Reactions to SCOTUS nominee Kavanaugh on Twitter highlight irrational fear

Like in 2017, the objection of Dem leadership was objection without target

On July 8, 2018, in response to the resignation of Justice Anthony Kennedy and the subsequent attack by Democrat leadership on an unnamed unknown nominee, Campus Reform went to the NYU campus and recorded video responses from students and faculty about the nominee [See below video]. The fact that no nominee existed did not stop students from quoting Democrat bullet points as if an actual person existed. This is the political environment prior to the nomination on July 9, 2018 of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Upon announcing the nominee, and his first statements to the nation, reaction from the Democrat leadership went into overdrive. There was no change in the challenges from Democrats like Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Sen. Charles Schumer, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo. None addressed the fact that there is no case currently before the Supreme Court in relation to any argument posed by Dem leadership. None of the 300 cases he presided over were mentioned nor what Justice Kavanaugh actually said,

“My judicial philosophy is straightforward: A judge must be independent and must interpret the law, not make the law. A judge must interpret statutes as written, and a judge must interpret the Constitution as written, informed by history and tradition and precedent.”

Instead some of the following comments were made on Twitter by the leadership. Included are responses made by M V Consulting president Michael Vass, and some of the replies (not from any of the actual Dem leadership, who rarely reply to any critique or comment or question) from the general public. This is important as it clearly paints a picture, drawn by Democrat leadership, of fear – without regard to fact – apparently meant to promote a partisan political agenda via emotional illogical obfuscation.

We recommend that readers refer to the 2017 political cartoon above and the statements of the prior 12 days, as review of the Tweets are reviewed.

Senator Charles Schumer – Approximately 8 hours before a Supreme Court nominee was named, on the floor of the Senate

“Two issues of similar and profound consequence are the fate of the Affordable Health Care and a woman’s freedom to make the most sensitive health care decisions, hang in the balance with this nominee… It is near impossible to imagine that President Trump would select a nominee who isn’t hostile to our health care law and health care of millions and millions and millions of Americans, to a woman’s freedom to maker her own health care decisions.”

After nomination –

Governor Andrew Cuomo – 4 hours before nomination announced –

“Cuomo says Monday that the GOP-led Senate should immediately reconvene to pass the measure in light of a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. Many Democrats and abortion-rights supporters believe a new justice appointed by Republican President Donald Trump could tilt the court in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.”

After nomination of Justice Kavanaugh –

Protestors “spontanously” appear outside the Supreme Court after 9pm nomination announcement. With printed signs (seen in photo by The Hill) opposing Justice Kavabaugh approximately 1 hour after nomination –

Finally we address the statement from Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, also seen photographed with printed signs opposing the just announced nominee. –

In addition we present selected responses from Sen. Gillibrand supporters. Of note is how the initial comment from supporters demand silencing of opposing thought, and then escalates to infer and inject sexist rhetoric that did not exist anywhere prior.

Supporters then further devolve the conversation to make accusations that were not stated and inject another emotional subject to apparently incite silence of opposing thought. –

While readers may not agree with the personal statements of Mr. Vass, which is a Right that should never be denied, the bigger concern is the nature of the responses. The fact that no case regarding the ACA or abortion faces the Supreme Court is ignored. The fact that, by the words of Justice Kavanaugh, no desire to overturn any prior case is ignored.

The use of language by Gov. Cuomo, Sen. Gillibrand, and Sen. Schumer, that incites fear of changes in law that have no basis in fact – initiated prior to the announcement of any nominee, to a degree that NYU faculty were convinced a nominee existed and had expressed racist and sexist views – is of great concern. The result that at least some supporters would use that emotional factless environment to try to force the denial of freedom of speech, and incite others with inflammatory rhetoric is even more troubling.

Objection to any Supreme Court nominee, based in fact and their determinations of law, should be welcomed by all. Absent such factual objection, the result is political and emotional manipulation to advance a political agenda. To put it another way, to pre-judge a nominee 12 days prior to ever being named, invalidates credible objectivity and lies directly against the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

Reasonable minds may disagree with the assessment. The facts, prior and directly after the event, have been presented. The question that remains is for the Democrat leadership, especially those highlighted in this article, to justify and prove that their blank pre-judgement is more than manipulation. Anything less is not only an insult to the American people, it is a disservice to the Judicial Branch and constituents, with ramifications for the future that severely threaten the stability of the nation.

About the Author

Michael Vass
Born in 1968, a political commentator for over a decade. Has traveled the U.S. and lived in Moscow and Tsblisi, A former stockbroker and 2014 Congressional candidate. Passionate about politics with emphasis on 1st and 2nd Amendments.

Be the first to comment on "Reactions to SCOTUS nominee Kavanaugh on Twitter highlight irrational fear"

Thank you for lending your voice. We appreciate hearing what you have to say.

%d bloggers like this: