Why all the uproar on the appointment of Judge Cavanaugh to the Supreme Court? The real reason is not about the sexual abuse allegations in a letter that was released to the Senate Judiciary Committee as the hearing was drawing to a close. It’s not about being guilty until proven innocent… or the reverse. It’s identity politics, pure and simple!

The answer can be found in the internal memos that were recovered from the Democratic files. They demonstrate the vicious activity of the Democrats in the Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee to try to malign and possibly destroy the reputations and careers by innuendo and unsubstantiated allegations of the nominees who are not progressives.

Progressivism and constitutionalism do not work together. The progressive model is to destroy the constitutional model. And for the left, the Supreme Court is not a court, but a politburo, a strong policy making body. Thus, diminishing the power of the electorate and those representatives they elect to represent them.  The Democrats insist on controlling the politburo. Why? Former President Woodrow Wilson gives us the answer saying, “We must control the courts and they shall control the future society. And in effect they must rewrite the Constitution.”*

“It is a part of a grand design to talking to death a succession of conservative judges selected by President W. Bush. Democrats are intent on keeping the Senate from voting on any appellate nominations that do not meet the Party’s specifications.

This extraordinary design, without precedent in two centuries of judicial nominations, was launched January 30, 2003 in the office of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschel. Present were Assistant Harry Reid and six Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats. With all pledged to secrecy, the fateful decision was made to filibuster (Miguel) Estrada’s nomination.

That was only the beginning. One Judiciary Committee member there was Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Senate’s 71-year-old liberal lion. In private conversations with Daschel and in Democratic causes, Kennedy has pressed a plan to prevent President Bush from putting his ideological stamp on the federal bench.

Internal Senate sources depict a Senate minority on an audacious mission---  the filibuster to keep a judicial nominee off the bench is only the tip of the iceberg. Multiple filibusters would generate the first full-scale effort in American history to prevent a president from picking the federal judges he wants.

At the January 30 meeting in Daschel’s office, the eight senators agreeing to filibuster the Estrada nomination did not discuss his merits or demerits as a nominee for the District of Columbia appeals court, second in importance only to the U.S. Supreme Court. Rather, the objections to Estrada were political and procedural. His confirmation would set a precedent that appellate nominees need not answer detailed questions and would make it hard to stop him as a possible future Supreme Court nominee. The senators talked about slowing down a Bush ‘assembly line’ of conservative nominees and cited support from an energized Democratic base.”**

The outcome of the these efforts by the Democrats to block fully qualified nominees to the District Courts, and ultimately to the Supreme Court by a duly elected President, is clearly demonstrated by the hearings conducted of Judges Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and now Brett Kavanaugh. The question the American public must struggle with is whether and how they cast their vote in the upcoming midterm election.

* Mark Levin on September 23, 2018

** Robert Novak/ CNN/ March 3, 2003, reported by Mark Levin on September 23,