­los­o­phy. They didn’t ac­cuse him of be­ing Ted Bundy. The next nom­i­na­tion hear­ing will make Ka­vanaugh’s

look like an ice cream so­cial. Just be­cause it didn’t work this time doesn’t mean Repub­li­cans’ work is done. They have to make sure this never hap­pens again.

Democrats are al­ready push­ing the idea that Ka­vanaugh’s con­fir­ma­tion was some­how il­le­git­i­mate be­cause of the shoddy FBI in­ves­ti­ga­tion. Lib­er­als’ beef is that the FBI ne­glected to in­ter­view Ka­vanaugh’s for­mer Yale class­mates, who dis­pute his char­ac­ter­i­za­tion of pre­cisely how big a drinker he was in col­lege.

I wouldn’t say he was a bel­liger­ent drunk, but more of an obstreperous drunk.

No, no! I would say he was a mild drunk with pe­ri­ods of ob­streper­ous­ness.

This is not the stuff of per­jury pros­e­cu­tions.

Of course, if true, it’s HUGE. Ka­vanaugh’s de­meanor when drunk in col­lege sounds nearly as aw­ful as lib­er­als’ be­hav­ior when sober — ob­nox­ious, ag­gres­sive and ar­gu­men­ta­tive. I re­fer you to the re­cent an­tics we’ve seen on Capi­tol Hill, as well as any­where Ted Cruz stops in for a bite.

Since none of the FBI’S lat­est re­port on Ka­vanaugh has leaked, the one thing we can be sure of is that the agents turned up noth­ing un­fa­vor­able on him. Ex­cept for a colonoscopy, I think we’re done with Ka­vanaugh.

It’s the ac­cusers who have skirted in­ves­ti­ga­tion. Even Repub­li­cans have moved on. He’s on the court, so who cares if Ka­vanaugh was falsely ac­cused of “rape” in front of his lit­tle girls?

That’s what every­one thought when the falsely ac­cused Duke

lacrosse play­ers were proved in­no­cent and the D. A. was dis­barred. Why go af­ter the ac­cuser? Hasn’t she suf­fered enough?

Crys­tal Mangum was not pros­e­cuted for falsely charg­ing she was gang- raped. And see? No harm, no foul! She went on to live a happy and pro­duc­tive — oh, wait! The next time we heard about Mangum was when she stabbed her boyfriend to death.

On re­flec­tion, it cer­tainly seems pos­si­ble that Ka­vanaugh ac­cuser Julie Swet­nick was not be­ing com­pletely, 100 per­cent hon­est in her sworn state­ments about re­peat­edly at­tend­ing high school par­ties in the 1980s, when she was a col­lege stu­dent, where un­der­age girls were drugged and gan­graped.

Deb­o­rah Ramirez’s three­decade- old, un­sub­stan­ti­ated, re­cov­ered mem­ory of a drunken Ka­vanaugh ex­pos­ing him­self as a col­lege fresh­man is the sort of charge that makes fem­i­nists

laugh! ( I know that from read­ing Glo­ria Steinem’s ex­pla­na­tion in The New York Times that Gov. Bill Clin­ton sum­mon­ing a fe­male un­der­ling to his ho­tel room, drop­ping his pants and say­ing, “Kiss it!” did not rise to the level of sex­ual ha­rass­ment. He took “no” for an an­swer!)

Per­haps Repub­li­cans could get Steinem to ex­plain un­der oath why it’s ac­cept­able for a sit­ting gov­er­nor to do what is dis­qual­i­fy­ing for a drunk col­lege fresh­man to do.

While no one would ques­tion the word of a liv­ing saint like Chris­tine Blasey Ford, some parts of her tes­ti­mony de­mand the clar­ity that can be ob­tained only in a for­mal le­gal pro­ceed­ing -- such as her trauma- in­duced need for two front doors ( when the sec­ond front door seems clear

ly at­tached to a rental apart­ment); her fear of fly­ing ( but only when it will de­lay a con­fir­ma­tion hear­ing); and her claim that she never helped any­one pre­pare for a poly­graph ( con­tra­dicted by her ex

live- in boyfriend); among other things.

Pre­tend­ing they are the wronged ones, lib­er­als keep yip­ping about Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nom­i­nee Mer­rick Gar­land. They be­lieve any at­tack on Ka­vanaugh was jus­ti­fied af­ter the dirty trick pulled by Repub­li­cans on Gar­land.

The Repub­li­cans’ re­fusal to hold hear­ings on Gar­land has been called an “un­prece­dented ob­struc­tion” ( MSNBC’S Chris Hayes), a “vi­o­la­tion of tra­di­tions in norms” ( Hayes again), an “in­sult and in­jury” ( Sen. Cory Booker) and “re­mark­able and un­prece­dented” ( MSNBC’S Rachel Mad­dow). The GOP’S treat­ment of Gar­land showed their “hypocrisy on Brett Ka­vanaugh” ( MSNBC’S Ari Mel­ber).

The truth is ap­par­ently a big se­cret, inas­much as even Repub­li­cans aren’t say­ing it. You’ll read it here for the first time.

The Repub­li­cans’ wily, un­der­handed, dou­ble- deal­ing trick with Gar­land was this: Win a ma­jor­ity of seats in the U. S. Se­nate! I know

lib­er­als won’t read the Con­sti­tu­tion, but can they do math? Gar

land didn’t have the votes. Repub­li­cans had 54 seats and, in 2016, Se­nate rules still re­quired 60 votes for Supreme Court ap­point­ments. Democrats would have needed 14 Repub­li­can se­na­tors to switch sides to con­firm a Demo­cratic pres­i­dent’s nom­i­nee.

There was no way that was hap­pen­ing. A Repub­li­can Se­nate sim­ply wasn’t go­ing to give “con­sent” to any Demo­cratic nom­i­nee eight months be­fore a pres­i­den­tial election — even an election that every­one thought Hil­lary was go­ing to win. The Con­sti­tu­tion says “ad­vice and con­sent,” not “ad­vice and rub­ber- stamp.”

There was noth­ing “un­prece­dented” about a Repub­li­can Se­nate re­ject­ing a Demo­cratic nom­i­nee — other than the fact that Repub­li­cans were the ones do­ing it. Democrats do it all the time.

That’s how we got Jus­tice An­thony Kennedy — whom Ka­vanaugh re­placed: A Demo­cratic Se­nate re­jected Rea­gan nom­i­nee Robert Bork. That’s also how we got Harry Black­mun, au­thor of the ridicu­lously law­less Roe v. Wade: A Demo­cratic Se­nate re­jected Richard Nixon’s pre­vi­ous nom­i­nees Cle­ment Haynsworth and G. Har­rold Car­swell.

It would have been a waste of time and only hu­mil­i­ated Gar

land to hold hear­ings. At least Repub­li­cans didn’t ac­cuse him of gang rape.

( Coul­ter is a writer for Univer­sal Press Syn­di­cate)

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.