The Supreme Court’s Mistaken Notion of a Swing Vote

Associate Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said Friday she fears the high court may lack a justice going forward who would serve as a swing-vote on cases, speaking hours after President Trump’s second nominee Brett Kavanaugh secured enough votes to be confirmed.
“It’s not so clear, that I think going forward, that sort of middle position – it’s not so clear whether we’ll have it,” Kagan said.
With all due respect, Justice Kagan, there’s absolutely zero inherent purpose laid forth in our United States Constitution for a “swing vote.”  It’s a misnomer, simply a thing that sometimes happens, and most certainly not any sort of thing to strive for or achieve.  In fast, such thinking is rather toxic to a healthy judicial process.
1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour… – Article III, Section I
2. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. – Article III, Section 2
Your oath of office is two-fold,
5 U. S. C. § 3331: “I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Revised Judicial Oath (28 U. S. C. § 453): “I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
The idea of a “swing vote” originated not from any basis in law, but rather, merely out of happenstance, whereby on some issues the Supreme Court is otherwise split.
Quite frankly, when a Supreme Court is often split, that’s a very BAD sign. It means Justices are voting along party lines and NOT in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and their oaths of office like they’re SUPPOSED to.
A healthy Supreme Court will general find most justices voting one way whereas you sometimes have stragglers voting in opposition or with Constitutionally informed dissent. Convoluted dissent, as has been quite comment with Democrat Justices, is not healthy, as the Constitution is not convoluted. It takes a great deal of convoluted thinking and wording to make it appear as if B is the better course of action when the Constitution clearly says, “do A.”
Once he gets his feet wet, Justice Kavanaugh should help keep you on the straight and narrow path of our Constitution which you swore to uphold.
Justice Kagan, you also stated the following
“All of us need to be aware of that – every single one of us – and to realize how precious the court’s legitimacy is,” she added. “It’s an incredibly important thing for the court to guard is this reputation of being impartial, being neutral and not being simply extension of a terribly polarizing process.”
Always or even often requiring a swing vote seriously, if not severely undermines the court’s legitimacy, grossly tarnishing it’s reputation of being impartial and neutral, because it clearly communicates the court is not judging an issue on its own merits, but rather, is merely judging an issue along party lines.
Again, healthy courts are NOT “evenly balanced.”  They are firm, with conviction, and Constitutionally sound.  Just as constantly unanimous votes are unhealthy, so to are constantly split votes.  In a nine-member court, decisions with 6, 7, and 8-member majorities tell me most justices, regardless of party, are doing their job.  Your job, Justice Kagan, isn’t to find some “center” or any sort of “middle ground.”  This isn’t kindergarten.  Your job is arriving at the objective, non-partisan and Constitutional truth of a matter.
Good luck, and may God be with you.
In closing, please use this graphic to ascertain when the court has been most healthy, and when it has been saddled by partisanship:

Dr. Ford vs. Judge Kavanaugh

I was watching the Senate hearings today and came away with some rather interesting thoughts.  Before I begin, however, let’s review their full opening statements, made available to members of the Senate before questioning began:
Prepared Written Testimony:
Full Opening Statement
I do support Kavanaugh, but like most intelligent, rational human beings, I gather all information from all sides before making a decision. And by “information,” it’s not merely what she said or how she says it, but all facts surrounding it, as well. As things are right now, Ford is just a bit too polished. It doesn’t come across as open, honest testimony, but as a well-rehearsed performance. That’s not “sincere.” That’s “contrived.”
Furthermore, Ford’s claim that her old pal who discounted her testimony has “health challenges” just smacks of an excuse.
I’ve read both their prepared statements, as well as their opening statements, and what hits me is that both seem sincere.
Could one of them be sincerely wrong? If so, which one? It would’t be the person who committed or witnessed the assault, for regardless of who he assaulted, the memory would last.
It could very well be a case of mistaken identity, however, where Dr. Ford didn’t know the identity of her assailant until after Brett Kavanaugh’s face and name appeared in the news. All Dr. Ford would need to do to prove otherwise is produce a piece of paper originating from before 2018 with the name “Brett Kavanaugh” clearly present along with at least a summary of the alleged sexual assault 36 years ago. In order to be credible, the paper with Kavanaugh’s name and the account would have to have been out of her hands and beyond her manipulation since it was recorded i.e. in someone else’s hands, perhaps those of her therapist.
Furthermore, Dr. Ford named several names in her prepared statement:
Brett Kavanaugh: Denies any knowledge of the alleged incident
Mark Judge: Denies any knowledge of the alleged incident
P.J. Smyth: Denies any knowledge of the alleged incident
Leland Ingham: Denies any knowledge of the alleged incident, but Dr. Ford claims he’s suffering from “health challenges”
But it could also very well be a case of false memory. Surely, as a professor of psychology and research psychologist, Dr. Ford would know about false memories. Merely knowing about them, however, in no way insulates one from having them. In fact, as is the case with many mental illnesses, knowledge about the way one’s brain works does not make one less susceptible to any of the numerous tricks one’s brain can play. False memories are created by the brain trying to make sense of snippets of memory which the brain can’t figure out how to categorize. The brain sees these piece of some puzzle lying around, notes there appears to be some association, decides they must somehow fit together, and starts filling in the missing gaps with rational “it must be so” fabrications which allow it to glue the snippets together. As a result, false memories seem every bit as real as factual memories, and the only way to tell the difference is by external sources of information, such as the four others who she named, all of whom said they have no memory or knowledge of the alleged incident.
I’m sorry, there, Dr. Ford, but in the absence of any other source of information, and in light of the highly and long respected stellar reputation of the accused, there are only three conclusions which can be reached by a rational, intelligent human being:
1. Dr. Ford was indeed sexually assaulted, but by someone else, and couldn’t put a name to the face until she saw Kavanaugh in the news. Ergo, a false memory, the gaps of which were knitted together by her brain.
2. Dr. Ford was never sexually assaulted, and the entire thing is a false memory.
3. Dr. Ford may or may not have been sexually assaulted, but when she saw Kavanaugh in the news, she and/or the Demoncrap party cooked this up as a way of lying, cheating, or stealing their way forward, as has become a common modus operandi for Demoncraps.
When Democrats and now Justices Kagan and Sotomayor came before the Senate during their confirmation hearings, Senator Lindsey Graham voted for them.
Today, in precisely the same vein of seeking absolute justice, Senator Graham unloaded on the hearing as a SHAM perpetrated on the American people by Demoncraps.  Yes, Demoncraps — little pieces of Demon shit that treat our nation as some sort of personal joy ride instead of responsibly as the American people deserve.

