Ross, you went Harvard. You went to college with guys like Kavanaugh with the right pedigrees, sterling credentials, and bright futures who also happened to be monsters. Maybe not to you, but monsters nonetheless. Ask your female friends. More than a few will be more than willing to tell you what they experienced at the hands of boys who would go on to run financial firms and senatorial campaigns.
84
There are a number of reasons to question Kavanaugh's elevation to SCOTUS. His misleading testimony about his intentions in refusing an abortion for a teenage immigrant. his withholding thousands of documents from his time working for the Bush Administration are just a few of the other flaws with his nomination. His evasive and non-transparent answers to his stated intent on court precedent do not bolster his ability to not taint his judgments with his personal bias. This is a man with only a casual acquaintance with the truth.
49
As a high schooler, Kavanaugh drank excessively and had blackouts with his buddy Mike Judge, who wrote extensively about that time. This is the obvious explanation for his not remembering. Since that time, he has apparently lived a good life. Fine. Good for him. The Supreme Court should be comprised of philosopher kings and queens with impeccable credentials. I cannot imagine Ruth Bader Ginsberg as a black out bungee drinker. Neither can I imagine John Roberts, Sotomayor, Scalia, Kagen Kennedy, or any of them being black out drinkers. Thomas, maybe. That this nomination has gotten this far is beyond credulity. That the Republicans are willing to put the country through this upcoming week, not to mention putting Dr Ford through it, is all the proof you need that they’ve driven our country off a cliff.
83
With Kavanaugh already practicing deflection of questions about his high school drinking he seems to be taking the total denile route. The alternative route would claiming no memory of the events. Given what's been publicized about his drinking it's quite possible that he was in an alcoholic blackout and possibly perpetrated the attack, but has no memory of it.
Unless Kavanaugh can state that he never drank to the alcoholic blackout stage he really has no basis for denial, only that he has no memory of the event.
50
In Europe, Public Servants, Primer Ministers, Presidents and Kings are judged by their public service record - not their personal lives.
A Charade like this would earn Mrs. Ford not much attention especially since it has been 36 year without a peep from her.
As for Mr Kavanaugh, his record -both politically and as a person of trust is consistently admirable.
32
Good to see trough all this from Douthat's glasses. They want a Justice that will overturn Roe Vs Wade, and they are willing to sacrifice anyone standing in the way, including their own nominee if necessary. Douthat's only problem with Kavanaugh is not that he might be guilty, by that suspicion may deter him from voting this overturn.
27
Teenagers are teenagers-but attempting to rape and forcibly restrain someone from crying out speaks of a thuggish, bullying character that exceeds even the most relaxed standards of teenage behavior. I would not want such a person in any position of power particularly in one whose function is to issue law expressing our society's values. Would you? Who raised this animal? What country are we in?
62
The comments that have come from from the Republican side of the Judiciary Committee make it amply clear that it is not Judge Kavanaugh who will be met with the most hostile questioning. And the treatment of Anita Hill in the Thomas hearing provides ample evidence of what lies before Professor Hill in the days to come. The Republicans have also made it clear that Judge Kavanaugh will have their vote, no matter the outcome of the hearing. Soon we will have a Supreme Court where one third of the male Justices are accused sexual predators/attempted rapists, to say nothing of the inhabitant of the White House. But it is clear from the commentary, written and spoken, that mysogeny is prevalent throughout the party--men and women. Sexual predation is just it's most virulent form. The #me too movement has not penetrated the sacred halls of our national government--except when it came to purging accused Democratic congressmen, who were not granted hearings.
32
Some of the GOP senators who will eventually be voting on the vetting of the Supreme Court justice nominee judge Brett Kavanaugh have already publicly affirmed that the Supreme Court candidate is more than probably innocent of whatever he is accused by Dr. Ford — This judgment being publicly made by GOP of the vetting committee prior to her testimony before the Senate’s committee is an indication that the whole process is “rigged” to favor the President’s candidate.
The determination of the Senate’s committee is therefore totally irrelevant and could not possibly constitute an indication of Bret Cavanaugh innocence or culpability.
Thus, guilty or innocent, Bret Cavanaugh will forever carry the stigma of dishonour in the eyes of the public. The White House doesn’t care, as it deems it essential, at whatever institutional cost, that the Supreme Court vets its objectives. Dam the Institution.
30
Don't worry Ross, Kavanaugh won't have to "prove a negative" because he really did Ms. Ford all those years ago. Why do you think the GOP is refusing to have Mark Judge put under oath?
57
The judiciary committee did him no favors when it determined not to ask for an expanded FBI background check. If the argument in his favor is insufficient evidence, then the denial of seeking more evidence, speaks to fear of the not yet known.
56
"So I spent the week having private arguments about whether it was really fair to ask a public servant to withdraw in a kind of tacit shame, for some greater ideological good, on the basis of a single unprovable allegation — and whether that kind of standard would inevitably lead to less-provable allegations against more probably-innocent figures down the road — and how you could expect any decent person to put themselves forward for high office in the climate such a precedent would create." Sure they would, sure we would not be able to if this would happen. There must be a limit on how far in a person's past we are ready to go in order to assess their present personalities. Assuming that people remain the same decades after an event in which they may appear in an unfavorable light, even in their adolescence, is unreasonable, cruel, and destructive to society.
11
The notion that Supreme Court justices have "philosopher-king" like power strikes me as a faulty assumption that's infecting this controversy. Kavanaugh probably has more influence now, as a DC Appeals judge, where his vote is 1/2 of any winning 2-1 decision (rather than 1/5 as they would be on the Court.) And virtually all those votes stand, since only a tiny fraction of cases go up on cert to the Court.
Actually, it's often been said that U.S. District Court judges are the most powerful people in the country, owing to their injunctive powers which, by freezing action with the stroke of a pen are often determinative of outcomes.
13
I am appalled at the way Judge Kavanaugh has been treated and I am worried that it could happen to anyone.
Imagine you being accused of a serious crime that happened 36 years ago and you being required to prove your innocence.
You have not seen the stated accusation but have only heard of it second hand.
The accuser can't quite remember the time or place or circumstances and may have been drinking.
The only potential witness has no recollection of the events.
Your accuser just happens to be on the opposite political side.
Yet, people in high positions have already declared you guilty.
This does not have a happy ending.
44
Judge defined "Beach Week" at Georgetown Preparatory School as a "week-long bacchanalia of drinking and sex, or at least attempts at sex".[8][27][28] The author discusses a phrase, "100 Kegs Or Bust", in relation to excessive alcohol drinking during his times at Georgetown Preparartory School.[29][26][30] Judge remembers a student he refers to as Bart O'Kavanaugh who passed out and threw up in a car.[31][32][33] The author recounts going to drink alcohol with his friends at bars for many evenings in a row.[2] He presents in-depth memories of orgies and attempts to have sex fueled with alcohol at residences along the beach shoreline.[2][34]
Judge recounts episodes of heavy drinking and blackouts during his four years of study at Catholic University of America.[34] The author is able to graduate from university in spite of heavy alcohol use.[2][34] Judge acknowledges in the book that in his later twenties, he regularly blacked out while drunk, and awoke in locations with no memory of having arrived there.[3][34] The author describes a panic attack episode at a wedding of a peer, which brought him to the realization that he needed to cease imbibing in alcoholic beverages...wikipedia... yikes
31
Ford v. Kavanaugh exposes the #MeToo movement as inherently anti-democratic and misandrist.
Add the excommunicable-article-of-faith catalyst, abortion-on-demand as we have here, and figurative #BanMen / #KillAllMen, run-of-the-mill misandry becomes Stalinist career-ending assassination of liberal men who simply exhibit insufficient disdain for the accused.
Many are writers in liberal journals. A cautionary tale for Times scribes, it seems.
Structurally & definitionally, #MeToo rejects due process. The origins are, not unsurprisingly, an Obama policy for college adjudication of sexual assault—unconstitutional, (what else?)—now being reversed.
A cunning device to obscure leftist hypocrisy/assuage leftist guilt, #MeToo is a weapon that the Left simultaneously enshrines and exploits.
It is a no-win for the Rs by design.
Older white R men in kid gloves must stay far away from Ford.
To borrow from Scalia, Rs need wolves that come as foxes.
19
As a Pennsylvania voter in a Times article said, there is something about Brett Kavanaugh that creeps me out, given his squirelly answers at the hearings and reports and self-reports of his louche behavior.
I had no problem at all with Neil Gorsuch although I find his views on the law just as objectionable as Kavanaugh's. A lot of us on the left feel that way.
This is not about the injustice to Merrick Garland. There was not this hullabaloo about Gorsuch's confirmation. This is personal.
Let Trump appoint another conservative justice, even someone to the right of Kavanaugh, and if the Republicans can ram his or her nomination through, fine. There are two dozen of those people on the Federal Society list. If it's a person of decent character (like Gorsuch seemed to be), we on the left will be unhappy but not nauseated.
38
@Richard Grayson
Supreme Court Justices are not nominated with an eye towards how palatable they are toward 'those on the left'. Just not part of the criteria, sorry.
12
Blasey-Ford has ties to a Big Pharma abortifacient, an obvious conflict of interest.
"Corcept Therapeutics (Corcept.com) manufacturers and markets an abortion pill drug called mifepristone, and Christine Blasey Ford is a co-author of at least eight published scientific papers produced by the pharmaceutical giant to promote its pills. You can see Blasey’s name listed on several publications at…Corcept.com web page detailing their research papers.
Corcept Therapeutics, Inc., a $166 billion market cap company (stock symbol CORT) reportedly has current annual sales of $216 million. The company offers *just one drug*, mifepristone, which is widely known as an “abortion pill” or RU-486," its off-label use.(h/t to The Gateway Pundit for initial work on this breaking story.)
12
Its rediculous to keep Kavanaugh as a choice as if there aren't 30 other names the Federalist Society did not hand Trump that will uphold the "conservative" goals desired by the GOP. Pick any of the othes in the list that don't argue Presidents can't be indicted & doesn't have the baggage. Most of us will not like the choice regardless since it's so politicised..... We won't be getting a centrist which is what thecounyry sorely needs.
11
‘Uncle’ Clarence was fired in the Senate’s Anita-Hill-fueled pottery kiln into a ceramic toy, black outside, which sits on the bench until tapped, when it barks Right, each time, like a children’s toy dog. Still he sits the bench, an indictment of the Senate. Whether there was a person inside before, it would take a novel to explore. But don’t bother, thanks; I’m busy with the booklist I have already.
Whether Brett Kavanaugh deserves a similar fate is also a dull question. But I dread that the Spineless Senate’s GOP patriarchs will cram another tainted dubbuk unto the bench, further, perhaps fatally, undermining the checks and balances that used to be the American gyroscope.
George Bush the Elected tried to prevent the Senate from performing their Hill fiasco; he initiated the failed FBI investigation of the charges. President Bush at least tried. Putin’s Condom, on the other hand, just tells us another lie: The FBI can’t investigate an issue like that
And you, Ross, in your very serious piece, do not even mention taking time to pursue evidence.
Sic Transit Gloria…
8
It would seem that Bret Kavanaugh’s nomination for the Supreme Court is in trouble. God help us. It would now also seem that a protected group can accuse someone of a crime with impunity. What happened to “innocent until proven guilty”? Are we going back to that time in our history that any white person could accuse a black person of a crime and the white person was always accorded the “benefit of the doubt”? Be careful people that letting your hate for Trump unleash that judicial genie that we worked so hard to put in the bottle. Do you really want to live in a country where you can be accused of a crime and sent to jail on hearsay and a complete lack of corroboration or a shread of evidence? I think not......
22
There is a difference between being sent to jail and being denied Senate confirmation. This is not a criminal trail. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is not the standard. Character ought to matter. Kavanaugh needs to show he is of high character. Instead he gives waffling answers to questions to avoid perjury. This is not the behavior anyone should find acceptable in a Supreme Court Justice. I hope Dr. Blasey allows local law enforcement to determine criminal liability. It would be an interesting perp walk to see Kavanaugh taken out of a federal courthouse in handcuffs and a judge's robe.
24
This is not s criminal trial. The only thing that will happen is a couple short questions will be asked.
Then the Republicans will ram through the nomination.
13
He is toast. The GOP dismissive reaction to her accusations predicts their toasting in the midterms. His behavior and their arrogance reflect their shrinking constituency. Trump is their metaphor.
15
Fairness requires an independent investigation by the FBI. Why didn't you, or Kavanaugh, support this?
36
Mr. Douthat, can you prove that you did not sexually assault me in August of 2002? if not, do you think it should mean you resign from your job?
22
Her two witness do not confirm her story. The whole last minute delay thing smells of politics. She supports the Dem party. Was she drinking? If so, maybe she doesn't remember clearly either. There are just too many ifs to ruin Judge Kavanaugh's life, career, reputation, and family.
22
Our societal understanding of acceptable sexual conduct has moved a very long distance in a very short time. It is not a fad or transient shift in power. It is a permanent step forward in a broader quest for respect, equality, and dignity. No one should be assaulted, and suffer the long term sense of shame, nor any physical consequences.
If the Republicans do push this through, they will be going counter to the will and belief of most Americans on an important issue. It will be the equivalent of pouring more gasoline on the fire they have got going pretty nicely thanks to their president's flagrant misogyny and lack of respect for American ethics and customs.
15
So the only witness, whose name is Judge, won't testify at all, never mind "under oath". It's beyond ironic.
15
Ross, you say that there are only two possibilities: (1) Blasey Ford is lying or (2) she is suffering from a faulty memory. I might not remember what I had for lunch yesterday, but if I were assaulted as Blasey Ford claims, an incident that was for her the defining event of her life that sent her into therapy, I believe I would at least remember who my assaulter was and what he/she did to me. That leaves only the possibility that she is a liar.
There is little doubt that Blasey Ford was assaulted years ago; it has been the subject of her years in therapy. She also claims to have named Kavanaugh as the perpetrator to her husband. Is he part of a conspiracy? He could be called as a witness if Grassley wanted to hear from him. But Grassley does not want to hear from anyone who could possibly back up Blasey Ford's account? Why not?
Why would Blasey Ford fabricate a story that involves a third person, Judge, who would just be an additional person to refute her unless it really happened as she said? Why are Judge and Kavanugh seemingly not eager to be investigated by the F.B.I. on this matter while Blasey Ford, knowing that lying to the F.B.I. is a crime, is?
Then there is Kavanaugh's history of heavy drinking as a teenager and apparent perjury during confirmation hearings. We do not require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What we need is 100% assurance that Kavanaugh has the integrity to be a Supreme Court justice. The burden of proof has shifted to him.
39
Mr. Kavanaugh should be insisting in a proper investigation from the FBI who also has the power to interview corroborative witnesses (Dr. Ford's therapist and her notes ), and have the other man present in the room during this alledged attack, be interrogated under oath. Anything short of that, there will always be a cloud of doubt hanging over this judges confirmation--which the Republicans are already treating as a done deal. What exactly are the Republicans and Mr. Kavanaugh afraid of what else will come if the FBI invesrigates?
17
"When they go low, we go high" is now "Guilty, until you Prove you are Innocent". Wonder which one of those the voters will remember come November? And again in 2020? I know I will never look at the Democratic party the same way again after seeing this rush to destroy a good man's life, all for political gain. Shameful doesn't even begin to express it. Cannot go any lower than falsely accusing someone of sexual assault and then demanding they prove their Innocence before you redeem them.
16
Yes, I agree that it will be very hard for Kavanaugh to “prove a negative” as you say. But there is a very simple and obvious response:
Let the FBI investigate. While they may not be able to prove anything conclusively, if Kavanaugh is innocent there will be corroborating evidence out there somewhere. Dr. Ford has offered up plenty of avenues for corroboration, yet Kavanaugh can’t seem to round up more than a bunch of friends saying what a great guy he is. Lame.
Why isn’t Mike Judge clamoring to testify, to defend his friend from these scurrilous accusations?
Only one party here is insisting on an investigation. Only one party wants more witnesses to testify. Only one party is not afraid of verifying their claims - and it is not the accused.
If Kavanaugh is innocent, then his should be the loudest voice asking for an investigation. Poor Mr. Kavanaugh? No; he has put himself in this situation.
24
Just like with the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill confrontation, the die has already been cast and 90% of people have already decided on whether Kavanaugh is guilty or not guilty.
Such is the nature of a witch hunt or when running up against a fascist/puritanical group of ideologues as on the left.
There is little to nothing that will be gained from the continuation of the Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing other than the airing of grievances and the gnashing of teeth on both sides.
Given that, the Republicans should continue with the charade this whole circus has turned in to and proceed with confirming Kavanaugh.
Whether he’s considered a tainted jurist or not, the country as a whole will be better for having Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.
8
Ms. Ford has presented two pieces of evidence. The first is her conversations with a couples councilor about the attack. The second is a lie detector test that she took, resulting in a positive result. Another piece of evidence comes from Mr. Judge, who wrote a book about high school drunkenness and debauchery, in which a thinly disguised Kavanaugh like figure plays a role. Mr. Judge places himself and Kavanaugh together in these scenes, very much like Ms. Ford has described. For the Senate to not subpoena Mr. Judge looks like the actions of people who wish to avoid knowing what they do not want to find out.
23
So, if this hearing results in a “tie” with a credible accusation versus a credible denial, the GOP contends it will be full steam ahead for their nominee and they will likely move to vote him to a lifetime SCOTUS term lickety-split.
In other situations, as in reasonable doubt for a jury, that response might be understandable, since a jury can deny a person their liberty by deciding against them if there is a tie. A human being’s rights are at stake.
Brett Kavanaugh has no constitutional right to a seat on the Supreme Court. This is actually a job interview, not a man claiming his birthright. The GOP acts like what is at stake here is the honor of their party and their absolute right to exert the power of their majority. They are clueless.
What is at stake here is trust and faith in the Supreme Court of the United States of America by the female half of the population of this country which would be crushed if 1/3 of the male justices have been credibly accused of sexually harassing, abusing or molesting women.
Balancing that outcome against Kavanaugh not getting his dream job, I think the decision after a “tie” should be obvious. We thank Judge Kavanaugh for his time and trouble, and make it clear that retracting his nomination was necessary to preserve trust and faith in the Supreme Court and was not a legal verdict.
25
Feinstein could have requested an investigation but she chose not to. That tells the story. Democrats should show her the door.
15
The new definition of 'justice' in Liberal America, ' guilty until proven innocent '
Earlier you had to prove your case. now you have to prove your innocence.
Can we hold all politicians to this standard?
Let's accuse Nancy Pelosi of corruption. There. Now let's have a circus having her prove her innocence, or gave her quit in shame.
See, it cuts both ways.
14
Kavanaugh has proven his lack of concern for the well-being if women and girls, and his lack of respect for their right to make decisions regarding their own health and bodies in his judicial decisions and opinions, even to the point of manipulating schedules to force individuals to carry fetuses to term against their will, against the decisions and judgements of every other court involved in the case, and against the rights and laws of this country. There is no reason to believe he respected a woman’s or girl’s right to decisions regarding her own body as s 17 year old than he does as an adult.
14
this is a good point. if Blasey can fish the approximate place and time out of her memories, Kavenaugh could try to prove that he was somewhere else lacking that, he is left with attempting to establish that he was simply incapable of engaging in the behavior described, by reason of a physical impairment, for example lacking hands or the necessary bodily strength or coordination. Unable to do this, he has fallen back on the argument that only the morally impaired would force himself on a clearly unwilling woman. thus he can show that he is not morally impaired, an argument (thank god !) that is unlikely to be very persuasive in the wake of the me too movement, when it seems that almost any man who thinks he can get away with it is capable, even proud of having forced himself on women in his youth
3
Why is it too much to sacrifice Kavanaugh's career path in the interest of not having the Supreme Court further besmirched by the appointment of judges of questionable character? Because that's unfair to Kavanaugh? What about the untold thousands of young men whose lives were destroyed or lost by way of military conscription, to fight in wars not of their choosing, many who undoubtedly had potentially stellar career paths? The notion of personal sacrifice in the name of a higher cause has long been enshrined in our country's history.
15
It now appears that the Senate Judiciary Committee, ruled by Republicans, will have a she said-he said hearing this week.
Here's my question:
In this situation, what would a good-faith inquiry by the Judiciary Committee look like? Presumably we have already reached the point where the Republicans concede that Professor Blasey Ford should be heard. Would not any good faith inquiry in such a situation require that it might produce an outcome in which a reasonable person could conclude that a preponderance of probability supported Blasey Ford's accusation? Does it appear at present that the Republican committee majority has put itself into such a good-faith position -- that is, that anything Blasey Ford might say under the circumstances they have required would convince them to change their minds? If not, does that not mean that they are acting, on the face of it, in bad faith?
9
It has always been my understanding that SCOTUS justices were to be non partisan, support the constitution,honest,beyond reproach with blemish free backgrounds after being thoroughly investigated.Thomas and Kavanaugh should be nowhere near the Supreme Court.
22
What if the eight sitting justices agree that the court will not convene in October until after a nominee is confirmed and seated?
Will that subvert the political gaming ? Will it impact voter participation in the mid-terms ?
1
No matter the outcome, there has aleady been a victory of sorts. Had this happened 10 years ago, the members of the committee would have laid into the witness with a barrage of vicious attacks on her credibility. As always, it would be about damage control and winning at any cost. All in the guise of seeing the truth, of course.
This time, they will tread lightly, giving the impression they are interested in something other than winning at any cost. When all else fails, do the right thing.
2
We are asking the wrong questions. This is not a criminal prosecution but a Supreme Court nomination. judge Kavanaugh has been nominated but is not entitled to confirmation. The Supreme Court decides the most critical questions we face as a society---the answers to which impact our lives daily. We need to be able to trust that the Justices that sit on the SC are honest, intelligent and fair minded.
The questions to be asked are: is Bret Kavanaugh honest enough, intelligent enough and fair minded enough for we the American people to entrust him with this honor.
The only currency the Supreme Court has is the trust of the American people---all the people---not just a subset of Americans, not just conservatives or liberals or moderates but all. If Bret Kavanaugh cannot convince left, right and center Americans that he is honest, intelligent and fair-minded, He should withdraw his name from nomination.
26
Ross ignores the elephant in the room: Ford named a witness and Grassley won't call him. There may well be other witnesses, if not to the alleged act, at least to the event itself and who was present. GOP efforts to stifle any other evidence speaks volumes as to what is going on: a purely political show, with no good faith effort to uncover the facts.
32
@autumnriver
Ford has named witnesses and ALL of them have denied her account. Her lifelong friend, Leland Keyser, who Ford said was at the party says she wasn't at the party and that she has does not know Kavanaugh.
11
"Either Ford is a brazen liar . . ."
Should have stopped right there. She sent the letter to a House rep instead of the Senate specifically to avoid the possibility of being charged with a federal crime for submitting false information. This whole thing was first cooked up by the Democrats in 2012, and they held onto it until Kavanaugh was actually nominated.
7
@JRDIII
Wow, the Democrats knew in 2012 that Mitch McConnell, in violation of the Constitution, would deny a sitting president his right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, that they would lose the election 4 years later to Trump, and that the Republicans would pick Cavanaugh to shove down the throats of the majority of Americans who did and do not support this president. This is a new low for idiotic rightwing conspiracy theories and would actually be funny if it weren't so sad.
15
You are engaging in circular logic to justify what appears to be a biased position. Would you care to provide any proof to your statement?
Backstage crew missed it again or just didn't fit the NYT narrative:
Lenin's Bay Area, Palo Alto, Ford: DNC Politburo Marxism at work protecting the Grand Collective's Roe v. Wade.
So if someone -- who says he knows Douthat from high school days -- tells the tale credibly -- no evidence or corroboration -- that he saw Douthat sexually assault his little sister, older brother, or family pet behind a big tree at the church picnic--it's up to Douthat to prove it didn't happen? His Opinion Kingdom "reputation" stained forever whatever he might say in defense?
Where's Stalin when you need him--to paraphrase: Show me the man; I'll show you his crime?
10
If Kavanaugh had been prosecuted at the time the alleged crime was committed, he would have been tried and potentially sentenced as a minor, and his record would have been sealed.
In principle, the reason for this is that minors deserve a second chance. If they live their adult lives in an upright manner, they are supposed to get the opportunity to do so without the stigma of what they did before reaching majority.
The extreme delayed reporting of juvenile crimes changes the way the crime is interpreted, and circumvents the law's attempt to exercise mercy.
There may be a valid personal reason to conceal being the victim of a crime, but that doesn't change a citizen's responsibility to report such a serious violation in a timely manner. Revenge is served cold; justice should be swift.
Having said that, I don't want a Supreme Court Justice who acted that way, even as a teen. But I think the consequences should have come long ago. There’s no just way to go back and redress the violation now.
5
I find the circus surrounding Mr. K's nomination to SCOTUS both disturbing and unethical. Much of this thought has nothing to do the allegations but the behaviors involved. We get TV ads using a woman trying to influence others that Mr. K is a good choice and a good man. We have politicians with little or no personal contact with Mr. K claiming close, personal relationships. We have letters at the ready, a patriot missile, with the names of 68 people, all women, attempting to influence others that Mr. K is a good choice and good man. We have politicians, with the power of god-like insight saying that Dr. Ford is "mixed up". We have a sexual predator POTUS who has demonstrated a questionable level of ethical standards trying to convince people that Mr. K is "a very fine" person, the EXACT same word he used to describe the white supremacists at Charlottesville. We have a SCOTUS nominee claiming knowledge that he was the most investigated and better nominee of all time even though he provides no proof.
Every nomination is a political process, thus there will be hyperbole. But what is happening right here, right now is not hyperbole. This is unalloyed lying and fraud.
Vote down Mr. K because of the circus, not because of his history. Next time, politicians need to take this responsibility seriously.
Mr. K could have shown empathy for Dr. Ford but none was shown. Is the coldness an absolute necessity? Or, does his ambition mean more to him than virtue?
13
Ed Whalen took what Christine Ford gave in her letter and took it to a well reasoned conclusion. The house MUST be the house he named, even if the person performing the assault might not be a child residing in the house. Christine Ford has named four people as being present, with two being alleged perpetrators. All four have denied her claims by submitting letters to the committee regarding the accusation. Only Christine Ford hasn't; her letter went from Senator Feinstein to the FBI without passing through the committee first, and hence only her letter cannot be considered sworn testimony.
It's in the Democrats' best interests to delay and extend this thing beyond the 30 September 2018 deadline for Judge Kavanaugh to participate in this year's Supreme Court session. Had they been truly interested in justice, they would have published this accusation within a week of its 30 June dating so as to have reasoned consideration of its content prior to 1 October.
9
“Even if Kavanaugh is innocent of the charge of a teenage sexual assault, I argued, to give such prominence and power to a man credibly accused would both leave an unnecessary taint on his future rulings (especially given his appointment by our Playboy president) and alienate social conservatives from the persuadable Americans, women especially, whose support any pro-life program ultimately requires.”
You are never going to persuade us back into slavery. Stop fooling yourself into thinking you have any claim to legitimacy. Your attempts to hijack federal and state governments into forcing women into having children they don’t want will always be morally bankrupt.
You have every right to try and persuade women not to have abortions, no matter how misguided some of your arguments may be. You have no right whatsoever to impose legal or physical barriers or restrictions of any kind.
Forcing women to bear children is wrong. Just like forcing women into intercourse is wrong. Someone else’s body is theirs, not yours.
17
From USA Today:
“Senate panel quietly investigating Kavanaugh assault claims amid testimony negotiations”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/22/brett-kavanaugh-...
The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are conducting an investigation, but they’re not being objective. And I don’t think they’re looking for information that will exonerate Kavanaugh. They know they can't find it. So what are they looking for?
According to several news sources this morning, Republican operatives are talking to old friends of Christine Blasey, Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. In his book and other writings, Judge described himself as an obnoxious, exhibitionistic jerk during his high school years. I think the Republicans are afraid that Judge bragged to one or more people about the assault at the time, and that such witnesses could now come forward. They want to eliminate that possibility before having Judge testify under oath.
7
@Carson, WOW. Zinger!
2
Very simple: Kavanaugh should ask Trump to begin an FBI investigation. Why not?
21
What has been missing from this discussion is the impact of the elimination of the prior super-majority voting requirement (McConnell/Gorsuch) that would have screened out Judge Kavanaugh from the get-go. These structural rules are important to assure that those who hold life-time power are broadly acceptable. Judge Kavanaugh, however smart, made his mark as a partisan brawler and bureaucrat. The tactics invoked on his behalf (defaming a fellow student) are all too reminiscent of the Starr investigation itself.
14
All good thoughts about proving or disproving the truth in this case are a waste of time. The Judiciary Committee has profoundly altered and tainted the process. There is no respect for the rule of order. They already have the answer and claim a majority of votes. In other words, there is no trial for either the accuser or the accused. Proof or disproof have gone out of the window and what remains is only a public show to keep face, a drama with with a pre-ordered finale. It is a situation that all of us must regret.
5
He could always sue her for defamation. At least we would get an investigation then.
3
The opposite is far more likely. She can and should sue him for defamation.
She is asking for an FBI investigation: Kavanaugh, Trump, and his Republican handlers are blocking it!
They also refuse to have other witnesses testify. They refuse to have Judge, who was Kavanaugh's partner in the attempted rape, testify.
Why?
What do they know that they are afraid will be revealed?
Believe me, there are smoking guns there and they are scared of what will come out.
13
This is an excellent piece but let's remember that Ford has already rejected the opportunity to state her claim under oath to Committee Staffers, as have the four "witnesses" named by her who have denied her claims under oath. Whether from her own reluctance or the manipulation of the schedule by her Resistance-Socialist attorney so that a major PR campaign and WaPo puff piece would precede her testimony, Ford has still NOT agreed to testify. After the Dems hid her letter for almost two months, continuing today, after they failed to ask BK in their office interviews or in the main hearing about this anonymous claim, after blowing through 2 or 3 Committee deadlines, Ford brazenly has still not really agreed to testify, engineering more delay and basking in the adoration and support of the Main Stream Media.
In the "negotiations," Ford is apparently structuring the camera angles, controlling who does the questioning, the order of witnesses, and more.
Her team wakes up every day and analyzes what they can get away with before Senators Collins and Murkowski are offended?
At this point, we should not be surprised if there is no hearing this week and Ford appears on 60 minutes next Sunday and she NEVER goes under oath.
The Left and Democrats and Socialists and Deep State have the bit in their teeth and are frothing at the mouth and show no shame in orchestrating a Salem Witch Trial. We should all remember this and the names of all who caved and joined them.
10
Republicans appeared disinterested in acknowledging that death threats drove Dr. Blasey from her home and forced her into hiding---- her identity was hacked, and she was impersonated online.
The committee handling Supreme Court nominees is the Judicial Committee. Republicans do not have a single female senator from their party on this committee.
The judicial system is available to determine true threats (see Elonis vs. United States) as to the intent of the person making the threats, if the communication constitutes tampering with witnesses.
(18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant)
Clearly, threats were part of the reason Dr. Blasey was unable to promptly report to the committee in person, as Republicans appeared to demand.
The nomination of Mr. Kavanaugh is forever tainted...
6
For crying out loud Ed Whelan, friend of Brett Kavanaugh, is an ethics attorney and presides as President of The Ethics and Policy Center? Whom did he huddle with that thought it was a good idea to try and frame a friend?
For me, it is settled.
Just by the refusal to reopen the investigation of these allegations by the FBI for a fair and impartial gathering of facts and sworn testimony;Trumps out of character tepid response of leaving it to the Senators. Grassley with his feet dug in and 'NO' response. Hatch, stating she is mixed up, confused or whatever demeaning comment he vocalized. No offer to take lie detector test by Kavanaugh or ask for FBI to verify?
How come Grassley and Hatch in 1991 had the conviction FBI involvement was right and proper protocol but now is unnecessary and an imposition?
HATCH said in 1991, investigative fact finding, using committee resources would be self-serving and would not pass the smell test.
Nothing this commitee has done from the hearings, till this very moment, instills confidence in me that they are free of bias and above board. They insult the intelligence of Americans who are paying attention.
So they will use the "he said she said" model, it overwhelming favors the man - history is a witness. All this whitewashing, but the stench leaching through is making me gag because it is already decided by the panel of elderly white senators... Kavanaugh will get the good ol' boy pat on the back, and handshake of welcome to the club.
12
Douthat's argument is nonsense. In most litigation matters that go to trial, civil or criminal, some witnesses say the facts are one thing and others say they are another thing. If we had no method of resolving such conflicts then our judicial system could not function. Fortunately, we do. An impartial finder of fact - either a judge or a jury with no connection to either side of the case and nothing to gain or lose in the dispute - listens to the witnesses and decides who is telling the truth. Why not use the same method here? The members of the Senate are all partisans. So let them recuse themselves and instead let all witnesses in the matter of Kavanaugh be questioned by attorneys who have no partisan associations - and yes, even in this day and age there are such people. Let those attorneys question all witnesses under oath and then deliver a report to the Senate with their conclusions about who is telling the truth. Anyone have a better alternative?
2
Yes, a full FBI investigation as has been done time after time. The FBI routinely reopens background investigations when new allegations surface.
Yet, the Republicans don't want that! Why?
What are they afraid will come out?
15
@Steve Carlton My point is a simple one: people who insist there is no way of resolving a "he said she said" situation are wrong. Our courts do it every day. In this case I would recommend that any witnesses be questioned by people with experience investigating sex offenses. Anyone with years of experience at this has learned how to determine whether an accusation (or a denial) is credible. Even if Senators did not have a partisan agenda, they are not professionals at this and their questioning of the witnesses has no real value - you might as well assign them to diagnose a serious illness by examining a patient. How are those with no medical training supposed to do it? They can't.
1
I’ll grant it’s very difficult to prove a negative. But at the same time, you can at least make an honest attempt to disprove individual positives.
That is, if you’re fundamentally honest and interested in truth.
Or you can hide in the White House undergoing hours of ‘murder boards’ while your apologists try to rig any hearings to your advantage.
Who knew it was so difficult for a Supreme Court nominee to tell the truth and withstand accusations?
8
It seems to me that what defenders of Kavanaugh have failed to understand is that what makes him a poor choice is not so much what he did in the past but what he is doing now.
Judges must be open-minded and able to understand both sides of a story. They must also show a capacity to grow and have a bit of empathy. They should also grasp how the society they live in works.
Kavanaugh has shown none of the above.
Neither he nor his senate backers have had the street smarts or cold cynicism to understand what the best approach to this would have been.
If he had paused for a moment to consider the amount of evidence in Judge's writing and his own speeches of his frat-boy type past, and how big an issue assault has become, he would not have doubled down on the denial. He would have acted like the gentleman his supporters say he is and said “I don’t remember this incident. I have a past of heavy drinking that I am ashamed of. If I hurt someone, it was unintentional and stupid. I am sorrry and on the court I will do my best to make sure women are treated well.”
Even if he had been insincere, these words would have been an effective tactic to undercut his detractors. If he were sincere, he would have shown us he is a human who has grown—and just maybe understands that the MeToo movement is making the world safer for his daughters.
But no, he chose a tactic that was neither smart nor kind, the two qualities needed yo be a judge, to say nothing of being a human.
553
@MJ in Milano
Sincerity is insufficient. At age seventeen Kavanaugh was old enough to know better. If he didn't have a moral compass then, he doesn't have one now and now amount of apologizing can make him acceptable as a SC justice. Indeed, his tactics are wrong headed, but a better strategy does not erase a fatal error.
2
@MJ in Milano
This is what my husband and I are saying, only you said it so well in this comment.
4
@MJ in Milano
I suppose that with postmodernists like MJ the truth doesn't count. No matter if Kavanaugh didn't do what Blasey claims, he must confess to it. If he doesn't confess to it, he is too lacking in empathy or "openness" to be fit for the court. I put the question to MJ that was put to the first practitioner of McCarthyism: Have you no shame?
4
Republicans on the Judiciary Committee do not believe Mr. Kavanaugh.
If they did, they would happily request a FBI investigation (should take about 10 days) and would slow down the rush for a crucial life time appointment.
But this is the thing: They KNOW this guy is a liar and a fraud.
But he is their liar and fraud, so full steam ahead!
(Please vote November 6, my fellow Americans. Even if it is raining.)
10
We've already got one justice who was confirmed under a cloud of sexual harassment. Do we need one confirmed under a cloud of attempted rape? What next, attempted murder?
The justices on the court should have impeccable records, period. Kavanaugh has already demonstrated his prurient obsession with the details of Bill Clinton's sex life.
Ditch this guy. There must be dozens of qualified justices who would be better than this one. How about Merrick Garland?
These rush-job nomination and confirmation three-ring-circuses put on by the Republicans are an absolute disgrace. The country deserves better.
5
People other than privileged white men get treated unfairly all the time and no one bats an eye - and sometimes those who suffer are blamed for their suffering. The woman brought on the rape, the young black man ran from police. Kavanaugh already has a plum judge job. If he doesn’t get this, it bruised his pride but doesn’t make him a victim.
6
Kavanaugh should resign not because of the allegations but because he has demonstrably lied under oath -- Pickering, stolen Dem Documents -- and because his sycophantic, grossly dishonest, and pathetic "acceptance speech" shredded him of any credibility and integrity he might have once had.
He is not fit to serve on the highest court in the land.
11
Perpetrators of sex crimes are already enjoying representation on the SCOTUS. There is no need to add to that representation by elevating BK to the bench -- unless the goal is to give a say for perjurers in supreme court decisions.
4
Let the FBI investigate this possible crime. Prosecutors tell us they have found much information after investigating possible crimes even 30 years later. And whatever is found should be brought before the Judicial Committee and the public. During Anita Hill's appearance before this same committee, the public was not allowed to hear that other women had similar complaints against Clarence Thomas. The public was not allowed to hear that classmates at Yale said that CT often visited porn theaters and then talked about the porn in detail.
1
SwsRoss, is it really too much to ask rhat a Supreme Court nominee not have credible allegations of attempted rape against him? Surely there are qualifiez nominees out there —even arch-conservative ones — who are free of such baggage!
3
This is not a trial; it is a job interview. Finding facts is something the FBI happens to be very good at. In 1964, they ran a background on me, when I applied for admission to the Coast Guard Academy I was rejected at a two day interview, when the Academy gave me an eye test, as part of a general physical. My eyesight was below the minimum, at 20/210. Two years later, the FBI did a second check, when I enlisted in the Army. I relate this only point out the lies being spread by a number of U.S. Senators regarding how difficult the entire process is.
Now we have bunch of lick-spittle lackeys who have foresworn their oaths of office, treating r. Ford like some street walker, and then looking about in a panic, trying to hide behind a woman's skirts. How do they treat their wives and daughters? I wonder....
3
The third person in the room, Mr. Judge, needs to be subpoenaed instead of looking the other way as the Catholic Church continues to do with the sexual abuse cases and nothing gets resolved.
5
The whole Whelan argument - the idea that a 15 year old girl, if attacked as described in high school - is patently lubricous. As a male, who also drank to impairment sometimes in high school, I remember the name and face of every person who ever bullied me. There were many, because I was not a "jock", as sporty, macho types were called in the 1970's. The worst event, when I was punched out by a jock while I was under the influence of both alcohol and marijuana, I remember like it was yesterday. If someone tried to tell me 36 years later it might have been someone else I would be insulted. I know the guy by name and even though I have not seen him since, and this event occurred about 45 years ago, I am sure I would be able to recognise him, if he is still alive. Being a victim of a physical assault is a terrifying experience, male or female. If you knew who the attacker was at the time, you do not forget it.
14
Tundra, excellent post!
I hope that all the disparagers of Professor Blasey Ford and knee jerk defenders of Judge Kavanaugh read it and take it to heart!
She *knew* Kavanaugh and *knows* that Kavanaugh -- with Judge helping -- was the person who attempted to rape her.
I believe her!
4
If Kavanaugh joins the Supreme Court, he will overturn Roe v. Wade. So, yes, his life of sexual aggression should be closely scrutinized. The conservative Republican claim that "boys will be boys" is an argument that leads straight to the abortion mill (especially for rich white kids whose mummies and daddies belong to the same country club as the local doctor). If you want to outlaw abortion, you had better be pure as the driven snow. Is Brett Kavanaugh pure as the driven snow? Prove it.
7
It is refreshing and right that public opinion has moved to despising the groping and leaning against women that seems to be part of a woman's daily hazards when riding trains or in crowds, whether she's in New York or Tokyo or Cairo.
