This week marks the 40th anniversary of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, which deregulated American freight…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Happy 40th to the Staggers Rail Act, Which Deregulated and Saved the U.S. Rail Industry

This week marks the 40th anniversary of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, which deregulated American freight rail and saved it from looming oblivion.

At the time of passage, the U.S. economy muddled along amid ongoing malaise, and our rail industry teetered due to decades of overly bureaucratic sclerosis.  Many other domestic U.S. industries had disappeared, and our railroads faced the same fate.  But by passing the Staggers Rail Act, Congress restored a deregulatory approach that in the 1980s allowed other U.S. industries to thrive.  No longer would government determine what services railroads could offer, their rates or their routes, instead restoring greater authority to the railroads themselves based upon cost-efficiency.

Today, U.S. rail flourishes even amid the coronavirus pandemic…[more]

October 13, 2020 • 11:09 PM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
The Smearing of Brett Kavanaugh Is an Attack on the Supreme Court Print
By David Harsanyi
Friday, September 20 2019
What there won't be are any consequences for journalistic malpractice.

In the end, the Democrats' smearing of Brett Kavanaugh is about delegitimizing the Supreme Court  the only institution that will inhibit the progressive agenda no matter who wins elections.

In the mind of Democrats, conservative justices aren't merely wrong; they're nefarious, racist and extremist. So it's not surprising that virtually any smear against Kavanaugh is rationalized. In this world, the accused, rather than the accuser, bears the "burden of proof." In this world, hucksters like Michael Avenatti are turned into experts, and major news outlets will eagerly repeat and spread slander as news.

Which is what happened last week when The New York Times ran an excerpt from a new book, "The Education of Brett Kavanaugh," in which reporters Robin Pogebrin and Kate Kelly not only rehashed allegations against Kavanaugh, but claimed that he'd been in another drunken incident in his college days.

As it turned out, the reporters had somehow failed to mention that the alleged victim had declined to be interviewed because she didn't recall the incident. Whether dispositive or not, it seems like a noteworthy detail to skip in an excerpt accusing a Supreme Court justice of inappropriate sexual conduct.

In any event, the Times, caught in a blatantly unprofessional act, was forced to add an editor's note that debunked the most newsworthy aspect of their own article. It was just another in an interminable series of "mistakes" by supposedly nonpartisan journalists that happen to skew in the same exact partisan direction while creating the same useful perceptions.

Headlines about "new allegations" were blasted across the media landscape  even after the correction. The important thing to them is that journalists can keep framing Kavanaugh as a problematic justice and Democrats can keep using the word "illegitimate" to describe his seat.

Although Kavanaugh was nominated and confirmed in the same constitutionally sound manner that every Supreme Court justice in history had been nominated and confirmed, Democratic presidential hopefuls are calling for Kavanaugh's impeachment. Sen. Kamala Harris, who not long ago put unsubstantiated gang rape charges against Kavanaugh in the congressional record, claims he underwent "a sham process and his place on the Court is an insult to the pursuit of truth and justice."

Jeffrey Toobin, CNN's "Chief Legal Analyst," noted that "40 percent of the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court have been credibly accused of sexual misconduct." This is the point of the whole enterprise, right? The implication is, "Why would any American respect the court's rulings when it's packed with sexual abusers?"

Now, I hate to break the news to Toobin, but notwithstanding the hagiography created by the cultural and political left, the notion that Anita Hill was a "credible" accuser is, to say the least, highly debatable. To this day, not a single person  and Clarence Thomas had scores of subordinates working for him during his years in government, before and after his confirmation  came forward to substantiate that the judge had ever acted in the ways Hill described.

On the other hand, 12 former female colleagues of both Thomas and Hill signed an affidavit supporting him. Not one person who worked with both came forward to vouch for Hill. And, as with Christine Blasey Ford, the FBI investigated Hill's claims and couldn't find any evidence to back her accusation. After the hearings, agents sent additional affidavits to the Senate accusing Hill of misleading the public by skipping important portions of her story and offering public testimony that contradicted what she had told law enforcement officials.

Yet, in the liberal imagination, Thomas is guilty, the same way Kavanaugh will be forever considered guilty, although none of Ford's contentions have been corroborated or substantiated. Not a single person at the mysterious party where Kavanaugh supposedly forced himself on her have come forward. Not even her lifelong friend, Leland Keyser, who was pressured by friends and political forces to accuse Kavanaugh, remembers any such incident.

"It just didn't make any sense," Keyser told The New York Times reporters about Ford's allegations. "I don't have any confidence in the story," she added.

Deborah Ramirez, another accuser, hadn't even been able to recall supposedly swatting away Kavanaugh's penis at college party until New Yorker reporters asked her about it  well, after "carefully assessing her memories" and landing on the correct answer. Now the Times reports that other third parties  Ramirez's mother, for instance  remember hearing about the incident, as well.

I assume many more people will have miraculous recall as we move forward. What there won't be are any consequences for journalistic malpractice. And Democrats, who have no interest in living with the constraints of the Constitution, probably see little downside in destroying trust in the courts even as they weaponize a serious issue for partisan gain.


David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of the book "First Freedom: A Ride Through America's Enduring History With the Gun." 
COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following was the first 20th century presidential candidate to call for a Presidential Debate?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"We can return to the explosive job creation, rising wages and general prosperity we had before the pandemic. We can have economic freedom and opportunity, and resist cancel culture and censorship. We can put annus horribilis, 2020, behind us and make America great again, again. We can do all this -- if we make the right choice on Nov. 3.The New York Post endorses President Donald J. Trump for re-…[more]
 
 
—The Editors, New York Post
— The Editors, New York Post
 
Liberty Poll   

Do you believe Republicans will continue to hold a majority in the U.S. Senate following the 2020 election?