The Kavanaugh “hearing” was reminiscent of the high tech lynching that befell other patently decent male candidates for the U.S. Supreme Court, namely Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork. One could visualize the stirring of Hamlet’s witches’ pot. This travesty, in the face of overwhelming evidence and testimony to Kavanaugh’s good character, defied a rock bottom principle of jurisprudence ― presumption of innocence. A wise old lawyer said, “If you have the facts, argue the facts; if you have the law, argue the law; if you don’t have the facts or the law, bang on the table and shout. Kavanaugh’s opponents did just that. Their rationale: it could have happened since there is no proof it didn’t happen. It is unfortunate that such below the belt ― literally and figuratively ― accusations will tend to discourage acceptance of future appointment by first class candidates for high office.
Political motivation behind the present scheme was preservation of the feminist (therefore anti-male and liberal) ‘sacrament’ of abortion. Christina B. Ford, with an award-winning act as victim, was at least a willing recruit. Fawning chivalrous praise of her from committee members bordered on sanctification. Republican members even agreed to permit a Democrat female prosecutor to interrogate her instead of villainous old white males on the committee, so anathema to feminists. Opposition to Kavanaugh, including demands for delay were blatant ploys to prevent his approval and to preserve abortion. Grandstanding, mostly by Democrats, was palpable. Noisy protesters were even more disgusting.
All across the land, similar accusations are occurring and have occurred for generations against males in domestic courts and in colleges under the false flag or rubric of Title IX of the U.S. Code. Hang in there, Brett. Many of us were there before you.
Richard Doyle, President Men’s Defense Association
NCFM Adviser Richard Doyle, The Kavanaugh “hearing” was reminiscent of the high tech lynching…
Powered by WPeMatico