Just maybe, consciousness about how men typically -- and inappropriately -- treat women has been raised as a result of the Cosby / Weinstein / other misogynistic thugs publicity.
That's good, and I hope that that greater sensitivity continues to flourish.
Had we not had the fanatic catcalling and thuggery of my fellow Democrats at the start of the Kavanaugh hearings, the heavy weight of Dr Ford's accusation would stand out more clearly and plausibly. We all know men who have done disgusting things to women and "gotten away" with them repeatedly -- actions just on the line of being misdemeanors.
But when comedians -- comedians! -- are cursing out the president and his wife and family, and celebrities are cheerfully talking about assassination and drawing pictures of dead or mangled Trumps, the atmosphere seems a little over-hyped and over-gleeful, as if we were all in a play, not living real lives. Every word or gesture seems to be magnified into cosmic proportions.
In this hyperreal atmosphere, or hyper-reality as Umberto Eco described it, we need to be grounded enough to value common sense over the temptations of alarmist exaggerations.
Neither side seems adequately grounded, in this situation.
2
A really bad piece by a guy who can normally think logically.
This is just nuts. It means we will have person after person defamed by uncorroborated charges.
5
He's already lied about his work with Ken Starr and his work with W. Lying doesn't count as disqualifying for you, Ross? Check your Bible.
6
Hopefully there will be a blue wave and Kavanaugh (if confirmed) can be impeached at a later date for lying to Congress about his handling of campaign material stolen from the Democrats.
3
The Whelan Gambit smells of a Senate/White House conspiracy.
Kavanaugh should be questioned about it under oath.
3
Yes definitely. Just look at Clarence Thomas. Quite possibly the reason he is so silent and seeming to always hide is that the utter shame and embarrassment of his confirmation put a chilling and permanent paralysis in him. Who needs another unengaged, shamed and useless judge such as this?
4
Kavanaugh should have to answer the same sort of depraved and detailed questions he insisted be asked by the Ken Starr investigation of Bill Clinton. And maybe someone should bring up the harassment he visited on the family of Vince Foster after his suicide. Kavanaugh has always been a Republican shill. Karma may eventually come to Republicans and Kavanaugh. I just hope it is sooner than later.
8
And what if Kavanaugh himself colluded with Whelan and/or staffers such as Ventry—as seems possible if not probable from their tweets? Disqualifying?
1
Interesting analysis here. What is missing, I think, is the fact that in all this, one entity isn't mentioned enough -- the dirty democrats. They neither care about Dr. Ford (or the prospect of damaging our good system of judgment) or about judge Kavanaugh. Dirty democrats.
5
Innocent until proven guilty. He does not have to prove his innocence unless Americans now want kangaroo courts run by dictators. This has been shameful.
8
For me, Ross Douthat proved himself to be ethically challenged when he remained mute as Republicans stole the Supreme Court seat that was handed to Neil Gorsuch. Because he believed that this unconstitutional appointment would ultimately serve his own pro-life agenda, he said nothing. Absolutely nothing. I care not for his musings on the court. The ends do not justify the means.
8
Were Kavanaugh an honorable man, he could withdraw and say he didn't want to put the country through this, regardless of guilt or innocence. But given his politics, that is highly unlikely. This man is an obsessive Clinton hater, a reactionary ideologue whom we do not need on the Supreme Court.
7
If Garland had a hearing, if Kavanaugh had not lied to Congress during earlier hearings, if Kavanaugh had answered questions about his prior decisions and writing about Presidential powers, self pardoning, and about Roe, if the pedophile priest scandal had not revealed the extent of the charges and the culpability of the hierarchy, then questions about Kavanaugh’s fitness, honesty and trustworthiness may not have become the issue. Then there is Trump. Anyone who calls himself a Republican Conservative is confronted daily, by what that means. The “moral majority”, the “Christian coalition”, the “free trade” advocates, the “fiscal conservatives” have been contaminated and diseased by Trump.
Like the Catholic Church, Trump and his Republican Conservatives have no moral authority. The fact that Kavanaugh is a Catholic and refuses to discuss his stance that Roe and a woman’s privacy are questionable should be enough to exclude him from consideration. If women were equally represented in the Senate, not reduced to second class, he would never get a hearing. All Catholics Justices and judges should recuse themselves from consideration of “ensoulment” and women’s rights.
Kavanaugh’s burden is Trump, his history in Bush WH, his Catholic male supremacy education, and his beliefs about women’s rights.
Dr. Flood has exposed Kavanaugh, Trump, Consevatives, and Catholic efforts to impose their male supremacist dogma on America. “By their acts you will know them” .
4
Your observation regarding the "[S]heer abnormality of the Supreme Court — lifetime tenure, philosopher-king power" is quite accurate. Unfortunately, it also applies to a large fraction of posts decided in U.S. elections. Washington D.C. is the modern Shinar; its institutions modern Towers.
Merrill Garland should be the next SCOTUS Justice.
3
Um...isn't this the guy on Ken Starr's team who wanted all the salacious details about Clinton and Monica made public? What goes around, comes around.
11
I am conservative and even pro Trump in a lot of things....but not all. However, it strikes me as interesting that despite furious investigation by highly skilled and connected Republican politicians, lawyers and investigators nothing that is not credible has popped up in the life of Ms. Ford. Nothing so far. That certainly makes it difficult for Mr. Kavannaugh. He was a jock football player who did a lot of drinking in high school......that we know. He has made questionable statements in the past. She was a blonde cheerleader two years his junior which was a big deal in high school. I am not that far from Kavannaugh's age and I played football and lived that life. Many of the players saw the cheerleaders as their property. Bottom line Kavannaugh is a fine man and a fine attorney but he will always have a cloud over him. He should withdraw. He lied to us. Lying is not illegal for an attorney in all cases. Something happened and he may have forgotten, or suppressed it but his denial was simply not the truth. Either he does not remember which is unlikely given his large quantity of brain cells, or he is lying. Both possibilities exclude him from the Supreme Court.
308
Much has been said here about the candidate, his accuser, the evidence (such as we know it at this point), the investigation (or not) thereof, and the potential (un)fairness of the process. But little has been said about the "decision makers". Kavanaugh's fate will not be decided directly by public opinion such as presented in comments here.
For Kavanaugh's nomination to be blocked in the Senate would require that (say) all the Democrats and Independents plus at least two Republicans vote against it (if I have the numbers correct).
Given the pressure on some of the Democrats standing for reelection, and the natural cohesion of the Republicans, this is actually a pretty high bar - a significantly stacked deck. If Kavanaugh's nomination is defeated, I will have great trouble seeing the result as unfair.
Not one mention by Douthat of the shameful Republican behavior in 2016 regarding the Merrick Garland nomination. So much for Douthat.
7
My idea is that she was given fake names by two boys at the party, who did not know her snd whom she did not know. Much easier to party under a false name. How did she know it was Kavenaugh. Like a Michael Connelly or Jonathan Kellerman mystery.
3
Ross Douthat is concerned that the reputation of the conservative movement might suffer if Kavanaugh is too hastily confirmed? Why, how quaint.
First of all, who should we assume speaks for the “conservative movement”? Sean Hannity? Franklin Graham? Steve Brannon? Alex Jones? David Duke? Donald Trump? Anne Coulter? Jeanine Pirro? Any “movement” concerned with its reputation would have repudiated these spokespersons long ago.
Second, any movement concerned with its reputation would make an effort to stick to the truth, to science, to the facts and to reality. A movement concerned with its reputation would not stand alongside a president who told 5,000 lies in the first year he had held that office.
Third, a movement concerned with its reputation would not comprise its principles simply to keep its hold on power, especially if that power had not been neither legitimately acquired nor legitimately exercised.
The “conservative movement” of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan is a dying, shriveling, gangrenous entity. It is fiercely determined, nevertheless, to leave its lasting imprint and foul odor over the Supreme Court for the next generation. What are the likely consequences for our nation? Linda Greenhouse offers her thoughts. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/opinion/editorials/kavanaugh-supreme-...
2
It’s not “teenage sexual assault” that Kavanaugh is accused of; he is accused of sexual assault. How old he was has no bearing on the severity of the accusation. Your wording smacks of someone trying to minimize the severity of what is alleged. Stop making excuses.
5
“....the persuadable Americans, women especially, whose support any pro-life program ultimately requires.“
Uh....why would women be persuaded by abusers? And, uh, why would a Supreme Court with two abusers have any legitimacy? Clarence and Bret will form an abusers block.
This demonstrates that ‘pro-life’ means abusers are ‘pro-shutting-up’ women.
3
The astonishing fact that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are as nearly identical as peas in a pod ought to give Americans pause. Educationally, socially and culturally they are of the Washington Brahmin Class, graduating two years apart from the same high school, Ivy League Lawyers, poster boys for White Male Privilege.
What's wrong with this picture? Judge K, as an inept adolescent, did not violate Dr. Blasey, but it seems that there was intent. Something bad happened, or she wouldn't be committing herself to this courageous and quixotic crusade. His belligerent denial, not the very likely drunken escapade, is that which rings false.
The gentleman doth protest too much methinks, to paraphrase the immortal bard.
3
Fair enough. Let Kavanaugh make his case. You would think he would want the committee to have his pal Judge testify under oath. Especially since, supposedly, Judge does not remember the attempted rape Ford accuses the two boys of. After all, Judge too is accused. How can the committee proceed without calling him?
Kananaugh would possibly earn some sympathy from me if he acted like someone with nothing to hide.
For example, he could take a lie detector test.
For example, he could assert that an FBI investigation into this event and any other misadventures with alcohol and sex during his high school and college years would be mandatory before he could accept the nomination. (I know enough about FBI investigations to know that they will not get very excited about underage drinking or binge drinking, or an active sex life. They do get excited about denials and false testimony.)
For example, like Dr. Ford, he could name those he has discussed his underage school activities with so they could be interviewed by the FBI and testify in congress. (And we already know one such candidate, who has even published on the subject.)
I do not believe Kavanaugh could act more like someone afraid of the truth it he tried to do so. For me, Kavanaugh, by his actions, is a very loud affirmation of Dr. Ford's claims.
There seems to be significant evidence that Kavanaugh was a binge drinker through high school and college. His choices at Yale for the two social clubs (DEK, and one with two derogatory nouns for female anatomy as their nickname) suggest continued behaviors that are at best drunken and cruel. Certainly a character reference.
The two witnesses so far: Dr Ford and Kavanaugh are both, in their own ways, telling the same story.
4
“it would emblazon a scarlet “R” on a man who might well not deserve it.”
Look at who sits on a Supreme Court bench now. It’s Clarence Thomas!
Better to wear the scarlet letter then to demean our Supreme Court yet again.
3
Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans forever poisoned the process with their obnoxious and un ethical refusal to even speak to Merrick Garland. They further politicized the SCOTUS process when they brazenly promised to refuse to seat ANY judge Hillary Clinton might nominate for a full four years had she been elected. So their complaints now of dithering and foot dragging when the Democrats have a very real possibility of taking back Congress in a few weeks is repulsive and transparently fake. It was easier to swallow when they were replacing one far right bigot with another, since it is difficult to imagine any judge further to the right than Scalia, thus the balance of the court was maintained. But women, gay people, minorities and many other historically pressed groups have justification to fear a Kennedy replacement with another right wing Federalist Society-bred judge who is salivating to take down Roe (and probably Obergefell, as well as any number of other progressive rulings of the last half century.) At this point the Democrats need to stop this nomination, particularly from an odious and possibly Russia-backed President in any way they can.
4
Unfortunately we as so conditioned to lies that we believe who we want to believe without opening our minds to the possibility that it might not be the truth. If Kavanaugh has the slightest red flag or even a full blown memory that this happened, he should have stepped up. It would have been better for him to admit his stupidity, apologize, and take actions to prevent these things from happening again. And if he is innocent, he deserves to be heard as well. But ultimately I think we'll be right back where we started--believing who we want to believe.
"The strongest point that Kavanaugh’s defenders made to me was that pace the claim that there’s no punishment involved in being denied a Supreme Court seat..."
What does "pace the claim" mean? Is it legalese? Is it a typo?
Since it's the "strongest point" for Kavanaugh's defenders, I'd like to know..
4
A couple of points.
When you refer to our "Playboy" President, you are referring to someone who has been accused of sexual assault or misconduct by 19 separate women since the 1980's, and who also was tape recorded bragging about such behavior, explaining "because when you're famous, the let you do it". That's not a "Playboy", that's a sexual predator.
Second, your "alternate explanation of the facts" is a fancy way of saying speculation and diversion. "It must have been another guy", "she misunderstood my innocent boyish horseplay", "she was drunk and doesn't remember clearly", "she has always been jealous of my success and wants to hurt me", "she is a Democratic operative", and on and on.
It could just be that he didn't do it. And, if that's the case he can just say so, and that might be all he will be able to offer. It will either stand or not. No "alternative explanation of the facts" necessary to be explained by Judge Kavanaugh.
2
Why isn’t Kavanaugh calling for an FBI investigation?
4
Ask Orrin Hatch if we're in the #MeToo age. His comments about Dr. Ford haven't changed since his 1991 comments about Anita Hill.
Lying, forgetful, "coached by special interests," mistaken memories....
#MeToo age my foot.
4
The FBI didn't do the diligence when they have him a pass for excessive drinking in his youth. Not did anyone call into question the misogynist debauchery of the elite prep schools which my 86 year self finds shocking.
2
Somewhere out there, there is a person who absolutely believes Dr Ford is telling the truth. That person has a son, husband, brother, father, friend, cousin, uncle, or nephew, And someday soon, their loved one is going to be accused of a sexual incident by a woman who didn't report it at the time, not to friends, siblings, law enforcement, school officials, RAs, or parents, no physical evidence, didn't tell anyone in the following one, two, three, five, ten, fifteen, twenty years since, no one named as present at the event by the person will recall anything of that nature occurring, and no one will say the accused did it to them too. it will simply be the woman's word against his. And the accused will lose his job, his degree, his promotion, his career, his reputation. Maybe the accused is guilty, maybe they are innocent, but they are destroyed either way, all on just the word of the accuser. And the true believer will wonder how it happened to their son, husband, brother, father, friend, cousin, uncle, or nephew - whatever happened to justice and standards of proof?
8
@rkanyok
Exactly! No innocent person should lose their job without a rigorous investigation, including a lie detector test, as well as questioning of all witnesses under oath. If the accused won't do it, they have something to hide. Guilty as charged.
1
Here’s another thing though: voting for a Justice because you expect him to overturn what he himself calls established law is hypocritical and corrupt. Wouldn’t you say?
2
Kavanaugh was picked by Trump because he is a partisan willing to do anything (including lying to the senate) to protect Republican presidents. Kavanaugh worked to impeach Clinton for what would amount to a tiny slip of the tongue in the Trump era. He worked on Bush v Gore denying the popular vote. And now, when a serial abuser and liar is President, Kavanaugh claims those are not crimes worthy of impeachment. Trump only picks people willing to lie to protect him. Of course he picked Kavanaugh.
3
I agree. For Justice Clarence Thomas the one and only thing I think of -- and it immediately comes to mind -- when I hear his name is that he is guilt of sexual harassment of Anita Hill and that Republicans were responsible for putting that pervert on the Supreme Court.
Kavanaugh will carry the same taint. He already does, simply with the accusation. He's part of the party hearty playboy contingent who believed as teenagers that "problems" could be bought off. It's apparent also with the alleged lies reported by ex Sen. Russ Feingold.
Women have the vote, or perhaps Republicans have forgotten ... In this #MeToo environment, if Kavanaugh is muscled through by the old, rich, white, male Senate there are going to be many women and maybe some men, who like me (73 yrs old, male) will simply never, ever forget. Republicans must remember that keeping the Trumpian/Republican base happy for elections is irrelevant. They must convince about 25% of the swing voters. This will lose some fraction of those. Moreover, they will stay anti-Republican for the rest of their lives!
2
Good luck proving that 36 years ago you didn’t attack someone at an unidentified location, at an unidentified time, on an unidentifiable date.
Thankfully, we know women never make politically based false assault allegations - just ask the police officers and the prosecutor Tawana Brawley falsely accused; or the Duke lacrosse team members Crystal Mangum falsely accused; or the Sacred Heart University students Nikki Yovino falsely accused.
K should have known that anyone Trump nominates must be stopped, and so he will be crucified, even if he has to be falsely accused of criminal conduct in high school, unreported for 36 years. Sacrifices have to be made. The next nominee - a female - will be accused of doing something horrific in grade school.
8
Let's face it. Real honest-to-god right wingers don't care one whit if Kavanaugh is guilty or not. Decent people wouldn't want a person with Donald Trump or Kavanaugh's morals living next door, much less be president of a member of the Supreme Court. But the new republicans do not care how slimey a man is if he cuts their taxes. Christian Evangelicals just want Kavanaugh to follow the teachings of Jesus. You know, hate gays, love guns, don't allow choice and most important, do not approve any laws passed to help the poor, minorities or downtrodden. Used to be proud to be an American. Hard to believe we could sink so fast.
4
High school lingers for all of us. I'm sure you remember when who your best friends were, who you took to prom, who your favorite teachers were, and, maybe, even your first kiss.
How people think this poor woman would forget the identity of the person that tried to rape her is mind-boggling to me. Who would ruin their quiet, successful life to get smeared by the big red machine?
We've all seen how women who have come forward have been insulted and demonized; do we really think that anybody would bring this upon themselves for scoring political points?
Anita Hill is a real human being, but she is now short hand for a particular point in point in time where she was harassed by a powerful man and then demonized for it. So was Monica, so were many others. Obviously, Ford didn't want to be defined by our crazy political wars, but also didn't want a sexual aggressor to be on the highest court of the land.
I would encourage you all to read a little bit about her from a responsible publication and then think of your own experiences and whether if you wouldn't remember the identity of a privileged predator.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/christine-blasey-ford-wanted-to-fle...?
3
This will always be a he said/she said issue that must be decided by who you believe has the most credibility. I believe its time for the GOP to chose another person. They have already supported and protected a president who is a sexual predator by his own admission, do they really want to support another person that has a similar air around them? The GOP is all in for trump and his small base, how will they redeem themselves after he is gone?
2
As if overturning “innocent until proven guilty,” the foundation of our criminal justice system is not enough of a clever trick by the Left, now the accused should also slink away in shame because the cloud over the falsely accused’s head created by the false accusations is the only way to satisfy his accusers quest for blood? The unmitigated gall of this argument is quite astonishing. The Jacobins could have done no better.
5
I look forward to the high drama when Kavanagh's confirmation is scheduled for the full Senate. I look forward to hearing every Republican Seantor stand up and state, with the appropriate gravitas, "Professor Ford had her chance to be heard, but I do not find her credible."
1
The logical conclusion of this piece is to let the FBI examine the facts of the case, and delay consideration for a month or two. Of course, the Republicans want to get this all approved before the midterm elections. God forbid that the voters have a chance to have a say on it. Oh wait, didn't the Republicans stop another supreme court nomination with just that argument? What incredible hypocrisy.
4
Kavanaugh needs to ask for an FBI investigation. Why are the Republicans afraid to request one?
2
We do indeed have to be careful that Judge Kavanaugh does not become the victim of a #Me Too tendency to reverse the presumption of innocence, just as Anita Hill was presumed guilty by misogynistic tendencies in 1991.
That is why it is important to have a fully transparent due process in this hearing, including an FBI background investigation. But it doesn't look like it's going to happen.
2
Kavanaugh seems power hungry.
If he were a descent spouse ,father,son ,friend,coworker,collegue
He wisely and publicly should be asking for forgiveness .
Then he should withdraw from selection at the hearing .
At this juncture women and a few men......know the guy is too flawed to serve as a lifetime supreme JUDGE!,
We truly believe the victim suffers from PTSD,because many of us have been diagnosed with it from incidents long ago or very recent in our eternal wars as soldiers.
Ask family members about dealing with this issue.
Memory and pain......
Dr.Ford is brave and standing up to Washington’s
March to autocracy and increased control over women;forcing submission through the very court Kavanaugh will rise to,seated at the right hand of Thomas,who should’t be honored with this job title anyway!
Women have to watch our kangaroo court vote against our rightful citizenship and total control of our bodies and minds .
We must not let the “ old guard” continue to ride roughshod over
“Our Country tis of thee ,sweet land of liberty of thee I sing”
1
Kavanuagh will probably be narrowly confirmed. And his entire tenure on the Supreme Court will be damaged.
1
If Ford is a 'brazen liar' as Douthat puts it, we'll have a different right wing conservative up for confirmation to the Supreme Court. And Kavanaugh doesn't get to celebrate with his right wing enablers.
However, if it's Kavanaugh who's a brazen liar, then the whole country suffers. The confirmation will only reinforce his vile behavior. He'll lie about anything with impunity.
It's not a matter of Ford's feelings vs. Kavanaugh's feelings. It's what's best for the country. But then, try knocking any such sense into Douthat.
2
An abuser of women who then lies about it -- among other things -- all as the obvious upshot of daddy's-dime privilege and hubris.
... and you can't even tell which one I'm describing. Somewhere, somehow, at some time, there will be a thing that can actually embarrass these people. And we have no doubt that they'll keep trying to find it.
1
The 'silent person' has now come forward. This is now a pathetic travesty. The female, identified by Dr. Ford being at the party, is a 'lifelong' friend of Dr. Fords, yet states she did not know Kavanaugh at that time and recalls no party as described by Dr. Ford, essentially knows nothing about any of this. So now, four out of five attendees at the 'party' have stated they have no memory of the party. Something is wrong, very wrong - if the Democrats had any sense of decency they would end this charade now.
10
“What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep”. Enough said, unless his teen years drinking buddy will testify. Mark Judge won’t because though he will lie to the public to help his friend he is afraid to commit perjury.
They’re guilty. You can sense it,
2
If someone is charged with a crime, the burden of proof in court is "beyond a reasonable doubt," which means that, if the defendant is probably guilty, that's not enough to convict. A "not guilty" verdict doesn't mean "innocent." It means "not proven beyond a reasonable doubt." The first question for the Senate is what level of proof is necessary for confirmation? If, like in court, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then the Senate would presumably be satisfied even if Kavanaugh was probably guilty.
Then comes the issue of whom to believe. Contrary to the "he said-she said" argument, juries are often called upon to decide this issue, and there are always other factors they may consider: the demeanor of the witness, corroborating evidence, evidence of bias or motive, etc. In this case, they might consider whether either witness was intoxicated, whether there are prior inconsistent or prior consistent statements (such as earlier statements to a counselor), whether part of the testimony can be corroborated (such as testimony of others at the party that there was in fact a party, who was present, and whether anyone went into the bedroom, etc.). These are the types of factors an FBI investigation might cover.
Fair or not, when someone makes an accusation of a sexual nature, they must be prepared to prove it. Colleges have recently learned the folly of ignoring this principal.
2
The real trauma felt here in this confirmation hearing is the election of 2016 when the Democrats and women, especially, were planning, envisioning, projecting with full confidence that a woman would finally become President. The shocking upending of that hope along with the weirdness that followed and the doubt cast on the legitimacy of Trump has fueled an already fierce politicization. It lends me to believe that a lot of Dr. Ford's motive is political. I don't know for sure but I can certainly see that as possible. She will be a cause celebre for a time, reap the benefits and move on. The WaPo had a long piece about her that was very interesting. She was a party girl that was so distracted by the party environment that some teacher had to finally wake her up to her potential. She left the highly privileged, 1%'er life she knew for California, in essence to renounce that privileged background. A background that Kavanagh stayed in. Ordinarily I would say as I did about Bork that so much contention over a nominee is enough to pick someone else for the sake of balance. But this is a different era, one where "balance" is impossible to gauge. There is no center there.
2
Thanks for a level-headed discussion, Ross. You use the word "if" in reference to whether Kavanaugh is guilty, and I don't see that word used much in the current "debate," most people already having decided who is guilty. We need more of what you offer if the country, let alone the Senate, is to make a final judgment in this matter. We have a man who is fighting to save his professional life and personal reputation. We have a woman who has taken great risks to her physical and psychological safety to make herself heard after 37 year. This is no open-shut-case, contrary to what every politically-motivated participant in this national debate would have you believe.
95
@Charlie Reidy
This could be a moment of moral clarity for Republicans to have Kavanaugh's friend Mark Judge appear to answer questions---since Dr. Blasey recalls him as present that fateful night.
Otherwise, the politicization of the confirmation process is simply about molding an independent branch of government for a period extending long beyond Donald Trump's electoral mandate.
You’re correct. Why, then, are Republicans and the President refusing to have the FBI investigate or even call Mr. Judge to testify? If the truth is that Judge Kavanaugh is innocent, why not do everything to prove it?
This forceful aversion to fact finding is suspicious.
"If his accuser testifies credibly and all he has to offer are vehement denials, followed by a rushed Republican attempt at confirmation, then he may be innocent but his nomination will deserve to fail. But an obligation not to elevate a clouded nominee must coexist with an obligation to hear out any serious alternative explanation of the facts."
A serious alternative explanation of the facts? Such as "No, Senators, I did not cover her mouth with my hand while I sexually assaulted her?"
Professor Ford is telling the truth. Let Mr. Kavanaugh take a lie detector test. If he refuses that will speak volumes.
His other option is to lie under oath. That's not something we expect from our supreme court justices, however.
158
Leaving aside the question of sexual misconduct by a teenage Kavanaugh, should someone who now is considered unacceptable by a very large plurality, or maybe a majority, of Americans be confirmed by a Republican majority Senate to a SCOTUS lifetime appointment? Is the McConnell/Grassley attempt to force this judge onto the Supreme Court going to diminish the Court in the eyes of a majority of Americans? They know not the consequences of what they are doing.
249
@RLW If popularity were the standard, Justices Ginsberg and Sotomayor would not be on the Court.
1
@Ri LW. I agree. It galls me that they are acting like it is THEIR Supreme Court.it is not it is ours. And the majority of us fine him not to be a good SC Justice candidate
..even before the most recent issue was raised.
He should withdraw and only then will we move beyond thus.
1
@RLW
I agree.
Unfortunately, we have someone who has always been considered by a majority of Americans as being unacceptable to be President. And, due to the fluke of distribution of Democrats vs Republicans, we have a majority GOP House whose votes are disproportionate to the populace.
The best we can hope for is revenge at the ballot box in November and in all future elections.
(And, we need to do more to ensure that the disenfranchised electorate gets the opportunity to vote and is excited about voting).
1
If Dr. Blasey’s allegations are not corroborated by any of her four named witnesses, but Judge Kavanaugh is turned down for SCOTUS, the Senate will have created an “accuser’s veto” over every judicial appointment.
Remember that Republicans are not the only ones who can be accused of misconduct while in high school.
4
Conservatives should spend less time worrying about what is fair to Kavanaugh and more time seeking about what is fair to the American people. The American people have a right to an exceptionally high standard that puts the burden of proof squarely on Kavanaugh. The people have a right to the truth and a Senate that will do everything in its power to reach it.
If conservatives care about the truth, they will ask the FBI to re-open the apparently slapdash background check that was done. They will demand that Mr. Judge testify under oath. They will require others named to testify. And they will allow Ford all the time she needs to bring her story to the court.
If conservatives fail to do this, and Kavanaugh takes office, he will contribute to the growing illegitimacy of the Supreme Court, in which he is not the first, but the second justice credibly accused of sexual abuse, the second appointed by a president of questionable legitimacy. He will join Gorsuch, who has no right to his seat.
My 20 year-old son and his cohort will be 50 by the time these appointees retire, and they will live the entire time believing that the supreme court of the land is illegitimate. Any senator who allows that to happen is violating his oath of office.
17
Ross' approach to the situation is predictable. Ross doesn't even raise the specter of the woman telling the truth. To the conservative's gray matter what is important is the man's situation. Thus, the long convoluted essay Ross write here. Why doesn't Ross explore the woman's situation? What motivates a successful person to come forward like she has? What is it that she gains? Why are republicans quashing even the suggestion of an investigation? Why are republicans not calling the eye witness, Mark Judge? Most likely republicans know that Kavanaugh should not be sitting on any judicial bench, let alone the Supreme Court!
4
I think Mr. Douthat needs to stop for a moment and consider whom he is dealing with in the Kavanaugh case, where few qualify as either patriots or public servants. For example, the Federalist Society requested that the Senate Judiciary Republicans beef up their efforts to approve Kavanaugh, and sent Garrett Ventry to assist. Mr. Ventry is/was employed by CRC Public Relations, who assisted Ed Whalen in his "wrong man" Twitter that died a quick death. CRC is also working with the Federalist Society on those warm and fuzzy pro-Kavanaugh ad that we see on television In the past, CVC was less warm and fuzzy when they were the public relations firm that handled the Swift Boat Veterans anti-Kerry campaign in 2004. Mr. Douthat is hanging out with a rowdy bunch who believe that the end justifies the means--always. He might be the only honest man in that room. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/prime-beta/my-take-on-where-we-are-with-ka...
1
Kavanaugh has only two reasonable and sensible options to either withdraw or personally ask for thorough and credible investigation which can only be done by FBI. I am doubtful that either of these possibilities will happen given the Trump's toxic twitters, McConnell declaration that the nominee will be a justice by October 1, and unapologetic and disgusting support that Kavanaugh is receiving from the Federalists supported and conservative religious groups.
4
Sadly for the country, there is no honorable moment or space in which Kavanaugh might offer his alternative explanation as gracefully as Douthat suggests.
Kavanaugh the man is simply too compromised: his gleeful meanness in going after Bill Clinton, the furiously hidden papers from his years as ruthless ideologue, the likelihood that he lied to the Senate in his first confirmation.
Then there is the much attested-to atmosphere of the male prep schools of Kavanaugh's youth. The male on female violence he is accused of was not rare in those times and groups.
Finally there is the blatant, endless Republican, Evangelical, Trumpian misogyny -- too many examples to bother citing -- that prevents Kavanaugh's supporters and defenders from recognizing the seriousness of the accusation or having any status to speak against an accusation.
Trust is not possible.
7
@Karen Owsowitz
"Then there is the much attested-to atmosphere of the male prep schools of Kavanaugh's youth. The male on female violence he is accused of was not rare in those times and groups."
- so we should exclude the whole group from public participation?
- And exclude all black men as well because a lot of them in jail, hence all are criminal?
- And all Hispanic men are in gangs?
- An all Jews are ...
and all xxx are ...
Alas, there was a time in America that with all the political shenanigans and dirty tricks, with all the inexhaustible loose corporate money around, John & Joan Q. Public could still find “justice” in the Supreme Court when all else failed.
There was a time when our Representatives and Senators in Washington, partisan though they surely were, were also Statesman. That trait defined as periodically putting partisanship aside and coming together with other statesmen to do what’s right and in the best interests of our country. I’m 73 years old and I’ve lived to see statesmanship in action and the good it did for our country. Sadly, statesmanship is long gone in our country and one result is the growing polarization of its citizens.
And so now we are subjected to carefully chosen Supreme Court nominees not for their legal scholarship, but rather for their unwavering adherence to political dogma.
Inside the Beltway they play their selfish games while outside the Beltway we all lose, and justice is to be found nowhere in this land anymore. A pity!
5
It is troubling that politics and partisan interests in "victory" seem much more important to many of the players, Republicans in the Senate, the laughably misnamed "Religious" right, and others, than basic right and wrong. The desire to plow through moral and legal concerns in order to achieve "victory" and put Kavanaugh on the Court, puts the wrong priorities forward. It undercuts our court, sends the wrong message to victims, further weakens the ideas of justice and fairness we like to see in our system of government, and assists those who would corrupt everything for power.
1
Kavanaugh would have been better off giving some form of nondenial denial: i.e., I was so drunk in many parties that I do not have any recollections of any such event took place. That would have been forgivable. Instead, he chose the Trumpsian route of always deny, never concede. Now he is at risk of committing perjury if he continues to deny so vehemently simply because few would believe that he has perfect recollection about what happened at all parties that he attended in his Junior year.
1
I am tired of the argument as to proving guilt or innocence. The purpose in the Senate is not guilt or innocence, it is Advise and Consent. Does this man have the mind and heart (the heart is what it is all about, the care for the Constitution as a living document, not cast in stone so we reside in 18th century thought) to be a Solomon on the Supreme Court. The hearings are about that, not guilt or innocence. Though he has the intellectual capabilities as many lawyers and non-lawyers have, he has shown no heart. When pressed, a man of a good mine, shows poor memory. Guilt or innocence is for the courts. For the Senate, the advice should be no consent, like Thomas, there is no heart for the people and laws of this country. As a colleague, David Brock, has said about Kavanaugh, his mind was made up years ago and will brook no new thoughts and arguments, it is pure hatred and disgust toward large segments of US peoples and society
1
This is how the Salem Witch Trials worked too. To demonize someone based on a single utterly uncorroborated and unsupported accusation for the sake of bigoted ideology is to undermine justice and democracy. These "believers" calling for his condemnation need to resign, they have already violated their oaths.
13
Senior members of the Republican Party, including the President who nominated him have already committed to confirm him regardless of his innocence or guilt. Many of them have already called her a liar.
No vote should be taken until after the mid-terms. Grassely, McConnell and Hatch lack the credibility to have the power to push this nomination through with less than 60 votes.
Judge Kavanaugh appointed by a razor thin majority not the 60 votes that almost all SC Judges require will always taint the Court and it's rulings.
The fact that Judge Kavanaugh hasn't asked for an FBI investigation or the release of documents requested by the committee because he doesn't need 60 votes has already tainted him as someone who has something to hide.
Judge Kavanaugh should ask for an investigation and a 60 vote confirmation. At least that would show that he has some respect for the process and credibility of the Court he wants to serve.
7
A woman believed to have been one of five people at a party some 35 years ago where Christine Blasey Ford claims she was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh has become the fourth person to deny any recollection of the event.
In a Saturday night email to the Senate Judiciary Committee also received by several news outlets, Leland Ingham Keyser - a "longtime friend" of Blasey Ford's said through her attorney:
"Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," said Keyser's attorney Howard Walsh.
There is no proof that CBF is credible.
9
Kavanaugh's accuser has asked for an FBI investigation, which is the last thing a liar would ask for. Kavanaugh has not asked for an FBI investigation. Which makes his denials somewhat suspect. I would also suggest that if Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee had any sense of honor or decency -- which of course they don't -- they would follow the precedent set by Mitch McConnell when President Obama nominated Merrick Garland and rule that a vacancy on the Supreme Court cannot be filled until after the upcoming elections.
7
The problem for Kavanaugh from my point of view is that the optics of this matter up to now are terrible for him. His accuser mentioned the incident in 2012 in therapy, has voluntarily taken and passed a credible lie detector test, has placed a named third person in the room, and has asked for an F.B.I. investigation into the matter. On the surface at least, these actions all speak in favor of her telling the truth.
Kavanaugh, on the other hand, has hired a criminal defense attorney, engaged in dress rehearsals for how he will respond to questions, has vehemently denied the allegations in their entirety, and reportedly helped float the explanation that it was some other guy and Dr. Blasey Ford got Kavanaugh confused with the other guy. All of these actions smack of dishonesty.
If the denial is true, then Kavanaugh has a tough row to hoe in convincing people like me. If he did it, then he should have owned up to it, blamed it on his youth, apologized sincerely, and hoped for the best. If his denial is false, then he has no business being a judge at any level.
10
The conflict here is this: do we disregard her or do we discard him? I don't want to do either. Yes, it could have happened as she says. Or, she could have had a lot more to drink than she admits, and she is mistaken. One beer doesn't sound credible. Was it attempted rape? That seems like a leap based on the facts so far presented. It assumes intent but it is clearly speculative. For him, if he was as drunk as she describes, he may have no memory of the incident. Yet, he denies being present for the event described. Obviously, one of them is not telling the truth, though both believe their own memories. When we consider their lives after high school, we evidently have two upstanding, valuable people. With the doubts that the circumstances generate, it should not be who the best interviewer is, who looks and sounds the most credible, who is the best actor. That is what is suggested - "if she testifies credibly." Sincerity is not the equivalent of truthfulness. There are plenty of people who can present as sincere and credible, yet they are just good actors. The bottom line is that 36 years is too long to wait and expect that a true claim will be credited. I understand why sexual assault is so under reported. I accept the reasons. But, in order to be effective in stopping sexual assault, the victim has to speak up, not wait 30 or 36 years. Sexual assault is intolerable misbehavior and it must be dealt with decisively when it happens. That didn't happen here, and we all lose.
11
Well said as usual. And as usual, those of us generally "on the left" owe Douthat thanks for his non-crazed rebuttals and valid questions. A few conservative politicians of his temperament and judgment could do a lot to repair our system.
One thing that needs to be probed alongside any valid mistaken-identity hypotheses, however: how exactly did Whelan's come into being? Did Kavanaugh himself have any role, even indirectly, in prepping it? On the face of things, it looks all too possible that Whelan's "folly" might have roots in some degree of recollection that Kavanaugh has not, thus far, avowed.
11
"...whether it was really fair to ask a public servant to withdraw in a kind of tacit shame, for some greater ideological good, on the basis of a single unprovable allegation — and whether that kind of standard would inevitably lead to less-provable allegations against more probably-innocent figures down the road — and HOW YOU COULD EXPECT ANY DECENT PERSON TO PUT THEMSELVES FORWARD for high office in the climate such a precedent would create...." Although not exactly the same, isn't this similar (enough) to what sexually harassed and abused women have had to consider for centuries when they consider speaking up? In taking this extreme care for future nominees, you are throwing away any care for past victims.
9
So many of these comments are of the "he said, she said" variety that ignore 1) she took a lie detector test, 2) she told her therapist before Kavanaugh was even nominated (albeit with no specific name), and 3) her husband also knew about it since at least K was first mentioned as a possibliity.
Douthat also seems to completely overlook the fact that Ford's entire life has been shadowed by what happened to her in that room as a 15 year old. All this concern about denying K the seat of his dreams and not much about the damage he may have done to another person, no matter how long ago it was or excusable by this or that.
31
We are deep into the Internet era, featuring Twitter and all of its cousins that provide instant criticism, defamation, and more. Prof. Ford is well aware of this. So why would she go public if what she is claiming is not true? She is about as far from a publicity-seeking scandal-monger as you can get, a fact which only supports her credibility.
13
It is my sincerest hope that if Judge Kavanaugh does make it to the SC President Donald Trump nominates Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Wonder who step of the woodwork with allegations of misconduct about her? I imagine that the Left is looking for such a person, or else conjuring up a false narrative. In fact, President Trump (or President Pence) should nominate only women to the SC in the future. Conservative women who respect the sanctity of life and the rights of the unborn. Thank you.
Ross, as you've written: "Either Ford is a brazen liar, or some scenario of clouded or mistaken memory must be true" if Kavanaugh is telling the truth. Yet, somehow you seem to be expecting Kavanaugh to pull a rabbit out of his hat at the hearing so that he can miraculously prove a negative. Isn't it up to the accuser to prove a positive? So far, Ford has identified four people (including Kavanaugh) who she says may be able to support her allegations. So far, all four people have either denied the incident took place or have no recollection of it. What more is needed to "prove" a negative?
6
To those who think Kavananaugh should be investigated by the FBI and should have his career destroyed if any of Ford's allegations are shown to be true, do you also believe that Ford should be fired and have her career destroyed if the FBI investigation shows that none of her allegations are true? Seems only fair doesn't it?
14
Rejecting Judge Kavanaugh based on unprovable allegations made public at the last moment by the Democrats would do damage far beyond the gross injustice to him and his family.
Why believe Ms. Ford? Which of the men disgraced for disgusting conduct with women committed only one offense? W Not only are there no other accusers, but scores of women, including women from his high school years, have come forward to attest to Kavanaugh’s decency and respectful behavior. And apart from the current allegation, his reputation is unblemished.
On the other side is Ms. Ford, who did not mention this alleged incident to anyone for 30 years and who is unable to remember a single detail from the non-traumatic aspects of the evening.
Willingness to reject Kavanaugh doesn’t cut it. In this country, we hold the individual sacrosanct. Ross’ argument reminds me of those who defended Obama’s Title IX guidelines on the ground that no criminal proceeding was involved, so due process could be dispensed with in regard to life-changing adjudications by university kanga courts. No!
Rejecting Kavanaugh would be devastating to him and his family. If I were him, I would resign from the D.C. Circuit, not out of shame but despair about politics in the U.S. Many conservatives would be totally demoralized and withdraw from civic affairs. They would be disgusted by the fact that the Democrats had waged political war and the Republicans had just surrendered.
This is a fight worth having.
8
I think you are trying, but you are not fully understanding how often men with otherwise good reputations mistreat women and lie about it. This makes it loom large for you the possibility that an innocent man is being accused. But given how often just this story unfolds - a women is attacked, too ashamed or scared to report, the man goes on to have a stellar public reputation - in reality the chances that Kavanaugh is lying are much, much higher than the chances that he is not lying. I do wish the Republicans would be willing to slow the process down so that we could all have more information, so that we could judge more on concrete case and less on probability. But absent that, the reality is that, more than likely, he is guilty.
Ford’s claim that she cannot remember where or when or even which year the alleged sexual assault took place conveniently makes it impossible for Kavanaugh to establish a standard alibi. He can’t prove he was someplace else at the time the alleged assault took place because the time and place has not been established. But the Kavanaugh case is not a “she said/he said” case; it is a “she said/they said” case. All four of the people—including Kavanaugh—who Ford named as being present at the party have say they never attended a party similar to the party Ford describes. This include Ford’s classmate Leland Keyser. Her lawyer sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that said: “Ms. Leland Keyser has engaged me in the limited capacity to address your request for information in the email below. Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” Dozens of women who knew Kavanaugh as a teenager or an adult say they find Ford’s allegation unbelievable. No prosecutor would seek an indictment and no grand jury would issue and indictment based on similar evidence.
4
Caesar's wife must be above suspicion. That was about a young man who disguised himself as a woman to sneak into a party and try to seduce Caesar's wife, Pompeia who was innocent of any wrongdoing.
What are the standards for a Supreme Court nominee? Kavanaugh is now documented to have been a binge drinker at prep school, college and law school. Even supposing he did not attempt to rape a 15-year-old girl, how can any American assume he will fairly make decisions regarding women and their rights, youths who commit crimes, the privileges of wealthy white men vs. the interests of all others, or the influence of alcohol or drugs?
There cannot be a split between a private and a public life. That is at the heart of the problems with Trump whose supporters love his public actions but are uncomfortable with his tweets and personal background of affairs and sexual assaults.
Dr. Blasey has extraordinary courage and resilience. She faces death threats and constant insults. We are all watching and listening, Republicans. Shut up and step up.
16
"If you are being asked to prove a negative, you cannot be denied the opportunity to explain what you think that negative might look like."
Of course, everyone knows that he'll be given the opportunity to explain; what Ross means is that he should be given the opportunity to explain without people declaring that Kavenaugh is full of beans. I have no problem with an accused having the opportunity to claim, for example, that the other person, now deceased, started the fight. But don't tell me that I have to accept it.
What Mitch McConnell did with such fury to Garland's nomination ( Obama's candidate), has infuriated the Democratic senators, such that this whole drama is now colored with a spirit of revenge.... we will therefore never know the truth from either side...
3
I say let the current Supreme Court Justices decide whether or not Judge Kavanaugh ought to join them in presiding over the nation's highest court. All, that is, except for Justice Clarence Thomas -- he gets to sit this one out.
1
And do you know what could help sort this out? Reopening the FBI background check. Strange that you don’t suggest that here. It seems like the charitable thing to do.
5
Hmm..I wonder how we could determine what happened on the night in question? Perhaps an investigation by qualified and experienced law enforcement officials might help clear things up - but's that not an option, right boys?!
7
If Kavanaugh’s accuser wanted to fabricate a lie to damage him, why would she invent a third person in the room who she knew wouldn’t corroborate? Why wouldn’t she say he raped her, instead of saying he attempted to rape her?
By the way, the notion that it’s impossible, or even necessarily difficult, to “prove a negative” is ridiculous. We prove negatives all the time, especially in court.
9
So many are worried that Kavanaguh's appointment, given the unresolved allegations, will "taint' his service on the high court.
This is a non-issue for Republicans. A tainted vote to overthrow Roe V Wade is just as good as an "untainted" vote. Clarence Thomas is tainted, and his performance is spotty, but he is a solidly reliable right wing vote, and that is all that matters. The Supreme Court has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party.
44
"the sheer abnormality of the Supreme Court — lifetime tenure, philosopher-king power — makes the prospect of a reputationally-clouded justice more damaging, to the court itself and the country and the causes that the justice might advance"
Not only that but Kavanaugh is just one of a long string of philosophically-clouded nominees, four of which are already on the court, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch. We don't need to look beyond their Koch infused 18th century fantasies about "Federalism". We only need to understand that they offer an interpretation of the Constitution that the original land and slave owning financial aristocrats espoused. The other four have already begun to weaponize the first and second amendments to suppress democracy and real freedom in the USA. Republican freedom means freedom for money.
3
In various conversations with females on this issue, I must admit, I was startled on how many females in these conversations were subject to similar attacks--same scenario almost---house party, a lot of drinking, an empty bedroom, and potentially a bad outcome---a common theme throughout these admissions was, like Dr. Ford, the ability of the victims to remember every detail about the assailant, but, a vagueness of the exact date, location, or room surroundings. Most of these stories were from females 20 or 30 years out of college---I can't imagine what is going on in today's alcohol/fraternity fueled campuses.
1
This is what happens when politicians more concerned with the appearance of good manners than with a genuine desire to extract truth from accomplished dissemblers. Officers and gentlemen, all, they refuse to confront a potential supreme court justice with blunt questions that cannot be quibbled to absurdity. Here is what Brett Kavanaugh should have been asked on his support for the legality of Roe v Wade: "President Trump has promised his anti-abortion opponents that he would only select judges who are committed to invalidating Roe v Wade. He chose you. Now, either he's a liar or you are. Which is it?"
59
"some scenario of clouded or mistaken memory must be true"
Yes, that is possible, and it is also possible that Kavanaugh is innocent. It is possible that both he and Mark Judge were in the room, and Judge was the attacker. Possibly Judge pushed her into the bedroom, hoping that a girl alone with four guys at a party was looking for consensual sex. Possibly Kavanaugh, despite being drunk, also went into the room to make sure it was consensual. Possibly Judge himself exclaimed "go for it" and attacked her. Possibly Kavanaugh realized it wasn't consensual and exclaimed "stop" (which she says she heard). Possibly Kavanaugh jumped on top to pull Judge off. Possibly he eventually succeeded, explaining why, by her own account, they were "scrapping", and that's why she was able to escape. It is therefore possible that Kavanaugh actually rescued her. Possibly the whole incident was over in less than a minute or two. Possibly Kavanaugh thought he had prevented it from getting out of hand, and nothing remarkable had happened, and hardly even remembered it, if at all, the next morning. Even she said, initially, "this is nothing" - can you blame him for thinking the same thing?
I can't prove any of this, but it's plausible, and "stop" and her ability to escape argue that one was trying to stop the other (consistent with 99.9% of Kavanaugh's behavior). It all hinges on her recollection of which one was the attacker. How ironic - ruining someone for rescuing her from the crime.
3
I am dismayed that Douthat has doubled down on his grave and heartless error of last week. He wants Kavanaugh to fall on his sword, even if he is innocent of the accusations, in order to spare the Supreme Court from any possible taint of suspicion. How dare he suggest that a fellow human being be used in that way?
No, the Supreme Court is not different. We are talking about a bedrock moral principle -- the presumption of innocence until the evidence says otherwise. It is as valid in the court of public opinion as it is a court of law.
Not only would sacrificing Kavanaugh be cruelly unfair, but it would be utterly counter-productive. It would be a scoundrels' charter. Douthat would award the jackpot to a (ex hypothesi) wicked liar and character assassin. The result would be a nightmare -- every controversial future nomination would come under a cloud of suspicion, and therefore (by Douthat's standard) should be withdrawn.
Douthat doesn't cure his mistake by his tinkering with the burden of proof. No one is suggesting that Kavanaugh should respond "vehemently." Gently does it. But the burden as always is on the accuser. If it comes down to she says, he denies, then Kavanaugh must be confirmed or we will have permitted a horrible wrong.
13
The longer this goes on the more we learn that Bret Kavanaugh has some serious character defects, whether he did what Ford accuses him of or not.
His youth was full of nihilistic debauchery and in his adult life he's surrounded himself with female consorts chosen for their looks as much as their ability. Not to mention his lurid role in the Clinton impeachment and his prevarications in this and past confirmation hearings.
There is something wrong with this guy. Something that might not be an issue if he wasn't attempting to fly so close to the sun, but is not appropriate in a Supreme Court justice.
He knew all this, as should have those putting him forward. They all ignored it, in favor of his "reliability" on reproductive rights and executive immunity.
I've moved from outrage over Ford's specific accusations to realizing that Kavanaugh is a loser whatever the merits of Ford's case. It's a mystery why people like this persist when even minimal self-awareness should tell them to just go away and enjoy the unwarranted success they've already achieved.
If he goes down Kavanaugh has only himself to blame, for not realizing he's a seriously flawed human being not deserving of this post. The smart move now would be to simply go away. We'll all forget about him and he'll get his unwarranted good life back.
9
@Terry - "and in his adult life he's surrounded himself with female consorts chosen for their looks as much as their ability" - this attitude is the major source of the glass celling.
When when a boss invites a young man to a lunch - that's mentoring. But he can't mentor a young woman for the fear of the exact attitude you display.
Given the questions Kavanaugh was wanting Ken Starr to use in his dealings in the Bill Clinton imbroglio, perhaps it would be of interest to ask Mr. Kavanaugh at what age he “lost” his virginity, and was his first love a member of the NW Washington prep community... no names mentioned, unlike with Dr. Ford.
I’m thinking the very question would send a lot of people into overdrive to protect themselves from publicity.
2
Why does everyone forget Judge Douglas Ginsburg whose nomination to the Supreme Court was withdrawn on the allegation that he smoked a reefer as a young law school professor???
And why do most men not say don't tar all of us with the brush of "drunken boys will be drunk, boys and the all try to commit rape."
Why are not more men deeply offended at such a portrayal of allegedly "all men"?
My husband, my sons and my grandsons and my son-in-law do not and would not ever behave that way. Pity the poor women whose men do.
Seems to me that a FBI investigation would go a long way to clear this up.
38
Proving a negative is very difficult, proving a negative when time, place and other specific details are missing is virtually impossible. And having the FBI investigate 36 year old allegations with very little specifics for weeks or months is unlikely to add any corroboration to either side. The consequences of nevertheless accepting such evidence is totally destroying the nominees reputation and branding them a liar.
More importantly, what precedent is set here? If a democratic Supreme Court nominee is faced with similar accusations by a Republican voter, will the same standard be applied? I assume so and in either case I think more corroboration is needed. Certainly, an FBI investigation would help assure that all facts are brought forward and testimony by any person with personal knowledge of the facts alleged, should testify. But some additional substantiation should be required before any Supreme Court’s nominees reputation is destroyed be they democrat or republican.
4
The evaluation itself of who's telling the truth is skewed by thousands of years of bias against women. It's not a he said-she said. It's a HE SAID-she-said. The playing field is slanted by virtue of history, a history that lives and breathes among us now. Men possess greater standing in issues of sexual misconduct because they are men. Period. We are living within a biased historical context that still doesn't afford women equal standing.
25
Many of Kavanaugh's closest associates and supporters behave like the unruly dogs in the song Who Let The Dogs Out? And while it's true that you can't prove a negative, you can infer a lot from the kind of a dog a person feels comfortable being around.
1
It was hard for me, a firm believer in separation of church and state, to read your column, Mr. Douthat. As are you, I am a Catholic, and the bottom line of this mess, to me, is to say, "Brett Kavanaugh, become a humble man. Face this woman, listen to her, hear the plausible aspects of her story. Empathize. Do not judge. Do not assume she is the devil incarnate because she has come forth against you. If there is anything you can recall for which to apologize, do so. Anything. While you may have a different memory of and/or a different view of the scene that night, hers needs to be validated. Listen with your heart. Listen as if you are in the depths of her soul. Apologize for the decades of pain this has caused her even though you may have never believed you did anything to cause such pain. We believe, in this church, Mr. Kavanaugh, in mercy. At least that is what Pope Francis is trying to get us to remember. Mercy. Christ's mercy. Christ. The crucifixion. The cross. Just say, 'I'm sorry' to her, Mr. Kavanaugh, and reclaim your soul."
1
Sorry but the defense of Kavanaugh just doesn’t add up. Judge was identified as being there. Am I really to believe that he remembered enough past events to write a book about high school drunken antics but doesn’t remember the night in question? Furthermore, Dr. Ford has essentially accused Judge as being an accessory to sexual assault but he is not going to be questioned under oath?
Additionally, the whole Whelen episode is fishy from start to finish. Why on earth would he be looking at her LinkedIn account before her name was released?
Kavanaugh is lying and if confirmed should be subject to impeachment investigations if the Dems win back the House this election cycle.
4
If Kavanaugh is so steadfast in his belief that he did nothing wrong, why can't HE request that the WH allow the FBI to investigate ... FBI investigations only go back to post 18 years of age. If anyone lies to FBI, that's a crime; lying to Senate investigators is a "joke" ... we've seen this sideshow before w/Price and other nominees for other offices. Certainly Mr. Kavanaugh would want to ascend to the SC w/o a taint on him forever ... or maybe he doesn't care but just is arrogant enough to want the position.
2
He certainly wouldn't be the only "tainted" nominee on the court.
Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch for sure are tainted and Roberts is wildly compromised. The court is a farcical creature with lifetime tenure a joke passed on to us from the grave of our ancestors.
33
What’s potentially disqualifying for Cavanaugh is his general lack of truthfulness. This Blasy-Ford incident is the potential massive cherry on the cake.
When Sen. Kennedy asked Kavanaugh about any youthful bad behavior Kavanaugh just chuckled it away. Yet it seems according to his high school pal getting blind drunk was a regular occurrence. His further evasiveness about the Democratic stolen emails shows a lack of candor that is particularly troubling for a SCOTUS nominee. And there is still his questionable truthfulness about his role in certain matters when he also worked for Bush which has certain Democratic senators pretty convinced he lied.
What seems to emerge is a real careerist mentality that has him doing whatever he needs to do, taking the most expedient path, to advance his career.
Kavanaugh would have been well served by having an FBI investigation to at least to be able provide some cover for the committee and also to lessen the cloud that would hang over should be be confirmed.
This is ultimately up to him. If his denials are the truth, then he should look his wife and daughters in the eyes and say “I’m being truthful, this never happened, and I would never lie to you or anyone else.”
14
We are 36 years down the road regarding an event where we only have three actual witnesses (everyone else is hearsay). An event I might add that involved teenagers and alcohol. We know that one of the witnesses admits to drinking to excess. The victim claims that the Judge was drunk. Both males involved have denied the incident occurred. Had the victim also been drinking? Because that could lead to concerns about the accuracy of her memory of this event. Then there is the convenience of the accusation itself. If this is such a big deal, where was Senator Feinstein and her office six weeks ago? I don't know. All of this just smells of a last ditch effort to smear someone. Unfortunately, as Dr, Blasey is finding out, she also gets smeared in the process so we get a two-fer. Sad! Just very sad!
10
I'm not asking Kavanaugh to "withdraw...on the basis of a single unprovable allegation." I consider it another data point that adds to his negatives; in this instance his side doesn't want the FBI to do any further fact finding to reduce the scope of what's unknown about the circumstances surrounding the allegation, including interviewing an apparent witness. Kavanaugh's testimony about his own service record may have included perjury. Most documents in his service record have been withheld from examination; what else in them, if anything, may detract from his nomination? He is accountable for the totality of experience he brings for consideration to this nomination. If an alternative to him is ultimately sought, he should consider himself lucky if allowed to continue to serve in his present capacity.
9
Yes, but remember that traumatic memories are different from ordinary memories. Ford's credibility is corroborated by changes in her behavior at around the time of the attack and her behavior over the years.
Kavanaugh essentially needs to show that somebody in a Kavanaugh mask did it.
3
Judge Kavanaugh should never have been
nominated in the first place. It's obvious people in
the know knew Dr. Ford (or someone else) was out
there, but Kavanaugh was the man they wanted for
a variety of reasons.
He's not an ethical or honest man and has no place
on the Supreme Court.
12
Just look at this face. The only expression I've seen on it,
Dour, sour, stone. Being under such scrutiny cannot be pleasant, but Kavanaugh seems unable to present even a wisp of serenity and grace. If one translates his mien into an attitude, and I do, it is not reassuring for a lifetime appointment to a position of power. Of course, what tilts my opinion most if knowing who has nominated him for this critical position. Equally as disturbing for me is the rush to have Kavanaugh seated before the election in November. The Supreme Court is in dire need of reconstruction to fit the times and prevent the partisan attempts to control it.
13
As a judge himself, and presumably placed there to uphold the law, it would seem to me that Kavanaugh, by virtue of this position and training, should himself insist on an FBI investigation, as the right and proper process to conclude an adversarial issue (its not exactly a court case), and in this instance, if only to clear himself. He has not done this, nor has anyone advised him to do this that we know of. This is the single most telling piece of the puzzle. It shouts that he cannot afford to have it examined very closely, and must, therefore, have been Ms Fords assailant.
452
@S Norris
What can an FBI investigation uncover now? There's nothing to investigate other than questioning people. The committee can do the same with people under oath. Ford doesn't seem to want to do that. All of the people she's said were witnesses have stated that they weren't there and didn't have any knowledge of this.
6
@S Norris Yes, the Republicans are acting as if Judge Kavanaugh is guilty -- or as if they don't care. All they want is an additional reliable, right wing extremist vote on the Court, now, at any cost.
If I were interviewing a candidate for a job, evasiveness such as Kavanaugh's would disqualify him instantly. There are plenty of other qualified jurists available for the post.
1
If he wants to clear his name he should ask for an FBI investigation. He (and other Republicans) appear to be running scared and rushing this through. Also he needed HOURS of additional preparation for the upcoming questioning and then was so insulted by the practice questions that he refused to answer. Is this the behavior of a forthright and honest person?
13
I agree. However, you do not mention the role of alcohol in this awful tale. Judge Kavanaugh, Mr. Judge, Mr. Whelan, and a few defenders on the Judiciary Comm., and Mrs. Blasey Ford all agree that alcohol was involved. In Kavanaugh‘ sand Judge’s case, the alcohol consumption was reckless and uncontrolled, leading to his pronouncements of glory, or shame. Blasey Ford had one beer.
So this acceptance of Kavanaugh’s drinking problem remains undeniable. His judgement was impaired, and his character is in question because he allowed himself to become impaired. Apparently, he has not been able to free himself from that habit.
The ultimate question for the Senate thus is his apparent inability to consume alcohol responsibly. He does not need to be on the Supreme Court. He needs to go to Rehab.
9
There are two obvious ways that if Kavanaugh is innocent his case and reputation can be dramatically improved.
Obviously, it is important to have testimony by Kavanaugh's friend Judge, whom Ford alleges was present. Mr. Judge initially claimed he did not remember whether he had been present at such an event. Then he denied he had been. Then he announced he wasn't going to talk about it again, and definitely NOT under oath. But the Republicans can simply subpoena him. They have not. So, a reasonable person would conclude that the Republicans have decided he would hurt Kavanaugh's chances for confirmation.
Or simply request an FBI investigation. That will include testimony by Judge, and it might also unearth something not yet known. Republicans do NOT want that.
We don't know what really happened years ago, but we DO know that the Republicans on the Committee think the evidence is against him. And they want to give him a lifetime appointment.
27
There is another way to view these events outside of the rigors of philosophical inquiry and legal conjecture. The confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh is now blatant political theater. We are set for a denouement in which one of the characters triumphs or falls on the sword of ignominy. The stakes are clear to either side, the judge's confirmation is a boon to the righteous; his defeat a vindication of decency and the strength of our democratic institutions.
The tragedy is this theater is brought forward by our political class whose productions inevitably fail to satisfy even the most casual theater-goers.
9
To those saying that being appointed to the SC is a political decision and the standards of proof and presumption of innocence used in our criminal system don't apply, I have a different perspective.
Yes, it is a political decision and can be based on whether or not the senators like the appointees resume or share similar views on the judicial system.
However, the charges brought forth by Ford are not of a political nature (although perhaps politically motivated). They are charges of a possible crime committed 36 years ago. To be fair in taking this charge into account in the confirmation process, there should be solid evidence the event happened. In short, if the only reason a nominee is rejected from the court is because they were accused of a crime but there was never a trial and never any evidence brought forth other than the recovered memories of the accuser, that is contrary to all our shared values.
Suppose Dr. Ford had gone to the authorities back then with the same vague version of events. They might have investigated but without proof of something serious happening they would not have been likely to bring charges. And the FBI doing a background check now likely would have found out about the alleged assault, that a complaint was made but the cops did not pursue for lack of evidence. Given that no other such events have surfaced in his life, the existence of one unsubstantiated charge would not be relevant to his confirmation.
10
On the matter of proof of innocence or guilt: guilt needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt before sending someone to prison.
Innocence needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt before promoting someone to be the final arbiter of justice itself!
And the burden falls appropriately.
There is only one credible and reliable way to determine the truth or a close approximation of it in fair minds. A thorough and impartial investigation which rules out the judiciary committee. And our history is littered with precedence to this.
Finally, there is enough time to do this, even if you want to vote on this before the mid term and if this path is not taken now, a later argument on lack of time is simply pointless.
14
Mr. Douthat makes a credible argument for reconsidering his pervious opinion piece, as he now advocates that Kavanaugh be afforded the opportunity to confront his accuser with an opportunity to reply point-by-point to her claims. Dothan's current argument has merit to transcend the political expediency of withdrawing Kavanaugh's damaged nomination before allowing the Senate Committee to fulfill its own Constitutional responsibility for a thorough vetting of his qualification in light of recent revelations.
However, the fundamental flaw now lies in the Senate's own ability to acquit itself credibly in its task without bringing Kavanaugh's high school friend Mark Judge to testify.
Judge's books: "God and Man at Georgetown Prep" and "Wasted: Tales of GenX Drunk" fall just short of contemporaneous notes corroborating their behavior at the time of Professor Ford's accusations. Yet through some Orwellian double-think, the Senate is willing to discount any close examination of a potential evidence trail that any other inquest might consider a Christmas gift.
What is even more frightening than the Senate's willingness to maneuver around this line of inquiry will be the nation's willingness to accept it.
15
@GuiG Comments such as yours' is why there is more good about the internet than bad. You, citizen GulfG make a superb point that was hiding in plain sight. Thanks for tremendous clarify of thought! Your post is brilliant! Sometimes I feel like I am searching for hope by reading through the madness that sometimes enters the fray in online discussions....but sometimes I learn something very insightful and it gives me hope. Today, as far as I am concerned, you win the internets!
2
Unfortunately, everyone is missing the point, no matter how much we parse this issue. As far as the Republicans are concerned, the point is to get Kavanaugh on SCOTUS regardless of any taint because once he is there it almost doesn't matter what the process was. Kavanaugh will do his damage with as much power as any of the other justices.
Voters will either forget (as they did with Thomas), remember but vote the R ticket anyway (since, sadly, SCOTUS appointments don't seem to be the top motivator for most voters), or vote D because they always do. Fact is, this R Congress may care about optics but not about what the majority of Americans want. Crossing your fingers for Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski is probably giving them way more credit than they deserve. They and John McCain may have abdicated with respect to the health care bill, but the rest of the time they haven't walked the talk of their perceived integrity -- they have voted with the rest of the bloc.
16
Let me remind people that there are plenty of other reasons Kavanaugh should not be confirmed. One that I find particularly telling is that by accepting the nomination he tacitly approves of the treatment of Judge Garland. This, of course, applies to Gorsuch also, but it is especially telling for Kavanaugh because he serves on the Court that Judge Garland heads, so he should be familiar with his qualities as a respected jurist. In fact, Kavanaugh has admitted this.
I do not want a Justice who lacks the character to acknowledge a great wrong and stand up for a good man. He should have withdrawn his nomination until Judge Garland had been afforded a hearing and a vote.
32
Ross, you were correct in the earlier column when you said Kavanaugh should withdraw.
You conservative friends and critics of that column totally miss the real isssue:
WE, the people, have the absolute right to demand people of
UNQUESTIONABLY high character to be our Supreme Court justices.
THERE ARE HUGE QUESTIONS ABOUT THR CHARACTER OF KAVANAUGH.
We, the people, thus deserve another of the many excellent Americans who also are qualified to be candidates for that highest judicial bench in our land.
If Kavanaugh had integrity that surpassed ambition, he would withdraw on his own.
25
Anyone who was at the house party needs to come forward, especially the participants involved, and confess their actions. The confessions may or may not be substantially different than hers and they may or may not be the same persons.
Would a confession to a slightly different scene from another person clear Kavanaugh in her eyes and the public ?
3
@SSSI agree that others should come forward. The problem is that Professor Ford does not remember specific details such as the date, month, house location. She thinks it was the summer before junior year. Do all people who attended house parties in the DC area in the summer come forward? If she were to recall more details then more people might come forward. She is being honest in what she can remember. But these few details do not provide enough information for other people to volunteer information. Anyone claiming to be near a party that summer is going to be slammed by the press and the public. It takes such bravery to go public in this day of Twitter and Facebook.
3
We have to remember that Trump promised that he would only nominate people to the Supreme Court who would abolish Roe vWade.Kavanaugh can be vague but he has assured Trump that he will do what is required.He has also been praised by Trump as a fine person-Trump also described Paul Mannafort in those terms.Even absent the allegations from Dr.Ford, Kavanaugh already has a dubious resume’.
15
Of course the judge should be given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegation. But there are at least two serious weaknesses with this column: (1) there is no mention of the Senate Republicans disregard for a fair and meaningful confirmation process,and, in particular a sober consideration of the allegations, and (2) the absence of a call from the judge's side for a careful FBI investigation so that as many of the relevant facts were available to the Senate as well as the American people. A judge with any true regard for the American standard of due process, particularly one is is claiming innocence, would demand such an investigation. The absence of such a demand is the most meaningful indication that the judge does not belong on any court committed to Constitutional principles - whether or not the allegation is true.
19
@Eric Schenk You said it so much better than I could. Thank you.
@Eric Schenk
Say it with a poem if you want doesn't change the fact there is nothing for the FBI to investigate. He said, She said after 36 years isn't a matter for the FBI. Guilty until proven Innocent is NOT the Standard. That is what asking the Judge to call for an investigation does. It makes him prove his Innocence. That is UN-American.
I have long believed in Occam's razor: "the simplest solution is most likely". With Trump, the tell was his unwillingness to release his tax returns. With Kavanaugh, it is his and the Republicans resistance to an independent FBI investigation.
He and Ford should both also agree to lie detector tests to be administered by the same qualified person. Of course, Dr.Blasey Ford has already taken one and called for the FBI investigation; both strong points reinforcing her credibility.
22
While the issue of what Judge Kavanaugh did or did not do decades ago is certainly an issue, the challenge he faces is unfortunately more political: base voters have come to see this in a primarily tribal light. Most Americans are reluctant to take such a nakedly polticial stand with the Supreme Court; it might be one of the last places not entirely tainted by our left-right mudslinging. But in the age of Trump and the MeToo movement, that is simply no longer possible.
Now both Kavananaugh and his accuser face impossible odds, he trying to convince a critical mass of people that he is a decent man and she attempting to show the world her pain and the varacity of her claim. No one will really win, though when Kavanaugh gets confirmed, as I expect he will, conservatives may see his seating as another hollow victory tainted by the age of Trump.
4
The point is not if Kavanaugh, as a boy, did or didn't do what Blasey says he did. It's how he responds, now, as an adult to the idea that he could have done it.
His reaction proves he is not qualified to be a Justice on the SCOTUS, and probably not a judge anywhere.
He reacted. A judge weighs the evidence and makes a determination, based on best available evidence. For him to categorically say, "No, it never happened," is to deny the possibility that it did. He many not remember. However, denying it's possibility and denying he remembers it are qualitatively different animals. He disappointed his supporters by taking a less mature approach to this problem. We have the right to expect he'd have reacted like a professional judge who is about to be appointed to watch over the other two branches of government. He failed, as an adult. Maybe he failed as a human, as a teen. Children and teens fall down then they are learning to walk. But now, Kavanaugh is not a toddler. He's a big boy who is not yet ready for the responsibility of the office of Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He's gotten all the slack he needs to prove this.
38
@Max & Max
"His reaction proves..." nothing.
"A judge weighs the evidence.." WHAT evidence? There is none.
2
The question is not if whether a hearing before the Senate judiciary committee will resolve the matter of guilt or innocence, but whether sufficient doubt exist in that regard to justify not nominating him to serve on the Supreme Court -- a life-time appointment. That is the key issue. There are lots of other conservative judges to choose from. All is not lost if Kavanaugh is not nominated.
7
Leland Keyser was named by Ford as someone at this party. She is/and or was her friend. Keyser said she has never been at a party where Brett Kavanaugh was present. The result? Then Keyser has the bad memory, but Ford still has no one to corroborate. Ford still must be believed. It doesn't even mean we should all just wait and see. It still means that Kavanaugh did it, is unfit to serve for lying about it. Universalize this. If you were the accused, is this how you hope to be treated? Think about it, because once this genie is out of the bottle, it won't target just judicial candidates.
11
@TD To be accused is one thing.Proving it is another.This is why the law states "Innocent until proven guilty." Ford can make accusations all she wants,but the burden of proof is not met with just accusations.
However it can now be seen that Feinstein and the democrats may have accomplished their goal of "Tainting Kavanaugh"enough to keep him from getting the votes for conformation.This was Feinsteins goal right from the beginning !!!!
3
First of all, Judge Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on his accuser. Furthermore, the accuser doesn't know when or where the alleged encounter happened. She doesn't know what year it happened. All four of the people that she claims were at the party deny her allegations. If this case went to trial, there is no way the accuser would win.
It is my prediction that the accuser will not testify. Her lawyer will just continue giving excuses as to why she won't testify. Senator Grassley has bent over backwards to accommodate her. But it keeps looking more and more like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown.
8
@James
applying your standard of where this would go if heard in a trial and applying it to one side of the aisle is dishonest.
One cannot argue the Grassley has bent over backwards rubric (He hasn't in any way "bent over backwards") unless he actually calls for a fair trial, with evidence and and investigations or whatever else is required to ensure. Truth is about more than bending over backwards and it does not have a deadline.
2
@James It's not a trial, it's the court of public opinion. Besides, your other prediction about her not testifying is turning out to be ill-founded.
@James
So essentially what you're saying is Kavanaugh's accuser is guilty until proven innocent -- Sorry, but there's no "Lucy" here, and the pendulum swings both ways.
1
The implications of a world were unprovable charges become fact because "why would she lie" is straight out of a Kafka novel. And regardless of whether it might be politically expedient to throw Kavanaugh to the wolves the results would be predictable. No one would ever be safe from such charges.
10
He could truly not believe it as well, being blackout drunk and all. At this point in the proceedings it really doesn't matter though, because your guys have refused to have any investigation or even compel the third party in the room to testify under oath.
Apparently Sen Grassley is confusing public statements and a written letter as equivalent to testimony under oath, the poor dear. So as long as they're nice as they ignore her, it'll be OK.
Perhaps, should the Democrats take over the House committees, they'll subpoena Justice Kavanaugh and we'll finally get to the bottom of this.
5
My high school year book says I belonged to the chess club and basketball team. That's it.
I have no doubt that though I would never knowingly have done anything to cause harm to either a girl or boy, I am sure I did. Were I someone of note, I am sure there would be people who could bring charges against me. Our language lacks a word for offenses we create just by our very being.
It need not be male to female. The pretty girl who tells a boy she likes him but doesn't want to date him can cause him a lifetime of pain that he will never forget but for her it will be something that never happened. She did nothing wrong - its just ... well its what we lack the word in English to describe - this original sin created by our very being.,
I spent much of my life trying to learn how to be a better person. I believe a lot of people are also so motivated. It is this drive that fosters civilization. It is something I venerate in people.
So call this a harsh judgement but I am now opposed to Kavanaugh because allegedly he chose words in his high school yearbook to brag about drinking. On the assumption that is true
I believe there is an arc to ones life, perhaps he rose above it .... but for someone on the Supreme Court I would prefer someone who chose more noble words for their high school yearbook. Such a person could help bring healing.
14
The thinking surrounding this issue is so twisted-up it's starting to become downright scary.
For context, I am an extremely progressive female and would love nothing more than to see Kavanaugh denied a seat on the court based on his inability to divorce his personal views from his legal analysis. (Granted, this is a problem that plagues too many justices today, but the last thing we need is another one).
But I would far prefer to see him confirmed than to see him denied on the basis that he couldn't prove himself innocent. That standard runs counter to one of the most basic rights we have in this country - to be assumed innocent until proven guilty.
Brett Kavanaugh doesn't have to prove anything. That is on the woman who came forward three and a half decades after the fact. She needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this happened, and no, her testimony alone is not nearly, nearly enough.
We cannot continue down the road we are on in this country when it comes to allegations of sexual impropriety. Far too many are willing to convict, condemn, and inflict punishment on those accused simply on the basis that an accusation was made.
15
@Kristin Seeing as how we don't have to rely on Dr. Ford's testimony alone, and she has named a witness to the event, Mr. Judge, you're discussing a hypothetical, not this situtation.
This isn't a difficult situation where all Ford has is her own word.
This is a simple situation where the Senate Republicans will not call Mr. Judge to testify, leading us all to presume that they know the testimony is going to confirm Dr. Ford's account.
But I wish you had been advising Judge Kavenaugh on fairness when he was writing memos on smearing Bill Clinton.
12
@Kristin Dr Ford spoke about this incident to her husband and her their marriage counselor in 2012. So it is clear that the incident at the party did happen and traumatized her for the rest of her life. There is sufficient that Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge did a lot of drinking at their prep school. There is also a reference to a Devil's Triangle in the yearbook at their prep school, which means 2 boys and a girl involved in sex. Dr Ford was reluctant to come forward as many women have been under such circumstances, but felt that she needed to do it for the good of the nation. The Republicans on the Committee are derelict in not asking for an background investigation by the FBI.
4
@Kristin She's asking for an investigation to do exactly what you are asking for. He, and hid good buddies in the senate, are resisting it. Regardless, he's not in a court of law - he's being considered for one of the most influential and important jobs available to any human being on the planet! People get rejected for jobs every day and receive no opportunity to prove that they were qualified.
Is there no sanity left in America? Every week, in thousands of communities millions of Americans make accusations that need to be investigated for their validity. Following the investigation another party (prosecutors) then decides whether to pursue legal action. Why can't that happen here? ANS: Because Mitch McConnell has so corrupted the process that the poisonous political atmosphere makes it impossible. McConnell is not alone to blame. I hear Democrats insisting that an accusation in tantamount to a conviction. How can we trust that person, with their ignorance of the constitution, to make a judgement regarding the qualifications of a supreme court justice? We need to hit "reset" and have this nomination redone with a nominee who can get at least 60% of the Senate's vote in a process that is open, fair and conforms to traditional Senate rules. To ram Kavanaugh through now not only further demeans the Senate, but also the Supreme Court for decades to come. Process matters.
9
Trump has stated that he would only nominate Justices for the Supreme Court who would over turn Roe v Wade. It follows that Kavanaugh was already tainted before Ford made her allegation.
9
This gobbledygook obscures the simple, undeniable fact that Prof. Blasey has nothing to gain and everything to lose by coming forward with this allegation now. It's plain as day that Kavanaugh is a privileged, entitled individual who thought he could get away with raping - not too strong a word - a younger female. His judicial rulings reflect the same tendency: He favors those like himself, white, wealthy and male. His carefully orchestrated appearances since he was nominated are just that - PR and nothing else. He should not even be a judge, let alone a member of the Supreme Court.
10
If Kavanaugh really wants to clear his name, he should ask publicly for an FBI investigation.
40
Room to Try? Really? Kavanaugh has been meeting with, is being tutored by and prepared by the same people making up the jury. Jury members have already made public statements supporting Kavanaugh and denigrating 'that lady'. The President of the United States has publicly declare Kavanaugh innocent. The entire RW media machine has put out thousands of hours of 'Kavanaugh is innocent and it is a Democratic last minute 'drive by shooting' using a deranged or 'mistaken' woman' memes. Kavanaugh can just say 'I don't know nothing' and be appointed.
4
Think a bit here rather than straining with pretzel logic. He went to a school drenched in immature male testosterone and alcohol. There is lots of proof. The yearbook entries that boasted of drinking and women beating. His (near)name in his friends writings about being a black-out drunk. His friends memoir about those years. His current emails about boys week away from the family and all the hi-jinx involved.
Depending on her story and how she presents it, it is not at all hard to believe these unsupervised kids were running amok and he could have been up to this type of activity.
After hearing her story, if she is at all credible, he should just withdraw and do everyone a favor. He never gave anyone a fair chance when he was demonizing opponents for the first 20 years of his career with Anne Coulter and David Brooks. Or, when he demanded the most detailed sexual question be asked of then President Clinton.
Look at it this way, it’s an opportunity for growth. Or maybe there is karma. Either way, there are better candidates out there.
28
I would think Kavanaugh would jump at a chance to clear his name by inviting an investigation by the FBI and taking a lie detector test. Any innocent man would.
27
The vehement denial by Brett Kavanaugh is in itself an indicator of who he is and how he thinks. There is plenty of evidence that he drank in high school. He slyly says "whatever happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep," Mark Judge, the other boy in the room during the assault wrote about excessive drinking in his youth. Dr. Blasey Ford says that the two that assaulted her were inebriated.
In his denial Kavanaugh is not only saying that he didn't do what she said but that he never was in a position where that kind of behavior could happen. I have never been drunk in my life but I cannot with certainty say that my actions never made a woman uncomfortable. He gives a tacit admission that he engaged in activity that is never to be mentioned again, but that doesn't matter. His demeanor now is that he is above reproach and that Dr. Blasey Ford is a liar. He could have so easily said that he was drunk and doesn't remember engaging in that behavior and that he never meant to hurt her and that he is sorry for everything, and people would have chalked it up to youthful ignorance. That is not what he is doing. Whether it is arrogance or privilege or delusion or refusal to admit wrong, he finds himself damaged by the allegation.
This is not someone that should be sitting in judgement of others because he sees himself as superior and that all that he has done and does now is right and righteous. He is smart but I hope the truth of him is revealed.
30
@Lucas Lynch Very well stated! I have felt, since this whole situation came out, that a decent man would, even if he was innocent, show some compassion for the alleged victim. Instead, we get a Trumpian "total denial" from Kavanaugh; and we all know how accurately such denials compare with actual events.
1
It isn’t just Ms. Ford’s allegation. It is the well-known and well-documented drunkenness and sexual harassment exhibited by the Georgetown Prep boys that he was part of. It is the membership in the secret Yale society with the very obscene nickname, and fraternity membership that had a banner made of women’s underpants. As an adult, there is debt incurred by living well beyond his means that was mysteriously paid off in a matter of months, while paycheck didn’t increase and bank accounts didn’t decrease.
7
The "he said, she said," "boys will be boys" arguments have always ended up heavily weighted against the woman.
In this case, ask yourself, what does Dr. Ford have to gain by exposing herself and her family to public abuse? Nothing but a desire to set the record straight about a man who may very well determine the future of democracy. Not an exaggeration since his vote will sway the court for decades to the right.
Senator Feinstein should not be condemned for honoring Dr. Ford's wish to remain anonymous.
Another red herring thrown into the Republican pot. If it were so simple to tell lies and make them stick just for the sake of blocking an appointment, why didn't the Democrats pursue this against Gorsuch?
Dr. Ford is a reluctant witness to male abuse as are many of the #Me women. Her only motive is to tell the truth about the character of a man who assaulter her.
7
In order to make her case, Ford has to convince there is a strong likelihood it happened by answering tough q's. There are many reasons to be skeptical:
1) She didn't report it at the time. Did she view it as important?
2) She can't remember dates/ times of party. Most could narrow the field.
3) Her story has changed--therapist notes say 4 boys, now it's 2.
4) The memory of this didn't come out until 2012 in therapy. Was it a recovered memory?
5) She and her husband didn't act on it at the time.
6) Her own letter has odd details -- they turned up the music in the bedroom? Who keeps their stereo in a bedroom?
7) She can't remember how she got to the party/ home. She was 15 and not a legal driver. Surely whoever drove her would remember what must have been an abrupt exit -- who would stay after being assaulted - and notice she was upset. Who was the driver?
8) Her letter says she & 4 others were at the party. She's named 3 older boys who deny. Was the 4th a girl? Wouldn't she have warned her? If the girl drove her wouldn't she have confided?
9) Her recovered memory came after K was well known and Judge wrote his book.
10) No one has come forward to corroborate and this has been headline news for a week.
11) Feinstein apparently didn't give it enough credibility to use when she should have.
12). She admits she partied heavily in HS. She drank at this party.
13) No one has put her & K at a party.
W/O clarity on these issues, why believe her?
7
@Ralphie
Agree. There are more questions and for both of them. Hence all the more reason to have a thorough and impartial investigation.
And the judiciary committee with its known bias and lack of expertise is not the one to do it.
Let the FBI investigate. What has the nominee to lose if he is innocent?
And we do have more than a month to the polls if that calculation should enter at all into consideration.
6
@Phil Feinstein should have brought this out. There would have been plenty of time for an investigation. But this smacks of a delaying tactic.
@Ralphie
True. Merrick Garland should have gotten a hearing too.
1
The total absence of any other sexual assault allegation against Kavanaugh is telling. It is very rare for sexual predators to act once and never again.
4
@Frank
Really? Statistic that only 1 out of 6 or 7 assaults are reported is what is telling.
Second, even if it was a single assault, that too when they were drunk, doesn't automatically make him a predator!
There is only one credible and reliable way to determine the truth. A thorough and impartial investigation which rules out the judiciary committee. And there is precedence to this.
Last, on the matter of proof of innocence or guilt; guilt needs to be proved before sending someone to prison. Innocence needs to be proved before promoting someone, particularly to be one of the final arbiters of justice itself! The burden falls approximately.
1
@Frank Did you ever think that no other woman has spoken up? Look at the abuse she is getting? Would you want your daughter to go through this? It took me over 50 years to speak up. And then not to anyone in authority.
Then why the objection to an FBI investigation?
15
Not to mention the profoundly inappropriate appointment of a SCJ to protect Mr. Trump. Oh, right, you didn't mention that.
There will be no proof beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. There will be a lie detector passed and no lie detector test. There will be a witness who does not testify. There will be acknowledged excessive drinking and blank memories. There will be corroborative but no conclusive evidence from parties told about this after the fact. There will be not all details recalled. There will be firm and absolute denials from the accused perpetrator.
Now, make up your mind.
2
What about all the other lies? Lying about the stolen email? Lying about Judge Kazinksi? What about his finances and alleged gambling debts? It's not just about Dr. Blasey. It's about his overall character.
8
There have been a lot of legal rules casually tossed around in the Kavanaugh confirmation process that are not applicable. (Yes, you Alan Dershowitz)
In a criminal case the defendant must be proved guilty by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Confirmation is not a criminal case.
In a civil case, the plaintiff must prove a case by a preponderance of the evidence.i.e. 51 to 49% prevails. Confirmation is not a civil case.
In confirming an individual for a life-time seat on the U.S. Supreme Court the Senate should be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the nominee possesses the requisite fitness and character to serve on the highest court. The "burden of proof" is on the nominee. If evidence of lack of fitness comes forward, the nominee and his backers should be able to refute the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. If a nominee prefers that this information not be made public, the nominee can withdraw. The nominee is not forced into this process
This is not a criminal or civil case where a verdict against the defendant could result in prison or money damages. In a confirmation proceeding, the outcome is whether the nominee will sit on the Supreme Court for life. The burden in on the nominee to show fitness -- not on any opposition to demonstrate the reverse. The Senate and we the American people, should not be left with any reasonable doubt that the nominee is fit to serve.
It is Kavanaugh's burden to show that he was wrongly accused.
7
I Kavanauh was honorable, and believed in the integrity of the court, and wanted to demonstrate that he is a neutral jurist who respects procedure, he would insist on dealing with these accusations properly - an investigation, witness testimony, and the time to pull those together properly.
On a separate but related Kavanaugh note: dude, what's with the blackout drinking as a teen and gambling debs later on? Addictive much?
8
I'm sure Kavanaugh will do well when he testifies that it wasn;t him but she probably was assaulted as drilled into him during the countless hours of 'murder-boarding' by his Republican handlers during the past week. Of course that time could have been time enough for the FBI to conclude an investigation with sworn testimony.
I wonder who the Republican 'men' will find to act as their interrogator and if they will wear bags over their heads?
6
"abnormality of the Supreme Court"
This is actually like most jobs I think.
Also, the details of this event do matter, but people especially guys in high school will act like jerks sometimes, it's growing up.
1
In today's world of #MeToo, facts and evidence are unneeded. All that is required is an accusation or allegation. It reminds me of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages. If anyone disagrees with the accuser they too are obvious heretics to the #MeToo cause. Intelligent people steadfastly believe Dr. Ford and say so publicly. Equally intelligent people deny her story. All are absolutely wrong. No one knows, at this point, any of the facts of the case but that seems like a minor obstacle to the millions of words spoken and written pro and con. The Inquisition only needed gossip to root out heretics and it appears we have progressed little from those ancient and dark days.
7
@dudley thompson
What a twisted logic at work here. The Inquisition was all about men making unsubstantiated accusations with deadly consequences. And you are going to equate a victim, Dr. Ford, of being like the powerful men aligned against non-Christians of yesteryear and the powerful men trying to to discredit her today? Only a man with no understanding or experience of sexual assault would make this ridiculous comparison.
1
If Kavanaugh is innocent, he should demand an FBI investigation to clear his name. Otherwise, what is he hiding that he is afraid will come out?
14
With classic neo-Buckleyite salon hauteur, our mentor plots his way through a channel too narrow to deny the corruption in the nomination process in the first place, the frenzied, nay feverishly adolescent anguish to consummate it instantaneously. We, for our part, deny that Judge Kavanaugh is entitled to any post, merely for being groomed for it for decades with a plausible mask of appointments gaining him a CV which any clerk could have handed him. Remember, study the head fake. This question is not about whether he is a liar, or whether he is a failed rapist in the instant case. It is about whether he deserves this appointment. He has answered that with his record, and with his insouciantly arrogant refusal to respond to Senatorial inquiry. Yes, it would be a shame to tar him now, for flouting the process to which he has been submitted. But that has been his mature, calculated choice.
1
Why are Republicans so afraid of an FBI investigation into the facts, as Dr. Blasey Ford has requested? Why does Ross not even mention this way out of the quandary? I think Kavanaugh and his friends are hiding something.
7
not a simgle conservative seems to have thought that possibly Kavanaugh is the one mis-remembering.
his best buddy in high school and the other person identified to be in the bedroom egging him on is the fellow who wrote a memoir about the drunken debauchery and blackout drinking he did with his friends at their elite boys school.
blackout drinkers DON'T REMEMBER.
7
Let us imagine the situation, all too likely, where five wealthy, arch-conservative Catholic men, one of them Kavanaugh, two of them from Georgetown Prep!, overrule Roe v. Wade. What would that do to the credibility of the Supreme Court? Republicans of course care nothing about our institutions: victory today is what counts.
12
The 'cloud' over Justice Thomas has not in any way prevented him from being an excellent justice. Nor will any shame the Democrats feel for their attempted smearing of a fine man stop them from further calumnies.
3
We now risk having a new judge who will think that false rape allegations are used as a political tool and who might be tempted to follow patriarchal legal standards such as the presumption of innocence, damaging all rape allegations, possibly even the true ones.
3
Brett's years at Yale, which he proudly recalls are reason enough to question his judgment.
His and is friend's (Mark) acknowledged abuse of alcohol is completely consistent with the woman's account of the event. Drunk cowards gang up and attempt to "get some"
You can't prove a negative, however given the pattern of alcohol abuse and hedonism at Georgetown prep which is documented by the principals involved convinces me that the event occurred.
I suspect that a teenage girl being jumped on by a drunk fool with unknown intent would make a lasting impression to the girl, and the drunk attackers would justify that it was "just a joke", if they gave it any thought as all.
Brett's view of women's rights to their bodies expressed in his legal opinions seems to indicate he is a legal Neanderthal. (as are his republican supporters)
We deserve better.
17
Ross' fixation on having the government imposing its patriarchal will over women's sexual and reproductive lives is a form of sexual assault no matter how he tries to spin it.
10
Yes, yes, sounds so reasonable.
But: Mitch McConnell, Merrick Garland, no actual investigation, and no obvious shred of anything other than the Trumpian instinct to fight back from Kavanaugh, and it looks different.
Trump, Mitch, Repubs and Kavanaugh are just trying to ram it through. And we the people are getting tired of this. We WOMEN are beyond tired of this.
VOTE all Repubs out in the midterms.
29
All of the people she claimed where there deny being present. By all accounts other than Ford's, he treats women with respect in his personal and professional life. She can't remember when the alleged attack took place. She can't remember whose house she was in. She can't remember how she got there. Accusations without evidence cannot be the standard by which a man's reputation and career are ruined.
5
Mr Douthat raises the appropriate ethical issues involved in this matter. He, like others, also made the correct observation in his earlier column.
As wrong as a potential sexual assault committed by a teenager decades ago might have and still be, the larger issue for this nominee is whether or not he is telling the truth.
That is not to diminish the gravity of the alleged assault and it most certainly is not to endorse the latest GOP defense that "boys will be boys." Teen age males know or should know what a teen girl agrees to or not. They most certainly know what rape is. There is no excuse for any male, teen or adult, for forcing himself on a woman.
But, absent evidence, the alleged crime cannot be proved.
Absent the evidence, we can only exercise judgement.
At a minimum, Kavanaugh, Judge and Blasey must testify under oath and with penalty of perjury. Next week.
Should any of the three be evasive under oath, that should factor into our collective judgement. Any decision to move forward with a confirmation vote must factor that judgement.
I don't have a vote, but I personally would reject Mr Kavanaugh's nomination for two reasons.
First, because Supreme Court justices should not be men such as Justice Thomas or President Trump. Our country's citizens deserve better.
Second, the republicans deserve political payback for the their treatment of Mr Garland's nomination. Republicans must learn to govern as a priority over partisan politics.
4
Judge Brett Kavanaugh is irreparably damaged "goods," Mr. Douthat.
"Either Ford is a brazen liar, or some scenario of clouded or mistaken memory must be true." Most reasonable people doubt the former and only Republicans are indulging themselves in the long hope that the latter may be true.
I am persuaded, Mr. Douthat, that the judge deserves every "charity," as you so charitably put it. But let's examine the "tainting argument" that Republicans are so avidly putting forward. The Right are not so innocent nor so noble that they might hazard the "libel" against a "mystery" man in the furtherance of their singular white male Republican hegemony on the Court for the next generation, and, perhaps, the next.
I think it's clear that at a hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary, Judge Kavanaugh will deny the accusations. I'm not certain that "vehemently" will be persuasive. An innocent person can deny an accusation credibly without resorting to histrionics. Let's be clear about one thing here, sir: this judge is not *entitled* to sit on the Supreme Court. It is not his birthright and that is where the knot of the problem lies.
Republicans did everything they could to obfuscate and conceal and delay and deny any potential disqualifying breadcrumbs in an attempt to sweep away all dissent and organized, reasoned, deliberate inquisition into his fitness for this high office.
Christine Blasey Ford has said the judge attempted to rape her years ago. It's now on the judge.
256
@Soxared, '04, '07, '13 The problem with Douthat's argument is that he's attempting to use standards of reason and fairness that no longer apply thanks to the violation of almost every previously accepted political and procedural norm relating to SCOTUS nominations and hearings, and more. Until Merrick Garland is granted his confirmation hearing, each and every appointment made by a "Republican" president is illegitimate. There are no moral standards left anymore. The new normal is not that presidents choose SCOTUS nominees, but rather that the Senate majority leader does even if the majority of American voters had chosen the Democratic party nominee for president (not once but twice). "Fairness" at this point, at the very minimum, would be for the senate to postpone the hearings until after the November mid-term to "let the people decide" who the SCOTUS nominee should be. Any other discussion relating to the nomination process is simply a heretical abomination.
@Soxared, '04, '07, '13
Not only is it now "on the judge", but it is also now in the history books. He should decline the position and move on. He is now, guilty or innocent, damaged goods.
1
I think the key argument Mr. Douthat is making is that, for Judge Kavanaugh to be innocent, there are only two possible explanations:
1. Dr. Blasey Ford is a liar or
2. Some form of mistaken memory is involved about an event from over three decades ago.
If we are to be fair to Judge Kavanaugh, we cannot treat any version of the "mistaken memory" defense as a despicable attempt to smear the character of Dr. Blasey Ford.
If we are to be fair to Dr. Blasey Ford, we must listen to her story with the understanding that key elements of traumatic events, particularly ones from long ago, will likely not be remembered. We cannot fairly treat any gaps in her story as evidence that Dr. Blasey Ford is "making things up."
The members of the Senate Judiciary Committee must make a recommendation about this for all of us. Is it too much to ask of them, in the current bitterly partisan environment, to treat both of these good people as members of our American family- with fairness, kindness, and a presumption of good faith for both of them?
1
@jgmathis Thank you. This may be the most intelligent comment I've read on this matter.
No one is saying that Kavanaugh can't speak in his own defense. That has never been the issue. The issue has been whether Blasey Ford can speak in her own defense in an environment that's equal to Kavanaugh's. Grassley has tried to rush her before the committee, giving Kavanaugh the advantage of prep (and help from White House lawyers) that Blasey Ford does not have. The Republicans attempted to cast doubt on her allegations by pointing fingers at one of Kavanaugh's classmates and the President of the United States has tweeted that she and her parents were negligent for not reporting the event years ago. (Actually, all the obstacles that Trump, Kavanaugh, and the Republicans have thrown up in front of Blasey Ford to keep her from telling her story are part of his defense.)
All Blasey Ford has asked for is a pause and a neutral third party (the FBI) to weigh on the validity of her story so when she goes before the committee she and Kavanaugh both have the benefit of that investigation, something Kavanaugh and the Republicans have fought since the beginning.
3
Kavanaugh can be accomplished as a jurist and also be one who has, allegedly, assaulted Ford. Ford can be unsure of specific details and also be telling the truth that Kavanaugh, allegedly, assaulted her. The Senate Republicans can be attempting to avoid a character assassination of Kavanaugh and be fast-tracking a nominee to ensure a decidedly right-leaning Supreme Court. Democratic legislators can be concerned about the alleged assault of Ford and be seeking payback for the Garland debacle. All of these can and do exist simultaneously. We would do well to move beyond either-or thinking in this story and others.
What is credible testimony? If she sounds sincere and presents well? I certainly expect she will, as she will have been well rehearsed prior to her presentation. I would expect that to be sufficient for those opposed on political grounds to Mr. Kavanaugh.
As it stands now, she has posited few facts, none of which have been, or conceivably could be, substantiated. Do we as a body politic approve destroying a man, his wife and his young daughters on such nebulous grounds? I sincerely hope that for the sake of future precedent the burden of proof will rightly be on her.
2
Ross, the testimony would read like this:
“Senators of the Committee, I am a flawed human being. I have done or said things that have become regrettable in the long arc of maturing into the jurist I am today. Like those who would say that women often take and occupy jobs while navigating harassment and discomforfort, I have found myself in roles during my past, particularly those not on the bench, where I am viewed as suspicious due to the political nature that became clear over the passage of time.
We live in a world of objective reality, measured by science, and recalled through witnesses colored by opinion. But we face the future as flawed individuals, seeking truth and hoping for grace, but always arcing toward our better self.
I have categorically denied assaulting Dr. Ford, because I have no clear memory of doing so. That does not absolve me of possibly having done so; because, as has been widely referenced, I drank heavily in high school. I was not alone, but I was certainly not my best self when I did; and I am grateful that I never fell into a position of harming a schoolmate behind the wheel of a car or something much, much graver than what I have been accused.
I have upheld women through my time on the bench. I have never tolerated a hostile work environment. I have reached measured opinions shared by judges favored by both parties. And I see all women through the eyes of my two daughters.
My future rests in your hands, for the good of the nation.”
That the Senate is still considering the confirmation of a man who has already lied to them under oath is abominable. Judge Kavanaugh denied knowing about stolen Dem info, and then said he didn't know the documents were purloined, despite the headings describing them as such. Since he was economical with the truth two weeks ago, how are we supposed to believe him now?
5
Why, if Kavanaugh is innocent, would he not insist on an FBI inquiry and volunteer to take a polygraph test. There is significant circumstantial evidence supporting Dr. Ford's claim. This is not he said she said.
4
Any opinion Kavanaugh might write as a Supreme would be reported with a footnote reference to the sexual assault controversy during his confirmation hearings. Any such opinion would then be regarded as dubious.
Is that the future career he would desire?
2
Republicans have been playing long ball for years, with the goal of a majority conservative Supreme court. And now they are on the one-yard line and can smell the goal line. Our cries for fairness, thoroughness and respect are falling on deaf ears. McConnell and gang will push this through at any cost to party or country.
1
The notion that the Supreme Court is there for some "greater ideological good" or for "causes that the justice might advance," is precisely the perversion and sickness that infects Republican and "conservative" reasoning. There is no justice, there are just causes to advance. Kavanaugh will likely reach the Court precisely because Republicans are morally and intellectually bankrupt and will do anything to advance their "causes." America the Lost.
1
This column avoids the obvious solution. The FBI should investigate. Precedent was set with the FBI investigation of Anita Hill's allegations against Clarence Thomas. There is a living witness according to Dr. Ford who must be interviewed. The FBI is the logical agency to do that. An FBI investigation might discourage more attempts to discredit Ford. I’m referring to Ed Whalen’s assertion that Dr. Ford’s attacker was actually another high school acquaintance. Republicans involved in Kavanaugh’s nomination are now fleeing from Whalen, saying he acted alone. But Whalen, reportedly a friend to Kavanaugh, did not act alone. CRC Public Relations, a firm hired by the Federalist Society, helped Whalen with it. Whalen knew Dr. Ford’s identity before it was announced. Who told him? While Whalen was planning this, a Hatch staffer tweeted to stay tuned for Whalen's news. He deleted the tweet and now claims ignorance. What about Garrett Ventry. a former CRC staffer who, at the request of the Federalist Society, joined Grassley’s staff to work as a communications advisor on the Kavanaugh nomination? Ventry tweeted that the committee did not know about Whalen’s plan. He then abruptly resigned late Friday because of sexual harassment claims. If more evidence comes out that this was a coordinated attempt to throw shade on Dr. Ford’s allegations, it doesn’t look good for Kavanaugh’s credibility. Now I want to know what Kavanaugh knew about Whalen's plan.
2
I simply don't believe most women are venal enough to make up an accusation like this one, and Kavanaugh has every reason to lie. Nothing can be proven by two people contradicting each other's accounts. Something might well be proven by an FBI investigation. Dr Blasey Ford and the public deserve one and Douthat should have the integrity to say so.
2
Kavenaugh and his supporters have every right to defend him against the accusations. It is not the fault of his detractors that they are doing an awful job of it. The insistence of getting this done with great haste, when another seat sat empty for nearly a year, their inability of treating his accuser with some respect and the ham handed attempt to juggle three inadequate defenses are just proof that not only Kavenaugh but the President who nominated him and the party that enables them can only give lip service to the idea of respect for women.
1
Whether a nominee for Supreme Court justice or an accountant at Walmart, simply accusing a man of untoward sexual advances at any point in his life has now become a professional death sentence. Actors lose roles and can no longer be hired, U.S. Senators must resign, journalists must be banished, CEO’s must step down.
I hate Trump and don’t want this guy on the Court. But fundamental fairness requires me to ask how, exactly, is Kavanaugh going to disprove that this event ever happened?
I don’t discount, at all, the trauma that Dr. Ford felt or feels. But study after study has shown that memory is a tricky and sometimes faulty thing. In this case, we are talking about a 35 year old memory of something that happened involving two likely drunken teenagers, each of whom now sees it through the lens of a sober, fully formed adult.
Has our standard for perfection now become that we judge every person on the single worst thing he or she allegedly every did in their lives? Is this how all of us would like to be judged? And should every nominee for any important political job, Democrat or Republican, straight or gay, man or woman, now be subject to this standard? And if so, why would any person but the most cloistered or the most power hungry subject themselves to such a process?
These are not small questions, either for our society or our ability to attract the best people to help us govern ourselves.
4
Given the treatment Grassley's staff has put Ford through this week, it is obvious the burden of proof is set squarely on her. There is little need for Kavanaugh to do anything especially since the "judges" in this trial have already decided the case before it has been heard. The entire proceeding is simply for show.
Aside from Ford, Kavanaugh has not been honest in the prior hearings, claiming ignorance of material electronically stolen from Democratic Senators. He can pretend he was unaware of its provenance, yet given the nature of the material, as jurist he cannot credibly claim he didn't realize it was espionage. He also lied in prior hearings regarding Bush detention hearings. Again, Kavanaugh has not had to prove his innocence because the "proof" is in documents withheld from scrutiny. This called into question his veracity even before Ford's allegation. If these questions can be ignored then what is one more question added?
Finally, Kavanaugh spent the week at the White House. This is the strongest argument to withdraw his name. He has tacitly taken the Pledge of Allegiance to Trump even if he doesn't think so and how does availing himself of White House place him with respect to the "group defense"strategy White House council has been employing? It has been suggested these strategy sessions would probe any other possible "skeletons". If Kavanaugh admitted anything at all, Trump will have total control of Kavanaugh.
6
I couldn't disagree more with Ross Douthat's op-ed, which is also a self-exculpation of sorts, since he, on September 20, wrote a tweet about Whelan's bogus doppelganger theory, saying the following: "I do know Ed Whelan, which makes me assume there's more reason to believe the doppelganger theory than just what he just tweeted. We'll see." It would have been fair to acknowledge that in this op-ed and to disclose that he knows Whelan.
But even more egregious is the underlying argument of this op-ed, based on Wittes' contention that Kavanaugh is somehow handicapped as he needs to come off looking "untainted", "using arguments that don't themselves taint him." The reason why the showdown between Kavanaugh and Ford has been be reduced to "arguments," is because the Republicans in charge refuse to reopen the FBI background check, which looks not for "arguments" but facts! Consider also all the circumstantial evidence about Kavanaugh's high school and Yale fraternity years, the male chauvinist and drinking culture he was a willing member of. Enough facts to investigate and witnesses to
question, like Mark Judge, but the Republicans running this show refuse to do so. That's what Mr. Douthat should have written about. Facts, not arguments.
9
@Writer
Good points especially in light of the fact that Whelan's information about Dr. Blasey's identify was obtained shortly after the White House received it but before it was publicly released. That enters into plotting territory by the WH and its collaborators.
Note also that Douthat only mentions Dr. Blasey's name once and at other times refers to her by the dehumanizing "accuser" and a lot of "she". Where does he call Kavanaugh the "defendant" or "the accused" rather than using his name or nominee reference? Pretty one sided although I realize it wasn't deliberate.
2
From the beginning of this I've wondered what I would do were I Kavanaugh and alleging innocence. I'm quite certain I'd march into the White House and demand the FBI be called to action to lend credibility to my claim. Of all the chatter, this failure causes me to seriously doubt his credibility.
3
We all get it that conservatives want a conservative judge on the Supreme Court before the mid term election in November where they are at risk(small but not zero) of loosing senate majority.
But what should have been easy has turned into a nightmare, why? they picked the wrong guy... as nominee and as president btw
4
The presumption that Kavanaugh is being asked to prove a negative is pure casuistry -- Dr Ford is being prevented from making her case by the committee's failure to provide corroboration, and all the sophistry in the world cannot deceive us. Let Dr. Ford make her case!
5
@Paul It is Dr. Ford who is preventing her case from being heard. She is waffling about whether, when, or how she will testify. If she wanted her case made, she should have accepted, nay demanded, the right to testify as soon as possible.
2
Sure, Ross. But SHE is being asked to prove a negative : That SHE is NOT lying. To that I say : Why would she lie ??? Why would ANY Woman place herself in this position, based on lies ??? She is not a child, and surely realizes the monstrous spectacle to come. No matter the outcome, for the remainder of her life, their two names will be linked. They story will be in the first sentence of her obituary. Her entire Family will be publicly questioned and possibly scorned. How could she possibly benefit from this fiasco, other than claiming HER dignity and honor??? Before any questioning even begins, I greatly admire her courage. I truly don’t know if I would volunteer to undergo the same obnoxious “ questioning “ and ridiculous posturing by the (mostly ) men in the Senate. I already hold them in contempt. Seriously.
9
@Phyliss Dalmatian....So what ever a women alleges is true and what ever denial a man makes is false?
2
@Phyliss Dalmatian
A woman believed to have been one of five people at a party some 35 years ago where Christine Blasey Ford claims she was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh has become the fourth person to deny any recollection of the event.
In a Saturday night email to the Senate Judiciary Committee also received by several news outlets, Leland Ingham Keyser - a "longtime friend" of Blasey Ford's said through her attorney:
"Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," said Keyser's attorney Howard Walsh
CBF is not credible.
1
@W.A. Spitzer....your comment is a non sequitur. @Phyliss commented on this one specific situation, not on women’s allegations generally.
I'm only certain of one thing in this whole mess... liberals will believe Ms. Ford... conservatives will believe Mr. Kavanaugh.
Why?
Because 95% of the population is intellectually dishonest and driven by political emotions instead of objective analysis.
The hearings will be a ridiculous show of political grand-standing by both sides and absolutely nothing that is said will change the minds of the 95%.
Kavanaugh has boxed himself in by categorically denying this ever happened. He simply cannot escape this with his reputation intact. There is nothing he can say that will prove he didn't do it and nothing she can say that proves he did. We all will look at this and decide for ourselves who is more believable.
Obviously, he has more reason to lie. Her life has been disrupted in a way that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Whether or not she is believed, she will personally not benefit whereas he gets an appointment to the Supreme Court if he can convince 50 Republicans who are already leaning his direction.
But a confirmation will be done with a huge asterisk beside his name. More than Clarence Thomas' sexual harassment and Neil Gorsuch sitting in Merrick Garland's stolen seat. Brett Kavanaugh will be a credibly accused rapist in the eyes of a LOT of Americans if confirmed.
Any other administration would withdraw his name to avoid tainting the court in this way - unfair to him or not.
@S.M. Aker
I am probably at odds with all the responses here, but I think that if Kavanaugh had assaulted Ford and remembered it, however hazily, he would have hedged first to give himself some wiggle room instead of categorically denied it.
If Kavanaugh's nomination fails because of an accusation whose truth is unascertainable, as seems to be the case, that would be an incentive for false accusations in the future. It would become possible to defeat any nomination with a false accusation, and this would become routine.
That would be true whatever the truth of the accusation against Kavanaugh.
5
Kavanaugh has no burden of proof, only on Dr. Blasey does. You conveniently ignore Blasey receiving so many credible death threats from rank and file Republicans that she and her family are now in hiding. How can that compare to Kavanaugh potentially facing some unspecified stigma which will have no concrete impact on him? Further, you deliberately ignore that Republicans run this circus, have already excluded all evidence of Kavanaugh's wrongdoing, have spent days prepping Kavanaugh to testify, and have already said they intend to confirm him no matter what Dr. Blasey says. We're supposed to feel bad for you, and understand you placing an impossible to meet burden on Blasey, because your hypocritical Conservative friends gave you a hard time. No matter what Blasey says Kavanaugh will be confirmed. You lay out the Republican/Conservative attack: That Blasey was sexually assaulted is irrelevant as Kavanaugh was never there, he would never do such a thing (despite the fact his behavior at the time was entirely consistent with it), he's wrongly accused, he's the victim, Blasey is mistaken, she's wrong, he's right. We've seen how badly Republicans are stigmatized when facing sexual assault and harassment charges: they become President, or they're confirmed to the Supreme Court. After a while their wives may start demanding formal public apologies from victims. Having Kavanaugh confirmed is not enough. You want to say that he, like all Conservatives, is as pure as the driven snow.
2
This debacle of a supreme court standoff shows how factionalism is unraveling this country. Whoever wins this particular bout will have won a Pyrrhic victory with the loser even more enraged and pushed to brinkmanship.
From the Republican perspective the timing of the accusation seems calculated to snatch away a supreme court nomination. The facts known so far indicate that Ford did not manufacture her allegation last minute (lie detector test passed and therapist notes from years ago), though Sen. Feinstein has her own explaining to do. Facts aside, I can see how someone could reasonably suspect foul play.
From the Democratic perspective a group of all male republicans are trying to snatch bodily autonomy away from women and push through the nomination of someone credibly accused of attempted rape. McConnell's nuking of the filibuster and absolute obstruction of Obama's SC nominee definitely helped push us to this point. He no doubt rationalizes this as all for the greater good of advancing his agenda. What honor is gained by holding political power over a nation so upended that governing is impossible?
Our institutions are wrecked. We are witnessing a total political meltdown. The great irony is that the liftetime appointment of SC nominees is supposed to insulate them from politics.
I would like to see the ridiculous liftetime appointments ended and justices from the federal courts taking rotating appointments to the Supreme Court. It will not happen of course.
2
What bothers me more than anything is that death threats are being launched at both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. Can we not get to the truth without partisan hatred and anger?
7
Mr. Douthat's column is on the right track but doesn't go far enough. The "burden of proof" in this case is enormous because of the importance of the office. Great diligence is required to find out the truth, beginning with clear and open recitation of the facts of the event. This means extraordinary efforts to fully explore, and to fully disclose, the evidence through a formal investigation (not done for the Clarence Thomas nomination). This means taking the time and patience to investigate at levels comparable to the investigations that discovered false charges were made in some highly-publicized "rapes" that really did not occur. The case is now open and must be pursued to its rightful and correct conclusion. This will mean a delay in the mad rush to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice before the November elections. Too bad, but this time let's get it right and let justice be done to Dr. Ford's complaint!!! It is bitterly ironic that the same Mitch McConnell who blocked Obama's nomination of Judge Garland for nearly a year is still the leader of the Senate. By the way, Judge Kavanaugh is not faced with "proving a negative" - he is faced with concrete charges of specific behaviors, which he denies. If Trump doesn't want the taint of fully-aired accusations to mar the Court, then of course he should not continue with the nomination.
1
Your friends are not conservatives. Conservation is the planning for a fair and equal distribution of materials and wealth to service the whole of a project (the republic).
Your friends are denying that future of the modern and post-modern inevitable influx within the United States concerning health and welfare of the citizenry. Your friends continue to embrace what George Bush Jr. deemed "voo-doo" when Ronald Reagan coined the hare brained idea of "trickle down" that has proven over and over a Teapot Dome shrouded in a bubble's reflective film only to explode upon those unprotected by loopholes of escape on offshore island bank accounts.
2
The standard is Innocent until Proven Guilty and is not malleable just because he is up for a lifetime appointment. There is a process to remove a person who gets on the Court when they should not have and that process is always there if somehow a guilty person ascends. To deny this man this job at this time because of this allegation is doom for the Democratic Party. Run from this tactic if you care about your party you are destroying it.
2
Kavanaugh is the only contender who stated a sitting president should not, cannot be prosecuted. End of story.
5
If the Kavanaugh forces are going to bring inaccurate memory to the table as their main argument, they will lose.
A terrified teenage girl's memory is more believable than that of a drunk or half-drunk party boy. A sharp questioner could shred the drunk's credibility.
Why aren't there more questions about Judge Kavanaugh's alcohol use and abuse over the years? Is he really as sober as a judge?
5
Memory will fail you on plenty of minor things over time, but there's just no way you'd forget who held you down and tried to rape you if you knew who it was to begin with. That's simply not a memory that fades and changes over time.
One of them is lying, so we have to ask what motive they'd have for lying. It may be plausible that she'd upend her life and put her family at risk just to derail one conservative SCOTUS nomination, that she told her therapist and husband about it years ago in anticipation of this opportunity, and that she felt confident enough about it to take a lie-detector test and call for an FBI investigation, or that she convinced dozens of other people to join her plot and fabricate lies along with her, but it's far more likely that Kavanaugh is lying to save his reputation and gain the lifetime power of a SCOTUS justice.
And if he's innocent, why isn't he too asking to take a polygraph and for the FBI to investigate and clear his name? His conservative supporters don't care if Dr Blasey Ford is telling the truth, and the fact that they don't want the FBI to investigate shows that they too think she is.
4
I oppose Kavanaugh's elevation to the Supreme Court because his expressed opinions and his affiliation with our dishonorable President and the sleazy Republican Party indicate that he may support judicial rulings that impinge on the Constitutional rights of Americans and are contrary to the general welfare of our nation.
The vote on Kavanaugh's nomination should be delayed until after the upcoming November elections to give Americans voters an opportunity to acquaint the Senate with current democratic values. The precedent has been set, hasn't it?
What we can determine with certainty from the decades-old allegations and recollections of the Blasey-Kavanaugh drunken party is that the whole lot should have been busted for underage drinking!
If Judge Kavanaugh were a smart and honest judge, he would insist that the original FBI investigation re-open to gather the facts needed to clear or corroborate his activities to the greatest extent possible.
In light of the fact that 88% of sexual assaults are never reported, when Donald Trump said:
" I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place!", it proves once again that Trump is neither smart nor honest. And Russ, instead of calling him a"Playboy" president, call him what he is: an admitted sexual assaulter.
2
Unless Kavanaugh can show by a preponderance of evidence that he did not do what Dr. Ford alleges, he should be rejected for a 30+ year judgeship on the world's most powerful court.
He should not be rewarded if he managed to silence a traumatized 15 year old whom he allegedly nearly smothered to silence her. Had Dr. Ford gone to the police at the time, it is highly unlikely that he would have ever met the character standard for admission as a lawyer. Indeed, his teenage alcoholic group, evident from his yearbook and friend, Mark Judge's books, might have barred him from practicing law.
Dr. Ford should Tweet her responses during Cavanaugh's testimony that follows hers, if she she disagrees with any of his testimony.
Dr. Ford should then appear on a 2 hour special with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and former US Senate staffer, Lawrence O'Donnell, to discuss further all of the testimony.
Dr. Ford can make her case to the American people directly via TV if Trump, Grassley, McConnell, Pence, Hatch, et al. deny her a fair hearing, as seems likely to be the case.
Dr. Ford can this way make her full case before the full US Senate votes.
The Montgomery MD prosecutor can then follow up investigating Mark Judge and the other witnesses Grassley failed inexcusably to call. There is no statute of limitations in MD on an attempted rape allegation.
The US House and/or US Senate can then investigate further and fully after the GOP loses the election in 6 weeks, as appears likely.
1
Kavanaugh has already lied under oath multiple times to the Senate about the stolen Democratic party memos. In so doing, has undermined his credibility when he attempts to deny the assault on Ford (whether or not he did such a thing.) If it becomes more believable that he did do what Ford accuses him of doing, then he has further demonstrated his untruthfulness. That further disqualifies him -- or should -- from a Supreme Court appointment. And who knows what lies in the documents the Republicans won't reveal?
3
BK has already offered his defense. And it is that very defense that might, repeat, might, sink him.
Let's say in fact, time and space, BK did not touch this young woman in 1982.
Because BK's defense is categorical then ANY flaw in it dooms his nomination.
For example, and again we are assuming BK never touched Ms. Ford back then, let's say a benign "Kodak moment" photo is found showing them together in front of some house, maybe one with arm around the other?
What if there is a witness who can testify the two young people knew each other, maybe went on a date?
What if an investigation revealed there WAS a party at a house and BK was there? It would not matter if Ford was there or not. BK's categorical denial of all things related to Ford would make any of these innocent acts a reason BK would have to step down.
What if women who clerked with BK testified that it was known he wanted them to dress a certain way at the office or for a job interview?
What if BK indicated that things that happened at that private school must remain at that same place?
It is no wonder conservatives want:
No investigation
No subpoenas issued
No witnesses called
No 11 angry Republicans on the JC questioning anyone.
ANY crack in BK's categorical denial wipes out the GOP in November and that would begin the end of Dear Leader.
2
First, Dr Ford isn't a dumb blonde floozie. She holds a doctorate as well as many well published articles in her field of work. So a reasonable person would come to the conclusion there's substance to her accusation. It's the substance that is in question, not the person or motive.
My point is everyone is rushing to prejudge her motives without considering the substance. Note too, republicans are howling mad because their fast track nomination process has been derailed. Also note, the public reaction to such political showmanship has stirred the emotions of the public up into a fury.
So there are some serious issues concerning the judge being elevated to a seat on the highest court that have been purposefully been ignored that demand questioning and acceptable answers.
So look at Dr. Ford's accusation as that necessary emergency brake from the public domain - republicans are out of step with a vast majority of the public whom are not part of their political base thanks to gerrymandering.
3
I don’t care about Kavanagh. I don’t care about Roe v Wade. I believe something happened to Ford but she made a fatal mistake by not reporting it to her parents, the cops, school administrators, or confronted Kavanagh and his parents and get a record of where, when, how, etc, fresh from the experience itself. Perhaps she was ashamed to or embarrassed. But the truth is many women, young and old, file reports on abuse every day. Check the police blotter for the time Ford said this happened just in her county and you’d find a few, along with restraining orders and so on. And an FBI investigation would interrogate Ford about her habits, why she didn’t do a report, etc and be very inconclusive because saying, “I can’t remember” after 36 years is fairly plausible when there is simply no evidence available. Brute and blunt force trauma on the political front is what we will have. And a counter thrust from the “loser” and on and on it will go, to the detriment of a functioning democracy. William James once said that democracy depends on the “mutual respect between opponents” as well as the maintenance of law. Still, I think Kavanagh will probably withdraw, howls of protest will come from the right, the Republicans will keep the Senate and a Kavanagh- clone will be passed quickly through and become the newest member of the Supreme Court. Men should listen to the women and respect what they are saying without giving up their wonderful masculinity.
1
By your logic then Dr. Ford must be given every opportunity to make her case, including calling witnesses. But I realize that doesn't fit with conservatives "moral values".
1
Report it when it happens or shut up.
You don't get to keep something like this up your sleeve and then pull it out 35+ years later when someone you don't like is up for a promotion.
Any girl from our high schools could lie and say the same thing about us, and we should be disgraced?
I say no.
She had her chance to report it. She didn't. Enough with this.
4
Perhaps if kavanaugh also took a lie detector test, asked for the FBI to investigate, and asked for all witnesses to testify, he might be believed. But apparently all he intends to do is assert his Innocents.
2
I disagree with Ross - Kavanaugh can only say he assaulted no one as a teenager or as an adult, has never met Dr. Ford and has no recollection of the vague description of a party given by her. Simple, a 45 second answer. Then let the democrats attack him for 2 hours with ridiculous questions written up by their staff in conjunction with Ford's attorneys - they will look like badgering fools and the nomination will even regain the 3-5 red state democrats who see the direction of the wind and will vote to save themselves from defeat, giving Kavanaugh 55-57 votes for confirmation.
1
In this public hearing nothing will be proven, no evidence will be presented nor witnesses interrogated. It will be more in the line of an extended interview where how the individuals present themselves will have as much bearing as what they say. The audience will not only be the senator/judges but the general public as well.
So, here, as a citizen/judge, is what I'd like to know, as a minimum:
From Ford:
+ Since she was 15 at the time and he 17 and going to different schools, how did she know him and Mark Judge... by previous personal contact or reputation?
+ Why did she go to that party where drinking was the main activity if she was underage?
+ Did she talk to anyone about the alleged assault? If not, why?
+ Did she ever go to parties of similar make-up after the alleged assault?
From Kavanaugh:
+ Did he drink? And if so, did he ever get drunk?
+ Did he ever drink so much that he couldn't remember anything about where he was or who was there?
+ Did he ever pass out drunk?
+ Does he drink now to an extent that he gets drunk? Passes out?
How these questions are answered, the impressions they leave, will be everything just like when a cop stops you at night going home from a party and asks, "Have you been drinking?" Answering yes or no can change your entire life.
2
In the name of justice Kavanaugh should withdraw. It wouldn't be in "tacit shame," as your friends argue, but with the sober reckoning that he will not be an effective public servant (again, your words) for this country should he be eventually nominated. There will always be a cloud of mistrust around him and that will cast a toxic shadow over the whole of SCOTUS. In the interest of the country, he should withdraw.
But of course he won't. Because foaming at the mouths social conservatives will try to win at any cost. (at this point, this destructive demo needs a new name for themselves; the only thing they're 'conserving' is white male patriarchy. They are no good husbands to the earth, that's for sure) Kavanaugh himself is just the political football and pet to the religious right. This spectacle is disgusting, and I can only hope that Republicans' calculus will backfire and this country can re emerge from this Dark Ages mentality Republicans have dragged us into.
I pray for both of them at this point. Kavanaugh, who has a history with drinking that the press seems reluctant to report on, and who continues to be exploited. And for Dr. Ford. I can only imagine the kind of agony she's gone through when deciding whether to give up her privacy and go through this nightmare circus because she felt the responsibility to tell the public Kavanaugh attempted date rape. She's sacrificed to do the right thing; now Kavanaugh should -- he must resign.
4
“But if Kavanaugh is actually innocent, there are really only two alternatives: Either Ford is a brazen liar, or some scenario of clouded or mistaken memory must be true.”
There’s a more likely third option: they’re both right. Ford experienced what she felt was sexual assault. Kavanaugh, in a drunken state, remembers boys having a little fun and has convinced himself he never meant any harm. If this is indeed the case, then its his integrity that’s at issue. He seems unable to admit mistakes, take responsibility for them and deliver an appropriate apology.
3
Other liberal media (CNN, Morning Joe on MSNBC) have criticized the outrageous tactics used by Democratic Senators to obstruct and delay a vote on this nomination. The Wall Street Journal (admittedly not liberal) published an opinion piece entitled, "The Presumption of Guilt." Mr. Douthat, apparently has abandoned his presumed conservatism to fall in line with generally liberal views of other N.Y. Times opinion writers. While I detested the treatment of Judge Merrick Garland, this appears to be an "eye for an eye" tactic orchestrated by Senator Schumer.
1
What a twisted world this contemplates, and I am frightened that we already live in it and our children will pay the price for us making politics about personal destruction. A person cannot be lying about something they are certain didn't happen. If someone believes an accuser who in no way has proven anything, that does not make the denier a liar. We now have a new category of accusation that has never existed before-the accusation that is so serious in its content that is doesn't even have to be true, but simply has to be believed. The accused is presumed guilty, and he cannot ever be trusted, because his own defense automatically makes him a liar. This will not be limited to the small class of select individuals qualified to be nominate to the SC. This tyrannical, star-chamber thinking will destroy our system, eventually.
4
Regarding "Whelan's folly, " Mr. Whelan would not have proposed such a cockamamie idea had he not discussed it with Kavanaugh beforehand -- which leads to questions about Kavanaugh's character and decision-making when the subject matter is his own self-interest.
2
the statue of limitations has run out on this crime and therefor there is no requirement for a presumption of innocence. when it comes to a judgement on whether Kavanaugh is fit to serve on the supreme court its up to him to convincingly prove that his accuser is not telling the truth about his assault and attempted rape of her.
@allen Not in MD it hasn't.
All I can say is there are two reasons the GOP senate wants this man to take a seat on the court, as opposed to hundreds of others who are well qualified to serve.
The reasons are women being in control of their own bodies and, predictably, money and power.
They will look past all of Kavanaugh's warts and blemishes to get him an office across the street from the capitol building.
Shame on them a hundred times. Party over country every time with this group.
1
The Burden of Proof lies not with the accused, but with the accuser. This is not the Spanish Inquisition(1478-1534) system of rules for accusations. Our rules are clear, and should never be subjugated for ANY reason.
The bedrock principle of our system is the presumption of innocence Kavanaugh's opponents have thrown that bedrock principle in the trash. They are willing to ignore basic principles of right and wrong to get their way. They have put Lawyers(US Senators) on National TV to claim his guilt. I guess that they slept through the lectures on basic principles of our Justice system. Their behavior is an insult to the Nation and the Senate, as well as to the rule of law.
2
@TT TWISTER
Your comments about "burden of proof" would be appropriate if we were trying Kavanaugh for the (attempted) rape of an under-age girl.
That is not the issue at hand. What is key is Kavanaugh's fitness for a lifetime appointment on the nation's highest court. For this I would suggest the *minimum* standard should be "fit beyond a reasonable doubt", and the burden of proving that should be on the candidate and his proposers.
If his accuser's testimony (and whatever else has transpired and will transpire in this confirmation process) leads to reasonable doubts as to his fitness, I would argue that he should not be confirmed. If that leaves a possibly unjust stain on his character, so be it. The Supreme Court deserves no less a standard of integrity.
We already have the case of Clarence Thomas sitting on the court despite what many felt were credible accusations from Anita Hill. Now we hear that others were willing to come forward at his hearings, but were not called. What would have happened to his confirmation had that additional information been available to the Senate? Thomas's confirmation and continued presence have stained the court in the minds of many, and this new information can only make the stain greater.
Granted the confirmation of a new Supreme Court justice is a political process, but let's at least choose a candidate whose integrity and overall fitness is beyond doubt.
What does Whelan's attempted dirty trickery mean, a desperate attempt to deflect, because?
Why is Mark Judge given a pass and excluded from a subpoena to testify?
A pause for a specific FBI investigation is not warranted?
Why isn't Senator Collin's on the panel of questioners?
If Kavanaugh is tainted, he can blame the republicans.
Brett Kavanaugh's life has been one ongoing example of charity for the elite. He needs no additional charity now, god forbid.
As a fellow Catholic, Mr. Douthat, you need to go to confession or do what Clint Eastwood did in Million Dollar Baby and ask the priest about the realities of the Immaculate Conception.
It is quite probable young Brett as an entitled teen got a little carried away and did exactly as Professor Blasey Ford said.
Bye, bye, Brett! And take your false sainthood with you.
Next up in Trump's world of great people!
3
Hasn’t Kavanaugh already tainted himself by his bizarre explanation for his outlandish credit card debt and lying (under oath) about his lack of involvement in discussions about torture during the G.W. Bush administration?
8
An issue that seems to have been lost in all this brouhaha is the following:
The only episode at issue is an alleged sexual assault by a drunk under aged teenager. I do not doubt that this was a traumatic experience for Dr. Ford. However, No other allegations of similar conduct as an adult have been forthcoming. Juvenile records are sealed for a reason.Should this be a disqualifying event? Perhaps he was so drunk that he does not remember it?
Lying to congress, well that is another matter.
1
Ross presented a false dichotomy of two testimonies, that of Kavanaugh and Ford. According to Ford, there were five people in the house; and 3 in the room during the alleged assault. Any serious attempt to find truth should properly involve getting the testimonies of all these people, especially, that of Judge, and subpoena be served if they refuse.
In any case, Ross's diligent attempt is moot. This Republican Senate or perhaps also this Republican base is not operating on fairness, logic, or for that matter, critical thinking. They have an ideological and political case for wanting Kavanaugh and that is quite enough. Their refusal to allow any other witnesses clearly show the farce and charade that next week's hearing is.
I am very sorry to feel this way, but I fear the majority of Republicans today have no decency, and thus they do not need decent SCOTUS, and their representatives in Congress are only too happy to oblige.
It is truly ironic that the Christian Right are willing to compromise on the morality of our judges (and our president) so these people may be the "vanguard" for this country's morality.
Do they really think fighting the sins of LGBT and abortionists justify their own sin of hatred and cruelty towards the "sinners;" and along with it the poisoning of our homeland by corporations; and the degradation of our constitution and rule of law by corrupt politics?
Fire is burning inside the house and Ross is shouting, "There is a monster outside the house!"
7
Judge Kavanaugh said about Trump: "No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.”
That is an absurd untruth and Kavanaugh told that absurd untruth because he decided telling a lie would help his career more.
Kavanaugh insisted he had nothing to do with the Charles Pickering nomination and that turned out to be untrue as well.
Kavanaugh claimed he absolutely never ever knew about stolen e-mails and yet it is clear that he received e-mails that were obviously stolen.
When a man has soiled his word to promote his career or to act as sycophant to someone, he has only himself to blame when his word is worthless.
Kavanaugh's word is as good as Donald Trump's.
12
Ross Douthat needs a year in law school. No one needs to prove their own innocence. That said, if there is a credible case against him, many people will see it that way.
Admittedly, I am not the intellectual and moral paragon that Friar Douthat and the others at his Abbey he was having a week long conclave with are, but, let me offer a few options Mr. Kavanaugh could pursue in an attempt to disprove a negative
- demand an FBI investigation into the allegation.
- demand the judiciary commitee call Mr. Judge and any other
possible witnesses to the alleged assault.
- demand to take a lie detector test.
These would, at least to me, offer supporting evidence that he actually believed his own denial. Instead, he is allowing his geriatric puppet masters to actively block any attempt to prove his denial credible.
10
Troubling facts:
1. Whelan went to Ford's Linkedin page prior to her announcement or name being made public. So, Whelan and K's handlers were already aware of the incident and that info could only come from K.
2. McConnell or Grassley stated that K would be seated even if he were found guilty of a felony.
3. If K is seated he will be obligated to do what he can to protect Trump if Trump is in fact charged. Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsucks are already primed to do so.
4. Reports are that the GOP congress has now begun attacking Social Security and Medicare with proposed legislation. This while we are in another "look over there" moment.
There are more but this is enough to make us sick. As others say, the real GOP no longer exists. We are in the hands of real Vandals raping and pillaging at will.
7
Well, Ross, if there had been the FBI investigation that the victim had requested, this would not be effectively a “he said, she said,” and nobody would have to suggest that the victim was crazy, “mixed up,” or a liar to defend Kavanaugh.
There was another person in the room. There were other guests at a party that Kavanaugh is swearing that he didn’t attend, even though he does not yet know, because Dr, Beasley has not testified, where and when that party occurred.
Nor can Dr. Beasley produce the witnesses in whom she confided, long before Kavanaugh was nominated for the Supreme Court. They could provide corroboration for her story.
Dr. Beasley has not shied away from such an investigation. She has taken a lie detector test. She wants to afford Kavanaugh due process.
So, Ross, the flaw in your argument is that the reason the Republicans do not have many choices - have boxed themselves in - is that they have denied themselves the one choice an impartial investigation- that might actually lead to the truth.
4
Whatever happened to "Innocent until proven Guilty".
If charges from 36 years ago gain derail a person's career,
who,
even if wholly innocent,
is safe ?
How is it that Ms. Ford,
seemingly,
cannot remember:
date,
the year,
the house,
the city of this attack ?
How is it that she cannot remember anyone
else at the gathering except two people
who would naturally deny the attack ?
It is all "too neat".
Just like criminals who can remember everything
but where they were at the time of the crime.
Is it not possible that such critical vagueness prevents any independent assessment of the
validity of her claim ?
If she really thought she was going to be raped, if she
really thought she might suffocate via the hand over
her mouth - why did she not run out of the room screaming for her life and thus alert the other people
at the gathering what was going on.
How long did she stay at the gathering after the
alleged attack ?
Did she demand that whomever drove her there
drive her home - immediately, or call her parents
and demand they pick her up, or flee down the street,
anything to get of the same house as her attackers ?
Is there no one else who remembers the gathering ?
Ms. Ford may be telling the truth
but why are the verifiable aspects
the very ones she cannot recall ?
4
Per usual, the Republicans have no interest in the truth, morality, the law or what's best for the American people. It makes no logical sense that Dr. Ford would put herself and her family through a lifetime of horrors because of a made up story. It makes no sense she would ask the FBI to investigate and pass a lie detector test if it didn't happen. If Kavanaugh was innocent, it makes no sense the GOP would refuse to investigate or call witnesses.
The only logical conclusion is Republicans know full well the incident occurred, and they simply don't care. We already have a sexual predator in the White house and one on the Supreme Court, what's one more if he'll push their agenda through to return to the glory days of suppressing women?
I might have respected Kavanaugh if he admitted he was drunk and young and made a mistake, but he's chosen to deny it flat out. We are going to appoint a lifetime Justice who is willing to LIE UNDER OATH and take no responsibility for the pain he's caused, so he can gain power. Both Kavanaugh and the GOP have sold their souls, assuming our democracy weathers the Trump storm, history will judge them harshly.
2
The argument that this "would inevitably lead to less-provable allegations against more probably-innocent figures down the road" is misogyny. It is based on the belief that most women are lying about sexual assault/abuse/harassment.
Do women lie? Of course! Do they lie at a higher rate than men? No way.
The fear of millions of women coming forward to falsely accuse men is a misogynistic view of women.
Male sexual violence against women is pervasive in our culture. We must confront this now. This is a cultural reckoning.
We probably need some sort of truth and reconciliation process outside the legal system to handle this change. We need a way for women to process these assaults without losing years or decades of their lives to trauma. We also need a way for men to admit guilt and be rehabilitated in cases that do not meet the bar of criminal prosecution.
Kavanaugh's vehement denials leave no room for reconciliation. He is calling Dr. Ford a liar and counting on the cultural misogyny to believe his word over hers. This worked in 1991. We live in a different world today.
Kavanaugh is unfit for the Supreme Court.
3
I would ask any man to explain how they would convince their wife & children that they did not commit such an act if accused by someone ??
It is impossible to prove a negative.
That is why the accuser needs to provide conclusive evidence.
1
Why are Kavanaugh and the GOP not supporting an FBI investigation and issuing a subpoena for Mark Judge, if they want to get to the truth?
2
The term PLAYBOY is disingenuous. I had to read that word twice.
PLAYBOY?
Camouflage is a reality that conservatives use to paint Trump as just a big boy having fun.
Boys will be boys?
Frankly, I'm shocked.
There is a difference between PLAYBOY and serial sexual predator.
Do I tell my children that assault is a PLAYBOY entitlement?
This brings stuff into my house that I do not want in my house, my family, or my explanations to my kids that I am now compelled to have to define.
I don't think they are ready to comprehend sexual predation as something that fits into the construction of what sex is all about. Love might sound simplistic, but at least it's real. Rape is not sex. I have to cover this territory to children seeking a more elaborate explanation as to what's going on regarding the connection between what sex is and what domination can be.
Why am I forced to elucidate concepts from a world that misinforms children as to the seriousness of what authority is and what cooperation is as an effective response based on mutual respect.
Or am I a dinosaur who allows my kids to get the information they need -- and judgement calls -- from the Internet.
I am outraged that Ross Douthat contends that rapaciousness is nothing more than how things work.
Kids question.
Thank you, Ross.
Thank you, Trump. My kids are barely ready for SuperToy RC Quadcopter.
Now, I have to somehow make intelligible how a beast of prey became president and how a writer normalizes crime.
1
Just a question: Are justices suppose to "advance a cause'?
1
Ross, the GOP is a take-no-prisoners apparatus. Not confirming Brett Kavanaugh five weeks before a pivotal election, the evangelicals have sent the warning shot across the bow. They have no choice.
However, it appears this judge is a liar. His senate confirmation in 2004, 2006, and now this set of hearings make him a dubious character at best. He is not Gorsach, Alito, or Roberts. He will get on the high court. Once the Natioal Archives releases his paper trail, should the democrats control the. US house in the next Congress, there is no question, he should be impeached.
If only Americans read the constitution
1
Lots of comments on Douthat's column regarding the lack of evidence about Ford's accusation. Of course, none of these commenters care to acknowledge that Grassley and Trump have refused to direct the FBI to investigate the accusation.
1
Douthat wants Kavanaugh to take a hit for the team (Supreme Court's good name) and withdraw from consideration for the bench if Ford is "credible" and he can't prove the negative.
I disagree. Kavanaugh wants the job, is qualified for it and asserts unequivocally that he's innocent: no mealy mouthed "my actions were misinterpreted, I'm sorry she misunderstood me" stuff that Charlie Rose, et. al. put forward.
The president picked him. It's up to the president to withdraw him if the judge is too damaged to do anyone any good by standing fast. The president can't run away from this responsibility. GW Bush pulled Harriet Meyers (sp?) from consideration and so should Trump if he's so moved. Kavanaugh has gone through the background checks, sat through the hearings, made the rounds with 65 private meetings with senators and gotten hit with an after-the-bell blow. If he wants to continue on he should be given that allowance; Trump, and only Trump, must decide enough's enough or not.
If Dr. Ford's testimony provides nothing more for the record than it does now - viewed with a cold eye analysis, then I believe her assertions are not grounds for denying him the job. Too conservative, Roe v Wade, not open minded enough: these are grounds for reasonable "no" votes - not reconstructed memories four decades removed that can not be verified.
4
@EQ:
I would agree with you if this were a normal job. But it is not: lifetime tenure, philosopher king status, and becoming a second justice among only nine who have accusations of mistreatment of women against them. How can anyone, remembering that females make up half the population, see that as appropriate?
1
@Gaston
No charge has been made against Kavanaugh under Oath yet. May never be one made under Oath. If such a charge is made, it is a singular one and without any proof. I would see him getting his seat as very appropriate.
@Gaston
Fair enough. That's why its a tough call. Trump should be the one to make it, I think, unless Kavanaugh and his family have had enough. The lifetime tenure adds an important element to the discussion: does that make it more important for him to resign or carry on?
The charge against Thomas was that of conduct weird, obnoxious and persistent to the point of greatly unnerving - harassment. The charge against Kavanaugh is of violent assault amounting to attempted rape of a minor.
The evidence against Thomas was persuasive, at least to me, but that against Kavanaugh, so far, is not. Having a heinous charge and thin evidence being enough to destroy a person's professional life is of concern to me and its hard for me to get past that concern. Ford's and Kavanaugh's testimony might resolve the question.
Thanks for responding.
If a lawyer, aspiring to adjudicate the thorniest issues of our democracy from the highest court in the land, continues to allow himself to be a pawn in this -- he is not worthy of the job to which he is applying. Regardless of his guilt, or no.
He is spending time in the WH being prepped for another round of hearings, but at no time has he come forward, like an adult, and said, 'I am steeped in the law and I value the right of due process. I want to tell my side, but also believe strongly that she should have the same right to do so'.
He is riding on the backs of the conservative political machine that elevated him and blind to what his actual calling is should he be confirmed.
This speaks more to his weak character without even moving forward with the next round of hearings about what happened 30 years ago.
9
This case should finally lead to term limits for Supreme Court justices. They have become a serious problem, not a guarantee of impartiality.
12
How would he refute her story?
By claiming that he didn't drink excessively at that point in his life, or didn't go to parties? Clearly not the case.
That he remembers being at the party, sober, and didn't do what she claims? He has already denied this.
What additional information should she be required to provide? What else is necessary besides a detailed description of what happened? She has already provided this.
People often find their lives derailed by a single transgression, whether recent or remote. Call it karma or tragedy, it happens all the time. He should admit to his and withdraw.
11
One way of proving Kavanaugh's innocence is to let Judge speak and be questioned. Why are we dismissing the most logical option? Is it because the Republicans are afraid Judge may actually speak the truth and implicate Kavanaugh?
312
@alan
Yes, the Republicans obviously do think Judge testifying would implicate Kavanaugh badly. And they have access to information that we do not, including both having sent attorneys to speak with Judge privately, and having spoken privately to Kavanaugh extensively.
1
@alan The Judge has agreed to be questioned in open testimony. The Accuser has agreed only to be questioned in closed testimony.
Turning your argument upon its ear, why would the Accuser not want her testimony to be before the entire Senate and People?
@Douglas Campbell As of about 45 mins ago, the Accuser agreed to be deposed in open testimony. So, we shall all get to see, in real time, what each person has to say.
The difficulty of Kavanaugh's burden of proof as you lay it out strongly implies that Blasey Ford is neither a brazen liar nor mistaken. Neither choice is at all satisfying.
If she's lying, the lie did not appear out of nowhere, but had a lengthy incubation that predates Kavanaugh's nomination by many years.
That leaves only mistakenness as the remaining plausible explanation, but psychologists don't seem much moved by that theory.
I believe Blasey Ford, but I've been grappling with possible explanations of how she might be wrong. With a dearth of good explanations, one reaches for more tenuous, highly speculative ones. Like mistakenness as mental illness.
How about this. As a teenager Blasey Ford had an unrequited crush on the older, oblivious Kavanaugh. Her pain of "rejection" morphed and festered into some darker imagining in which he becomes the villain, and she carries that remembrance down through life, even mentioning it in a therapy session.
The need to reach for such extreme explanations further underscores the difficulty of Kavanaugh's burden.
Meanwhile, the other side of the argument reeks with plausibility: from what we've been discovering about the ubiquity of caddish male behavior, to Kavanaugh's own public reminiscences of his at-times wild youth and young adulthood -- abundantly lubricated, in his revelous telling, with alcohol. His alleged accomplice even wrote a book about that very time and its debauchery.
Kavanaugh's burden is indeed great.
8
Or, in the future, political parties could simply prevent action on any nominee for the Court until their political party regains the Presidency.
But Mr. Douthat does have a point.
We do need to have confidence that a nominee for a life time appointment to the Supreme Court has the character and ability required. And we can’t abide bad faith, spurious accusations that sully reputations. So we need the equivalent of legal due process.
Due process in confirmation cases should be: fair consuderation of all relevant evidence obtained after a thorough investigation by competent professionals and including testimony from relevant parties.
That is why we must have thorough background checks by the FBI and, when an accusation is made, the FBI needs to reopen the investigation.
And the Senate needs to consider such accusations, with the findings from the FBI in hand, and allow for such additional fact finding and testimony as needed.
What Republicans have been proposing is the opposite of due process. It is the Red Queen’s version of legal process - verdict first and then we will hear the evidence. “Give the little lady her day in court and then we will vote to confirm.”.
Neither the public nor the nominee is served by a hasty process and rush to confirm.
The Senators need to base their decision on the preponderance of the evidence. In this case, is it more likely than not that the accusation is right or wrong.
This is fair for the nominee and the public.
7
It’s unfortunate that all the he said/she said surrounding this issue has entirely pushed into the background the numerous other factors that make Kavanaugh unsuited for confirmation. These include: evidence that a) he has lied to the Judiciary Committee about certain past actions, b) spent years as a rabidly partisan staffer/attack dog, advocating for right wing conspiracy theories, and c) he was nominate principally because of his 2009 writings that the President can’t be subpoenaed or indicted.
All discussion of these issues has halted, as the Committee argues about whether and how to examine the Ford issue, which can not be adjudicated with any level of convincing certainty.
What’s lost in the decision making process is consideration of whether this man has the honesty of purpose and the moral timber that the Founders’ demanded of those who serve for a lifetime on the Supreme Court.
12
It is far too late to argue that the S.Ct. isn't politicized. From its creation, anti-Federalists argued that it was politicized in favor of Federalists. The ferocity of the charges has been increasing ever since African-Americans and women began using the courts to force social change (rightly in my opinion) against recalcitrant states and others. Then the Republicans adopted the Southern strategy, supported anti-abortion activists, and decided to use the courts for their own goal (guns and anti-affirmative action). Then there was Bork (supposedly unfair hearing), and everyone started to hunker down. And Obama's nominee. Now there is no requirement for 60 senators.
What is new is that the public is divided and galvanized over the issues in ways that it often wasn't in the past. Positive credit to education and the media for this, not handwringing.
As far as Kavanaugh, he's a political warrior. This means he would do everything to avoid being Borked in his mind. Dr. Blasey Ford's allegations are credible, if old, and he will have an almost impossible task to rebut them in any fashion because of the passage of time. His reputation is ruined no matter what, but he does have a lifetime appointment to the Court of Appeals.
1
Not mentioned in this essay are the various and suspicious attempts to hide much of Mr. Kavanaugh's record, coupled with the mad rush to ram his nomination through strictly on partisan grounds. There are questions where Mr. Kavanaugh has not been forthcoming with some lines of inquiry during his hearings. All this taken together means that even if Mr. Kavanaugh squeaks through to a seat on the Court, he, like Judge Thomas will never be trusted.
14
This essay sounds rather desperate. This is essentially because McConnel exercised the "nuclear option" requiring only a simple majority for confirmation. It is clear that Kavanaugh would not get 60 votes for cloture under the old rules. His confirmation, denial or withdrawal will never attain broad legitimacy.
Why is the only option giving Kavanaugh the "chance" to "explain" why he's not guilty? Douthat should call for an investigation into the facts, otherwise the credibility of both Kavanaugh and Blasey will be subject only to simple political calculus. We should aim, at the very least, to attempt to find the truth.
Without such an investigation, if Blasey's testimony sounds at all credible, McConnell's strategy of reducing the bar of confirmation to a simple majority will taint not only Kavanaugh if he is confirmed, but also every other potential SC justice for the next 20 years. The "right" of the left or the right to a seat on the SC will trump any considerations of character or qualifications. Without an investigation in this case, no matter how the vote goes, the legitimacy of the outcome will be in doubt.
6
@Rdeannyc
The Constitution requires only a simply majority to confirm a Supreme Court nomination. The Senate's so-called 60-vote rule should be ruled unconstitutional. The Constitution provides that all matters except treaty ratifications, impeachments and Constitutional amendments are to be determine by a simply majority vote. It is true the Constitution empowers the Senate to make its own parliamentarian rules, but it does not empower the Senate to make rules that contradict the Constitution.
Whelan, indeed, most of the GOP, was just turning to the standard GOP playbook, which includes (always) an attempt to trash any accuser and, at the same time, to deify their hard right brethren.
Using a "plan B" strategy against Ford and then quickly retreating, was simply an effort to further muddy the waters in the public's eye. It was reprehensible, but should not be considered unexpected at all.
The next great revelation will be some incident in Ford's past which will likely be dragged up to make her appear less "credible." I except that on Monday or Tuesday, prior to her testimony.
But the GOP is playing a very dangerous game here; most women I know can tell stories of having been abused at some point in their life and I sense that, no matter their political leanings, they probably believe Ms. Ford.
The decision the party has to make is this; is trading the midterms for Kavanaugh worth it?
6
@Clyde
I cannot imagine anything that would more mobilize the Trump/Republican base than a Kavanaugh withdrawal. In contrast your belief that not withdrawing would cost the Republicans the election, I think there's a chance his withdrawal would do the opposite and let the Republicans stay in control.
This comes down to a question of motivation. What motivates Dr. Ford to come out with her experience? The desire to stop her attacker from ascending to one of the most powerful and prestigious positions in the world. What motivates Kavanaugh? To reach that position whatever it takes. Two elements cannot be disputed. Dr. Ford took and passed a polygraph test. Why won't Kavanaugh? Dr. Ford called for an FBI investigation. Truth tellers welcome an investigation. Why isn't Kavanaugh calling for same? The other element in this case is hypocrisy. McConnell led the obstruction of even giving Merrick Garland, a judge highly respected by no less than Justices Roberts and Goresuch, an interview. He argued there was no rush to appoint an Obama nominee. Why now the call for urgency to get Kavanaugh seated? Answer: To shield Trump from the coming storm.
14
I'm still waiting to hear a credible explanation about the huge debt Kavanaugh built up ($200k) 'buying baseball tickets for neighbors and friends' that was suddenly paid off in one payment after his nomination.
Has anyone heard his explanation of that and does it seem credible?
33
@A2er
It's not as attention-getting as the sexual misbehavior claim. Let concentrate everyone's attention on the juicy stuff.
What is there to "believe" about the veracity of one over the other? All Americans who harbor notions of ethnic-religious nationalism and supremacy believe him, not her. It is telling on our national character that women are more concerned than men, suggesting erroneously that men have no sisters, mothers, or wives.
But those that believe Ms. Ford are seeking refuge in the most nonsensical, and specious argument "why else would the lady risk exposure, ridicule . . . were it not true?"
This line of argument claims that proposers have evaluated every motivation Ms. Ford has, and have ruled everything else out. Ms. Ford's motivation deserve exploration, but such a rhetoric is not a valid inference about her veracity.
To be clear, I saw some of the key testimony, and read some of what was reported about the judge's views, and do not think he is qualified. His involvement in the investigation of the Lewinsky affair, his views on women, and his entirely cynical dismissal of questions asked of him betray a less-than-acceptable level of integrity.
It is difficult to maintain faith in the process; I expect every republican - regardless of evidence - to vote in favor of the candidate, ensuring Kavanaugh's nomination.
What I fear the most is that ethno-religious nationalism and supremacy invariably leads to nullification of democratic processes and suspension of civil liberties - sooner or later. Is what is coming down the pike.
11
The work of the court requires that it be respected by all Americans. A simple majority vote to select justices is insufficient. Appointments can never be depoliticized, but a requiring a super-majority for appointment would absolutely require compromise, making the court a less partisan institution. "Conservatives" have long railed against activist judges, but worked hard to promote their own. Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
13
Mr. Douthat, I don't buy all this hand-wringing. If Kavanaugh ends up with a damaged reputation, he has himself and his GOP sponsors to thank for it. Kavanaugh was a late add to the candidates list. IF the Republicans had engaged in a fuller bi-partisan process and fully-vetted his candidacy, allowing ample time, provided full disclosure, we would not be where we are today. Instead, Grassley and company tried to ram his candidacy through, created false urgency, concealed documents, ran roughshod over objections & concerns (and are still trying to do that). Now, they hit a "speed bump" that looks more like a boulder. Kavanaugh's history of half-truths and dissembling has a new context. Key Republicans are saying "Hey. Wait a minute." Kacanaugh's history at Yale and Harvard are making news. What could have, should have happened behind closed doors, in early meetings and hearings, now is happening out in full view, at full volume. While certainly a child of privilege, Kavanaugh should not confuse that with entitlement. No one, repeat NO ONE, has a right to a seat on the Supreme Court.
19
If Kavanaugh was a credible judge, he would advocate for the FBI to do their investigation of the incident. He would advocate for the release of the withheld documents from his past work. He would advocate that all the evidence be reviewed to establish his credentials for one of the highest and most prestigious appointments in our country. He would advocate for more time to allow the process to unfold.
That he accepts the republican rush job that is more cover up than a hearing shows me that he does not have the judicial demeanor nor integrity to be a Supreme Court Justice.
And that seems to be the republican plan. Justice will have its blindfold removed and will check first who is appearing before the court and include that in the judgments.
37
If a nominee to the supreme court can be forced to withdraw based on unsupported allegations, then why should we not expect EVERY future nomination to not have such allegations come forward whether true or not? Once shown to work, it's naïve in the extreme to think it wouldn't be used as a weapon to stop nominee's with who there are fervent opponents.
8
@olin137
It's not just about the attempted rape allegations; it's about his political views and, more importantly, about his lack of candor and maybe perjury during the hearings.
I agree with the first half of the argument. The burden of proof rests with Kavanaugh. He needs to credibly disprove the allegation before sitting on the Supreme Court. However, the defense of Whelan's supposition resides on far shakier grounds.
Occam's razor: Brett Kavanaugh probably doesn't remember the night in question. He is described as highly intoxicated. Blackout drunk seems much more likely than mistaken identity. The alternative is calling Dr. Blasey a liar. I think we've established at this point Blasey's dishonesty would be even more astonishing than a mistaken identity. She didn't have to mention anything at all and she preferred anonymity in any case.
That brings us back to a second disqualifying act: Kavanaugh's public denial. If Kavanaugh had simply said there's a possibility his memory is faulty, I think his nomination would have proceeded with much less drama. "I don't remember" is not the same as "That never happened." There is a small but critical distinction.
In the world of public opinion, Kavanaugh has boxed himself into an unwinnable situation. There is no credible response to the accusations against him. Not for a position on the Supreme Court anyway. Unless Blasey comes across as a complete quack before the Senate, unlikely, Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination.
20
@Andy
Just because Blasey SOUNDS convincing does not mean her memory is accurate. At this point, after 35 years of remembering an incident, going over it with a therapist, talking with her husband and friends the last few years, it may well be that Blasey honestly believes what she says even if it isn't true. Under no conditions does "sounding" believable equate to truth, only that the person may honestly believe their version.
3
Except Ford was drunk too, and her memory is demonstrably shaky at best - another alleged witness (female) is denying Ford's claims. Thus the public are being asked to trust a woman who may or may not be telling the truth as she recalls it, and whose testimony who may or may not be true. If Kavanaugh is innocent then denial is all he can do as he cannot prove a negative. It is impossible for him to prove an event didn't occur, not that he wasn't involved at a time and place Ford cannot or will not define. Nor can Kavanaugh withdraw as that would be suicide - a public admission that Ford was telling the truth, and that he should be investigated for perjury. Ford can back out at the mere cost of public humiliation, Kavanaugh cannot. If Ford is telling the truth then Kavanaugh is in the wrong, but if he is the innocent victim here what punishment will Ford suffer? What punishment will those using an alleged attempted rape as a political weapon suffer?
2
The fact that Kavanaugh is against an FBI investigation into the matter raises the question of whether or not he is really interested in proving his innocence. Conversely, that Blasey Ford is pleading for an FBI investigation, for witness testimony, seems to rule out the notion that she isn't being truthful. The committee are doing everything in their power to make the hearing a "he-said, she-said" situation, but Blasey Ford has already passed a lie detector test, she has told others of the incident years ago. All we have from Kavanaugh are words of denial, and I'm afraid that isn't good enough.
34
Ross, the Supreme Court is already damaged and tainted, perhaps beyond repair during the lifetime of the current judges. It occurred when the GOP decided that they would not vet Merrick Garland after he was nominated by Barack Obama, instead waiting until after the election to vet and confirm Neil Gorsuch. Americans should have little confidence in the court's ability to reliably settle matters of law in a non-partisan manner.
51
@Tom
Don't forget -- don't leave out -- the taint on the court given by the treatment of Anita Hill a couple of decades ago. Silent Clarence is not a good argument for approving a man accused of sexual escapades to the Supreme Court.
@Tom
So Joe Biden got it wrong with the Biden Rule. Every political weapon is a spear. Once you throw it, the other side can pick it up, and throw it back at you.
Kavanaughs many hours spent at the White House preparing for confirmation hearings is indicative of very poor judgement. The Supreme Court job should be non partisan and Kavanaugh does not indicate in any way that he understands. He’s publicly thanked and has appeared with his family in grinning pictures with Trump. A qualified person trying to be confirmed for lifetime Supreme Court justice job would not be huddling with people possibly including the President in the White House.
28
@Javaforce
The President is constitutionally tasked with seating judges. It is his nominee. This happens every time. The President's people organize and guide the nominee from the very first day. There is no reason not to, especially since the other party is doing the same thing in organizing its opposition. The same person who coached Hill is coaching Ford, for example.
3
I am amazed by the closed ended, either-or, approach to this whole debate. In fact it is entirely possible that both Judge Kavanaugh and Dr Blasey Ford are telling the truth. A 17 year old boy from an elite school getting drunk at a party and trying to take advantage of a slightly younger girl and forgetting the whole thing because nothing came of it - as far as he was concerned - this is completely plausible. So too the intended victim (as victim is the proper word) might be traumatized by the incident and remember it all too clearly. It is also believable that Dr Blasey chose to keep her injury secret considering the way in which victims are treated, then and now.
In fine this entire has been badly handled all round. Judge Kavanaugh could have defused the story some weeks ago with a simple declaration, don't recall ever doing such a thing but it is possible. No real harm was done and I apologize to any who might have been offended by my juvenile mistake. But that option has long ago been rendered moot. Drowned out in the cacophony. Having once declared it never happened, period, the Judge can not now change his story. Not without consequence. Nor can Dr Blasey return to her quiet academia any more than Anita Hill could. This story has no positive outcomes no matter what the results of the coming Senate testimony.
Clearly the nominating process is not working. We need to consider another approach, beginning with eliminating life-time tenure. It is no longer applicable.
24
@Drew- I agree that Kavanaugh's response-- if he didn't remember-- still belies his lack of judicial temperament.
Defensive judges are thinking of the parties or the issues, they're thinking of their own plight only.
It couldn't have hurt him nearly as much as his lack of interest in her story and rigid denials.
4
@Drew
I have commented in reply to other articles in this newspaper that it is indeed plausible that both are telling the truth. However, the catch for Kavanaugh is that his failure to remember the alleged incident speaks to the incident’s lack of meaning for him. Just another night of partying, just an attempt to “score.” For Dr. Ford, however, the incident is completely memorable because it had life altering meaning for her. Far from being “mistaken” about who was pressing his body against hers, Dr. Ford was doomed to have the alleged perpetrator’s identity etched in her mind forever. Regardless of who is telling the truth, or even if both are, Kavanaugh has proved himself unworthy of being a Justice. Time to move on.
2
The kids involved were minors. They were drunk. No crime is alleged, even 36 years later. Memory isn't perfect, People don't even remember current incidents the same way. Whatever happens on Thursday is not going to resolve anything -- and no one is going to be satisfied.
Either Kavanaugh is confirmed, or someone else will be. That person will be conservative. Nothing will change in terms of the makeup of the court.
Voters will go, or not, to the polls in November. If taking a Kavanaugh scalp is the best that democrats can produce as achievement or policy in November, that's not a great reason for people to come out an vote blue.
14
@Science Guy,
For a science guy you have not been gathering much input other than cherry-picked facts that fit your inclination. In the past few days there was an op-ed outlining the science behind traumatic memories, many letters from readers with corroborating anecdotes, and others with interesting opinions. They all contribute to form a more complete picture.
From the above it is less likely that she would forget, i.e. she did not forget. He might have forgotten because he was drunk. Nothing is certain, but this inclines me to believe her rather than him.
Is this teenage episode important? Teenagers still have time to mature and change. However, the position is too important to take the risk. Most importantly from Kavanaugh's answers on this and other questions, a less-than-truthful pattern has emerged. That might be the most important byproduct of the hearings.
43
@Science Guy Look at the mid term election results after every Presidential election. The 2018 has the prospect of both t he houses going to make Democrats the Majority Party; that is exactly what Republicans fear. This nomination has become a major election issue for November 6. Not only Kavanaugh confirmation or withdrawal matters, but has implications for all future nominations by THIS Presidents. Election and politics have far more consequences than 'science' because it is not about science.
3
@Giovanni Ciriani. I'm an empiricist -- and op-eds and anecdotes are not science. You are affirming my opinion of the dilemma of memory, which I do not dispute.
Kavanaugh has a history of evasive responses to questioning. His hearing was masterclass in it so this alone raises questions about his probity. All of course assisted by the Republican party who of course have no interest in the truth but are only interested getting this nomination through.
As to the specific allegation against him it's impossible to absolutely prove one way or the other. All one can say is does it sound credible in the context of the culture and circumstances of 35 years ago. Privileged 17 year old kid at private school drinks too much and jumps girl at party. One would have to say yes.
Interestingly I've talked to several of my Republican friends about this and the consensus is that it probably happened but he shouldn't be penalized for something that happened when he was drunken teenager (an argument one can have some sympathy with) and he'd have been much better advised to come clean about it from the start when he would received a more sympathetic hearing but his denial could well sink him if she appears very credible during public testimony.
20
This is not a criminal trial, in which the burden is on the prosecution for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's a job interview for, as Ross indicates, a very exceptional job. All that it takes is trust. And if he can't be trusted, he should go back to the lower court whence he came, and consider himself lucky to still have that job.
79
We already know that anyone who has Donald Trump's personal stamp of approval on him has done something wrong, somewhere along the line -- that's a given.
There's also the fact that THOUSANDS of pages of the Judge's previous decisions were first held by the White House before some abridged and redacted versions were released just the night before the hearings were to begin, which speaks volumes.
Plus there's there's the sight of Mitch McConnell blinking before the cameras, while promising Mr. Kavanaugh would definitely be confirmed as a Supreme Court Judge, while the rest of the Republicans went out of their way to make sure a testimony against him would be next to impossible.
All in all, that doesn't make a very convincing scenario -- So yes. The burden of proof is now upon Brett Kavanaugh to prove himself otherwise.
We already know the chips are on him to come out on top.
But the world is watching.
29
Gee, if only there were some organization with investigative skills and experience that might look into the facts here. Maybe find out some of the people who were present, or who might have been, at the party, and interview them. Too bad we only have the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Justice, a state Attorney General's office and about a thousand reporters for well-established newspapers to rely on! I guess we'll just never know what happened.
66
If the standard really were proving a negative (and I don't believe it is for the Republican Senators who have the only votes that matter), then I would agree with you that he ought to be allowed the time and latitude to make that argument. In that case, he should not withdraw pre-maturely, but HE should be requesting a delay and investigation to uncover facts.
24
@David Wenstrup Exactly. Kavanaugh should insist that the FBI investigate, all possible witnesses be heard and the arbitrary deadline be lifted. Why isn't he? If he had nothing to hide, he would insist on this.
