Opinion

Fake Moral Outrage — The Playbook in Action Against Kavanaugh

Recently, I wrote an article on “fake moral outrage” published by OpsLens on July 17. Now, here you can see it in action against Supreme Court Justice nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. The Kool-Aid had been mixed, chilled, served, and drunk before the ink was even dry. How do we know? Because protest signs against all four of the would-be Supreme Court nominees had already been made and printed well in advance of the announcement.

In other words, President Trump could have nominated Jesus Christ himself for the Supreme Court and the Democrats and liberals would have been ready to protest. It is simply their playbook. They feign moral outrage and then attack, attack, attack.

Consider that the protestors—I mean paid performers—had already been pre-staged and pre-assembled days in advance at the footsteps of the Supreme Court and the White House, well in advance of Trump’s planned announcement of his Supreme Court nomination. Those paid performers already had their signs in arms reading “Don’t Criminalize Abortion,” and were picking the best vantage points for the best “photo-ops.”

All they needed? The villain—I mean victim. And sure enough, at around 9:00 p.m., the announcement came from the White House that President Trump had selected Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court Justice. The Democrats now had their victim. The 53-year-old Appeals Court judge was now their target and they wasted little to no time at all to begin their attacks.

Forget the fact that Kavanaugh has, according to the President and legal experts, “impeccable credential, unsurpassed qualifications, and a proven commitment to equal justice under the law.” But then again, that is exactly what the left does not want. They want a liberal activist judge that legislates from the bench (aka Justice Elena Kagan) who refused to recuse herself on the Health Care Bill issue despite her work as solicitor general in setting the strategy to defend that very bill.

(Credit: Facebook/Sandra Casanova Besser)

It literally took only seconds, just long enough to go through the pre-printed and pre-assembled protest signs to find the ones with the right name on them… and the chants began; “Kavanaugh has got to go!” Pretty original. (insert sarcasm here.)

The protesting was almost immediately followed by an extremist group, calling themselves Democracy for America, branding the nominee a “reactionary ideologue” whose confirmation would “directly lead to the deaths of countless women with the dismantling of abortion rights.”

And then, right on cue came the tired, lame, and same Democratic cast of characters ready to explain why Kavanaugh was a terrible choice. Wasn’t it Schumer (the Democratic Senate leader) who said that “candidates with deeply held Christian beliefs are unfit and disqualified from serving as a federal judge?” And let’s not forget avowed socialist Bernie Sanders who yelled into the microphone, “Are you ready to fight?” and “Are you ready to defend Roe vs. Wade?” The response from the wild-eyed (dare I say, paid-for) crowd standing behind the unrepentant socialist was a resounding “Yes!”

Mark my words, folks: that was just the opening act. There is more to come and it is going to get a lot uglier and meaner before it gets better.

The Women’s March organization gave this announcement: “Trump’s announcement today is a death sentence for thousands of women in the United States. Stripping a woman’s ability to make decisions about her own body is state violence.” The group continued, “We cannot let this stand. We will raise our voices and take to the streets.”

The man hasn’t even been confirmed to the bench and they are already making assumptions that Roe v. Wade will be heard by the court. He does not have that kind of power as an associate justice. It would behoove to study American jurisprudence before making such an absurd statement.

As per the website Findlaw and USCourts.gov, Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution establishes the Supreme Court of the United States: “Parties who are not satisfied with the decision of a lower court must petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case. The primary means to petition the court for review is to ask it to grant a writ of certiorari. This is a request that the Supreme Court order a lower court to send up the record of the case for review. The Court usually is not under any obligation to hear these cases, and it usually only does so if the case could have national significance, might harmonize conflicting decisions in the federal Circuit courts, and/or could have precedential value.”

Note: “The Court usually is not under any obligation to hear these cases…[emphasis added].”  The following four bullet points were spelled out by Litigation.findlaw.com:

Factors the Court Considers When Choosing Cases

  1. The Court will Hear Cases to Resolve a Conflict of Law: The U.S. judicial system consists of 13 federal circuits and 50 state supreme courts. When a number of these courts reach different conclusions about an issue of federal or constitutional law, the Supreme Court may step in and decide the law so that all areas of the country can then operate under the same law.
  2. The Court will Hear Cases that are Important: Sometimes the Court will consider a highly unusual case such as U.S. v Nixon (concerning the Watergate tapes) or Bush v. Gore (concerning the extremely close election in 2000), or a case with an important social issue, such as abortion in Roe v. Wade.
  3. The Court will Sometimes Hear Cases that Speak to the Justices’ Interests: Sometimes Justices give preference to cases that decide an issue in their favorite area of law.
  4. The Court hears Cases when Lower Courts Disregard past Supreme Court decisions: If a lower court blatantly disregards a past Supreme Court decision, the court may hear the case to correct the lower court, or alternatively, simply overrule the case without comment.

But here is the kicker, folks: It is called the “Rule of Four.”

For the Supreme Court to actually hear a case, it requires at least four of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court to agree to grant the petition for certiorari. If four Justices agree to grant the petition, the Supreme Court will consider the case. A petition for certiorari is granted in very, very few, selected cases—fewer than 100 a year by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Knowing the process can alleviate making egregious statements. It is not too much to hope for.

The “mob” continued to have a total and complete meltdown well into the night. One fringe group after another battled for the microphone eager to take turns condemning and vilifying a man they have never met or, I am willing to wager, never bothered to research.

Had they endeavored to conduct the research, they would have discovered that Kavanaugh has the respect and admiration of his peers in the legal community. Read his case law and you will find a legal professional who demonstrates a keen and firm understanding of the role of a judge in our Constitutional Republic—that a judge is to follow our Constitution and is to interpret the law and apply it equally and objectively, not legislate from the bench.

Kavanaugh appears to be ready for the fight, stating: “I will tell each senator that I revere the Constitution. I believe that an independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our constitutional republic.” He added, “If confirmed by the Senate, I will keep an open mind in every case, and I will always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the American rule of law.”

But, by all accounts, and given that Democrats never stop following their tired playbook, this confirmation process stands to be an all-out-war with the left. Mark my words: This is going to contentious.

Per a Fox News Insider report published July 9: “Fox News anchor Shannon Bream was scheduled to broadcast her 11pm ET show from outside the court, but it was moved back to the D.C. studio because of threats.”

She tweeted the following:

Folks, that should scare you. Because the left is already on a fever pitch with leaders like Maxine Waters calling for what could be construed as “violent protests.” Just look at what happened to Sarah Huckabee Sanders at the Red Hen.

We know that the left is getting more and more violent. Their play book is to fake moral outrage (the “right to life” argument) so that they can somehow feel morally justified to attack those with whom they don’t agree.

The opinions expressed here by contributors are their own and are not the view of OpsLens which seeks to provide a platform for experience-driven commentary on today's trending headlines in the U.S. and around the world. Have a different opinion or something more to add on this topic? Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own experience-driven commentary.
Rene Sotolongo

Rene is an OpsLens contributor and retired Navy Information Systems Technician Chief Petty Officer.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

OpsLens Premium on CRTV.

Everywhere, at home or on the go.

SIGNUP NOW