"There are only two ways of telling the complete truth—anonymously and posthumously."Thomas Sowell

Monday, October 08, 2018

My Post on CONLAWPROF on Kavanaugh and Perjury

Professor XXX, 

Throw me a bone here. 

The underlying purported wrong happened in the early 2000s, the (first purported) perjury happened in 2004 and 2006 during Kav's confirmation hearings. Post 2004 and 2006, the Democrats had party control of the House and Senate several times. But they never ran an investigation into (then Judge) Kav and produced an official report on the matter. President Obama came into office in 2009 and the Democrats had several years to investigate and prosecute, but the DOJ did not do so. 

More recently, Judge (now Justice) Kav has testified again on these matters. You don't point to any particular inconsistency between his old and new testimony. But you think it probable he lied and/or committed perjury.

Does not the absence of a timely investigation and timely prosecution by the party that had incentive to do so and the power to do so, indicate (perhaps strongly) that no cognizable wrong had taken place? Even with impeachment off-the-table as a practical matter, the Democrats could have investigated and produced a House or Senate report. The DOJ could also have prosecuted. If you maintain that a legal wrong has taken place--should not the fair-minded conclude that Justice Kav is now on the Supreme Court because the Democrats in Congress and President Obama's Justice Department were unwilling to do their jobs? 

Are you aware of any other such egregious failures by Obama, Holder, et al? This is probably a good time to tell us all--before the next Article III appointment to the Supreme Court or otherwise. 

Seth

Seth Barrett Tillman, My Post on CONLAWPROF on Kavanaugh and Perjury, New Reform Club (Oct. 8, 2018, 3:57 AM), https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2018/10/my-post-on-conlawprof-on-kavanaugh-and.html

1 comment:

Tom Van Dyke said...

More recently, Judge (now Justice) Kav has testified again on these matters. You don't point to any particular inconsistency between his old and new testimony. But you think it probable he lied and/or committed perjury.

If this prof has any residue of the common sense he was born with, he would admit that it would be imprudent to uproot a sitting SCOTUS justice for such chickenspit.

I suspect his purpose is to delegitimate Justice Kavanaugh and anything he produces as a justice of the Supreme Court.

Why these people wish to undermine the institutions that we so dearly depend on, well, I don't understand the left, and never have [except for possible psychological reasons, whatever they might be.]