I’ve looked at this from all sides. Back in college, I had a girlfriend who was raped two years before I met her. Shortly after I was sworn in as an officer in the United States Air Force, I dated a girl who was the victim of sexual assault when she was 14. I’ve known other women, some very well, who were sexually assaulted and a couple of women who were raped.
I get it, six ways to Sunday, and my heart pours out for all victims.
What I don’t get, however, is how utterly contemptable the Democrat political machine has become that they would entertain, much less champion what appears to be a drive-by shooting by a flagrantly left-wing anti-Trumper aided and abetted by the Democrat Party for their own political purposes.
I’ve followed this in depth, reading comments from all sides, since the day Senator Dianne Feinstein finally came forward to make the allegedly months-old Dr. Ford letter public. I’ve read both Judge Kavanaugh’s and Dr. Ford’s prepared written statements as well as their opening remarks, and no matter how one might spin this, there’s one inescapable conclusion:
Dr. Ford has absolutely zero corroborating evidence, and none of the four people she mentioned can confirm her story, and two have flat-out said, “Never happened.  Not with Kavanaugh, anyway.”
What mainstream media has refused to cover, apparently because it undermines their liberal agenda, is that false memories are often never detected by the person having the memory, even if they happen to have a PhD in Psychology. No one is immune.
A false memory is simply the result of one’s brain trying to make sense of memory scraps. Frustrated by a lack of clear way to make sense and store the memories, the brain will find what associations it can while literally filling in the missing gaps with “reasonable assumptions,” much the same as how I mixed up the names of a friend’s husband and his brother a few years ago before a subsequent post set me straight.
In Dr. Ford’s case, it may very well be she was sexually assaulted, didn’t know or recognize the guy, but had met Kavanaugh around that time. Then, 36 years later, she sees his picture in the news and her brain goes to town trying to stitch together the pieces.
In fact, this same phenomena is responsible for a great many falsely convicted people, many of whom were black, and a large number who have since been released on DNA evidence that didn’t exist decades ago when they were convicted.
This phenomena was even mentioned during a Communications 101 class wherein the professor described the “Banana Heist,” an experiment conducted in a large college class where a “gangster” entered the classroom and robbed the front row of their belongings with a yellow banana. During interviews with witnesses, the police, who were in on it, heard testimony about the “gun,” it’s “black color,” and two witnesses who even provided the “make and model” of the gun. Er, banana.
Why? Because it was the only way their brains could make sense of the information, especially during a heightened state of anxiety or distress. Adrenaline can do that. The banana just didn’t fit the scenario. It didn’t make sense, so the brains of these college students chucked it and literally invented a piece of fiction that did make sense to them i.e. the presence of a real gun.
False memories are very common. Almost everyone has at least several, and they’re more common for periods where one’s memory is obscured by drugs or alcohol, as Dr. Ford admitted to doing throughout the early 1980s.
Again, those with false memories don’t find out about them until they’re confronted, usually by multiple people who were also present who all share a different perspective.
In Dr. Ford’s case, all four people whom she claimed had knowledge of the party of the event have all said the same thing: “What are you talking about? That never happened.”
Confronted with reality, however, is she backing off? Is she considering the likelihood in light of the facts that Kavanaugh’s involvement is a false memory?
No, she is not. That fact, along with the fact that she holds a PhD in Psychology and should know better tells me she’s either too embarrassed to back down, or she just doesn’t care about the lives she destroys. Either that or she sucks as a Psychologist.
You may call me “mad” because I disagree with your own foregone conclusion, but I’ve looked at all sides and have arrived at my own, very well-informed conclusion.
In fact, I wouldn’t put it past the well-known feminist Dr. Ford to know very well that Judge Kavanaugh was not involved, but rather, she’s falsely accusing him merely to score points in her personal pro-left, anti-Trump playbook while feeling like she at least did something to oppose President Trump, even if that means lying before the United States Senate and all Americans.
Finally, we have this from someone who has known Brett Kavanaugh a very long time:
“It all rings true. It brings back so many memories. I can’t believe he wrote it down and I’m so glad he did.” – Tom Kane, Brett Kavanaugh’s High School friend.
Throughout my 20 years in the military, I carried a Weekly Planner aka Day Minder in which I recorded each and every assignment, flight, meeting, and event. On the advice of a my first Radar Navigator, I also recorded both complete flight and ground training events as well as flight hours. I kept it in the upper left pocket of my flight suit or the back right pocket of my blues. Less than 1/4″ thick, it was my annual “plastic brains,’ and like Kavanaugh, as well as some of the members of my squadrons, I didn’t just toss it at the end of the year. In fact, at least some of them are still in a box or three somewhere in storage.
I agree with Mr. Kane.

And oh, look:  Kavanaugh’s Calendar: