This is a job application, not a criminal trial

This is not about guilt or innocence. It’s a job application. We’re allowed to take into consideration references from people who knew you in the past.

The fact that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh may have attempted to rape someone when he was younger is indeed relevant.

Yes, people can change. But this is the friggin’ Supreme Court. Let’s have higher standards! It’s not like there aren’t thousands of other highly qualified judges and lawyers out there  that have very clean backgrounds.

But the GOP apologists are bending over backwards to try to slander the victim, while presenting the most ludicrous conspiracy theories to explain away the facts.

Kavanugh

cartoon by Darrin Bell

Apparently, according to the GOP, the victim in this matter knew years ago that Kavanaugh was going to be nominated 35 years into the future, so she made a record by telling other people, going into therapy for it, and notifying her friends. Then, clever woman she is, she defeated a lie detector test and demanded an FBI investigation, promising to cooperate fully with the police. Because, of course, that’s what all people who bring false claims (and have their lives ruined because of it) do. (No, wait, I remember now: She doesn’t fit the profile of a false accuser at all.)

Anyway, back to the conspiracy: Kavanuagh, being completely innocent, then got 65 women to claim he had never raped them and had that letter sitting around waiting for a false allegation to be filed against him so he could produce the record instantly. (Come on guys, who doesn’t have that kind of letter on their desk just waiting for the right moment?) I’m going to use this in my next trial: “I know my client is accused of robbing the victim, but I have here a list of 65 people he didn’t rob!”  “Impeccable logic, counselor. Not guilty.”

Kavanaugh’s buddy had written a book about how he and Kavanaugh would get so drunk in High School that they would black out and forget everything. So it is certainly possible that Kavanaugh could just not remember this. (Notice how I didn’t mention that they belonged to a frat that regularly debased women, and who would chant “No means yes, yes means anal” and who eventually had to be removed from campus because of their Animal-House antics.  Oops, I guess I did mention that after all.)

The GOP, seeing that the majority of the population is against this appointment, and realizing their conspiracy theories weren’t being bought, has now turned to even more outlandish defenses, such as “boys will be boys“, “hey, it was a long time ago” and “maybe she’s confused and it’s actually someone else who looks like him.” My favorite is the one where Kavanugh denies having been at that party when the victim has never once said exactly when and where the party was.

If only Kavanaugh was an immigrant. Then the GOP would gladly demand a vetting process! But no, let’s not kid ourselves. This is a party that nominated and supported someone for President who bragged about sexual assault. Why, being a sexual assaulter is practically a requirement for power in that party.

The GOP may lose the Senate as well as the House in the next election if they continue to support Kavanaugh, but they don’t care, because they know having Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court will push their agenda for many years to come.

Treason?

Dear Mr. Trump: “Treason” is when someone acts against the interests of the United States … NOT when they act against the interests of the President. All those people who work in the government? They took an oath to the Constitution of the United States, NOT to the President.

Sometimes, acting against the interests of the President is the patriotic thing to do.

treason thing.

A partial fix to the Electoral College: The Wyoming Rule

We currently have 435 members of the House of Representatives.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there a mention of how many members of the House there should be. The number grew over the years as the population increased and then, in 1929, Congress set the limit at 435 and there it has stayed.

Just a quick primer: Every ten years there is a census and the country is then divided up into 435 districts of as equal a population as possible. Every ten years, some states get new House members (California, Texas and Florida mostly) and some states lose them (Ohio and Pennsylvania among them) as the population grows and moves to warmer climates.

wyoming-welcome-sign

This sign has more representation than a voter in California

Here’s the big problem: You can’t divide across state lines, and you can’t have less than one representative per state. So we end up with some states with only one House member in a district much smaller than the average district.

Wyoming is the least populous state. There are more people living in Washington, DC than in all of Wyoming. Wyoming gets one representative who represents all 500,000 or so of their residents. Meanwhile, the rest of the country divides up the best it can.

It gets worse when you consider the Electoral College. Each state gets one elector for each representative they have in Congress plus two for each Senator. This means Wyoming’s three electors represent about 188,000 people but each elector in California has to represent 677,000. Why should one state’s elector have more power than another state’s?

Well, the easiest solution is just to get rid of the Electoral College (of course) but that requires a Constitutional amendment needing 75% of the states to approve, and guess which states would be against that? Yep. The smaller states who also, not coincidentally, are mostly all Republican. They like the Electoral College because it’s helped them get two popular-vote-losing Presidents into the White House within the past 16 years.

So many are now arguing for Congress to change the number of representatives using the “Wyoming Plan.”

Basically, you would take the smallest district (which is currently Wyoming) and use that as a bottom, meaning all other districts in the country would need to be as close to that size as possible.

This would add an extra 13 seats to California (the largest gainer). Texas would get 9, New York 7 and Pennsylvania 5. 

We’d end up with a House membership of 546 instead of 435, and that’s not unreasonable for a country with a population as large as ours. And you wouldn’t need an amendment — just a majority of Congress to pass the law.

Just one more reason for you to vote Democratic in November.