Sadly even Republican senators who know this is not a trial are behaving as if it were - except for the fact they don't want to hear from more than two possible witnesses and have refused to involve the FBI.
13
@Ruth Investigation would take time an d the Dems might be in control by then. So the republicans aren't going to allow investigation.
This "judge" committed provable perjury not once but twice while testifying before the senate to get his current seat on the Appellate Court. That alone should not only disqualify him for the Supreme Court it should instigate impeachment proceedings for his current seat.
88
This is the key point that makes Douthit’s piece academic. Kavanaugh is a splicer of the truth, a liar under oath, who also appears to embrace a frat-house mysogeny as his birthright, culminating in at least one sexual assault. That last is merely icing on a deformed and unpalatable cake.
Unfortunately, we will never know the absolute truth in this instance. There is little point asking why someone would lie because there as many reasons for lying as there are lies. "Believing" someone is telling the truth has nothing to do with the actual truth no matter the depth of such "beliefs". Proof is what is demanded here, not supposition, not outrage, not an anecdotal collection of emotional outpouring. Men and women lie for whatever the reason(s); and we can't, in this case, prove one side or the other beyond a reasonable doubt, either way or otherwise unless we go back medieval times and use fire or water as a means of proof of guilt.
3
@Tee Jones In what trial (though this is NOT one) do we ever know the absolute truth? But that is not the burden in a trial - only "beyond a reasonable doubt". And in this hearing, it is not even that. It is an opportunity to hear from both parties and judge their truthfulness. There is much more latitude - let's not just give up because we can't know the impossible.
1
All true yet the behavior, the accusation and the position all matter as well. When the behavior includes drunken debauchery, affluenza and male privilege, when the accusation is attempted rape and the position is joining SCOTUS, exacting standards of proof don’t matter. There is a cloud over this nominee and he needs to withdraw forthwith and be procedurally removed from his current post or be rejected by the committee and chased back into the dark hole from which his type emerge.
It's not insignificant to all this that the GOP is in such an obvious rush to get the nomination through. If they weren't, they would have welcomed an FBI investigation. Combine that with their historic refusal to allow an Obama nomination to even be considered. I submit that given all this, the nomination should be at least withheld until the people have had a chance to vote in the representatives they they want to pursue this particular nomination, in the midterm elections. Fairs fair.
43
Agreed.... but it can't be lost on us that, as Democrats, our positions have swung 180 degrees from defending Wm Clinton against rape charges (the behaviour described was rape - she was an intern, he was the most powerful man in the world - she could not consent, as every young professor has been told for decades) and advocating for haste with Obama's nominee just two years ago.
2
@VH
Fair is fair. And politics...is not.
Say what? I'm not sure I understood how to prove a negative.
This a serious charge made decades after the event with no evidence. The problem of men thinking they can get away with sexual assault and harassment (however widespread that may or may not be) is not addressed by our "believing her" regardless of evidence. This is to make truth of prejudice. It should not be rewarded. What should be rewarded is speaking plainly at the time of the event to the perpetrator and others and a renewed respect for moral restraint. Not enough? That's the limitation of a world which relies on reason and fact, deduction and induction. You want more? Defer to the power of those children believed in a Salem court in 1692.
9
Democratic Senators do not need to weigh in or offer their opinions of Kavanaugh at all. All they have to do is mention 2 words which are "Merrick Garland" to explain their extremely justifiable NO votes.
Regardless of how Dr. Ford's testimony is put forth on Thursday, the Republican Senators will not believe her and they will vote to confirm Kavanaugh, led by 84 year old Hatch and 85 year old Grassley. Their minds are already made up as are the minds of the rest of their Republican colleagues in the Senate.
38
@tom boyd
As are the minds of the Democratic Senators to vote NO, even if they don't believe the allegations are disqualifying.
The problem here is that Kavanaugh has no alternative explanation other than his already proclaimed unequivocal denial that the incident ever took place. That only leaves the possibility that Ford is mistaken or fabricating the whole thing. The burden of proof lies with the defense. Whatever comes of it, one thing is sure. We are in for another Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas debacle.
13
The role of “philosopher-king“ is the role the left desires of the Court rather than the right. Congress or all 50 state legislatures could politically guarantee abortion rights, but politically the United States doesn’t want that. As for the level of proof required, the law has long had structures in place: statutes of limitation, face your accuser, cross examination, corroboration, hearsay, etc. Ignoring these in a single case will produce an unjust result in that case. Ignoring them culturally will produce an unjust culture.
4
@Phil Summa...the confirmation process is NOT a judicial proceeding, no matter how badly the right wing wants to plaster that fig leaf over the process.
17
Oddly, I agree with Douthat. We don't owe anything to Kavanaugh. This is not a criminal trial. We do owe to all citizens a better nominee. To be honest, I'm not sure we owe much to the Republican Senators after the way they handled the Garland nomination. Listening to them complain that this process is moving too slowly is maddening. 6 million more people voted for Democratic Senators in 2016 and they give us a guy whose main qualification is that he will protect Trump.
62
@Frank Jones You nailed it. His radical stance that the President is above the law is why he’s being pushed through otherwise I believe he’d have been pressured to withdraw from consideration weeks ago given that he’s perjured himself and has historically low support ratings. There are other conservative judges out there; they’re keeping this flawed nominee for one reason: to save Trump from the inevitable.
3
By ignoring a possible compromise candidate, by brushing aside the filibuster custom, by confirming an obviously clouded candidate, Republicans are making the case for their opponents to come up with a 10th or even 11th justice in due time.
11
@Albert Koeman Ten is an even number, increasing the likelihood that the Court would too often lead to tie votes. It was tried at least once in U.S. history, and Congress restored nine as the odd number that exists now. Increasing the number to 11 might make sense, though.
2
@Albert Koeman
Yeah, that's one direction Democrats could go. There is another one though. Pass legislation for the things you want and do it within the framework of the Constitution. Could give that a try before talking about packing the Court. That's the kind of thing they do in Banana Republics in case you don't know.
Will some responsible person in the room please slow all the rush to judgement and rush to confirmation types down. In a country that likes to laud itself as the land of due process, there sure are many voices out there ready to short circuit events. We have an experienced and efficient F.B.I. to investigate. Then a list of all pertinent witnesses could be assembled. Properly formatted hearings set up and held. Then informed decisions could be made or we can all go ballistic. Throw due process under the bus of partisanship and allow this important point in history to be resolved by social media and blather.
4
This inquiry should, to whatever extent feasible, rest on a proper and expeditious background check of Judge Kavanaugh's high school classmates, friends and acquaintances that goes into any potential confirmation of memories of the alleged party and Kavanaugh's general behavior during his prep school years. There is the man said to have been with him at the time of the alleged assault whose testimony - under oath - should be heard. Any testimony from classmates who can shed light on his general behavior at the time should also be gathered and presented to the Senators.
With that, the Senators can properly judge the Judge and his accuser. Without that, the GOP will have reduced it to a he said/she said - an unsatisfactory quandary. It seems, however, to be all the GOP wishes the Senators and American people to have.
It is the GOP's lack of curiosity about Kavanaugh combined with the desire to ram this nomination through in record time that is telling about the Republican Party.
No, there is no fairness proposed here. It is a party of the three monkeys who wish to "see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil" as they go about their monkey business of packing the highest court in the land with "conservatives" and decimate trust in our Judicial system.
May they be properly rewarded for it in November.
2
For a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, we should not be speaking of a "burden of proof", but rather a standard of review. Here, a credible allegation of attempted rape against a 15 year old girl has been made. Those charged with reviewing Kavanaugh's fitness for this high honor have refused to conduct a valid investigation, and are intent on holding a he-said-she-said sham of a hearing. They have accused Dr. Blasey of lying, have bullied her and have begun the process of ruining her life. Those who have defended Kavanaugh have shown themselves to be without honor and without scruples. The Senate Republicans are rushing to judgment before the facts can come out. One can only infer that they are doing this because they suspect that the allegations are true.
23
@Joe
I think you're going too far. The GOP Senators don't care whether the accusations are true or not. And I'm not sure if the Democrats care that much either. The Dems have a lot more leeway.
But the Dems have been so much smarter than the GOP, that the issue is planted on the GOP.
2
Regardless of how this ugly scenario turns out Brett Kavanaugh is damaged goods. Kavanaugh should consider bowing out gracefully while there's still a chance he can salvage what's left of his reputation. That would give Donald Trump the opportunity to find another candidate who doesn't have any dubious past baggage. Time for Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh to cut their losses and call it a day.
6
His carry-the-shame affliction will happen anyway; whether he is confirmed or denied, enough literate voters will hold him personally guilty as charged. If he's denied confirmation and retains his present judgeship, he will never see a case associated with sexual assault or any issue with a whiff of gender politics. It's difficult to see any prosecutor, plaintiff, or defense attorney accepting the freight load of baggage sitting on the bench. If he's confirmed, on those cases (likely including Roe v. Wade) he will be forced, almost by default, to recuse; listen to the future howls of indignation for his opinions, regardless of his holding or the Court's verdict.
An entire domain of legal jurisprudence is no longer available to the judge.
Heads, the public wins, tails, Judge Kavanaugh loses.
3
It's been pointed out numerous times that the case against Kavanaugh was substantial and disqualifying well before anyone heard of Dr. Ford.
It's also been noted the issue here is the desperation of McConnell to ram Kavanaugh through without a sufficiently thorough and impartial review as much as it is about Kavanaugh having a drinking problem and gambling addiction, along with a $250,000 debt that doesn't comport with the notion of a high-income Yale lawyer from a prosperous family or a DC Federal Circuit judge.
A man who likes to sprinkle in his public speeches the memorable marketing slogan promoting Las Vegas hedonism and abandon ("What happens here, stays here") isn't just winking about hookers and high-rollers. He's saying in code that I'm a frat boy and have the stolen panties to prove it.
Hearing from Dr. Ford doesn't risk Kavanaugh's "reputation" any more than his Yale Law professors who groomed and sent beautiful law students advised to dress to Kavanaugh's liking (look like "models" not like women lawyers). Was Kavanaugh a woke jurist intent on promoting women in the legal profession or a lecher who liked being surrounded by beautiful young women (as noted by many who observed how striking Kavanaugh's women clerks were)?
Conservatives are selling lemonade because they have a lemon they want on the court to protect their corruption.
Douthat says he's never going to drink Trump's kool aid.
He should avoid the lemonade too.
14
Am I the only one who notices that the nominee is an admitted binge drinker, long after his high school years? “The Kegger Club” Binge drinkers often have little or no memory of what occurs during a binge. He may be telling the truth when he says that he has no memory of the event. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t do it.
Does the nominee still binge drink? I would like to know. It may be relevant to the discharge of his duties.
Do we really want an admitted binge-drinking-Justice on the Supreme Court?
7
Forget sexual assault - what about under-age drinking? It sounds as if, as a High School student, Judge Kavanaugh was no stranger to alcohol consumption. While teen age drinking is ubiquitous, it is also Illegal. If arrested, the young person is subject to fines, loss of driving privileges and community service. Second offenses result in increased penalties. If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed, we may have sitting on the Supreme Court a man who apparently got away with illegal behavior for which teenagers all over the country are being punished every day.
3
@Paul and you are suggesting that "alleged" under-age drinking is a disqualification for the Supreme Court?
2
The behavior of the accuser, her lawyers, and Senator Feinstein all seem to be following a pre-arranged strategy. It's unfortunate that the process of publicizing -- advertising, for practical purposes -- the accusation has been so manipulated for effect -- so much like the hoots and noise Democrats made during the original hearings.
There's a stage-managed effect here that does no-one credit. Withholding the letter an extra six weeks. Redacting the letter heavily when finally producing it. Refusing to accept the Committee's invitation, stalling for time. Claiming a well-regarded professional psychologist is too traumatized to attend a hearing, too claustrophobic to take an airplane, too deeply damaged to name a date, place, etc..
Pretending a psychotherapist's notes are authentication, when every professional knows that patients lie frequently, and that lies often contain valuable insights worth noting.
This veteran professional surely knows all the ins and outs of how traumatized victims feel and how they struggle to articulate their experiences.
It's a little hard to make sense of all this theatricality. Maybe the media transforms every subject into its own kind of theater. Still, it does not scan well. The Duke lacrosse accusations, the super-managed Tawana Brawley hoax masterminded by Al Sharpton, should have alerted us to be skeptical of possible rumors and smears. Some standard of plausibility needs to be met by the accuser, as well as by the accused.
2
The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is one thing. That is a legal right under which we are all protected (at least theoretically). But is justice what Republicans are after?
If so, why would they have been so quick to dismiss an impartial FBI investigation? Why would they take at face value the assertion by Mr. Judge, who is probably the sole person that could verify what really happened, that he can't recall the event? Why would they have pointed fingers at a man not even named by Dr. Ford, as the culprit - does he not also have a presumption of innocence? Why would Trump have publicly played Judge, Jury and Executioner by concluding that if things had really been so bad, a then-fifteen year old and her parents would have involved the police?
Congressional Republicans and Trump have a forgone conclusion that Kavanaugh will be seated. Trump just declared that Kavanaugh was born to sit on the Supreme Court! That gives away how little any of them cares what their nominee did along the way.
4
The great weakness of this piece is that it fails to even mention the possibility of an investigation of Dr. Ford's claims by people with experience investigating such claims. This might shed some light on what happened. As long as Republicans refuse to initiate such an investigation, I can't take anything they say about this seriously.
3
If proof of anything was an issue there would be no need for a hearing. Nothing can or will be proved in any event. This isn't about facts, truth, or proof. Neither the complainant nor the nominee are litigating an issue that the committe can rule on and dispose of. This is not a trial where some burden of proof or persuasion need be met so relief can be granted. Nor is it a credibility battle between witnesses. This is a political fight where the ultimate judge is public opinion and, of course, voters in future elections. In a way, too, the particulars of the fight are not really that important, although the me-too background certainly contributes a great deal of drama and fraught texture. The last few days of negotiating the terms and conditions of the testimony as if the matter was a forum for duellists with Vince McMahon as impresario lends a false impression that this is some sort of peculiar grudge match between the sexes where, when the dust clears, truth will shine through and a winner declared. But that's not the real story. The complainant and nominee are just instruments in the struggle. Both witnesses, I am guessing, will be sullied in this endeavor, no truth will emerge, but someone will win the political fight. At least for the day. For the longer term with the public? That is the wager.
8
This article contains 11 paragraphs. In it, the name "Kavanaugh" is mentioned 10 times, and the name "Ford" is mentioned only 3 times.
It is hard to investigate a matter impartially when the balance of emphasis is 10 to 3.
That may also explain why most victims of sexual assaults are reluctant to come forward. The odds that they will be believed may well be 10 to 3.
Maybe I'm too obtuse for this brilliance, but if Mr. Kavanaugh is in fact utterly innocent of this charge, I cannot see how in the world he or anybody else can possibly be obliged to explain or explain away the motives or behavior of his accuser in bringing a false charge. What is so profoundly extraordinary about the Supreme Court that compels a falsely accused candidate for its membership to rupture every canon of decency, evidence, proof and logic just to accomodate the special status of the accuser? Let's get searingly honest, here. The accuser may be right. This may have happened when this man was 17 years old. But this accusation didn't come out of the cold. It is contextualized by 40 years of the feminist effort to turn the law inside out and upside down to accomodate their special theories about how the law should operate for and with respect to women--notwithstanding the enormous fog imposed by the usual and ordinarily private character of sexual conduct between two people. There is a passion afoot in this business to make the mere accusation of a woman sufficient to taint and ruin the life and reputation of any man accused by her. At some point this absurdly totalitarian march to the gallows has got to be stopped in its tracks. I have no idea when or how this will happen, but I think it has to happen if truth, fairness, justice and genuine equality before the law as between the sexes really means anything whatever.
2
@David A. Lee you can't imagine any motivation to torpedo this candidate?
@Steve I can't imagine his need to explain the causes of a charge against him that he categorically denies. That's different from saying what I believe about his legal views or record, which to me is immaterial to the logic Mr. Douthat applies here--and the ideological motive of which is poisonous to my understanding of the most rudimentary meaning of the law.
There are familiar ways in which veracity is judged by a jury in a court and also in everyday life. Applying those common-sense yardsticks, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford already deserves to be believed.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh simply denies the attempted rape occurred and expects us to believe him on that basis alone.
If a person has led a good life since an event, that fact makes the person more believable. The test works for Dr. Ford, but less for Judge Kavanaugh, since he seems to have lied about several things in a prior confirmation hearing and has been evasive in this hearing.
If someone admits she cannot recall everything about an event from years earlier, that is no reason to disbelieve what she does recall.
If the person did not come forward right after an event, that may discredit an assertion today, but if the event was a traumatic one which people tend keep secret out of fear no one will believe them or will blame them, the delay is common.
If the person making the accusation has nothing to gain by coming forward and much to lose, that makes the person very believable. Dr. Ford is such a person.
If the other person has everything to gain by a false denial, that makes him much less believable. Judge Kavanaugh is such a person.
If supporters of the accused person have gone to great lengths to impede the accuser and have imposed phony deadlines on her, that makes the Judge's denial highly suspect.
Putting all of this together, the burden of proof is on Kavanaugh.
10
Kavanaugh has two problems in my mind. (1) According to WashPost Fact Checkers, he has already lied to the Judical Committee about a prior matter when he worked for President Bush. (2). The GOP pushback on FBI Checks for him and Dr. Ford. Why are they so dead set against doing the FBI checks? It took 3 days to do Anita Hill’s check. They could have already been done with it. If he’s approved for the Court with no simple FBI check, he will always have a cloud over his position like Justice Thomas.
3
It would be helpful if there were a full, and unbiased, investigation by the FBI. An investigation that is not tainted by pressure from Senate Republicans and the White House. It does not look like that will take place, so it seems to me that what will take place is a sham, setting up Ms Ford for a free-for-all. Something that plays to Kavanaugh's advantage.
6
This is going to end badly for everyone.
When it does, I hope everyone remembers the names McConnell, Hatch and Grassley, who brought Americans this mess. Also remember the conviction-less Lindsay Graham and the conviction-only-when-convenient Susan Collins.
When, as is increasingly likely, the Democrats take the House this fall, they will have access to the documents about
Kavanaugh that they were denied before the hearings.
They will discover what it is that the Republicans are hiding; the reason why his confirmation should have been stalled before the gong show. They will find enough reason to forego the tempting, but pointless impeachment of the President and instead move to impeach his nominee. Kavanaugh, after all, has a longer shelf life in government than Trump and could cause much more long-term structural damage.
The results?
The process for naming someone to the Supreme Court will be tainted, perhaps beyond redemption.
Judge Kavanaugh will be forced out of his position to the everlasting detriment of his reputation and to the endless embarrassment of his family.
Dr. Blasey will have made public her most closely guarded secret, exposing herself to death threats and having to hire security to get her children to school.
A tired public will undergo yet another round name calling and finger pointing, during which nothing for the American people will get done. (Stuff to the American people, however? Well).
And the President will tweet... and tweet... and... tweet.
42
@celia
Well said, But I think that K. won't get confirmed. Thanks to Grassley, Trump and Mitch, any red state Senators have perfect cover if there is a vote (which I predict won't happen before the election). The Dem will say, I'm not opposing K. I just don't have the information I need to decide, in the absence of an investigation and witness testimony. I'd rather not be required to vote, but I have no choice, we are being asked to confirm a Supreme Court justice, not a municipal court judge. And then Mitch needs every vote and I think Collins will crack.
9
@Sheldon If onlt Collins 'cracks', then Pence will vote. The Dems neeed TWO senators.
It was Feinstein, in an effort to hold off a more liberal competitor, who brought America this mess.
1
The premise of this piece is flawed. Burden of proof assumes that there is an investigate and evidence (or lack there of) is conducted. Since that is not the case and the Republicans refuse to do so, it's really just a gut call.
While Ross rejects this a job interview, it really is and like all hiring decisions, it's political.
I would feel this way no matter the nominate.
I don't understand why the Republicans just cut bait and get another person in that seat.
5
@skinny and happy. Kavanaugh was on a hand-picked list of Federalist Society-aproved judges. He will protect Trump and likely attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade.
1
Let us keep our eyes on the ball. The nominee believes that a President can pardon himself. In short, this is the definition of a dictatorship. Of course, when serving under Starr, this highly politicized nominee had no such compunctions.
39
Mark Judge was a witness, but either refuses to testify or is not allowed to, despite the request from Dr. Ford.
1
He could prove his 'negative' by asking Mark Judge to testify. Yet Judge has made it clear he does not want to do so. Interesting. He could also take a lie detector test (as Balsey Ford did); he hasn't. He could call for an FBI investigation to clear his name. He hasn't. He's doing everything a guilty person would do: avoiding the things that might prove his innocence if he were indeed innocent.
59
@Anne
Just say no to polygraphs. There are very good reasons why courts don't want to let them in.
2
"...the causes that the justice might advance..."? And conservatives rail against activism on the bench? Oh, I forgot. That's only when it's activism on the left.
11
Republicans had a strategy to "talk tough" to deter Professor Ford from testifying. Now that that has (predictably) failed, they have two other ways to keep her from testifying: convince Judge Kavanaugh to withdraw or convince Trump to pull the nomination.
There is almost no chance the questioning of Professor Ford will make her look unconvincing or make Republicans look fair and compassionate. If they do not like the look of an all-male cohort of Senators questioning her, the alternative is that they look like cowards for outsourcing the questioning to someone who does not have to answer to voters. With the election just a few weeks away, I would be stunned if they take this risk.
The Republicans needed to win this hand before the showdown. They knew it, they tried, and they failed. The only play now is to fold before more is lost.
13
@Alan...and that is the most cynical move of all by hiring an outside female lawyer to question Ford. I wonder about the lawyer who will do the questioning, knowing full well that she is not practicing law, but is perpetuating the intellectual and politcal corruption of the Party of Trump.
@Alan
As to the questioner, aside from the political flourishes, you're wrong. Committee staff often ask the questions. The only issue was whether Grassley was going to have a young blonde female hot shot attorney ask the questions or a female attorney on the committee staff for the GOP. It appears they're going with the staff attorney, but that might change.
This column goes fundamentally wrong in its claim that Kavanaugh has to prove anything. At this point, with all the contradictions in her testimony, and the lies of her lawyers, the only person who has to prove something is Ford.
2
Whatever happened to “the truth will set you free?” Does Kavanaugh really want to sit on the Supreme Court with the burden of an unproven accusation? If he is still a practicing Catholic, maybe Kavanaugh should go to confession Sunday and unburden his heart prior to Thursday’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. But somehow, I suspect that “I don’t recall” will have a new meaning after Thursday’s testimony and it may have more to do with the debilitating effects of alcohol on the teenage mind than the suppression of truth by a middle-aged man.
In any event, the highest court in the land in the most powerful nation on earth deserves a membership beyond reproach. It’s time to revert to a higher bar of approval in the Senate than a simple majority and make it retroactive to all justices currently seated. If we had a 60-vote threshold for approval, not only would Kavanaugh not be confirmed, but also, we could seek the resignations of Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch. And, that would make our jurisprudence really live up to the “justice for all” moniker because every sitting justice would have broader appeal and their narrow 5-4 rulings would not follow ideological lines. That’s the truth and it will set us (a larger number of Americans) free.
7
this will be a he-said she-said if it's brought to the committee in the next few days. Nothing will be clarified, nor can it be given the circumstances.
an FBI investigation seems like the best way to attempt to understand this. however, i don't know if the FBI will have any more ability to get to the bottom given the paucity of actual evidence. they should have more experience to understand when human behaviour is not being truthful and what really is truthful testimony from typical perpetrators and victims are after the event.
i often wonder why he didn't just say something to the effect, "that was 35 years ago, i don't remember, i was a teenage partying binge drinker, i deeply regret if i did something and that life is long gone". he could be forgiven since the sexual behaviour has not continued through to his adult life. otherwise there would be a line of other women coming forward.
i am not suggesting it was condonable, just that a response like above would be most appropriate.
but instead he categorically denied it. which makes him appear as a liar OR he doesn't have the humanity to understand his place in all of this, which reflects (badly) on his qualification to be an unbiased judge (i.e. blind scales of justice).
13
Or he's innocent.
2
As one dem on the J committee has stated, it would be to Kav's benefit to call for a complete FBI-lead review of this allegation to remove any hint of taint against him otherwise everything he does going forward will be modulated by this accusation. Unfortunately, the Rs seem hellbent on pushing this through because they fear that they will lose control of the Senate. That latter fact should cause the immediate invocation of the "McConnell Rule": let the American people decide through the ballot box who they want advising and consenting on their behalf.
1
@Golddigger
You are correct that there is fear of losing the Senate. But losing the Senate means the Republicans control the Senate until late January. This is plenty of time to find a far less problematic nominee. The biggest problem is that Donald Trump's endorsement seems to be legitimate grounds for suspicion since so many of those around him seem severely lacking in character or competence.
My guess is Republicans will lobby for a female nominee to prevent a repeat of this fiasco since there will be a fairly tight timeline.
Reasonable suggestion, Ross. Two huge problems here that I'd like to add;
There appears to be significant circumstantial evidence against Kavanaugh: Mark Judge (the other guy implicated in the assault) wrote a book a few years ago: Tales of a GenX Drunk, in which (supposedly - haven't read personally) the 'hero' had a sidekick named Bart O'Kavanaugh. Interesting, no? In addition, Kavanaugh's high school yearbook had him as treasurer of the "100 Kegs Club", with Judge as the president.
And secondly, this is not quite a simple he-said-she-said situation. It would seem that getting sworn testimony from Mr. Judge (a name that Tom Wolfe would have died laughing from if he weren't already dead) might be very helpful here. And in addition, Ms. Ford has identified two other participants at the party who it seems should be at least talked with. All-in-all, there seems to be enough here to justify at least a short say one week or so investigation even before anyone testifies.
One other thing: I'm personally of the opinion that a milder version of this charge could have been 'copped to' by Kavanaugh without killing the appointment, but having made the flat statement that this never happened, he's now very much on the hook to come up with enough to bolster his case to not be rejected as a liar.
11
Kavanaugh should be not only rejected for the Supreme Court but also removed from his current court, and DISBARRED -- prevented from practicing law.
The issue that calls for these actions is not whether or not he did it. It's that he is LYING NOW.
He knows, and we know, that he DOES NOT KNOW he did not do it, because he was often too drunk to remember. This is indicated by many, including his friend the witness Judge. Yet he LIES to us, NOW, that he did not do it.
That is violation of the American Bar Association's Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.4, which says:
"Rule 8.4 Misconduct
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;"
6
While it is Judge Kavanaugh that sits and testifies before the Judiciary Committee, Brett peeks out too often. Brett is a Prep-School, Frat-Boy with a snarky dismissive attitude that often overwhelms the persona of Judge Kavanaugh. Brett blows off questions with a dismissive air and it has been shown repeatedly when the questioner is both Democrat and Female. The Judge tries to look serious and sober, but Brett answers with a sneer.
Judge Kavanaugh’s problem isn’t just proving a negative but controlling Brett. Brett has/had a problem with alcohol as documented by one of his Prep-School Mate and his own public recollections of College and Law School where Brett often got drunk. No, Brett isn’t the kind of alcoholic you find in the bar at eight AM, he is a functional alcoholic and the Judge may well have Brett under control now when it comes to alcohol. The problem is that Brett had blackout periods. My guess is that his parents knew about it and I also guess they tried to protect him. I have to wonder if his parents are holding a file filled with NDA’s signed by a bunch of young women who complained about Brett’s alcohol driven behavior.
My personal problem is that the Judge isn’t willing to admit that Brett has a problem, and even has that problem under control and doesn’t drink anymore. Perhaps this is when Brett finally hits bottom and reforms himself. I lived with my father who was a functional alcoholic who never admitted he had a problem. I know the signs.
1
Mr. Douthat's logic misses reality. The reality? The committee was deprived until recently Ford's original letter complaining about the incident, a letter that was long hidden from the committee by Feinstein for no good reason after Ford had gone quite public. Apparently, that letter identified four people as being in alleged attendance at the party. Apparently, all four have denied being present at such a party. Whatever burden Kavanaugh carries because of the prominence of the Supreme Court position, he has carried that burden so far. The classic burden is on an accuser to make out an accusation. Good, so Ford wants to testify. Let her do that. But it is not Kavanaugh's burden to do more than what he has done so far. SMH at Mr. Douthat and Mr. Stephens as so-called conservatives at the Times. Obviously they are not. The Sixth Amendment roughly suggests that, in a setting like this, tantamount to a criminal trial of Kavanaugh's entire career and life, he should have the right to have his accuser make the accusation under oath, and then confront that accuser with contrary evidence including his own sworn testimony. Let the tribunal and the people decide, not Mr. Douthat unilaterally calling for Kavanaugh to withdraw for no apparent reason that could be good for the country. What, we are supposed to demand that people slink away once someone puts out some salacious charge, however uncorroborated, however suspect? Is this America? Wow.
1
Absent a thorough and complete investigation by the FBI, Kavanaugh will forever be tainted by this charade. We deserve to know what really happened with Dr. Blasey and we deserve to know what is happening now with the ham handed attempts by Grassley, Hatch, the GOP Committee staff and the WH to use guys like Whelan in a cover up.
Regardless of outcome, a Democrat lead House Judiciary Committee should open a full investigation in January and follow the leads wherever they may go.
2
@Peter Just as Justice Clarence Thomas is tainted? It may be so, but he is serving his lifetime appointment and no apparent ill effects that I can see. He is making and writing decisions - he has full influence as any of the other Justices.
This "taint" is only something for Democrats to speak of to console themselves. Men like that never look back and never have regrets - the taint never touches them.
1
To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, the biggest reason people don't find the truth is that they don't want to find the truth. History is repeating itself (See Maureen Dowd's column). Douthat's worries about an injustice being done to Kavanaugh are misplaced at this time. Better to join the effort at pressuring the Republicans to conduct a real attempt to find the facts.
7
In the face of so many Democrats coming forward and saying they 'believe in Christine,' the very idea that Brett Kavanaugh is going to be given the chance to change Democratic minds is ludicrous.
If Republicans become convinced that this did not happen in the manner that the accuser describes, Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation should go forward.
4
@rcrigazio
How many Democrats have said that their mind can't be changed? Mitch and the boys and Trump have all said so.
There's a big difference between saying you believe an d saying nothing can change my mind.
5
Whelan’s "folly" is how you describe a vicious smear of an Atlanta middle school teacher who is not in the DC circle of power players when, like Mr. Douthat, you know Whelan and have thought well of him.
This was Mr. Douthat's initial inclination to give Whelan the benefit of the doubt
"I do know Ed Whelan, which makes me assume there's more reason to believe the doppelganger theory than just what he just tweeted. We'll see."
https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/1042906695591231488
"We'll see"
A big problem is that so many journalists covering politicians and various fixers in DC cannot conceive of someone who is sociable to them being ethically bankrupt when it comes to being willing to do anything for the greater good of the cause. And that is across the political spectrum.
Add Mr. Douthat to the list.
8
@Dan
I don't think you're being fair. Whelan, even though a died in the wool political operative, had a decent reputation amongst the media. So everyone was willing to wait out the teasers and see what he had to say, including Mr. Douthat.
He squandered his reputation and probably as part of a White House plan to say anything. Whelan may not have made this up, just attached his name to it.
There is a glaring omission in the argument from your conservative friends, and in this column.
If Judge Kavanaugh has any hope of "proving the negative" and clearing his name, he needs to support a full FBI investigation into Dr. Blasey-Ford's claims.
Anything less is proof that he wants exactly the opposite: to be pushed through into a lifetime appointment by means of a paternalistic, abusive, immoral and victim-shaming process.
1
The vast majority of men never attempted to rape an under-age girl. Consequently, the likelihood that those men would ever be credibly accused of doing so is very low. Moreover, most perpetrators of sexual assault are never brought to justice. Thank you, Ross, for standing up for your principles. I do no agree that the privileged Mr. Kavanaugh deserves charity. Given all that we know, as Ross notes, it will be extraordinarily difficult for Kavanaugh to exonerate himself. That points to the obvious conclusion: The mere likelihood that Mr. Kavanaugh might have attempted to rape an under-age girl should permanently disqualify him.
5
Ross all you offer is if Kavanaugh is innocent, then Dr. Blasey-Ford is either not telling the truth or is not remembering correctly what happened to her. You have not proffered another scenario where the attacker(s) were so inebriated, they could not recall the incident. For Whelan to suggest that Dr. Ford must somehow be confused about who her assailant was, and trying to put the fix in for Kavanaugh by what really amounts to accusing another person of the criminal assault on Dr. Ford, is repulsive.
You went on to say:"If his accuser testifies credibly and all he has to offer are vehement denials, followed by a rushed Republican attempt at confirmation, then he may be innocent but his nomination will deserve to fail." A noble sentiment, but McConnell has already stated Kavanaugh will be seated, once this business is over with, and that he has the votes to do it. Obviously Republicans don't care how credible Dr. Ford is, and will celebrate putting a person on SCOTUS who may have been a potential rapist.
Dr. Ford has been treated shamefully by the Senate Judiciary Committee. By coming forward, she has risked her life, had to move out of her home, and had her family life upended. Professor Anita Hill was similarly harassed. The Republican Senators will not allow the FBI to investigate her allegations, nor will they allow any witnesses to testify on her behalf. They want Kavanaugh seated even if they think him guilty of assault, or whether or not he may have lied under oath.
4
@Diana
"... McConnell has already stated Kavanaugh will be seated, once this business is over with, and that he has the votes to do it. Obviously Republicans don't care how credible Dr. Ford is, and will celebrate putting a person on SCOTUS who may have been a potential rapist."
Bingo, a thought put forth by a commenter who has been paying attention. McConnell is a power hungry actor who has no, absolutely not any, moral scruples. This is the leader of the Senate majority. His treatment of Merrick Garland shows what the Republicans stand for which is the accumulation of political power to enrich their donors.
1
The accuser has to provide evidence to substantiate a claim.
A prosecutor, Police or FBI would do nothing if someone only claims an event occurred.
In this case CBF can't provide a date, other parties, location or any other facts.
This is very strange. Was she using drugs or drinking heavily at age 15??
She should be asked whether she often went to boys houses and got drunk while she was 15.
Did she continue to do this as a Junior & Senior in High School. Her year book portrays a party girl and a beach party girl.
She has to provide hard evidence or future male politicians run the risk of baseless accusations going forward.
2
@Peter
This isn't a trial. It is political. Thanks to the GOP it doesn't bare any resemblance to a trial. And by eliminating any witnesses it comes down to she says it happens. He says he doesn't remember it happening. If it weren't for K's history of drinking in high school, that might be enough, but he was sometimes a big drinker and might have committed the deed and not remembered it the next day.
Proving that Blasely was a drinker won't help. I'm sure she'll admit that right away and tell the committee she's angry at the Dems for outing her as she didn't want to come forward. She would rather have let K. become a justice than go through this. But once she was outed, she didn't have a choice. She will hammer Feinstein.
It is a travesty that Brett Kavanaugh must even answer this charge. There is not a scintilla of evidence that Kavanaugh has ever done anything remotely like this in his adult life. He is being accused by a woman who admits that she was at a party where everyone was drinking when she was 15 years old. We are expected to give credence to a 35-year-old memory of an event by a person was a girl of 15 who had been drinking at the time. She cannot remember the date or even the month when this occurred or where it occurred, which conveniently makes it impossible to check her story or for Kavanaugh to offer a defense. The Democrats working with Ms. Ford have created a Kafkaesque star chamber for Kavanaugh.
The claim that women never lie about being sexually assaulted is patently false. Most women do not, but a few do. Does Ms. Ford have any motivations for making a false claim. Of course, she does. Like all her fellow progressives, she probably wants desperately to stop this nomination. Also, she is being hailed as a hero by her fellow progressives, and she will certainly get a book deal. Furthermore, since this happened to a 15-year-old who had been drinking, she may sincerely mistakenly believe her story. Like all the progressives chanting, “I believe Christine,” without supporting evidence, Ms. Ford may simply want it to be true that her attacker was Kavanaugh.
12
@Charles Yes, I suppose if 15-year-old Ford was present at a party where Kavanaugh and his friends were drinking underage, she is clearly unreliable and unbelievable (but his memory is fine). She's a "progressive," so she has a motive to lie (but he, as a potential Supreme Court Justice with an anti-abortion agenda, has no such motive). Has anyone looked into what she was wearing and whether or not she was "asking for it"?
1
@Charles
Or, she could be quite accurate in her recollections and experience.
@Charles
It is a travesty that is going to be intertwined around the necks of Democrats like an Albatross in the next election, and every election after that. Nothing in my lifetime has been more Un-American than this kind of behavior.
1
The White Houae, Senate Republicans and FOX are behaving as if they believe Judge Kavanaugh is guilty. If not they wouldn't have tried to bully Professor Ford into submitting to an inquisition. Nor would they want to railroad confirmation through the Senate without the usual FBI investigation into new charges. as happened in the Clarence Thomas confirmation. Doesn't mean Kavanaugh did anything wrong but his backers are harming him.
A caveat: The fact she risked a polygraph is a point in Dr. Ford's favor but polygraphs are not always reliable. which is why they are not admissible in a court of law; That Judge Kavanaugh has not taken one should not be held against him; maybe he takes medicines that can skew a polygraph.
3
It seems that Mr. Kavanaugh has already alluded to things during testimony that were at least partially untrue. He has also implied that Roe vs. Wade is "the law" even though his opposition to abortion is well known. Further, it is clear that withholding mountains of documents from perusal by the Democrats before his testimony is a kind of fraud, even if it is technically legal. Suspicious? You bet.
The Republicans have stated they "support' women. Oh. Like Mr. Pence, who is clearly afraid of them (unless it is his own spouse) or like Mr. Trump, who thinks he can grab their private parts because he is a "celebrity?"
Regardless of what Dr. Blasey Ford says or does, Kavanaugh will be nominated to the SCOTUS. McConnell and Ryan only care about getting him on the court, and literally nothing else. Their version of "christianity" will be forced down the throats of women all over this country, regardless of their own religious beliefs. So much for separation of church and state or the rule of law or fair and equal treatment or the voices of women. As long as the rich, white, men can have their way, and get richer doing so, that's all that counts.
Kavanaugh could recite the phone book. He will still be accepted by the GOP. All these years after Anita Hill has anything changed, even for those men who were on the committee grilling Ms. Hill decades ago? Naw.
The next generation will pay for his acceptance for the rest of their adult lives. How dismal even to contemplate.
5
Kavanaugh had best be prepared to testify truthfully and in detail about his experiences with alcohol and any other forms of inebriation. Drunks tend not to be the best witnesses to their own behavior or anyone else's. If he spent his teens getting bombed on many a weekend, that says a lot about his credibility concerning an alleged incident in which he was allegedly bombed out of his mind. It's amazing what drunken 17 year olds are capable of doing, and of forgetting. Some people just turn mean under the influence. That may not be their true selves, but the problem with excessive ingestion of alcohol is that for the length of time you're under the influence, you cease to be your true self. One case in point is the late Warren Zevon, an accomplished rock musician who was beloved by many when sober, but morphed into a violently abusive monster when drunk, as detailed in "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead," an oral history told by the people who knew him best. Judges especially should know this.
7
Mr. Douthat's logic misses reality. The reality? The committee has apparently not yet seen Ford's original letter complaining about the incident, a letter that is still being hidden from the committee by Feinstein for no good reason after Ford has gone very public. Apparently, that letter identified four people as being in alleged attendance at the party. Apparently, all four have denied being present at such a party. Whatever burden Kavanaugh carries because of the prominence of the Supreme Court position, he has carried that burden so far. The classic burden is on an accuser to make out an accusation. Good, so Ford wants to testify. Let her do that. But it is not Kavanaugh's burden to do more than what he has done so far. SMH at Mr. Douthat and Mr. Stephens as so-called conservatives at the Times. Obviously they are not. The Sixth Amendment roughly suggests that, in a setting like this, tantamount to a criminal trial of Kavanaugh's entire career and life, he should have the right to have his accuser make the accusation under oath, and then confront that accuser with contrary evidence including his own sworn testimony. Let the tribunal and the people decide, not Mr. Douthat unilaterally calling for Kavanaugh to withdraw for no apparent reason that could be good for the country. What, we are supposed to demand that people slink away once someone puts out some salacious charge, however uncorroborated, however suspect? Is this America? Wow.
2
The nominee is tainted, but the process has been pure sewage since this whole fiasco began, when congress refused to consider Obama's nominee- strictly to bring their religious fanatics to the polls in 2016, even if they didn't like Trump. And it worked!
The nominee has not been chosen to be an acceptable candidate by both parties for a good reason. This isn't about choosing the best possible justice at all and winning the trust of the majority of Americas. It is about using this appointment solely for the purpose of appeasing the religious extremists whose votes are required if the GOP has any chance of maintaining control of congress.
The state of the GOP and the executive branch has fallen to such a shockingly low level that moderates and Democrats alike are mentally wandering in a daze, wondering if we've entered the twilight zone.
It will be utterly shocking if this entire Trump episode doesn't begin to come crashing down in Nov. But we may still be stuck with his nominee for about the next 50 years.
8
Tell your conservative friends that Kavanaugh would help his case greatly if he would ask for an FBI investigation into the allegations, if he could convince his, reluctant, friend to testify under oath and if he would take a lie detector test as the accuser has. I agree that proving a negative is hard but with his uncooperative stance, the inaccessibility of 90% of his writings and the breathless pace the Republicans have taken in trying to get him confirmed as fast as possible, he looks more like a man hiding a negative than proving one.
7
There are now too many details that corroborate Dr. Blasey's story. Kavanaugh claimed he didn't get drunk in high school, yet his supposed partner in the crime Mr. Judge disagrees. Kavanaugh has peppered his hearing with evasive and misleading answers, what some might even say is outright lying under oath. His credibility is very poor. Blasey said she knew Kavanaugh before the attack, so no possibility of mistaken identity. Others say her personality changed, and she quit going to parties after the attack. Kavanaugh's defenders raised the memory argument, and proposed another attacker. They accessed Dr. Blasey's social media before she was publicly known. How would they have known about her? This is a lot of weight against Kavanaugh at this point. If Republicans jam him through, we can only surmise that they think Kavanaugh's credibility, his lying under oath, receiving stolen documents, and sexual assault are not disqualifying for a Supreme Court judge. In this, they are like other Republican voters, who are not bothered by corruption.
26
Alcohol, gambling, prurient questions about Monica, questionable ethics about information gained by hacking, debt questions. Character is formed through the years. He started out on the wrong course and kept on going.
If he was my son I would be ashamed.
40
So... for all future nominations, from both Democrat and Republican presidents, all it will take is for one, ONE, woman to make an allegation that is so lacking in details that it cannot be either proved or disproved to kill the nomination? All she has to do is to testify "credibly" to kill the nomination? Headed for an all female Supreme Court it seems, unless men begin to be bold enough to tell about being groped in their teen years too? Of course we will all be expected to believe without question these men, right?
2
To repeat: No one has to "prove" anything in this circumstance. In a sane world, Dr. Blasey would present her version of this incident and answer questions. Then if her version is credible, Judge Kavanaugh would apologize for even the possibility of this happening and explain how he is a different person now and present evidence of his respect for women. Then the Senate makes it's decision. Both parties get a fair hearing and show respect to one another. However, by completely denying the possibility that Dr. Blasey's story could be true, Kavanaugh has totally disrespected this woman so if her story is credible, the Judge must pay the price of having to step aside. And that's why Mr. Douthat establishing proof has nothing to do with the outcome of this situation.
1
There is another issue that I haven't seen added to this discussion. Judge Kavanaugh was reported to be drunk when this took place. News reports have alluded to the use of other drugs at some of these house parties. Also, Mr. Judge's book has been reported to have excerpts explaining blackout drunken states. These issues may mean that it is Judge Kavanaugh's memory that is failing. He may truly believe that he never attacked Dr. Ford because he simply doesn't remember because he was too drunk or drunk and under the influence of other drugs. For him to convince me that he is innocent, he would have to give details of his house party history including if he was ever blackout drunk.
6
If he's innocent, Kavanaugh himself should join with Blasey Ford in asking for an investigation by the FBI or some other competent group. You offer up two theories of innocence, Ross - one is "blatant liar." If that was the case, Kavanaugh has much to gain from an investigation. It's a lot more mixed if it is the second theory - that Ford is misremembering an actual incident. Still, we need as much information as possible. Then, based on what we know, the Senate and the public can decide what the rights and wrongs are. It's a lousy situation all round and I doubt there will be any definitive outcome (barring the revelation of a cancelled check from George Soros to Dr Ford, of course). Still, given the situation, I could wish that everyone would commit to, a) as thorough an investigation and respectful a hearing of both parties as possible, and b) holding off on determinations until all of that takes place. For both the Republicans and the Democrats.
11
@Nelda
Sadly, I don't think the GOP could ever go this route. They and their supporters and the anti-abortion movement had nirvana in sight and not is being taken away from them. Even though, if K. is withdrawn, they will put up a worse female judge. And unless the Dems take the senate she will be confirmed. If the Dems take the Senate then there will be overwhelming pressure on them to apply the Garland rule until after the next presidential election and also give Trump's lower court nominees the same timetable as traitor Mitch gave to Obama's choices.
If the Dems take the Senate, then Trump has a single choice. Nominate Garland or get no more justices of your choice.
@Nelda Given that there is no investigation, we need to accept the only position that has any objective support -- the lie detector test. She took one, he didn't. Such tests aren't completely perfect, but this is all we have.
Most false accusations fall apart after a little investigation. This is why the FBI should investigate. They won't be able to tell us what happened in that bedroom, but they should be able to discover if the details Blasey Ford has described match verifiable facts or not. They should be able to tell us if Kavanaugh was known as someone girls avoided being alone with.
In short, we'd get a much better picture of whom to believe. Since Kavanaugh has a huge incentive to say it didn't happen and Blasey Ford faced very unpleasant consequences to come forward, it seems to me that she is the one to be believed.
11
Enough of this Washington/New York "exceptionalism" -- every person has a right to a good reputation, EVEN if he is a Supreme Court nominee, and the right to a good name puts the standard of proof on the one who would calumniate or detract from that name, not the man who must defend it.
2
Even if what we hear next week leaves the strong impression that Kavanaugh engaged in a sexual assault, the Senate still gets to decide whether this behavior, and other things Kavanaugh has done (likely perjury, unethical behavior on the Starr team), are disqualifying for a seat on the Supreme Court. Republicans in the Senate announced their intentions about the Court very clearly last year when they refused to consider President Obama's nominee. They want conservative Republicans packing the Court, and they will do anything they can to insure that outcome. Unless a couple of Republicans suddenly have a fit of conscience, Kavanaugh is on the Court, and while decent Americans may be appalled, the Republican base will not be bothered.
1. Subpoena Mark Judge.
2. Why would she have named a witness if she was brazenly lying?
3. Why would she be asking the FBI to investigate? She freely admits forgetting some details. Perhaps the FBI could shed some light. They are the Federal Bureau of... Investigation, right?
4. Subpoena the others who were at the party. There were only 5 total. This isn't hard.
If Kavanaugh is still looking good after all this, then he gets confirmed.
What are Kavanaugh, Grassley, Hatch, et al, afraid of? Who knows. But they sure are acting worried about an investigation.
1
Where I found Kavanaugh deceptive and disingenuous is when he categorically denied being in a state (very drunk) where he would likely not remember what he was doing. I do believe that is what occurred and it is too bad he has gone the "deny at all costs" route.
I wonder how the country would have reacted if he had instead said "I did get drunk at times in my teenage years, something which I am not proud of. If I did do anything like has been alleged which I just do not recall, I apologize for such an action which does not in any way represent who I am and have been as an adult. I am regretful for the pain it appears to have caused Mrs. Blasey-Ford. If all this bars me from being a Justice, so be it."
4
I might be willing to believe that Kavanaugh was too drunk to remember the attack. But that argument is fraught too. It makes him look terrible to a large fraction of the voting population.
As any thinking person know, it is next to impossible to prove a negative. With no information as to when or where this supposed attack took place it becomes 100% impossible. Unless Kavenaugh has a diary with detailed entries of where he was, with whom and what he did for EVERY day of the year in question he won’t be able to prove anything.
BUT, neither can Ford prove anything- positive or negative. So we can easily surmise the reason for this last minute obscure incident. Unfortunately, our country has deteriorated to such a level that the Dems will lie, steal and cheat to obstruct Trump!
3
In your earlier column you noted that confirming Brett K under the cloud of a credible attempted rape charge would hurt the "pro life" movement. It would reinforce the perception that the "pro life" movement is actually anti-woman if a man seen as dis-respectful of women were to overthrow Roe v Wade. Bad optics.
So many aspects of this drama, including the hand-wringing over Brett K's burden of proof, illustrate the same underlying dynamic--that men ARE more valuable than women in our culture, and it is entirely appropriate for men to use their power to grab whatever they want from a woman and force whatever outcome they want on less powerful people more generally.
The millions of women all across America who are now reliving their own sexual traumas are also re-actively cringing and fighting nausea when they hear Mitch McConnell reassure the so-called family values group that "We're going to plow right through it!"
What a tragic miscarriage of justice if BK were to lose his appointment to the Supreme Court even if he is actually innocent!!! He and Merrick Garland can commiserate with each other on a more equal footing.
Why can we tolerate women's ruined lives and damaged careers so much more easily than we can tolerate a man missing his next privileged position unjustly?
Only about 1 per 1000 men who commit rape against INNOCENT women, men, and children ever go to prison. Why can we tolerate this so much more easily than the risk of convicting one innocent man?
13
@SusannaMac: Brilliant comment. Thank you.
The reasonable approach is to have the FBI look into the matter. By refusing that course, the GOP looks bad.
The likely outcome of an investigation is that the FBI will find the situation murky. Then Kavanaugh should take the option of bowing out with the honorable reason that he doesn’t want to cause any doubts about the Court, and he can still profess his innocence, although it isn’t obvious from the limited facts available.
The downside of his withdrawal for the GOP is that the GOP won’t be able to seriously imbalance the court immediately. However, that possibility remains entirely viable further down the road, a drum role for rallying GOP voters to turn out. And the GOP Congress escapes looking like rabid dogs.
6
This article presumes that Kavanaugh/GOP want to prove the negative or get to the truth. It seems only Dr. Blasey is interested in the truth. That's why she called for an FBI investigation, not Kavanaugh. The FBI has agents trained specifically for investigating sexual assault claims. Why are Kavanaugh/GOP not agreeing to that investigation? Because the truth would foreclose proving the negative.
1
Tis is a difficult question made much more difficult by the republican insistence to move to a vote before the midterm election. A through investigation might uncover details that would shed light on the credibility of the parties. Dr. Ford has taken a lie detector test, has named witnesses, and has no apparent reason to just make up a story that has disrupted her life. This tips the scales toward her but actually examining the witnesses she named under oath, passing a lie detector and answering questions could easily tip the scale back to Judge Kavanaugh. Neither he nor his supporters seem inclined to try these steps so he is tainted by his own apparent fear of a fuller vetting.
No one is a saint until dead. But Kavanaugh well knows that we are all called to a degree of humility and to various forms of confession. I've read of his "alcohol soaked" teens; of 100 Kegs or Bust (a club of which he seems to have been treasurer at one time); and a phrase he has repeated at student and graduate assemblies rather frequently, that variant of "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas." And I read of his commitment to the Church, as if his "lay bishop" role is a plus. People like that made me cringe as I grew up. "Craw thumpers" (breast beaters) who would "eat the altar rail." Most of his adult life has been in service of vicious right-wing partisans, with little regard for the need for unity. Surely, he became a judge as a reward and with a mission, and not in expectation of even-handed judgments.
2
The idea that a woman who was assaulted might not remember correctly who did it (oh, a classmate, not Brett Kavanaugh!) is ridiculous. She knew his NAME. She knew who he was. She did not forget that over the years, which, the more we hear about them, were marked by what can only be described as a form of post-traumatic stress disorder.
It is time for Republicans, and journalists, to stop suggesting ludicrous scenarios by which one can say "I could possibly believe her!" and at the same time say, "but she might be mistaken about Kavanaugh, and we should be charitable toward him...." or even worse, "she doesn't remember every detail, so she's probably lying." Where is the "charity" toward a grownup human being who remembers a specific assault on her person (as any of us WOULD remember such a thing!), in which she was not only under threat of rape but even, as she describes it, of being suffocated (or at least feeling that way)? The stance in this article, so "measured" and "fair" and trying to show how much Douhat has thought about his views over the week--is so tiring, condescending, and insulting to women generally and to Blasey Ford specifically. Can we just admit that sometimes young men show zero character, and if that is the case, they do not deserve to be given the great honor of a Supreme Court justice appointment when they are adults?
666
@daphne, Dr. Ford identified four other people as being present at the party. Their names are Ms. Leland Ingham Keyser, Mr. Mark Judge, Mr. Patrick J. Smyth and Judge Brett Kavanaugh. All of them have have issued statements declaring that there was no such party. How many people does it take to refute Ford's story?
1
@Daphne
Thank you.
What is needed is an FBI investigation along with a subpoena for Judge, as a hostile witness. Blasey-Ford's charge is credible and supporting proof should be
sought to establish that Kavanaugh has now willingly lied. He can no longer lean on the foibles off youth to expect his current denials to be forgiven.
@daphne, since you are absolutely certain that Ford would know Kavanaugh by name, then the only other alternative, if she is wrong, is that she is telling a vicious lie. It is charitable to consider other, reasonable alternatives.
An argument that no doubt Mr. Douthat or any reasonable person would think absurd if made against himself or anyone he cared about or with whom he identified.
I remember political assassinations, including JFK and King, though I was a kid, rioting, Kent State, Watergate and the Vietnam War, the Reagan Revolution and Whitewater, Bush v. Gore and perhaps the most nationally traumatic, 9-11. And all I've seen during our time, is our country get better and better. But, now, when it was better than ever, I have never seen such hysteria as Trump has evoked in the other side that so many have lost their sense of composure and reason - even some of the nicest and most intelligent people I've known, some of whom have even argued to me that violence and intimidation are necessary also lawful even if your feelings are hurt by political positions, some who cannot even have a conversation if a contrary view is stated.
I did not think our society could go from civil to broken in short order, but it could happen and soon. I understand where I'm writing and that most people reading this will disagree and believe it's not hysteria but something else. I hope people come to their senses.
3
@DHEisenberg
Well, the president got up, in our "better America" and trashed it - the carnage on the streets, or some such nonsense. The country now so awful it needed to be restored to greatness. The forces of power are taking this country down....look to Mitch McConnell on this one; win at all cost, block the president at all cost. It seems, this hysteria starts there.
1
Ross, I don't care much about what Kavanaugh needs. I care about what the American people and the Supreme Court need.
The American people need a full and accurate report on that incident. Standing Ms. Blasey and Kavanaugh up before the cameras in a he say - she say, is not a full and accurate report. There were at least two men in the room with Ms. Blasey. We need to know how many and their names. We need to hear their testimony. We need to have a proper investigation of Ms. Blasey's allegations. Was the assault planned in advance or only an opportunistic event? Did both young men hold Ms. Blasey down? Did two or more young men actually grope Ms. Blasey? What was Kavanaugh's role? Those are just starters.
The Supreme Court will be called upon to determine the rights of underaged men and women charged with crimes. How can the Court hand down a convincing decision when it appears that a sitting Justice was given preferential treatment by a Republican controlled Senate that refused to investigate Ms. Blasey's charges, identify and subpoena witness?
In today's political climate, the one thing that Brett Kavanaugh cannot do is to admit that the sexual assault occurred, express regret and apologize to Ms. Blasey. Regardless how Thursday's testimony unfolds, many will believe that the Senate ignored its duty to investigate the facts and conduct a full and fair hearing.
9
The ease with which any notable person can be maligned is chilling. Kavanaugh will be forever tainted by these proceedings and this accusation. He has no method to clear his name other than vehement denials. What could he possibly say that could undo the accusation? "I remember the party and I didn't get within an inch of her" "I remember I was invited to the party and didn't go." "I don't remember any such party." "I met Dr. Ford once in a different situation and never spoke with her." "The only girl that I ever pressed too forcefully while drunk and a teenager was someone other than Dr. Ford and now we are the best of friends." "I never had a drop of alcohol in my life." "I've never been to a party. I don't like parties." "I'm actually gay." "The party did occur and we did go an upstairs bedroom and I remember that Dr. Ford pushed ME down on the bed." Really, is there anything this man can say that would appease those who are sure he assaulted this woman? In fact, the ONLY thing that will appease is for Kavanaugh to say "You're right. I am a bad person. I'm not fit to be a Supreme Court justice." Those are the ONLY words that this cabal has ever been willing to accept from Kavanaugh since his nomination. Everything else is deemed perjury.
6
@Steve
So you have issues with this debacle being reduced to a "he said-she said" scenario? Me too.
The best solution would be that requested FBI investigation that the GOP leaders are avoiding. Since BK denies ever being at the party, proof of his presence would immediately cast doubt on his claims. Likewise, if no one collaborates that he was there, his testimony would hold more weight.
Either result after an investigation still may be inconclusive but at least there would be an attempt for truth.
10
@Steve, the four other people who were Ford identified at being at the party, Leland Ingham Keyser, Mark Judge, Patrick J. Smyth and Brett Kavanaugh have all issued statements that there was no such party. How many people does it take to refute Ford's story?
2
@Steve
Dr. Ford had a successful academic career and a quiet, anonymous, private life. She knowingly put those at risk when she went public with her accusations. (She has already recieved death threats.) She would risk all that with false claims for what? A book deal? A payoff to go away? So she could add a little healthy trauma to her family's lives? No matter how this affair turns out, her life is turned upside down.
Dr. Ford has nothing to gain and everything to lose. She knew that going in and she went forward anyway. That is the very definition of courage. I believe her.
1
Ed Whelan's role in this is despicable. Certainly not worthy of someone who has the title of president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Given the stakes, it wouldn't be untoward if the person he maliciously attacked sued him in court. Just not Judge Kavanaugh's court.
12
It is well known that some make false allegations – Duke Lacrosse, Tawanda Brawley, Rachel Dolezal, etc to support various agendas.
Add Dr Ford to this list, who is a voluntary foot soldier in the resistance against Trump.
Since she went to school at approx the same time and place as Kavanaugh did, she has the opportunity to concoct a story that sounds plausible enough, but leaves important details out that would not hold-up under cross-examination. Very clever. She conveniently blames her memory for the absence of these important details. There are none of the supporting factors present - there are no other similar claims against Kavanaugh, there are no witnesses supporting her story, there was no police report. But she could still file a claim today in MD, but has not.
3 people now dispute her claim - Leland Keyser, Mark Judge and Patrick Smyth.
There are many liberal progressives who are vehemently opposed to this nomination, some see this as a direct threat to Roe v Wade. To them, derailment by any means necessary is totally justified and even the moral thing to do. To them, a concocted story is a minor crime compared to achieving their aim to derail the nomination, which will serve the greater good. Because they decide what is the greater good and not the voters who elected Trump who nominated Kavanaugh, and not the voters who elected the Senators who are on track to confirm Kavanaugh.
The burden is on Dr Ford.
11
@Philly How about an FBI investigation? I hear they are experienced at asking questions and finding the truth. Then we can move on.
1
@Philly
So are you suggesting that her motive is great enough that she would risk her life to and that of her families? Its very interesting.
1
@Philly Your argument is very cogent, but equally you come from the reactionary/conservative sector of opinion that had no problem in disgracefully blocking President Obama's choice for the Supreme Court by any means available. It is shameful for someone who clearly endorsed that to accuse others now of seeing something as 'totally justified, the moral thing to do' as evidence of your purity of judgement.
Too many people seem to think that a polygraph (NOT lie detector) test is the ultimate answer. Any competent polygrapher will acknowledge that the machine measures certain physiological responses which may change when the subject is being questioned. The polygrapher, based upon experience and training, then decides whether the squiggles on the chart mean that the subject believes what he/she said. If the subject truly believe that the earth is flat, then answering a question: Is the earth flat? will create squiggles consistent with the belief that what is being said is true. No more, no less.
Apparently Dr. Blasely Ford's answers were deemed to be consistent with her belief in what she was saying, according to the polygrapher who ran the test. If Judge Kavanaugh truly believes that he did not do what is being alleged, his squiggles should lead to a conclusion that he believes his answers. No more, no less. If he is unsure, based upon the age of his memory or a belief that he drank at most parties, his squiggles might be read as being inconclusive or even false.
3
@The Lone Protester, Polygraphs can be gamed. Sociopaths have been known to have the ability. So too, people on tranquilizers or other mood altering drugs. They are only indicative.
1
@The Lone Protester
From the American Psychological Association:
http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx
"Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies... The cumulative research evidence suggests that CQTs detect deception better than chance, but with significant error rates, both of misclassifying innocent subjects (false positives) and failing to detect guilty individuals (false negatives)."
A polygraph would be pure theater. Personally I wouldn't roll the dice on it unless I had nothing left to lose.
1
The burden has usually been on the women to prove they were assaulted.
Just look at the 20 women who have accused President Trump of sexual assault.
This is another "problem" with Kavanaugh, Mr. Douthat.
Trump, the sexual assaulter, has crowed that he will overturn Roe v Wade.
Trump said he would nominate “only pro-life” judges and predicted during the campaign that Roe would be overturned if he had a chance to make several nominations to the Supreme Court.
Now the sexual assaulter Trump -- who also defended the child molester Roy Moore and wife beater Rob Porter -- is putting forth a sycophant, who just last fall wrote a strongly worded dissent involving a pregnant immigrant teenager in federal custody.
Polls show a majority of Americans are opposed to overturning Roe.
Yet men accused of sexual assault are slowly taking away a woman's right to choose, in 2018.
These men don't want abortions? Fine, they shouldn't have them.
And just one last thing, Mr. Douthat, we need more diversity of religion on this court. The idea that 6 Catholics should sit on this court is ridiculous, and the idea that women are still so woefully underrepresented in the courts and on the Republican Senate Judiciary (11 white men only), as well as in Congress, when women are 51% of the population, is absurd, and obscene.
This is 2018.
This needs to change.
Now.
47
Just to simplify other’s remarks, there’s a way that Dr. Blasey Ford, Judge Kavanaugh, and other writers could be right that Mr. Douthat does not present: Judge Kavanaugh does not remember, and does not believe he would have done what Dr. Blasey alleges.
According to another article, sex crime victims tend to remember these instances vividly, they are often haunted by them, but perpetrators may not remember at all.
If he submitted to a lie detector and FBI investigation, any doubt based on his youth and drinking could register, but his pride could too. In the latter scenario, we could perceive both to be sincere. But that would still allow for the possibility that Dr. Blasey Ford is right (or more right) on the facts.
We appear likely to reach a place like this if both testify (if Dr. Blasey can face this hostile panel heroically, and Kavanaugh can restrain his worst impulses). And then, people seem split: some say, “if they both seem sincere, the vote should commence.” For this group, it’s not about past guilt, it’s about current dishonesty and bad faith.
But Mr. Douthat offers that, even if no neutral investigation occurs, other witnesses come out or evidence corroborates their statements, Kavanaugh should be able to dispute Blasey’s account, even by offering his own (hypothetical). If neither are investigated and verifiable, this will allow Kavanaugh to lie under oath, not clear his name. Like Thomas, he could be confirmed without testing the facts, tainting the GOP.
6
@Ross Douthat wrote: "But an obligation not to elevate a clouded nominee must coexist with an obligation to hear out any serious alternative explanation of the facts.
Whelan’s folly shows how not to offer such an explanation. But if Kavanaugh has one, or if some other silent person has one, the obligation to offer it remains."
That clear and correct summary of Kavanaugh's "burden of proof" and how daunting it is, can be further shortened to this one sentence -- logical conclusion:
The F.B.I. should be asked to investigate; and Brett Kavanaugh should demand it to clear his name, once and for all, if he is innocent.
35
@Dikoma C Shungu If there were 3 people in a room, A says B did something, B denies it, C doesn't remember, and the alleged act took place 31 years ago, neither A, B or C remembering the exact location, with no DNA evidence of any kind available, what can be expected from an FBI investigation?
3
@GG2018 - Quite a lot, actually, like, whether there was even such a party, its exact location, who was there, what they remember, what was the "culture" of the time and the degree to which Kavanaugh had embraced it, and much more. Moreover, the F.B.I. will get to talk to Mr. Judge, "the third person in the room", formally, which tends to jog memories because lying to the F.B.I. is a crime whereas lying to the media isn't.
Importantly and more to my point, Kavanaugh and his supporters will be able say that the allegation was thoroughly investigated by the F.B.I. -- a powerful statement that even Dr. Ford would not be able to ignore or easily dismiss, as one who has demanded that the F.B.I. investigate. Despite Trump's assault on it and on the rule of law, the F.B.I. still remains a credible and trusted law-enforcement agency.
Yes, if Kavanaugh was confident of his innocence he would be DEMANDING the FBI investigate and Judge to testify.
2
If the evidence exists that he lied to the Senate in his previous confirmation hearings, he could be later impeached if he is seated on the Supreme Court. Outraged by the treatment of Garland, Democrats (who brought up such evidence during the hearings) might try to use it if they get near the necessary majorities.
In terms of safeguarding the Supreme Court's reputation, it would be better to drop Kavanaugh and hope that the Republican majority in the Senate is preserved so that a different candidate can be approved.
Actually, the way to safeguard the reputation of the Supreme Court is to select justices by a supermajority, so that only justices whose votes on the key questions would be somewhat unpredictable could be selected. No judge with known positions on key fractious issues (abortion, gay marriage, redistricting, speech and other rights of artificial persons, etc. ) would be able to be approved, and these issues would be decided people of character, experience, and judgment discussing and politicking among themselves. This is how Congress, and especially the Senate, are supposed to work but dont any more if they ever did.
15
In an arena of judgment, there's much that can be occur from which either side can fashion profit; if this particular fight weren't "fixed", that might be less the case.
One party beseeches the intersession of arguably the best independent investigative agency in the world, while the other declines such an opportunity to remain beyond range of further criminal exposure.
In itself, that is clearly telling.
35
As a high-school teacher I'm appalled at the idea of going after people for what they did as minors. Teenagers can make huge mistakes and grow up to be perfectly respectable adults.
But if we're trying to decide who to believe here, c'mon. We know Kavanaugh lied to the Senate about stolen emails in 2004. His lack of integrity as an adult is what disqualifies him from the Supreme Court.
63
@Martin It's not about "going after" him for what he did as a minor. It's about whether he should be a SC justice. I'd say most people don't think someone who did such things should sit on the SC.
12
@Martin And he's lying about this incident with Dr. Blasey too. If Kavanaugh had a stronger moral compass and higher degree of character, then he perhaps would offer an explanation and apology as opposed to this charade. But alas, he isn't. If he had taken the high road, I think it would've been better way for him.
1
"...If you are being asked to prove a negative, you cannot be denied the opportunity to explain what you think that negative might look like..."
Mr D, didn't Mr Whalen explain what he thought one negative might look like viz. Dr Blaisley might have confused the perpetrator with the judge but Mr Whalen didn't see the perpetrator and had no other knowledge of whether that was the case. You agreed that was unacceptable.
Isn't what's required evidence of the negative, examples being: Mr Whalen did see the perpetrator who he knew was not the nominee; Dr Blaisley told Mr Whalen she was confused as to whether the perpetrator was the judge or was someone who closely resembled him.
Stated differently, don't serious explanations of a negative need to be supported by evidence of the facts of the explanation, as well as by evidence of the correctness of reasoning resulting in the conclusion from the facts that the negative is valid; not "...what you think that negative might look like..." ?
2
Dr. Ford passed a polygraph examination administered by an FBI-trained examiner. That carries weigh and adds to her credibility.
If Kavanaugh were innocent, he would promptly submit to and pass a polygraph. This is how he could bring evidence to bear on proving a negative. The fact that Kavanaugh has not sought a polygraph examination is telling of his guilt.
If Kavanaugh were innocent, he would have no problem with an FBI investigation into the facts. Neither Kavanaugh nor the GOP Judiciary Committee want an FBI investigation.
Conclusions re Kavanaugh: Guilty, guilty, guilty.
41
@Earthling Polygraphs are nowhere near 100% accurate. Furthermore, coaching for a polygraph test, just as is the case with coaching for the SATs, has proven to be an effective preparation for the test-taker.
A "surprise" polygraph test might have some validity, but one that is planned and prepared for is no indication of underlying truth-telling.
4
@mitchell No one has ever said a polygraph is 100% accurate. Nothing is. It is one piece that adds to her credibility. No more, no less. The pieces are starting to add up for Ford while Kavanaugh has nothing but an exceedingly hasty all encompassing "I never did anything like that" that he based on supposedly knowing no specific details of the event.
Kavanaugh's reputation and the reputation of the Supreme Court would both be protected if the president ordered an FBI investigation including witnesses offered by both parties and others the FBI considered relevant, if the Senate committee reviewed the FBI report in open session, allowed both individuals to say anything they wanted to say in public session, and then voted. With the FBI investigation report in hard, I see no benefit from senators interrogating either party in a hearing. The public would have all the information the senators had, which will probably be inconclusive, and can judge the integrity of senators by their votes. Senators can give their reasons for their votes if they wish. The interests of both individuals and of the public will be served, and if Mr. Kavanaugh is confirmed, the court will have a new member who has passed the test.
6
Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 The conservative movement has torn the country apart by making itself the party of White men, Suburban women, economic libertarians , and religious zealots. It looks to me that the strategy has been successful and the country is so divided that the other side is the mortal enemy.
I am a Canadian and my Supreme Court is televised and looks like what I think a Supreme Court should look like and I don't know my liberals from my conservatives and I know my jurists are only interested in equal justice.
America is the richest most powerful country in the world and has one major problem that should have been of utmost concern. The country is divided and the other side is no longer a partner but an enemy. The Kavanaugh nomination begs the question whether he will unite the country or further divide it. I remember a Supreme Court nominee to replace Scalia who had almost unanimous support from both sides of the aisle.
I have watched American politics for 65 years. I have watched the Nixons Reagans, Hatches, Ryans, Gingriches and Trumps tear the country apart.
It matters not if Kavanaugh sits on your Supreme Court the party is over. The fabric that held your nation together no longer exists. In November you will start deciding what the new nation or nations will look like. The Supreme Court will be as meaningless as the word United in your name.
103
@Memphrie et Moi You perfectly hit the nail on the head. You analyzed America’s problem better than many Americans. However, I disagree with your view of America’s future. I must because your option is too unbearable. We will fight hard to bring America back to the country she could be and should be.
@jsj
It takes two to tango.
Thanks for your reply but there has to be a willingness on both sides to find compromise.
McConnell understood when he blocked Garland that it was the final nail in the coffin.
Closer to home when Canada left the Nafta talks on Thursday our representatives understood full well how vital trade was to our economic well being.
Your art of the deal is take it or leave it.
My option may seem unbearable but it is now more probable than possible.
It has been been over a year since our Boy and Girl Scouts have not been allowed to travel to the US officially because they are not treated equally even as Canadians. I cannot think of anything that lets me understand how fundamentally your country is broken.
I declare that we will be "too close to an election" to fill SCOTUS seats until after 2020.
The whole nominating and review process has to be changed.
The role of the Senate has to revised - as it stands, San Diego should have 2 Senators if Rhode Island does.
22
@CliffHanger
All your comments about how the number of Senators should be determined only reveal a complete ignorance of the history of the US and the rationale the founding fathers used to determine numerical composition of the Senate and House. I strongly suggest you learn history.
1
thank you marty baron, emma brown and the staff of the Washington post, you are to be commended for excellent reporting! wherever marty goes a prize winning story is sure to go, dr. ford is being well served and so is the public with their breaking news coverage. this reminds me of the Boston Globe spotlight team work on predator priests in the catholic archdiocese. what extraordinary public service, mr. baron.
11
This nomination will always be under a cloud. An honorable person may decline the honor of serving on the Supreme Court. That person could paraphrase Sherman, "If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve." In other words, if successfully nominated I will immediately resign and not leave a tainted Supreme Court. Richard Nixon chose not to contest his loss to John Kennedy although he had very good reasons to contest that election because he felt the honor of the presidency was not to be dragged through the mud, likewise with the Supreme Court.
9
She told some of her friends after the attack, and she told her husband and her therapist. He got drunk a lot back then and doesn't believe it happened.
She's dealing with personal attacks in social media and death threats because she spoke out. He's in jeopardy of losing his chance at one of the most influential and responsible positions in the country, but his present job is presumably safe.
It doesn't seem all that difficult to me, but then I'm a woman.
There are plenty of other misogynistic, biased, pro-corporate, anti-minority people on the Republicans' list--why are they so insistent on pushing this guy through, unless it's just because he seems willing to pardon an impeached president?
138
The scenario of some "clouded or mistaken memory" on Ms. Ford's part is implausible because of her inclusion of Mark Judge in the scene. For the "mistaken memory" theory to work, either Mark Judge saw someone else jump on Ms. Ford, and then he jumped on both of them, and he has forgotten this, or else Ms. Ford is mistaken about the identities of both of the men who were in the room that night.
16
As others have previously postulated, Kavanaugh may sincerely believe that he is innocent of Dr. Blasey’s claim of attempted rape because he does not actually remember being at that particular teenage party or in her company there, due to his deeply excessive inebriation causing a total memory “blackout” episode. This would require, of course, that he candidly admits to his prior underage drinking and to a disturbing habit of binge consumption, something which his then-buddy Judge has already publicly referenced. While this explanation by Kavanaugh of the facts does not legally or morally absolve his teenage heinous behavior, it would at least be an honest and confessional explanation, instead of a blanket, unconvincing, and unsatisfactory denial.
44
This discussion of what would constitute a fair chance for Kavanaugh to clear his name would be reasonable, but for the fact that it neglects the very key issue of his reported alcohol abuse while a young man. If the reports are true, then there might have been any number of mornings on which he would have woken up with only the faintest idea of what had happened the night before. This makes the older Brett Kavanaugh a poor witness for his younger self.
This does not prove he committed sexual assault, and in the cold light of day he may find the idea horrifying, but an honest person with this kind of personal history would have to at least acknowledge some degree of uncertainty, and in fact remorse for the possibility of having damaged another person's life without any recollection of it.
The absence of any readiness to take responsibility for his youthful drunken behavior is what disqualifies him for a seat on the high court, here and now.
241
@Bill Levine Why not use this as a moment for restorative justice? It's the only way I see to set a new moral standard from this mess. BK can say - "there are many instances where I was drunk and possibly out of control. This may be one of them but I don't recall it at all. Even so, I am truly sorry for the hurt it appears to have inflicted. I have made changes in my life but I recognize the continuing impact it has had on Dr. Ford. I would hope a recognition of this shows a path for those who still believe such behavior is unacceptable to change their ways." Or something like that. Maybe such a statement is the only way to clean the filth from this and move forward, whether he gets confirmed or not. It may even obviate the need for her to face a circus and repeat the stain of the Anita Hill history.
@slk Towards the end I meant to say "those who believe such behavior is "acceptable" to change their ways."
@Bill Levine
Well said.
Great question, @Nancy B: "how can you categorically declare you didn't even attend this party when the date and place of the party have not been determined" You're right. That is the key question. And that's why I think he's lying. I also wonder how Kavanaugh and Mark Judge "know" that Kavanaugh never even went to party similar to the one at which the assault allegedly took place. Their own yearbook entries and public remarks (as well as Mark Judge's writing) make it seem as if drunken, out of control house parties, and subsequent amnesia about the events that occurred, were the norm, rather than the exception, in their circle.
102
I am a woman.
I am happy to support a pro-life program just as long as it is not anti-abortion/anti-women's reproductive rights.
29
@vibise . I agree with you. The so called pro-life program is filled with people who do not support votes to feed, clothe and shelter impoverished children. It is really the pro-birth program.
1
There are two, related, very serious gaps here. First, WaPo has now reported that Whelan started investigating Ford *before* her name had been publicly released.
This leads to the second: Don't ask Kavanaugh to prove a negative -- of course, he's not equipped to. Have a fair professional investigation -- that is, the FBI. Professionals can really return a much better and probably more convincing picture than any of the principals can.
46
All judges and lawyers have encountered cases where memory is clouded by time and alcohol on the side of both accuser and accused. For someone like Kavanaugh, remembered in his high school yearbook as part of the "kegger" club and by his close friend for his drinking escapades, one must wonder why he is not more doubtful and uncertain in responding to his accuser. For me, more than anything else, this raises doubts about his ability to take into consideration his own bias in high-stakes matters.
136
You've failed suggest a third option by which Kavanaugh might defend himself. He could take a lie detector test, and demand an FBI investigation. If the results of both these tests prove his claim to be credible, or even if they are equivocal, Kavanaugh and the Senate Judiciary could rightfully proceed with his nomination.
115
@Karen
The problem with a polygraph in this situation is that Kavanaugh might easily pass the test. In a situation where, because he was drunk, he didn’t form memories of that time period, he could answer truthfully that he never touched Christine Blasey Ford. This is one read why polygraphs are not admissible in court.
2
@Karen...except that "lie detector tests" have been clearly shown to be very bad at actually detecting lies. They don't work. They gauge physiologic stress, which is not the same as a lie, not at all. It's a non sequitur to say that they are the same.
3
@Karen, A lie detector test is not admissible in court and, in a case where someone was thoroughly drunk. might not be significant anyway. Kavanaugh might honestly have no memory of acting like this based on the kind of activity that his peers were routinely engaging in. That doesn't remove culpability.
1
Kavanaugh couldn't (or wouldn't) even answer simple yes/know questions about much more recent events during the hearings. He came across as either slippery and dishonest or possessed of a horrible memory. What can we realistically expect regarding the events of 35 years ago? As Kavanaugh said, what happens at Georgetown prep, stays at Georgetown prep. I am much more interested in hearing what his friend has to say, you know, the one who was supposedly in the room with him and Ford that night. Of course, maybe I should just read his book.
40
If just one of the nine members sitting on the highest court in the land happens to have an indelible asterisk after his name based on how he was chosen, the credibility of our entire judicial system must be questioned and in jeopardy for generations to come. If that number is doubled, the consequences will be even more severe and occur sooner.
The fact that a few of the same key characters who were complicit in creating the first ethical fiasco will also be complicit in creating the current fiasco is unconscionable and potentially devastating to the future rule of law and the role of truth in this country.
The phrases 'kangaroo court' and 'Banana Republicans' apply here
and now.
50
I have been following this debate with interest, but I am surprised that more attention has not been paid to the related significance of the lifetime appointment. Why is it a lifetime appointment? Does it have to be a lifetime appointment? Can this tradition be changed?
It seems to me that if it were a renewable appointment of a given number of years, any concerns about a candidate's character could be revisited if necessary.
15
@Anne Price
It is very important that it is a lifetime appointment. This helps to keep the decisions free of politics and free of improper influence. Imagine a judge ruling in favor of a giant corporation or a large union with the expectation or even hope that they would be hired as a "lobbyist" with a huge salary after their term expires. This would basically destroy the credibility of the court's decisions with the public.
I do agree that the stakes involved with a Supreme Court seat are too high and that this has needlessly distorted our presidential elections. The way to address this is to raise the minimum age to be appointed to 65 or 60, not to expose the court to outside influence.
10
@Alan Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate that it would not be acceptable for a former appointee to become a lobbyist. At the same time, the current selection process is not keeping the appointment free of politics.
4
@Alan, how is that thing about keeping politics out of their decisions working? The court is more ideological right now than it's been in ages. Lifetime appointments almost ensure that the court will be more ideological and political, because each president will try to nominate someone who is so young, they'll serve for decades on the court. Why should Trump be able to nominate someone who will be on the court for 30 or 40 years? It's absurd.
Make the eligibly age 65, and the mandatory retirement age 80. That's plenty of time. You get seasoned jurists who have long records to review, and they leave before their sell-by date. The only reason we keep many of them hanging around into their 80s and 90s is because we fear having the court packed with ideologues, like this whippersnapper, for decades. Limit the term, and also limit any president from replacing more than two judges over her or his entire tenure, and we'll have a much better court. If we're short the odd justice, so that we have only 8, then so be it.
We should also have only women nominees until the court is evenly balanced between the two genders. In fact, if we're going to have nine, we need five women. That would represent the demographics of the country more equitably.
7
It’s too late this time, but surely the obligation Americans most need to get right, and ensure is honoured every time, without fail, is to remove the corrosive partisanship and replace it with a fair, well informed, professional nominating and vetting process for Supreme Court Justices. Independent decision makers are necessary. Americans can never have trust or confidence in their highest court if pea-brained political partisan hacks continue to put lower level politically partisan judges on the court, and for life. It will create (has created?) a top court in political disrepute forever. No way to safeguard democracy or rights.
21
I do not support Kavanaugh because of his extremist view of presidential power and the appearance that Trump is trying to pick his own jury. I also question the Supreme Court’s need for yet another Georgetown Prep-Ivy league-Washington insider. How about some regional, religious or educational diversity on the court.
53
"alienate social conservatives from the persuadable Americans, women especially, whose support any pro-life program ultimately requires."
That premise in nonsense.
There are no women who are persuadable to the social conservative idea of pro-life programs.
They're radical, like Douthat's rejection of the Pope as anti-Catholic. There are no persuadables to that extremism. Persuadable would work the other way, to accept something more moderate that the greatest demand, and Douthat won't have that, has it backward.
7
@Mark Thomason
Are you saying that there are no women who are pro life?
1
I for one would appreciate a thorough FBI investigation of K's background, going back to high school years. The backgrounds of candidates for high level security clearances are routinely investigated - surely the Supreme Court is even more important. Only the very best jurists with unimpeachable character and credential should be seated on the Court.
126
The FBI has already conducted 6 background checks on Judge Kavanaugh.
1
@Cal And the same for presidential candidates!
1
"If his accuser testifies credibly and all he has to offer are vehement denials, followed by a rushed Republican attempt at confirmation, then he may be innocent but his nomination will deserve to fail." We saw this scenario 27 years ago and the nomination did not fail. As soon as Thomas's confirmation hearings were over the senate should have created a plan on how to deal with this sort of problem. They didn't. Or they did and this is it: refuse to reopen the investigation, try to insinuate that the accuser is lying, and act as if they are doing the accuser an outsize favor by allowing her to testify in front of them.
Kavanaugh, the GOP, and Trump want him on the court more than they want to examine the truth about him. This is part of a pattern that has been present since Trump took office. Have the hearings but keep as much information as possible away from the public and the Democrats. Personally I don't think the GOP cares what Kavanaugh did in the past as much as they care about getting another conservative on the Supreme Court. Conservativism and hypocrisy are their religions.
I've said in another comment what I'll say here: 99% of confirmation hearings go smoothly. Therefore most of the time there are not loose accusations made. In this instance, especially when the appointment is for a lifetime, the senate judicial committee can well afford the time it would take to investigate the allegations.
65
@hen3ry All of this [including Mr. Douthat's rumination] is beside the point when the Majority Leader states that the confirmation WILL happen, stated before Ms. Ford has a chance to testify or even before it was clear that she would agree to testify. So much for keeping an open mind. Just when I thought the haste to confirm could not get MORE unseemly, the Republicans [who declared that Obama's choice to replace Scalia would not get a hearing before Scalia's body was cold !] go even lower.
22
Remember Ross that it was Donald Trump and the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee that were unwilling to allow an updated F.B.I. investigation as the accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, repeatedly requested. It was she, not Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who was willing to have her account put to the test. Now we are left with a credibility contest that is likely to leave Judge Kavanaugh unable to prove his professed innocence "beyond a reasonable doubt" unless the Republicans once again engage in "the politics of personal destruction" as they did with Anita Hill. But the #MeToo movement makes this a losing strategy as they seem already aware to the point where they want to hide behind a female stand-in interrogator. Judge Kavanaugh and his backers have put him in this no-win situation. when coupled with his unwillingness to demand an F.B.I. investigation to clear his name, he will be forced to withdraw his nomination. The reckoning is upon the those practicing the politics of fear and male dominance.
68
@Paul Wortman
A female standing interrogator would be, and would be seen, as a Republican Potemkin village.
I hope they do it, but I would choose Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or possibly Nancy Pelosi. Well, one can dream.
I'm beginning to wonder at this point if the Democrats really care about the truth? Is that the issue here? If the FBI were to find strong evidence implicating Kavanaugh in a crime, Democrats would oppose him. If there were a muddled mix of accusations Democrats would oppose him. If Kavanaugh were completely vindicated, Democrats would oppose him. Lets be honest. Their minds were made up long before these proceedings began. Just as Republicans had made up their minds. Isn't this at the end of the day about keeping a conservative jurist off SCOTUS by any means necessary?
17
@Bill Brown No, it isn't really
"about keeping a conservative jurist off SCOTUS by any means" . . .
it is about lack of trust in the GOP to vet a nomination to such an important position. Look at the cabinet nomination that were approved even though they were so many not capable for their jobs and demonstrated little ability to step into them. This is about a candidate who was easily going to be approved in a fast and unvetted way showing the number of questionable judgement issues. The best way to confirm him would be to expand the review of him and answer all the questions being asked. Hiding will not be enough unless they are willing to damage the institution of an independent and trustworthy court.
It's all about trust. . .
25
@Bill Brown There are two issues and two classes of people: (1) Democrats want to keep Kavanaugh off the court; (2) enemies of sexual assault want to keep sexual criminals off the court. These are overlapping sets of people with different interests that are currently (potentially) in alignment.
This does not mean there is some nefarious conspiracy, that there should not be an investigation or that we should disbelieve someone who claims to be both a Democrat and an enemy of sexual violence. Indeed, the wonder is rather that the party of family values and personal responsibility is so uninterested in the truth of the allegations.
2
There is yet another possible reading of this alleged incident which I have not yet seen raised: that Dr. Ford is being truthful in her assertion that she was pinned to a bed during a house party on some unspecified evening during the summer of (possibly) 1982, and even that she accurately identifies Judge Kavanaugh as the person who "assaulted" her.
However, it is possible that Dr. Ford's memory of the event has been transformed over the course of 36 years, and that her description of particulars may not be completely accurate. For example, she says that Kavanaugh and his friend were "stumbling drunk", and that he was "fumbling" as he tried to remove her clothes. We clearly have an assault and battery, but does the conduct amount to an attempted rape? Attempt is a specific intent crime, and an argument can be made that Kavanaugh may not have had the intent or even the capacity to commit rape (especially if he was "stumbling drunk"), though this depends heavily on the accuracy and specificity of how his conduct is described. Let me be perfectly clear: there are ways to interpret his conduct as an attempt at rape, if one takes Dr. Ford's description as absolutely accurate (and not over hyped). But even a slight variation from her description could point away from a suggestion that rape was the intent.
The problem is that Kavanaugh has denied even being at such a party, so he has precluded this line of defense, which might exonerate him of the most serious allegation.
2
@Gualtiero What does the capacity to rape have to do with making an attempt? If I am a poor shot and only have a small calibre gun does my attempt to kill you matter less because it is unlikely to actually be successful? If someone is trying ferociously to do something and is on top of me with his hand over my mouth I'd not be thinking of the odds that he couldn't possibly be tumescent enough to to do the deed.
4
@Gualtiero So what is the innocent explanation for being on top of a young woman while grinding his pelvis against her and reaching to cover her mouth?
5
@Gualtiero
I'm speechless.
Kavanaugh has a right to offer an alternative explanation, yes. But will mean almost nothing unless it is tested against every possible detail that can be verified, through an FBI investigation. But of course, neither the GOP nor (apparently) Kavanaugh are willing to let that basic process happen. So how in the world should we receive his alternative explanation?
Here is what I would ask Kavanaugh under oath: how can you categorically declare you didn't even attend this party when the date and place of the party have not been determined??
94
Or put another way, the allegation is so vague and imprecise and so old, how can it possibly be disproved?
2
Mr. Douthat argues that Judge Kavanaugh is a tainted candidate who has the burden of proof of proving a negative. In so doing, however, he would have to advance arguments about Ms. Ford's recollections and memory that feminists would characterize as male character assassination of a violated woman. The avenue that Mr. Douthat leaves open is no avenue at all.
Mr. Douthat insists that any Supreme Court Justice appointment in the midst of controversy is problematic because of the importance of the Court in our society. Progressives have shown that they will put up ferocious resistance, fair or foul, to any candidate not to their liking such as Bork and Clarence Thomas and they will never recognize their legitimacy. The only approach for controversy free Supreme Court nominations would be to appoint Judges acceptable to progressives like Merrick Garland who was previously proposed by Obama. In other words, outsource the the nomination process to the Democrats forever. If that is Mr. Douthat's position, let him say it openly.
6
@Alex Your view is based on the argument that the resistance against Bork and Thomas was "unfair"? I think this is where we part company.
On the other hand, what I think Mr Douthat is saying is that any offensive Kavanaugh might mount against Dr Blasey's accusations should not come down to simple and contemptuous dismissal of her account. It's not that he can't question the reliability of her memory or the purity of her motives; it's that he cannot use the conventional sexist strategies for undermining a woman's credibility.
This is a theme that has been so widely explored in our culture for such a long time, and it has recently become a major part of current affairs. There is no longer any excuse for those who support or turn a blind eye to the underhand tactics that are used to deny justice to women.
16
@Alex
Alex, your silly comment nevertheless helps us arrive at a valid point. Do you know how many other women were willing to testify that Justice Thomas had sexually harassed or groped them? Republican and Democratic Senators, all male, including Mr. Biden, refused to let them testify. The consensus opinion among knowledgeable folks of all political persuasions is that Thomas was indeed guilty of what he had been accused of. He should never have been approved. Is there any better example of a process that went off the rails, to the direct detriment of all American women?
Alex writes:
"... Progressives have shown that they will put up ferocious resistance, fair or foul, to any candidate not to their liking such as Bork and Clarence Thomas and they will never recognize their legitimacy …"
2
@Alex
> Progressives have shown that they will put up ferocious resistance, fair or foul, to any candidate not to their liking such as Bork and Clarence Thomas and they will never recognize their legitimacy.
The "fair or foul" resistance that you see didn't appear in any big way in the successful nominations of Roberts, Scalia, and Alito. This suggests to me that the opposition to Bork, Thomas, and now Kavanaugh comes from valid doubts about those particular nominations, not from a blanket ideological rejection.
3
What if Kavanaugh admitted
T’was a youthful error committed?
Would Repubs forgive him
Though shame would outlive him,
Would condemnation be remitted?
He’s so perfect in every way
Roe v Wade he’d kill in a day,
A POTUS indicted
His loyalty plighted,
Why won’t Ms Ford just stay away?
54
Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination. Because the Republicans on the committee have refused to re-open an FBI investigation and because they have forbidden the testimony of Mark Judge and other witnesses, the hearings are likely to be inconclusive and Kavanaugh's service on the Court will be tainted, as Justice Thomas's is.
Kavanaugh could request that the committee broaden its investigation, but so far he has not done so.
In withdrawing he could say that while he denies Dr. Ford's charges, he would not want to muddy the waters, and bring down the the reputation of the Court further.
161
@Diogenes
At the very least, during next week's questioning senators could ask the nominee what his opinion is on having a process that without an FBI investigation excludes the possibility of finding exculpatory evidence -- is this what a future Supreme Court Justice believes to be the most judicious approach?
Because it is unwise to have a Justice of the Supreme Court with a cloud over his head, and because it is extremely difficult to prove a negative, Judge Kavanaugh himself should insist that, rather than simply having the two protagonists testify in a he said/she said contest, the vote on his nomination should be postponed until there has been a sufficiently through investigation as to what, if anything, actually happened between him and Ms. Ford.
91
This is a hearing, a vetting process. It is not a trial. Therefore, there is no need for a "burden of proof." There is no default setting that allows Mr Kavanaugh the right to be a supreme court justice.
Let's just say, hypothetically, that it was majority of dems running the hearings. There's nothing that would prevent them for rejecting the nominee simply because they don't like his face.
In this case; however, he should be rejected because he isn't worthy of the position.
111
@mrfreeze6 No standard is not a standard I can support.
Listen, Kavanaugh lied about receiving stolen materials when he was at the Bush White House. He shouldn't be on the court.
But we couldn't get worked up about the stolen materials, or the gap between his testimony and the written record on Roe v. Wade. No one got hot and bothered that he ruled that there is a constitutional right to own an assault rifle. We couldn't rise up when his lies were exposed about his help with other controversial judicial nominations under Bush.
So we have this, a 36-year-old memory that has no place, no time, no witnesses that have come forward, and it happened in high school, a time most Americans think should be off-limits for judging someone's adult life.
The Democratic Party can and should win on the issues.
What Kavanaugh did in high school over the course of about two minutes once when he was drunk is, frankly, no an issue that is going to win for my party.
2
I have said this before, but can anyone even imagine the hue and cry that would have gone up from conservatives if President Obama had made his Supreme Court nominations from a pre-approved list provided to him by, say, the Southern Poverty Law Center?
462
@Mark Kessinger
Excellent point.
2
@Mark Kessinger, this is an excellent point. Although I don't know if SPLC typically makes judicial endorsements? They certainly have expressed opposition to Kavanaugh.
1
So far, Kavanaugh has nothing he need to prove. Ford's letter lacks important details and isn't even sworn.
For instance, how can he show he was somewhere else when these alleged events took place when there's no date or time given for them?
17
@Amy Didn't he already deny being there? How can he do that if there is no time or place? It should work both ways, I would think.
35
@Amy Kavanaugh has denied that he was at that particular party... despite, as you say, that the date and place of the party were not stated. How then can he credibly deny being there?
@Amy: Although "there's no date or time given" for "these alleged events," Kavanaugh has stated absolutely that he wasn't present when they occurred. Hmmm . . .
2
Kavanaugh could have responded that he had no recollection of ever having acted so abhorrently, but that given the context of their elite schools' toxic cultural norms, parent-free alcohol-saturated partying during Beach Week, and the teenage male pack mentality that prevailed, it's entirely possible that something very much like it could have occurred.
This is not a matter of provable guilt or innocence. In the context of a Supreme Court confirmation hearing, it's a matter of the candidate’s mature hindsight, nuanced culpability, a willingness to set aside personal ambition in the cause of personal integrity, the grace to receive a politicized judgment -- fair or not -- with acceptance and equanimity, and the ability to empathize with someone for whom he unknowingly may have caused great harm. That would have marked a potentially great judge, but does not square with Kavanaugh's demeanor during these hearings, on this or any other issue of consequence.
He chose to respond with denial rather than candor, consistent with his pattern of obfuscation regarding past ethical lapses as an adult. I believe his nomination would survive if he were honest about this, but if he isn't willing to take that risk in favor of integrity and empathy, the Supreme Court would not be harmed by his absence.
574
@Ken10kRuss I couldn't have said it better! "He chose to respond with denial rather than candor, consistent with his pattern of obfuscarion, etc. etc." He doesn't strike me as a stand up man but rather one who came out of the culture described by his high school experience. Drinking parties in homes without chaparones? Maybe he is innocent but we will never know and that alone clouds his appointment. We are at a crossroad, once again in this country and old white men in power are being forced to face half our population who demand justice.
1
@Ken10kRuss
Isn't it possible he is telling us the truth.
Why should he say he might have when he believes he didn't.
You are convicting him based on nothing more than you believe he is hiding something because you sure he can't possibly remember the truth basing that on your the fact he went to a elite school.
4
@Ken10kRuss It is an absurd and unfair standard to argue that Kanavaugh's denials automatically carry no weight because others admitted that they drank to excess. This applies to people's reliance on Mark Judge describing himself as an alcoholic; just because Judge engaged in that conduct doesn't mean that Kaavanaugh or anyone else did. [Note the irony. Judge *must* be reliable when discussing his alcohol fueled behavior but can't be reliable when he denies Ford's version of events.] In sum, your position seems to be that other people were bad so Kavanaugh was bad. Should we apply that same "standard" to crime-ravaged areas, justifying stopping and frisking anyone? You rely on your newly-created standard to also argue that it is "possible" this occurred. So now you've moved the goalposts farther than anything recognized in our political or jurisprudential history: "possibility" suffices so long as supported by others' recollections of their wrongdoing (underage drinking, etc.). With the complete lack of verifiable details in Ford's accusations, there is nothing more Kavanaugh could've said in his categorical denial.
1
Except in the event of an overwhelmingly unlikely, cast-iron alibi for the broad swath of time and venues that Prof. Blasey Ford FAILS to remember with any certainty as the setting for the alleged assault, it will be impossible for Kavanaugh to prove a negative 35 years after the alleged events. It would be impossible for Jesus to prove such a negative if He were so accused of such an outrage out of the merest ether.
All of this blather is quite beyond the point. It matters nothing what defense Kavanaugh mounts: those existentially committed to his defeat on ideological grounds will remain committed to his defeat and employ whatever pretext presents itself or can be manufactured out of whole cloth to defeat him. Why, after all, did Sen. Dianne Feinstein sit on that letter for months if not to await the perfect moment to hamstring the confirmation process by its introduction – if no other pretext was found or worked? Democrats will be justifying such behavior until the stars burn out by Republicans’ outrageous treatment of Merrick Garland.
If he can’t prove a negative, his statement should be brief and to the point. He should point out the ample and massive holes in Prof Blasey Ford’s charges, he should express outrage that the charges have come up after 35 years, when it BECOMES impossible to prove a negative, and at the obvious timing of the charges in this confirmation process. He should point out that in a long career no incident of such behavior has …
16
… been uncovered to suggest that he lived a pattern of behavior that could make her charges believable, despite multiple FBI investigations that have parsed his life in detail. And he should unequivocally state that her recollections are wrong and that he did NOT commit the alleged crimes. And he should leave it at that.
He’ll be confirmed well before the midterms. The Senate should consider a formal censure of Dianne Feinstein.
18
@Richard Luettgen: It's not impossible. They could compel Mark Judge to testify. It's interesting he does not want to do so.
56
@Richard Luettgen The prior FBI investigations may not have been extended to K's teen years - time for another, more thorough vetting. There must be many old class mates still in the DC area.
Of course Ms. Blasey Ford wanted the FBI to investigate before she testifies--so she could learn details of what may have happened since she seems to have forgotten most of them. If she had been able to find corroboration I'm sure the parties' names would have been leaked to the media and they would be on all the talk shows.
Without corroboration Ms. Blasey Ford's allegations become a she says-he says dispute based on the memory of someone who is unable to recall such basic facts as the day, month, year or city in which the alleged incident took place; in whose house the alleged incident occurred; whether 2 or 4 boys were present; and how she got to/from the house where the alleged attack took place.
In the U.S. anyone accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Ms. Blasey Ford has had 35 years in which to file a civil or criminal case against Mr. Kavanaugh, but has not done so. She had 35 years to share her story with the media but did not.
Yet suddenly her allegations have been raised just in time to try to derail the confirmation of Mr. Kavanaugh, which suggests an underlying political motivation.
Surely anyone with a modicum of intelligence understands that the timing and circumstances of this long-delayed accusation indicate that this is political theater rather than a search for justice.
We Democrats lost the 2016 Presidential election, too bad, now let's turn our energies and talents to ensuring that we win the mid-term and 2020 elections.
19
@Ro Ma
Yes, but lacking the basic facts of the day, month, or place where the party took place, how in the world can Kavanaugh assert he didn't even attend the party? How can his friends declare he was not at the party?
It defies basic logic.
6
The column shows logical arguments. The levels of proofs would be: the veracity of the incident (whether it really happened); the veracity of the details (whether it happened exactly as the accuser describes); and the veracity of the accuser’s alternative, circumstantial, or any other motives, if any, (= why the judge’s nomination to Justice made her bring the incident out?). For the third, if the accuser says of the gravity of the nomination, it may sound; she accepts her wound had been balanced on whichever the weight goes. If she says of pro-choice and women’s rights to connect to the incident and the judge’s qualification, it may sound; she accepts there have been strong political encouragements, without which she would have been in silence. At the core, I hope the truth and sincerity from both sides will be present and work at the hearing.
2
The White House and Senator Grassley closed the door to the possible exculpation of their own nominee by ruling out an investigation by the FBI. The FBI has, on previous occasions, investigated in as little as three days. Had the idea not been scuttled last week, we could have had an investigation several days longer than the minimum on record.
But even without an investigation, we have the testimony of former students in both Kavanaugh and Ford's former institutions of learning that inform us that what happened on the night in question was known among the student population.
We also know, by way of public statements this paper has not seen fit to print, that there is a much more recent group of willing witnesses who, through the attorney who brought down Judge Kozinski, have attempted, fruitlessly, to reach Senators Grassley and Feinstein, to make their case. They, apparently, have a lot to say about Kavanaugh and Kozinski.
Then, there is the Tiger Mom professor from Harvard who, for some reason, has for years been telling prospective female court clerk candidates for Kavanaugh to dress a certain way because he "likes a certain look."
All of these people have relevant things to say at a hearing. We will likely never have the chance to see them taking senators' questions.
The burden is on Senator Grassley to put on witnesses.
---
https://www.rimaregas.com/2018/08/07/greed-malfeasance-never-sleep-blog4...
242
Ross, what are you trying to say here?
You keep raising possibilities about the impossibility that Kavanaugh may be guilty--of both the deed" and of lying.
But I want to frame the issues according to their degrees of "likelihood".
First Kavanaugh: the hearings contained evidence by Democrats (who don't count, for Grassley)that kavanaugh lied under oath in his multiple hearings for the judgeship he finally won on his third try. so precedent is set for lying.
Also Kavanaugh's denials keep getting more adamant--in imitations of his future boss, he's "doubling down" with the goal of making repetition seem like truth the more its repeated.
but, now, Dr. Blasey--why would this woman whose live has clearly been altered likely for life want to put herself through all this? With death threats, the glare of negative publicity, the subtle but stillbpiercing slights by crotchety old white men.
To me, it seems obvious: what ambition can make one do almost seems easier compared to the stress and shame this scarred woman will incur simply by showing up.
And yet, isn't it true that courage means doing what you most fear?
On that score, only one here is going to be truly tested.
377
At this late date it seems unlikely that any sort of investigation will get at the truth of these allegations. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.
13
@Philip Cafaro: Not true. Cold cases get solved all the time. Sometimes it happens because witnesses who have kept quiet for decades decide to talk. They feel guilty about keeping a secret, or they no longer feel afraid to tell the truth. The refusal of Trump and other Republicans to allow an FBI investigation looks like a coverup. What are they afraid will be revealed?
Dr. Blasey said there was a witness in the room, and she gave his name: Mark Judge. There is no reason for this man not to be questioned by the FBI. There's also no reason he shouldn't be sworn to testify under oath before the Judiciary Committee. Unless there's a concern he might get caught in perjury, which is possible if other witnesses come forward and contradict him.
68
@Philip Camaro -- she should have gone to the police the time she claims this happened. Also, I am not sure this is true, she was at the party, drinking.
2
@Don Juan Whether she was drinking, wearing shorts, etc is not an excuse for assault. There is no excuse for assault.
The Republican party and social conservatives do not seem to detect the "taint" on all the Supreme Court decisions since Justice Thomas's elevation. This political tribe knows it need not worry about it with Kavanaugh on the court. Roy Moore is their likely next pick.
31
In law there are four levels for the burden of proof. Three of these are well known: (a) beyond a reasonable doubt, for criminal cases; (b) clear and convincing, for certain civil cases; (c) a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., anything over 50/50), for ordinary civil cases.
But the fourth level, probable cause, only means that a reasonable person, knowing the facts, might believe that a person has done some act … it is less than 50%. A magistrate may issue an arrest warrant on a showing that there is a reasonable basis to find that a crime (sexual assault, for example) has been committed, and that there is a reasonable basis to believe that the person to be arrested committed it.
For the purpose of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court (and, I suggest, for other positions of great power, such as President), the standard should be that of probable cause, not a higher standard, so that we can look and say of that person that she or he is beyond any reproach.
294
@John Graubard: Dr. Blasey can file a criminal complaint. There is clearly "probable cause." And an investigation will have to be done. The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee don't hold all the cards. They should keep that in mind in dealing with Dr. Blasey and her lawyers.
41
@John Graubard. To me this vetting process is equivalent to a job interview. The candidate can be turned down for any reason, including rumors and/or the threat of repetitional risk.
16
@John Graubard
If we adopt a standard of "beyond any reproach" for the confirmation of public officials to very high public office (such as the US Supreme Court or the Presidency), I submit to you that a very large number of people, particularly men, would be exposed to all sorts of allegations of sexual or other miscellaneous "misconduct" of some nature at some point in their lives after they achieved puberty.
If we then interpret the standard of "probable cause" as believing any woman who comes forward with a plausible (yet uncorroborated) story, simply because we believe that no reasonable woman would ever lie or be confused or give an incomplete, incorrect or misleading account, I submit that we are going to run into quite a lot of trouble in the future.
I agree that the burden of proof for appointment to the US Supreme Court is not the same as that for a criminal trial, but I submit that the standard should be somewhat closer to that of "preponderance of the evidence" rather than merely of "probable cause" without any substantiation or corroboration whatsoever.
3
Mr. Douthat seems to believe that Judge Kavanaugh has only the option of “vehement denials” along with proposing alternative scenarios in order to clear his name. If he and his supporters are so sure of his innocence, why do they not demand the obvious solution of a thorough, non-partisan investigation and the sworn testimony of the only other alleged eyewitness?
How can anyone view the party who has voluntarily submitted to a polygraph examination and has asked for an FBI investigation and the testimony of witnesses to be the one who is “mixed-up” and the party who holes up in days-long strategy sessions and mock testimony without ever volunteering for, much less demanding, such an investigation be cast as a victim with an impossible burden of proof?
745
@Sikkivit-Agreed. Surely, Judge Kavanaugh wants to be vindicated and have this taint removed from his record. If he believes in justice, wouldn't he trust America's top law enforcement agency to do its job? If he's not willing to submit to an FBI investigation and lie detector test, what does that say about his support--and his Senate backers' support--for due process and the rule of law?
3
@Sikkivit
Prof. Brown might ask Grassley of the where abouts of his communication director, and Jim Knoblach of Minnesota!
Not sure how you would define “perform credibly”. This hearing is not a legal trial, with rules on procedure, evidence and process. This is a court of public opinion. And it appears that most elected representatives have already decided how they will vote (the few undecideds aren’t vacillating because they have made a personal decision based on their conviction, but because they have no idea which direction the electorate in their home constituencies predominantly lean). Regardless of how she performs, both sides will claim their position is vindicated.
It appears that there is no statute of limitations on sexual assault in MD. Perhaps if Ms. Ford were to file a criminal complaint, it would help to define how confident she is in her recollection. Of course, such an action would require her to testify under the well established and rather unforgiving rules of the legal system. And it’s almost certain that Mr. Kavanaugh would not be found guilty. So it’s highly unlikely that Ms. Ford will take this step. Which means that the determination of her credibility will be entirely subjective.
14
@Shiv
There is a statute of limitation on assault.
I don't see this as sexual assault as no sex was even alleges as happening.
At worse it was attempted sexual assault.
I agree that fairness to Kavanaugh demands that we consider "some scenario of clouded or mistaken memory". But I disagree that Kavanaugh is the one who should offer the explanation. Any such a scenario put forth by him or anyone else remains a hypothetical without facts to back it up. The only way to uncover facts that may support a "serious alternative explanation" is through an impartial investigation. If Kavanaugh wants to clear his name, he should make clear that he wants an FBI investigation. If he requests it, I'm confident that Republican senators will make it happen.
129
@Anna
My reading of the Republican response is that Kavanaugh knows full well what he did that night (and likely other nights) to this (and likely other) women. His allies do not think abuse of women while young and drunk should disqualify you from making decisions about how woman can manage their own bodies.
The Republican strategy makes no sense whatsoever if they actually believe Kavanaugh did not do this. An investigation would not clear him, but might well discover other instances. I believe the attacks on Ms. Ford may well be motivated by a desire to keep other women and men from coming forward. This, in itself, deserves an investigation.
The reason Kavanaugh has been practicing his responses every day in the White House for many hours is that he needs to do so, despite a short hearing totally biased to his advantage.
148
@Anna
A impartial investigation by the FBI after 37 years will not uncover any facts when you don't know what has to be investigated.
You need at the very least knowledge when and where.
Kavanaugh has no obligation to clear his name when there is no reason to believe he did anything wrong.
1
This is why there needs to be a FBI or comparable independent investigation, preferably by law enforcement. The complaint is not unprovable. That is the fundamental fallacy. There could be perfectly persuasive circumstantial evidence that would demonstrate the likelihood of one side or the other.
67
@SGG
There is no reason a complain has to be disproven when complainant hasn't been established what that complaint is as she has not gone on record to tell us where and when this alleged offense occurred
No evidence has been provided that anything occurred other than some lie detector test which proves nothing as it was take many years after the alleges incident occurred
The Democrats are trying to build a case based on nothing but speculation and a investigation will give them reason to speculate even when the only information uncovered only establish that it could have occurred not that it did.
1
The fundamental problem is not the impossibility of either Ford or Kavanaugh proving the accuracy of their memories, or protecting their reputations. The fundamental problem is that the Senate is more interested in partisan power than in the integrity of the Court, and everyone knows it. The politicians and the media profit more by preventing reasonable discussion than by leading it. So instead of trying to make the system work we fight about these two that none of us know.
204
Ross, the first problem for Kavanaugh are his repeated veiled references to an earlier life as a party animal - references that suggest that a drunken attempted rape is plausible.
The second problem for Kavanaugh is that it appears to me that certain conservatives are only comfortable operating within a dominant-submissive framework - a framework within which women are expected to be subservient to men, and non-Christians subservient to Christians, however problematic examples of the authentic Christian item they might be.
Furthermore, what Kavanaugh is accused of is an attempt to assert dominance over a younger, less powerful woman - a style of behavior that I would submit is not far removed from the kind of conservative judicial activism that he represents, like gag orders forbidding women from be given accurate information about the full range of available birth control, including abortion.
This is not to suggest that liberals are incapable of inappropriate attempts to assert their dominance in an interpersonal situation - which they obviously they are. But liberals are IMHO less focused on asserting philosophical dominance over others - and more focused on promoting an ethos of diversity and inclusion.
IMHO, the entire thrust of Republican judicial politics today is centered around seizing control of the courts, by any means necessary, and then expecting that Democrats will meekly submit.
If so, I fear that they are in for a rude awakening in the decade to come.
505
@Matthew Carnicelli: Your point that "certain conservatives are only comfortable operating within a dominant-submissive framework" is interesting--and true. It explains the attitude of Grassley and other Republicans towards Blasey's attorneys: "How dare these uppity women aggressively negotiate with us." By acting forcefully on behalf of their client, those lawyers are merely doing their job.
8
@Matthew Carnicelli
Excellent comment!
2
@Matthew Carnicelli Does inclusion include deplorables and irredeemables (Hillary); bitter clingers (Obama); trailer trash (Carville); smelly Wal Mart shoppers (Strzok); dregs (Biden), etc? Just asking.
2
At this point Kavanaugh has little defense if Ms. Ford testifies other than mistaken identity. And for Kavanaugh that is likely insurmountable. It's a he said, she said.
Kavanaugh being considered for the highest court in the land is of national concern and we, America, will remember this if he is confirmed. If not, in a few months it will be Kavanaugh, who?
9
@cherrylog754 It is not a she said/he said situation. There is a witness who could be compelled to testify.
82
@cherrylog754, it's not "he said she said". There was another person present, Mark Judge. He needs to be questioned by the Senate committee under oath.
8
A meeting with the Judiciary Committee is pointless unless it is preceded by a thorough FBI investigation.
Tuesday, November 6 is election day.
The Judiciary Committee meeting should be postponed until the elections are history.
A good day would be the day after Thanksgiving, when Americans could enjoy watching the hearing on TV in the company of their leftover turkeys; while they are being instructed in the fair and balanced work of the Judiciary Committee by the fabulous
and scrupulously just Charles Grassley.
43
There is no burden of proof necessary for either individual. It would be completely unfair to require either individual to provide proof as this is a job interview not a trial. There are no criminal or civil charges against Brett Kavanaugh. He is not a defendant.
All women in this country want including conservative women is that they (women) too can be believed on the basis of their word alone, just like men. Is it reasonably possible the Dr. Blasey, a woman, can also be believed is telling the truth? Both parties will tell their unprovable stories, and then the senators can decide who they think is telling the truth. But, does a senator vote to confirm a nominee where he cannot tell who is lying? Dr. Blasey is not going to let the Republican Senators have it both ways. They have to choose who is lying. If they confirm Kavanaugh, they are once again saying women are not to be believed unless they have proof beyond their word.
One more thing to consider, Ross, what if Dr. Blasey were a man making the exact same accusations about Brett Kavanaugh, what would the conservatives do then?
33
@Sparky
I think it isn't right for you to tell what all women want. Personally I am uncomfortable with this situation for many reasons. I think I'm not alone among women.
I don't actually believe a man could make a serious, unsubstantiated charge against a Supreme Court nominee a week before the confirmation and expect to get a hearing, and this is something only women could do (unless maybe the man was making a claim of a sexual assault.)
That makes me uncomfortable. For many reasons.
In your last paragraph, you assume that if a man claimed that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted him in high school, Republicans would believe it. (I guess all other circumstances being the same.) Do you think so? That's an interesting viewpoint. I think the belief would break down along partisan lines--Democrats would 'believe' and Republicans would 'not believe'--because Kavanaugh is conservative.
The Left did not really believe the male accusers of Avita Ronell or Asia Argento, and those on the right did (at least to a larger extent) so maybe you are correct.
But I think I am right. This is all politics, and who people believe is based on who is accused (except for people like me, who are made uncomfortable by the whole idea.) In both recent cases of disbelieved male accusers, left wing heroines were accused. I think it is the reason the Left didn't believe--and this is part of the reason this all makes me so uncomfortable.
So you don't speak for me:-)
6
@Sparky, CNN interviewed 5 Republican women in Florida the other day who seemed approximately middle-aged and perhaps close to the age of Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey. All 5 women said that even if this alleged event is true, they still support Kavanaugh.
2
@Sparky
I think it's worth looking at this article about Keith Ellison. (For the record, it makes me very uncomfortable that a woman comes forward with unsubstantiated accusations against Keith Ellison and I feel it's unfair.)
But I want to draw people's attention to the comments from NYT readers attached to the Keith Ellison article. The phrases and arguments used to denigrate his accuser are almost identical to the phrases people on the right use to support Kavanaugh. If you go over to read National Review online, or American Conservative--the letters could be interchanged.
That makes me uncomfortable. It should make you uncomfortable.
These accusations can affect anyone, anytime; they are hurting our democratic process, and more than anything, people who have political goals are using the 'specialness' or 'weakness' or 'frailness' of women to do their dirty work. I am a women who does not like this:-)
2
Kavanaugh’s nomination is essentially fruit of a poisonous tree. It was stolen from Barack Obama by the bejowled Mitch McConnell, who did not give a fig about fairness or due process. For conservatives to cry foul now is a bit late. The foulness had already occurred months earlier.
Kavanaugh is not being accused of a crime, but of a potential character defect that seems to fall on Conservative hypocrites with alarming regularity. Ask Rep. Tim Murphy about his pro-life stance after he got his mistress pregnant, and told her to get an abortion.
But the bullet-headed Conservatives want to install another Clarence Thomas, except maybe one who actually says more than two words every decade. They figure that if they could shut down and humiliate Anita Hill, they can surely do the same for Christine Blasey Ford.
That may be harder to do this time around. We’re in the #MeToo age now, and although some may think that it’s sometimes hypersensitive, we’ve got to realize that decades of mistreatment of women has honed a sharp blade that is not inclined to remain sheathed. In this particular case, I say, Shwing.
If Al Franken can lose his job for a childishly comedic booby-groping photo, surely Brett Kavanaugh can be denied a job that might help create a conservative dystopia for decades to come.
1005
@gemli
Let's not forget, Conservatives already got their pick with Neil Gorsuch, but they had to be greedy and convinced Anthony Kennedy to retire so they could fill another seat.
3
@gemli Great commentary as always!
3
@gemli
Tit for tat is one of the oldest and least effective strategies in game theory.
For the record, my hunch is that most in Washington mark the beginning of this back to Judge Bork and not Judge Garland.
In the end, who started the tit for tat eventually becomes irrelevant; because ending it becomes a suicide mission for the other.
That is the real truth here. In a normal time, Kavanaugh would be withdrawn under a cloud, Feinstein would be roundly chided by all members of the Senate, and the Republicans would nominate another candidate and put to a Senate vote posthaste.
Conflating all evil down to one person, Trump, or one party is tiresome and demonstrates the futility of our toxic political arena circa 2018.
2
The truth is no doubt discoverable by the FBI if it is allowed to do its job.
Were Kavanaugh or any other of the Banana Republican Trumpists to call for the FBI to report the facts - as has Dr. Ford - this nominee might be more credible.
The failure of Kavanaugh to call for such an investigation is doubly glaring since Kavanaugh is actually a sitting judge, who would seem to have almost a reflex faith in the FBI's abilities, the processes of justice and the facts.
Equally, the contrast of this nominee with Justice Gorsuch - who went to the same prep school at the very same time:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/us/kavanaugh-gorsuch-georgetown-prep....
brings things into yet higher relief; though we're certainly not Gorsuch fans, no hint of such stuff arose with his confirmation.
72
There are many qualified candidates for SCOTUS seats. In the past, and under the filibuster rule, presidents sought to nominate candidates who could gain support from senators from both parties. Justice Scalia won over 90% support. So did Justice Ginsburg.
By delegating the choice of SCOTUS nominees to the Federalist Society, Trump has once again shredded a tradition which used to unify the country. The Court has become just another gerrymandered legislature and has lost the due respect of the country.
935
@ed connor
Merrick Garland is an experienced competent moderate center right three score plus year old white male jurist who has never been accused nor suspected of assaulting or harassing any female.
MAGA!
1
@ed connor
Very sound reasoning. But Scalia would not receive 90% support today under any circumstances, and my sense is that we would have no Justices confirmed in the post-filibuster era.
Whether Kavanaugh survives or not, his voting record on cases written and those in support lines up almost exactly with Merrick Garland. That suggests that the Federalist Society is not the villain but the toxic political atmosphere that has gripped our nation.
Pew has demonstrated that we no longer have a bell curve of political views in this country but a weird sort of two-humped camel that would prevent either party from nominating and finding support with the other. The mere fact that RBG is known as a champion and icon rather than be her more easily-affixed label of “Jew” demonstrates that we have a lot of double-standards and a current focus on villainy. It just depends on who is initiating the policy. Same is true on health care (Romney plan) and so many other areas.
Try not to forget that one of our parties ran a credible campaign of a Socialist before stating that all conservatives are evil and must be delusional under some religious spell.
Signed,
A once and former Obama voter who never voted for Trump nor did any in my immediate family
1
@ed connor
Well said.
I believe Dr. Blasey Ford. In order to "prove the negative", why not subpoena Mark Judge? And what is in those 100,000 withheld pages? Perhaps (but not certainly) nothing amiss about Kavanaugh's behaviour towards women but wouldn't it be better to be transparent in all areas under these cloudy circumstances? Dr. Blasey Ford has no good reason to make something up, and as has unfolded, a lot to lose by coming forward with the truth. By all accounts she is a responsible person of very good character. I can't imagine that she would come forward without being absolutely certain of the identity of her attacker. All relevant evidence and witnesses should be heard, in fairness to all.
331
I suspect this Dr Ford is extremely confident in herself and is going to blow the doors off the Senate chambers!
Might Dr Ford tell her story... but add that she “does not believe it should prevent Kavanaugh’s appointment”?
TV viewership will surpass the Super Bowl
@Sheila C
She's certain it was Kavanaugh but can't say when or where. Very selective memory.Maybe she was hoping that other women would join her in her accusations, as has happened with Cosby, etc. yet none have come forward. If this is the kind of vague allegation that henceforth the FBI will be called on to investigate, they will be very busy indeed.
I don't want Kavanaugh to be a Supreme but this sort of accusation is dirty pool. If someone committed a crime, file a charge, Maryland has no statute of limitations. She has not done this- wonder why?
4
Has Ford filed charges in Maryland? Maryland doesn't have a statute of limitations for sexual assault and the victim is not required to file charges quickly.
43
@Kajsa Williams. Nor has Kavanaugh sued her for defamation of character. It is not just a matter of proving a negative. With no time, date, or place, how could he prove he was somewhere else?
3
@Kajsa Williams
It's attempted sexual assault not sexual assault.