Why Kavanaugh should not be confirmed

Brett Kavanaugh

Brett Kavanaugh is a political hack who should not have received the Court of Appeals appointment he has, and should have been rejected by the Senate committee as a nominee for Supreme Court without calling Christine Blasey Ford to testify,

He got his start helping special prosecutor Ken Starr investigate Bill Clinton, was part of the legal team that challenged the voter recount in Florida in 2000 and then worked for White House Special Counsel Alberto Gonzalez in the George W. Bush administration.

There are questions as to whether he was involved in discussions of warrantless surveillance, warrantless detentions and torture, and George W. Bush’s sweeping assertions of presidential authority in signing statements. Kavanaugh has said these issues weren’t part of his job, while the Trump administration has held back on releasing the documentary record of Kavanaugh’s service.

What Kavanaugh thinks about these questions goes to the heart of his understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law.  At the very least, he should be questioned closely about what he thinks about these issues.

As for Dr. Ford’s allegations, I’ve not followed the committee hearings closely, but it seems to me that she is telling the truth she says that at age 15, she was in a room with Kavanaugh, he grabbed her and she thought he was trying to rape her.  She was traumatized by something.

We’ll probably never know that Kavanaugh thought he doing.  He may not remember himself.  All we do know is that he has not been frank about what happened.

Should this, in and of itself, be a disqualification for serving on the Supreme Court?

This is not a case like Ted Kennedy after Chappaquiddick, Bill Clinton in 1992 or Donald Trump in 2016, in which supporters of a candidate had to choose between overlooking reprehensible conduct or letting the bad side (as they saw it) win.

The position could be filled by one of many right-wing judges who’ve never been credibly accused of sexually abusing women.

The Trump administration has nothing to lose by withdrawing Kavanaugh’s name and proposing another conservative.  Kavanaugh’s life will not be ruined.  He’ll remain in his plum job as Court of Appeals judge.

There’s no moral obligation to confirm a Supreme Court justice just because they have been nominated.  In 1969 and 1970, the Senate with votes of Democrats and Republicans rejected President Nixon’s nominations of Clement Haynesworth and G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court.

Haynesworth had a conflict of interest problem; Carswell was simply considered mediocre.  Nixon nominated Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist, both highly conservative and well-qualified, and both were confirmed.  That’s how things used to work.

LINKS

How Brett Kavanaugh the Ken Starr prosecutor would question Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh by David R. Lurie for Slate.

Does Brett Kavanaugh agree with Bush v. Gore? by Robert Gordon for The Atlantic.

What Brett Kavanaugh Must Be Asked About Torture, Guantanamo and Mass Surveillance by Amy Davidson Sorkin for The New Yorker.

Brett Kavanaugh’s Bush documents show how much power he’d grant Trump by Peter M. Shane for Slate.

Confidential e-mails reveal Kavanaugh wanted to make author of Bush-era torture memos a judge by Ian Millhiser for Think Progress.

The Constitutional Reasons to Oppose Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court by Brittany Hunter for the Foundation for Economic Education.

Why Everyone Should Oppose Brett Kavanaugh’s Nomination by Nathan J. Robinson for Current Affairs.  Kavanaugh’s decisions as a judge.

How We Know Kavanaugh Is Lying by Nathan J. Robinson for Current Affairs.

Tags: Brett Kavanaugh, Supreme Court