Come on Libs, You’ve Gotta Be Kidding!

BUCK: We mentioned this with Marsha Blackburn a moment ago, and this is one of the times where you say, “Come on, libs. You’ve got to be kidding me.” But they’re not, they’re serious about it. And it’s from, as Clay pointed out, the Washington Post editorial beard — meaning, a whole bunch of their best people, right? Their smartest columnists. Their smartest writers. It is stunningly stupid what they’re saying here, but we’ve got to push back on it.

“Republicans Boast They Have Not Pulled a Kavanaugh. In Fact, They’ve Treated Jackson Worse.” This is in the Washington Post. Clay, they are asking a judge questions about her jurisprudence. They were asking her to define what a woman is. They were asking questions. They put crazy people on national TV to lie about Brett Kavanaugh being a secret serial gang rapist!

Remember, people always focus on Christine Blasey Ford. She seemed — and they did a lot of work with her. She said she couldn’t fly. Then they found she would fly to go to Cabo, but not to go to D.C. She said she needed two doors installed in her house because she was still so afraid of this. Then they found out, no, it was some renovation. The whole thing. She was lying, but there was some veneer in the early stage for people with credibility.

Then the second accuser came out, and he said, “Well, hold on. She can’t even remember if this happened or not? She had to have someone else tell her if she remembers the thing?” Then the third accuser who came out, who was actually just crazy. I mean, like, actually clearly had issues, serious mental health issues, claimed she was a college student who returned to see high school kids drugging and raping, systematically, high school girls, and she never told anybody.

She never even brought this up, and then she started laughing during the interview. Clay, what they did to Brett Kavanaugh. The Democrat Party has that. That is a moral stain on the Democratic Party for all time. To even compare it to what is going on with Ketanji Brown Jackson just shows you these people have no reference for a reality, whatsoever.

CLAY: Not only that, there is a pretty clear distinction between aggressively questioning someone about their professional record as they prepare for one of the most significant jobs that can exist inside of our federal government. Lifetime tenure on the Supreme Court for someone who I believe is 51 years old, meaning, if that person maintains normal health for someone who is 50, it’s not crazy to think that Ketanji Brown Jackson coon on the Supreme Court until 2052 or 2053, right?

Going into her 80s, would not be unheard of, based on tenures and legacies of many other justices, and so if you look at that, you should be aggressively questioned. Going through somebody’s high school yearbook superlatives, and grilling them on what they meant, looking at things that happened, regardless of who you are. When you’re 16 or 17 years old, when you have decades of experience, as a federal judge to question? These are not similar situations.

BUCK: But it’s worse. You brought up looking at the yearbook, Clay. They were looking at the yearbook to make the case that 16- or 17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh was like a drunk party boy, date rapist, basically. This was all part of the narrative of, “Yeah. He was drinking beers. He was obviously a misogynist who sexually assaults women.” The fact that they even say that Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony was credible. She didn’t know —

CLAY: She didn’t know what year it was, Buck. She didn’t where the house was. She misidentified the people who were in the party. There’s no evidence that Kavanaugh even met this woman!
`
BUCK: It was the opposite of credible.

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: In fact, this is almost like they were doing a test case on what non-credible testimony in a circumstance like this would sound like — and the media just throws that word around all the time. Every person who was part of the effort to destroy Kavanaugh with the rape allegations should be — and I mean this apart from politics — every journalist, that went along with that, should be deeply ashamed of themselves.

Deeply ashamed of who they are as human beings. It was the most grotesque, obvious lie and destruction of a person’s character. And it cost them the Senate, thankfully. And I want everybody to remember that this is who we’re dealing with with these Democrats, because, Clay, they thought that that was actually going to give them a Supreme Court seat that will be more to their liking. They’ve never even taken a step back and said, “Maybe we went too far. Maybe we shouldn’t have done that to him.” Kavanaugh could have been the coach. He could have been your neighbor. Could have been anybody. They didn’t care.

CLAY: Well, I don’t think we should overlook what they argued, at that point as well, which was #BelieveAllWomen. That’s an unbelievable…

BUCK: Who am believing, by the way, because what’s a woman, Clay?

CLAY: That’s a great point. It’s a great point. But #believeallwomen flies into the face of everything that the justice department and justice itself is supposed to represent. There’s a reason, Buck, why Lady Justice is blind as on the scales of justice, as you weigh guilt or innocence. It’s because as soon as you start to consider the race, the sex, the sexual orientation, whatever these things are — these identity politics characteristics — then you are moving away from considering the facts as they were, in that situation.

What I always came back to was, even if, Buck — and this is me having done criminal defense work. Even if you accepted everything that Christine Blasey Ford said as being true, it still wouldn’t have been a sexual assault charge. Even on a minor, right? Even if you presume that everything she said about that party was true, and we know that there were no corroborating evidence outside of her own recollection.

She didn’t know where it was. The people that said she was there, weren’t there. There’s no evidence — other than her claim — that she ever met Brett Kavanaugh, that they knew each other at all. But even if you presume — which is one of the things sometimes you’re supposed to do in court: presume the truth of the filing in order to allow a jury to hear the evidence — prosecutors would have never brought a case against a 16 or 17-year-old boy for sexual assault there.

Because it’s is not sexual assault, even if you presume everything that she said was true. And even if you presume everything is true there, Buck, the idea that everyone should be held hostage by what happens is crazy for their future life. It just doesn’t make any sense at all at that age, and so to compare it is, frankly, a disgrace.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

CLAY: The continued attempt to make it appear as if Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, during the course of her hearing, has been treated unfairly is pretty crazy. Because she’s been quizzed directly on her professional career, and that’s not good enough. MSNBC’s Joy Reid. We talked about the Washington Post saying that KBJ had been treated worse than Brett Kavanaugh. Well, of course, taking it to an entirely different level, one of the dumbest people in the history of politics on television, Joy Reid. She said, this is like a black person being followed around and accused of shoplifting.
Listen to this analogy.

BUCK: Only morons believe that Judge Kavanaugh actually did anything based on the actual evidence, and unfortunately Joy Reid is an utter moron.

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: But beyond that, here is an example of the kinds of questions that were being asked. She said she can’t define what a woman is. Ketanji Brown Jackson says this. Openly.

CLAY: She’s not a biologist. Not a biologist.

BUCK: Not a biologist, right? And yet, she’s going to be sitting on the Supreme Court, and there are questions of gender and gender identity, as they are reflected in law. I mean, on the one hand, Clay, they want trans to be a protected status. They want trans participation in different genders when it comes to sports.

So there’s all this — you know, man, woman, men’s sports, women’s sports. All these distinctions are being constantly made. But the left like crying children want it the way they want it, without any actual, underlying principle. Ted Cruz asked (summarized), “Well, can I claim to be a woman, or can I claim to be an Asian man, or how does this work?”

BUCK: A lawyer, Clay: Her answers are evasive and unimpressive.

CLAY: Yeah. I get it. I get the response that she’s giving there, but what Ted Cruz is brilliant pointing out is — and I have to be careful not to curse here — almost everything that is being constructed around the race and gender elements of the modern-day Democratic Party are total BS. Right? Because this is what we talked about.

What he’s pointing out is if you can choose your gender, why can you not also choose your race for purposes of proving or disproving whether you are eligible for standing, right? And let’s give an example. You kind of hit on this with senator Blackburn earlier. We have for better or worse, certain construction contracts which are held back for minorities and for women, right? So if you’re a white guy, you are not eligible to be able to, in theory, to get federal or state construction contracts that are specifically earmarked for women and minority-owned construction companies.

BUCK: Well, there are a bunch of different things that actually go on there, by the way. One is that let’s say I have a construction company. Suddenly, I put a construction company in my wife’s name, and my wife gets it instead. Like, you can play games with this. But what’s to keep a…? If gender and race are fluid and you can choose them, what’s to keep someone from identifying as a woman for purposes of getting a federal or state construction contract?

What’s to keep someone from identifying as a member of a racial minority group in order to get a racial minority contract, right? Like, these are real questions that go to the essence of the law, because about it you have to respect the choice of someone to choose their gender — if you just have to respect that and treat it as a legitimate thing — then you are, theoretically, potentially subverting the idea of minority and women-owned businesses being treated…

Now, we can argue about whether that’s fair or proper under the Constitution in general. But the fact that it exists now, is a legitimate question. And the fact that we have a difference of treatment for gender — which you can choose — and race — which you can’t choose — because it’s considered sexist is patently absurd.

BUCK: This reminds me of a friend of mine, many, many years ago, who was born in Cairo, which is, of course, in Egypt, which is, of course, in Africa. Applied to an Ivy League school as an African-American.

CLAY: And got in?

BUCK: Well, got the interview phase, and was clearly going to get in, and it turned into, “Well, no,” and her contention was, “I’m now an American who was born in Africa, so I identify as an African-American,” and essentially what the school told her at the time, and this is now… Gosh, I was like 18 when this happened. What the school told her was, “No, you’re the wrong skin color.” That was the claim. “You’re the wrong… Your skin color is not appropriate for your designation.”

So these are not just random theoreticals. Ketanji Brown Jackson is acting like, “Well, this never occurs.” No, this stuff occurs all the time, actually. There are all kinds of distinctions that are being made — as a function of admissions, hiring, as functions of law — about these designations. About gender. About gender identity. About race. About disability. All these different things.

And, you know, at some point, we either live in reality and have to have clear, established principles, guidelines, determinations about this. Or it’s just what they have right now, which is whatever the left wants, and that’s how they want it: Whatever they want. They just make the rules up as they go along.