The case against Kavanaugh
There is no shortage of commentary surrounding Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh. And while there is much to sift through to make sense of it all, most of it obfuscates a simple and compelling case against the judges appointment to the Supreme Court. The argument contends Kavanaugh is unfit for the job because he is a political operative that has committed perjury at least twice, and because the vetting process in the judiciary committee raises several red flags.
Kavanaugh is a Republican political operative, not a conservative jurist
There was never any question that the nominee to fill Justice Anthony Kennedy’s seat would be ideologically conservative; in fact, expectations were that the nominee would be deeply conservative. Yet, one can see a stark difference between the reaction to, and confirmation process of Justice Neil Gorsuch, and the circus that surrounds Kavanaugh. This is because the reasons Kavanaugh is a terrible choice for the Supreme Court are not just ideological.
The investigation into Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, and the subsequent attempt to remove him from office baffled and angered many Americans. That anger hasn’t subsided much over the past few decades, and that rate isn’t going to quicken much anytime soon. Michael D. Shear and Adam Libtak’s New York Times article “The Partisan Battle Brett Kavanaugh Now Regrets”, provides a good explanation of the actions Kavanaugh took while working for Ken Starr.
Kavanaugh not only drafted the section of Starr’s report to congress that laid out 11 potential grounds for impeachment, he also pushed to ask Clinton extremely explicit questions about the details of sexual acts he and Lewinsky engaged in. The proposed questions were intentionally lurid and meant to cause humiliation. They were far more lurid and humiliating than anything Kavanaugh was subjected to during his hearing about alleged sexual misconduct.
Kavanaugh is a liar who has committed perjury at least twice
Kavanaugh seems to have an interesting relationship with the truth, especially when testifying in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It’s obvious that Kavanaugh is often evasive and misleading in his responses to tough questions from the committee. With recent document releases as part of the confirmation process, it has also become obvious that Kavanaugh, while under oath, lied to the committee during the confirmation process for his current judicial position.
In 2006, Sen. Patrick Leahy asked Kavanaugh about his knowledge of the domestic spying program, which Kavanaugh claimed to have only learned about when its existence was reported inthe press. However, the release of a 2001 email to John Yoo, the architect of the administration’s domestic spying program (and author of the infamous torture memo), clearly shows that Kavanaugh was at least familiar with the conversations around developing and legally justifying the program.
This was not the only time Kavanaugh perjured himself in his 2006 testimony. According to Sen. Dianne Feinstein in a Sept. 7 tweet, “Brett Kavanaugh used materials stolen from Democratic senators to advance President Bush’s judicial nominees. He was asked about this in 2004, 2006 and this week. His answers were not true.” An overview of this can be found in Lisa Graves’ Slate article, “I Wrote Some of the Stolen Memos That Brett Kavanaugh Lied to the Senate About”.
What’s been detailed so far is more than enough for a reasonable Senator, acting in good faith, to reject Kavanaugh as a suitable candidate for the Supreme Court. In fact, a serious case can be made to remove Kavanaugh from his current judicial seat. This is not all that should give pause about Kavanaugh.
Rushing such a controversial nominee without a reasonable vetting process should raise eyebrows
The Senate Democratic minority, under the “leadership” of Chuck Schumer, is far less bold and effective than their Republican counterparts were when they were in the minority. Added to this, they don’t have the benefits of the filibuster, as Republicans did when they blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination by simply refusing to take any action on it, holding no hearings or votes until the nomination expired nearly a year later.
So there is no reasonable fear on the part of Republicans on the judiciary committee that their nominee could be blocked for illegitimate reasons. If Senate Republicans come to the consensus Democrats are acting in bad faith, they have the power to push the nomination through without any Democratic votes. They can push the nomination through even if they don’t think Democrats are acting nefariously. At the end of the day, the only ones who can stop the nomination are Republicans.
So why the frantic rush to get Kavanaugh through the nomination process? Why not give the Democrats a few extra weeks to examine documents and ask questions? If you thought your nominee was a good nominee, and you had the votes to overcome any strictly partisan attempt to block them, you gain nothing by trying to rush the process, unless you know, or at least have a strong suspicion, that they aren’t a good nominee. Not only that, but you want to get them through before enough members of your own party find out how bad a nominee they are.
Throw on top of all this, sexual assault allegations that continue to gain credibility.
But in the end, none of this matters
Summing up his thoughts on the day’s hearings on his show, after having listed to both Kavanaugh and his accuser, conservative radio host Buck Sexton flat out stated the position of much of the conservative base, who are enraged over the allegations against Kavanaugh. Sexton begins his second monologue of the show: “I will never forgive this. I will never forget this.” He ends his thoughts before going to callers: “…there are really two teams here, the good guys and the bad guys. And you. And me. We’re on team good guy.”
Making the case against Kavanaugh isn’t going to convince anyone with the above mindset. The only thing that will convince them is if Donald Trump decides he’s a band nominee. The rest of us can only listen to the facts, analyze and contextualize them to the best of our ability, and make our case. Those with other motivations will likely continue to act on those motivations. Bringing to light and eliminating the hidden motivations of the powerful is an ongoing project among citizens of free societies.
