America, unlike we here in Brexit-land, is a Republic; a nation built on law, with a written Constitution, which lists all those laws. This Constitution came into effect in 1789, which means that only 27 Amendments have been accepted and ratified by all the States in the 229 years since the Independence of America was won. Some state that, of the three pillars which make up the U.S. Government, the Presidency, or the Executive; is by far the most important, but I disagree, for the simple reason that that same Constitution limits the powers of all three pillars by the existence of the Supreme Court, which rules on the validity of the Law generated by the Congress, and also on the activities of the Executive, on the legality of how they interpret those Laws.
In our rather tightly-knit circle of sceptics, I tend to admire the writer who sits, or possibly sometimes kneels, behind the Archbishop Cranmer blogsite. I don’t always agree with the sentiments expressed within his postings. His allegedly-humorous postings under his mythical ‘Mrs Proudie’ just don’t ring my bell at all, but maybe thats just me. His caustic commentaries on the failings of the Archbishop of Canterbury delight many, he does produce some really jagged and wounding statements on the Anglican Church’s ability to tie itself in liturgical knots around the sexuality (or, indeed, otherwise) of many of its priests and bishops which are true classics: but I write of a post which mirrors one of my own from a few weeks ago, regarding the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford during the nomination hearings for the (now) Supreme Court Associate Justice Kavanaugh.
Cranmer’s theme is based around the holes which began to appear during the forensic queries posed by the unassuming Deputy Public Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, much as I also posited in my own page, that she was laying the groundwork for later allegations of perjury on oath. For those British readers whose knowledge of oath-taking is taken from news reports or news from Magistrates’ or Crown courts, the Americans take their oaths a damn sight more seriously than we do in this lack-a-daisical and semi-secular United Kingdom. Their oath is taken with one hand usually on a Bible, sometimes a New Testament; and even sometimes a Quran: but always ending with (variations) on “So help me, God!” They are stating that the God whom they believe in, will judge them on their ability to tell the truth, whether it is a Federal court, or a Senate Hearing.
It is my firm belief that the Democratic Party’s opposition to any of the nominees; never mind the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, and the very personal attacks on his probity was the first and possibly the major mistake of that campaign. If they had kept their attacks solely within the nominee’s competence, within his past writings and judgements made over his entire legal life, they may have found several items which they could then lever open as a wedge to attack and possibly bring his nomination down on the Senate floor. But the viciousness of that campaign, which encompassed his very family and his friends, cause a backlash amongst many Americans who dislike the one thing which the Democrat’s campaign brought to the surface, which is, of course, negative campaign attacks without any proof offered up as a basis for their bellicosity. Mrs. Blasey Ford may well, as Judge Kavanaugh accepted during his testimony, have been assaulted at a party, or even at a pre-party party: she may well even believe, believed and continue to believe, that it was the young man who became the Nominated Associate Justice. But it was the lack of any back-up evidence whatsoever which quietly damned her testimony, even before the Prosecutor began that seemingly-innocuous series of questions which both ascertained that she didn’t even remember where the party was held, and laid the ground for a future case against Mrs. Blasey Ford of perjury. But it wasn’t the reply where she stated that she couldn’t remember where the party was held, or even how she travelled to and from that party which condemned the witness and those who sat behind her.
It was when she refused to answer a simple question. She had placed on record that she had a fear of flying, despite flying for both business and pleasure all over the globe. She was asked about the Committee’s offer to come to her in California, and she denied knowledge of it. Apparently she and everyone she knows were the only ones in the USA and much of the world who were unaware of the accommodation the Committee Chair Senator Grassley was prepared to offer. The offer had been routed through her attorney. Did they not pass it on? Because she would not answer, the whole world deduced that she had known about the offer
By making their attacks purely personal, in the hopes that the Nominee would simply quit before any further accusations be placed against both him and his family, the Democrats made a great mistake, because behind the Nominee stood the giant shadow of the President himself, and surely the first thing this President would have done upon choosing his Nominee would be to ensure that there would be no backing down, no quitters allowed. Because the prize, which of course does not even exist right now, but surely will emerge, is a challenge to the validity of one single case: Roe v. Wade; and as Cranmer accepts, and I agree, a Right-wing charted Supreme Court could simply overturn this basic decision, and send it back to the purview of the States’ judicial systems, because the Supreme Court deals with the Constitution, and the Law on a Federal level, and nowhere: NOWHERE, in that same Constitution is there a single word which gives a woman, even theoretically, the right to kill the child she carries within her body!
Strange, is it not, that the one thing which the Democrats feared above all; that being that the case of Roe v. Wade being challenged, could well come cascading down into a legal limbo because of a lie: because they pushed a witness to come forwards and testify, under oath, that something happened thirty-five years ago which demonstrably could not be proven: and that witness was caught out in a statement of fact, the veracity of which was doubtful even before the question was asked?