Skip to content

Leftwing Extremists, Robert Bork, And The Democrats’ Confirmation Karma

Democrat bad behavior in Supreme Court justice confirmation hearings has become as predictable as the sun rising in the east every morning.  In 1987, President Reagan nominated Robert Bork to the supreme court.  Bork was a constitutional originalist.  He believed that the constitution actually means what it says – not what some robed overlord found emanating from a penumbra somewhere.  Such radical views could not be allowed on the high court.  Ted Kennedy, the Senate Judiciary Chairman at the time, led the attack against Bork.  On the Senate floor Kennedy said:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, and schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution.”

None of that was true, but Bork was never confirmed.  The Kennedy-led inquisition even spawned a new verb in American politics – borking.  According to the Oxford Languages dictionary, to bork is to: Obstruct (someone, especially a candidate for public office) by systematically defaming or vilifying them.

Joe “return to normalcy” Biden continued the practice of borking during the Clarence Thomas confirmation.  He introduced unsubstantiated claims of sexual harassment in an attempt to keep Thomas off of the bench.  Luckily Biden failed – as he usually does.

The pinnacle of Democrat borking had to be the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings.  It marked the completion of their transition from donkeys to jackasses.  They accused Kavanaugh of being a sexual predator, on the basis of the word of a proven perjurer, and the claims of Michael Avenatti.  That would be the same Avenatti, who was once touted as a potential Democrat candidate for President, and is now a federal inmate – for extortion and embezzlement.

A few weeks ago, I wrote a piece arguing that the tit for tat game theory strategy, developed by Anatol Rapoport, should be used by the Republicans.  It is a strategy for dealing with players who misbehave – which the Democrats clearly have.  As the theory goes, players should meet cooperative play with cooperative play – as that provides the best outcome to everyone.  But if a player deviates from cooperative play, they must be punished for that deviation.  They must suffer tit for tat.

I received a lot of email pushing back against the article (I’m not sure how much of it was from Mitt Romney or Pierre Delecto).  Critics argued that Republicans should not use tit for tat.  They shouldn’t stoop to the Democrat’s level, but should remain deferential, and be the adults in the room.

Unfortunately, that’s a misunderstanding of tit for tat.  It’s not a strategy to behave as badly as one’s opponent.  It’s a strategy to hold one’s opponent accountable for bad behavior.

"*" indicates required fields

Do you believe gun control is unconstitutional?*
This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The outcome of not holding players accountable is demonstrable.  That has been the situation with Supreme Court confirmations for over 30 years now.  The Democrats have not mimicked the Republican respectful behavior.  Rather, they have been emboldened to the point of calling a nominee a gang rapist with no supporting evidence.

So how does one apply tit for tat, without becoming the very thing they abhor?  The Republicans are giving us a demonstration of that right now in the Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmation hearings.

The Jackson confirmation questioning is a perfect example of tit for tat done right.  It’s teaching the Democrats a new word: consequences.  The Republicans are challenging Jackson relentlessly.  But unlike the Democrats in past confirmations, they aren’t making any false statements or fabricating any evidence.  They’re using Jackson’s own words, rulings, and writings.

The questioning by Republican senators has backed Jackson into a number of no-win arguments.

She has stated under oath that she doesn’t know what a woman is – even though presumably, she is one.  Being a woman was one of two critical criteria in Biden’s nomination of a Supreme Court justice, yet she doesn’t know how to define what a woman is.  By making that claim, she is lying under oath, to avoid revealing her true position, and everyone knows it.  Just as Sotomayor will forever be mocked as the “wise Latina,” Jackson will forever be known as the woman who doesn’t know what a woman is.

Jackson swears that she is committed to the defense of human life, but admits she doesn’t know when something is alive.

Under questioning, Jackson admitted to applying leniency in the sentencing of pedophiles and other sex offenders.  Her rationale distilled to: judges know better than the legislators who write the laws, create the sentencing guidelines, and represent the people.  This is an argument that Article III (judicial branch) of the Constitution takes primacy over Articles I (executive branch) and II (legislative branch).  She is clearly a supporter of legislating from the bench.

This questioning by the Republicans is driving the left absolutely crazy.  Naturally, they have defaulted to calling the Republican senators racists – a sure sign that the Republicans have won this debate.

None of that places Jackson’s confirmation in doubt.  The Democrats control the Senate, and Jackson meets all of the requirements they care about:

  • Woman – check
  • Person of color – check
  • Reliable proponent of liberal causes – check

She will likely be confirmed.  But the Republicans have left a mark.

The judge swearing to defend the lives of Americans doesn’t know when a creature is alive.  Translation: she’s committed to the notion of judging human life unworthy of protection until sometime prescribed by the left – certainly not before birth, and maybe even sometime after that.

The woman swearing to defend women’s rights doesn’t know what a woman is – wink, wink.  Translation: she is more committed to the LGBTQ dogma than actual science, but knows it’s better to lie than admit it.

Judge Jackson has gone on record as endorsing judicial superiority over the legislative branch.  Judges of her ilk will decide guilt and sentencing regardless of the will of the people – and their elected representatives.

The Republicans can’t prevent Jackson’s confirmation, but they have forced the Democrats to stake out their ideological territory.

In this game of tit for tat, the Democrats have met Karma: The force generated by a person’s actions held in Hinduism and Buddhism to perpetuate transmigration and in its ethical consequences to determine the nature of the person’s next existence

The Democrat’s next existence is to be the party that is:

  • Soft on crime
  • Tolerant of pedophiles
  • In favor of giving the rights of men supremacy over the rights of women – as long as they dress as women
  • Supportive of liars being elevated to the high court

And the Democrats have accepted that existence in an election year.  It seems the Republicans are actually becoming the smart party.  I didn’t see that coming.

By John  Green

Author Bio: John Green is a political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He currently writes at the American Free News Network and The Blue State Conservative.  He can be followed on Facebook or reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.

This article was first published by the American Free News Network.

Enjoy HUGE savings at My Pillow with promo code BSC

The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Blue State Conservative. The BSC is not responsible for, and does not verify the accuracy of, any information presented.

Featured photo of President Reagan and Robert Bork by Series: Reagan White House Photographs, 1/20/1981 – 1/20/1989Collection: White House Photographic Collection, 1/20/1981 – 1/20/1989, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons