The Stakes are Too High Not to Review the Entire Kavanaugh Record
As a longtime civil rights advocate, I’ve seen countless examples of how a full airing of a judicial candidate’s record can reveal a great deal about the temperament and philosophy that will guide his or her performance on the bench.
That’s why a review of all the documents that make up Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s record is essential to assess whether he is fit to sit on the Supreme Court. The stakes are too high to do otherwise. Hanging in the balance is the future of civil rights, workplace protections, reproductive rights and access to health — issues that will have profound implications for millions of Americans, especially women.
The gatekeepers of Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings are pushing ahead, backing away from Sen. Grassley’s initial promise of a “transparent and thorough process.” And yet, the Iowa Republican plans to hold hearings without Kavanaugh’s full record.
Sen. Grassley also requested only a small number of documents from Kavanaugh’s record, deliberately choosing to exclude his time as President Bush’s Staff Secretary even though Kavanaugh himself admitted that that experience was the job “most instructive” for his later career as a judge. To make matters worse, the National Archives has said it would take until October to review even the limited request by Sen. Grassley.
Why are Senate leaders so worried about a truly “transparent and thorough” review of Kavanaugh’s voluminous record?
Maybe it would complicate the regular-guy-from-the-neighborhood portrait his advocates have painted. In his endorsement of the nominee, President George W. Bush, called Kavanaugh “a fine husband, father, and friend — and a man of the highest integrity.” Other adoring accounts stress that he coaches and tutors kids and is involved in his community and church — all of which is admirable, but Kavanaugh is under consideration for Supreme Court justice, not scout leader.
Moreover, they must realize that a closer look at Kavanaugh will clash with their characterization of him as a “mainstream” choice, as Sen. Grassley called the nominee. Even a cursory look at the already-available record shows Kavanaugh’s unmistakable hostility to reproductive and employment rights and a willingness to restrict other civil rights. It suggests a future justice who will dramatically shift the balance of the Court away from what most Americans would define as mainstream. After all, that’s exactly the kind of nominee President Trump promised to the core of ultra-conservatives who voted for him and still stand by his side. And it’s why Kavanaugh’s supporters are fighting so fervently for his nomination.
The documents are also likely to reveal the details of Kavanaugh’s work as a political and legal advisor in President George W. Bush’s White House. There he did everything from vet other judges to serve as staff secretary, a role that connected him with every policy issue to grace the Bush White House during that period. Kavanaugh himself said his time as staff secretary was “in many ways among the most instructive” for his role as a judge. And then there are documents he produced during his stint as an aide to Kenneth Starr’s investigation of President Clinton.
We’ve seen what happens when we take the time to dig deeply into the record of judicial nominees. Perhaps that is why Senate Republicans are desperate to limit access to Kavanaugh’s record. Just last week, they withdrew the nomination of Ryan Bounds to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit after a thorough examination of his paper trail revealed offensive remarks he made about racial minorities and the LGBTQ community. But instead of using the Bounds episode as an object lesson about the perils of willfully inadequate vetting, Republican leaders seem to be saying it’s better to keep any inconvenient truths under wraps.
The rich irony of Republicans’ opposition to a full review of Kavanaugh’s record is that it contradicts identical demands they made in 2010 during Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Court. Sen. Grassley, said at the time that it is “important for us to look at her entire record and to give particular weight to her statements and writings as well as the positions she has taken over the years.” The Judiciary Committee’s then-Ranking Member, Senator Jeff Sessions, argued strenuously that “we know it is important to have these documents [about her service in the Clinton Administration] in time to examine them before the committee hearing….” Then Senators Sessions and Patrick Leahy, the Committee chair, jointly made the request for the Kagan documents. Transparency, it seems, prevailed and documents informed her hearing.
Apparently, the ground has now shifted, and what was “important” in 2010 is now out of bounds. Those obstructing access to Kavanaugh’s full record seem to be saying to the rest of America, ‘The rules don’t apply to us.’
But with the future posture of the Court teetering on this nomination, nothing less than a serious and comprehensive examination of Kavanaugh’s entire record will do.
Fatima Goss Graves is President and CEO of National Women’s Law Center.
