Well before the hearings got underway, liberals were throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Judge Brett Kavanaugh. By the end of the first day of hearings, the room was hip-deep in sinks. As liberals grow increasingly desperate in their attempt to obstruct his confirmation, there’s danger that the truth will get lost in the chaos. Fred Lucas at the Daily Signal took the time to break down some of their claims.

For example, some critics tried to claim that Kavanaugh sided with Nixon in the former president’s attempt to withhold the Watergate tapes. Lucas looked into it, then wrote an article explaining how Kavanaugh clearly rejected Nixon’s position.

Another bogus claim was that Kavanaugh opposed prosecuting presidents. A strange claim, indeed, Lucas noted, considering that Kavanaugh worked on the Special Counsel team that prosecuted President Clinton in 1998.

Liberal even claimed Kavanaugh dissented against Obamacare, when his court did not rule on the law itself, only on whether lawsuits could be brought before the law went into effect.

In all the arguments, there is a theme: Liberals don’t have substantive grounds to disqualify Kavanaugh, so they try to make something out of nothing. Heritage Members make it possible for Lucas to do the job the media should be doing: reporting facts.

 What questions would you ask if you were talking to Brett Kavanaugh?

Comments (5)

Robert Burkholder - September 7, 2018

I would ask why so many cases in recent memory seem like Roe v.Wade and not based upon the text or intent of the Constitution-yet these opinions are considered “Constitutional’ .The Constitution clearly states in Article VI that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and judges in every state bound by it -but there is Nothing about the kind of Courtroom constructions like happened in Roe . WHY?

James Paul - September 7, 2018

Do you believe in the strict interpretation of the Constitution as it is written?

Why are previous decisions of the court considered legally binding if they are in opposition to the constitution or cannot be considered to be withing the confines of what is written in the constitution?

Tom Lanners - September 7, 2018

Will you faithfully defend the Constitution of the United States. Not making law, but rather, ruling whether a particular law, or action is Constitutional under the Constitution as written?

Joseph B Haggerty Sr. - September 8, 2018

I was a law enforcement officer for 41 years and what always bothered me was the rights given to defendants in criminal cases. I accept everyone is innocent until proven guilty and the defendants should have rights, but what seems to get left out of equation are the rights of the victim. One example is rape cases. The victim is not allowed to know whether the defendant, even after conviction, has AIDS or some other communicable disease. The same is true with victims of child molestation. When will the courts start recognizing the rights of victims?

Gracyn Walker Robinson - September 15, 2018

Why won’t you post any women’s comments.
Are there no other women posing questions to Judge Kavanaugh?
Are the questions posed invalid- or are they on point, so to speak…and therefore- not being put up?

Where are women’s questions here.
There are really only four questions, and all from men??

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *