Brett, remember a guy named Al Franken?
16
I'm so tired of moral equivocation. Today's hearing did not tell the American people whether Kavanaugh could be convicted of a sexual assault in a criminal proceeding. What it did do, was show the true stripes of a privileged white male whose evasive, combative, and pathetically arrogant demeanor betrayed his total unsuitability to the job of impartial Supreme Court Justice. Today's hearing may have been a political circus, but character is transparent, for all to judge for themselves. Only a cold-blooded political operative could pretend that Kavanaugh did not utterly disqualify himself today on character alone, with his partisan paranoia and defensive bluster. This stain on the GOP will not soon fade, no matter what happens next.
31
Bret Stephens writes that this revolution will eat its children. He gets both items, revolution and devouring of children, wrong.
He thinks that revolution is based on avenging past wrongs. I think it’s about rationally dismantling the patriarchy, by scrutinizing its privileges and practices.
He sees the young and female, the dispossessed or less powerful eating their progeny, born of new norms. .I see it more like the old, patriarchal order denying the prophesy of change. That old order is Cronus devouring his children: Demeter, Hestia, Hera, Hades, and Poseidon upon their births because Cronus had learned from Gaia and Uranus’s prophesy that he was destined to be overcome by his own children. Trump, Graham, Grassley, Kavanaugh — their mouths are wide open, screaming, desperately trying to devour and drown out inevitable change toward a better, more just world.
14
I am happy to see a more and balanced review of the accusations in this case and the lack of corroborating evidence. I feel for Dr. FOrd who is a sympathetic figure who clearly seems to have suffered a trauma but Judge Kavanaugh is equally compelling in his strong denial and his supporting evidence,
The hearing today was a partisan mud slinging fest that brought an ugly political climate to a new low. That these two people were not afforded the private confidential review of this situation due to the political ambitions of some was the true travesty.
8
Mr. Stephens, you are part of the mindset that gives credo to the claim that there is a "rape culture" in this country. I didn't used to believe in it, until I got much older & realized how many stories I'd heard from other women about their rapes & harrassment & until I dealt with my own rapes. Here's a thought for you: women don't talk about what's happened to them because they've already been subjected to the notion that we were made to take care of men & be their helpmates. It's found in the Old Testament, remember? Along with the statement that we are responsible for bringing death & sin into the world. We're told from birth that we're already broken & less than men. Or do you think this belief hasn't wound it's way throughout the world & affected the way men & women see each other? Of course it has. You don't need to worry about the truth. People know the truth when they hear it. They just choose to accept it or not, depending upon what they want to believe. This is the root of your "abstract justice" & it's about time men who have no qualms terrorizing women take responsibility for it. It's clear Kavanaugh lied today. He refused to answer simple yes or no questions & protested way too much. And for all his emotion, I didn't see one real tear stream down his cheek. The revolution in this country is long overdue. But it's not going to eat it's young. It's going to eat up men like you & Kavanaugh. Those who commit the indefensible & those who defend them.
14
What's the rush? Why hide behind outrage? Why the concern about ruining one man's life when many women's lives will be impacted by this pugnacious, aggressive partisan? In one word ... power. Getting it, holding onto it, squashing any threat to it.
14
Bret my boy, your concern is all crocodile years. Your side, including you, has been making up nonsense for years if not decades and using umbrage at your own fantasies to try to slime anyone from the other party and *now* you get all concerned about where it is leading? You criticize liberal groups as willing to believe anything as long as it smears conservatives. Look in the mirror pal, the only ones who really need to answer that question are you and your conservative cohort who have been believing fiction of your own making for decades.
14
You could have had your F.B.I. investigation.... in July, but the Democratic Senators sat on it instead.
9
Brett Kavanaugh should take a lie detector test just like Ms. Ford did. He won't because he can't pass.
As for those that always want to the rich, privileged white man the benefit of the doubt - shame on you.
Ms. Ford is no less deserving of respect. Women are not liars by default.
11
Take a deep breath, Bret. I don't see the guillotine, yet.
If the majority party weren't in such an infernal rush to get this seat filled, perhaps we could all take a deep breath along with a serious look at the accumulating allegations.
If we let the FBI do its job, no one will get hurt, Bret.
9
Why are you describing the committee's objections to Kavanaugh like this: "Equally destructive is the effect the post-Kavanaugh standard could have on governance. Will every future Supreme Court or cabinet nominee, Republican or Democratic, be expected to account, in minute and excruciating detail, for his behavior and reputation as a teenager? Is it now fair game to draw moral inferences about a nominee because he went to an elite prep school, or was a member of a rowdy fraternity, or said something mean and dumb in his yearbook, or drank somewhat more than he would like to admit?"
The are not the objections. The objections are that he has been accused of attempted rape, sexual assault. Those issues came up, tangentially, but the charge is oh, silly, high school escapades. The charge is rape.
7
The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee had every chance to make this about evidence and allow the FBI to do a supplemental investigation, as has been done in the past. The Democrats on the committee asked for it, and even the accuser herself requested that such a fact-finding investigation be done before she testified.
But from their actions in completely resisting such an investigation, I must assume the the Republicans are afraid of what such a fact-finding query might uncover. Perhaps that Brett Kavanaugh's actions in his younger years weren't just high-spirited "antics" (as Mr. Stephens characterized them), but criminal acts of sexual assault?
Instead the GOP has decided to turn this into a partisan political circus. With Republican senators hiding behind a token female hired gun they cowardly used so they could have another woman do their dirty work of trying to break down a confused little girlie. A girlie who turned out to be a highly credible. well-educated woman, very clear about what she suffered.
It's rich that the GOP, and their defenders like Stephens, will now whine about the lack of evidence, and the purported 'railroading' of a "good man". A man who was duly trotted out to display his righteous anger at being accused, but still resisted any serious investigation into the veracity of those accusations. The Republicans in fact had every opportunity to make this about truth, and instead decided to make it about something very different and very ugly.
5
Let me summarize most of the reactions to this article from the “no evidence needed” crowd:
1. We hate you, pure and simple (one comment actually says “talk to the hand”)
2. The Republicans started it, Garland was ignored, so to assassinate Kavanaugh’s character is perfectly justified now, two wrongs always make a right
3. We can’t understand that the essence of this article is that the debasing of journalistic and public debate standards, which we now cheer, will eventually bite us too, and we’ll all be living in a banana republic
8
Yup, I couldn't agree more. First it's Bork and Thomas. Then Clinton is impeached. Then a congresswoman shot. Then a congressman shot. Then harassment of Republicans egged on by Maxine Waters. Then character assassination of Kavanaugh. It goes on and on. Next, who knows? But one thing is sure; in its quest for profits, the news media is playing a dangerous game of egging people on to take more and more radical action, so that they can sell more newspapers. And the NY Times is right up there with the rest of them. Shameful.
14
Plain and simple this needs to be seen to the end, fleshed out, investigated and then decided. What do we have to lose? Nothing, and only truth can be gained.
Wondering why the republicans are foaming at the mouth to push through a vote tomorrow? Because they want more than anything else in this world right now, with elections looming, to jam this man through for their own conservative agenda. What's the rush? I ask. The answer is November, plain and simple, not justice, not truth.
I would remind the repubs that they would not even allow Obama's choice to be heard. Hypocrites all. Their reasoning? They wanted the people to choose the next Supreme Court Justice. Now, it's a different story. Now they want conservatives to make the choice in a sham rush.
Let the investigations begin. I'm in no rush. Allow the FBI to do their jobs. Allow all pertinent parties to speak. Otherwise, we just get steamrolled again by the party in power. Shameful!
7
I cant believe after what transpired during Garland's nomination that Graham has the audacity to say the things he said with a straight face. Republicans opened the door to all these "anything goes" tactics and now they squeal like stuck pigs about hearings being a national disgrace. In Graham, Trump has indeed corrupted a once honorable man. Ironic how he waited until his very good friend was buried to become a part of this shameful display of cowardice on the part of his Republican congressional colleagues - "Stepford Wives".
14
Brett, you really miss the boat here. The matter before the Senate is not, as you put it, "an exhumation of his antics....Is it now fair game to draw moral inferences about a nominee because he went to an elite prep school, or was a member of a rowdy fraternity, or said something mean and dumb in his yearbook, or drank somewhat more than he would like to admit?" An "antic" is stealing the mascot from your school's archrival. That is a youthful prank worthy of being relegated to the realm of mere "antic." However, sexual assault is NOT an "antic" at any age. The issue before the Senate is not whether he drank too much as a youth or wrote boorish things in a yearbook, but whether Kavanaugh engaged in predatory behavior upon females for which his youthful alcoholism served as a predicate. You thus are trivializing a very serious matter which traumatized at least one young woman for the rest of her life. In terms of believability as regards the high school incident with Ms. Ford, it probably is this: Ms. Ford has lived with this trauma since it happened -- this is not a case of a "recovered memory" -- and it always has been fresh in her mind (as are traumatic incidents for all of us, because we never fully forget them). On the other hand, if Kavanaugh were drinking that evening as much as he was wont to do, HE probably has no memory of it. So whom do we believe: A drunk or a woman who has lived with this for her entire life? Not even close.
7
Mr Stephens Opinion article, with respect, has a whiff of hysteria.
The Republican Senators refuse to:
1. subpoena Mr Judge to give his relevant evidence, and
2. ask the FBI to investigate the now several allegations regarding Mr Kavanaugh
I infer:
1. Mr Judge's evidence would not assist Mr Kavanaugh and possibly damage his case, and
2. The Republicans fear what an FBI investigation may now uncover
3
Mr. Stephens surely is right to argue that piling on accusations that may be implausible distracts us from one that appears highly plausible. But where I come from, decent people manage to live their lives without committing even one sexual assault, and that's a minimal standard for ordinary people. I'd expect a man who is holding himself out as qualified to be a moral arbiter for the nation to keep to a higher standard, and I would have hoped that Mr. Stephens' own moral principles and intelligence would have kept him from being so easily distracted by the noise generated by opportunists like Avenatti!
2
This is about LYING. First, the relentless context of Republican lying about the effects of tax cuts for the rich, about the dangers of immigrants diluting the white country, about the birth place of Barack Obama, about the terrible consequences of passing the ACA, and on and on.
Then there 's the flaming, airless world of wall-to-wall lies by Donald Trump, and Republicans' failure to correct them, deny them, or in any way stand for the truth. For instance, how many of the indicted, pled guilty, or convicted from Trump's campaign and administration have been called "fine men" by Republican leaders?
Also we have Kavanaugh's lying: in his confirmation to the 2nd District about stolen documents, in his pretense of sainthood in high school, in his bald-faced porker that he considers Roe v. Wade settled law -- despite telling people otherwise.
The last lie is the Republican Senate confirmation process where every effort has been made to prevent Kavanaugh's long paper trail as a thoroughly vicious ideologue from coming to light. Now, they have prevented terrible accusations from being quietly examined, out of the media glare by competent professional.
Why would anyone believe a Republican, even if he told you the sun was shining?
6
I agree with everything in this article and I am a woman and a Democrat.
6
It's mostly "frenzied" because the GOP wanted to push this through quickly without doing an investigation or thoroughly vetting Kavanaugh's background as the Democratic committee members desired. When you believe there is an important issue and good old Grassley says you have only one day to explore it, it demands an intense response to make the case.
3
Mr. Stephens, I read you regularly, as you remind me to be appropriately cynical. I think you missed the mark here though, and rather widely. The inquiries into Kavanaugh's past behaviors do not and need not rise to the actual level of criminal proof. SCOTUS confirmation is a political process and these allegations are part of that process. It is appropriate for the FBI to do an investigation - they have said they would - but the Judiciary committee, controlled by Republicans, has opted not to, and Kavanaugh has not asked for it either, begging the question, why not? In the absence of said inquiry, and a reasonable explanation as to why not, it is conversely reasonable to believe Dr. Ford, who has nothing to gain from this public testimony and much, much to lose. Bemoaning that the nomination is a political process is being blind to that fact and to those who weaponized these nominations beyond any reason (McConnell, I am looking at you). I too do not relish wild allegations and the damage they can cause. This is not that. In this atmosphere of change, this awakening of women, and the increasing understanding of men that this is a normal occurrence for women in this country, it is irresponsible to defend a person who will not defend himself via the FBI, but he instead throws around his defense as "I'm a good guy" (in essence). So was Bill Cosby.
I believe her.
7
It is evident from the MeToo reporting that an overwhelming majority of women have been exposed a spectrum of behavior by men that ranges from job discrimination, verbal abuse, or bullying to sexual assault or near-death experience and all the trauma that remains. So, if a woman speaks publicly about the impact of that event on her life, that truth needs to be heard and respected. Her experience and the impact of that event on her life is no less important to hear than the accomplishments of someone aspiring to the Supreme Court. Just because something is hard to hear and we find it difficult to reconcile against our set notions of that person, doesn't mean it's not true. Frankly, maybe the day of dismissing some behavior as irrelevant to higher posts should be over. After all, aren't we the most real version of ourselves when we think no one is watching?
4
1) Not just about the future of a Supreme Court nominee ,but about the future of the Supreme Court itself.
2) The Supreme Court should be as far removed from politics as possible.
It is NOT.
2
Shame on you Mr Stephens. I’ve been following you since you came over from the WSJ and on some levels you appear to have had an awakening, but this totally dishonest article appears to be right out of trump’s personal playbook. Crying victim has become a gop standard while totally ignoring the outrageous actions they have perpetrated on this country and its citizens for the last fifty years out of pure avarice and venality. You appear to be capable of knowing better, why don’t you show it.
4
You wrote
"Is there any damaging allegation against Kavanaugh, of any nature and from any source, which the left would not automatically believe?"
If conservatives believed Hillary Clinton ran a children's sex ring from a pizzeria to the point of breaking into the premises with an assault rifle, believing Julie Swetnick does not sound as far-fetched as you want to mislead your readers
Bottom line: the left is still far from believing that pigs fly. The right believe pigs can fly all the way to Pluto
6
Mr K
is finally giving in to the pressure
of course he is guilty why he would loose is cool?
when three women are willing to be subjected to conservatives rage and innuendoes we know this guy is a creep.
1
Bret:
You acknowledge that Blasey is a credible witness. You admit that the FBI should investigate. You admit that Judge should be called as a witness.
Then you attack the latest accuser as being less credible. OK. So your rant on the future of civil society is because of the credibility of the latest accuser?
How about Kavanaugh portraying himself as a virginal choir boy? He is very deceptive, and clearly not what he said he was.
That alone should eliminate him from consideration.
2
Got a copy of your condemnation of the Swift-Boating of John Kerry? How about leavng Merrick Garland out in the cold?
5
I have two words for the man that wrote this Merrick Garland
4
What Kavanaugh did according to Dr. Ford goes far beyond "antics." Why would Mr. Stephens prejudge the whole case with such an apologetic minimization of what's being alleged? He doesn't even make a pretense of objectivity.
1
This article demands an FBI investigation and sworn testimony from Mark Judge. But in true topsy turvy conservative bad-faith-argument fashion, it slams the Democrats despite the fact that it is Democrats who want an FBI investigation and sworn testimony by Judge and Republicans who have refused to await an investigation or call Judge to testify.
By the way, one of these two "credible witnesses" has already been caught lying under oath, and it ain't Professor Blasey.
3
Well, here's a shocker: a privileged, white man rushes to the defense of another privileged white man, not by citing any positive facts, or contesting any negative one, but simply by warning that if the Me-Too movement continues its wicked ways, we won't have any more privileged white men to kick around anymore.
Bret Stephens (Middlesex Boarding School. University of Chicago, London School of Economics, Wall Street Journal) might want to take a look at "Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump, and the Things Men Do for Other Men," by Jia Tolentino, at the New Yorker website.
Of course, Tolentino--unlike Stephens--doesn't begin with the assumption that privileged white men are our only indispensable form of life. How foolish of her.
4
Who among us keeps a wall calendar that is more than 36 years old? Why was it kept?
1
Typically, those who bemoan revolution are afraid of losing power.
2
I was too scared and confused to report my rape so the guy who raped me never served time. I found out later he had other victims. My father put three women in intensive care including my mom and never served a day in prison. We have criminals walking around free in our society every day, because the criminals are so expert at concealing their private crimes.
Survivors like myself know that "tough on crime" is a fraud. Criminals are out there among you, commenters, every day. They could be your father or your brother. You don't know, because their victims could have been too scared and confused to file a police report.
Abuse survivors know this about the so-called "rule of law." That's where the real harm to our civic culture was and is being done. The fact that we suffer crimes that can't be prosecuted because we don't store our memories in timestamped videos.
3
"If the price of this revolution is the subordination of ordinary fairness to abstract justice, the elevation of rumor over fact, the further debasement of journalism, the devaluation of the rights of the accused, and the complete toxification of public service..." that price was paid long ago.
1
Bret, drunken behavior in high school should not be an issue 36 years down the line. I agree. But we are talking about potential sexual assault on multiple accounts and potential perjury during his nomination hearing for Supreme Court justice! I’m sorry but the timeline (and politics) should not matter at all at this point.
3
Mr. Stephens invokes cannibalism when speaking of revolution. Well sir how about other “c” words. Carnage, in the form of policy and legislation coming out of the White House and sitting Congress, a word invoked and embodied by 45. Another “c” word is chimera. This monster has be decades in the making using dog whistles, welfare queens, usurping unionists who hijack prosperity, birtherism, and other fine conspiracies used as chum. The Religious Right, the Tea Party movement, Alt-right have been fed this ugliness by conservatives who choose power above country. I turn to science (Physics): Newton’s third law of movement states that for every action (force) there is an equal and opposite reaction. That is an unsurprising scientific fact.
1
Reasons to believe the women:
They have nothing to gain and everything to lose by fabricating such a story. Kavanaugh has everything to gain by covering it up.
These stories are consistent with the lifestyle reflected in his records and statements and 'literature' from his friends.
They recounted their stories to others before Kavanaugh became a public figure.
Women sometimes falsely accuse men of rape, but that's almost always in the context of consensual sex and later regrets (i.e. parental disapproval); almost never in the context of forceful assault. No argument has been made that these women consented to any of this.
They have provided details, something liars are seldom able to do.
The Republican's believe the women are telling the truth. If they didn't, they would be happy to have the FBI investigate.
Reasons to believe Kavanaugh: He's a white guy. White guys never lie. And even if they do, we're not supposed to say anything about it.
4
Talk to the hand, Mr. Stephens.
I did not ever get sloppy drunk as a teenager.
I did not even get accused of that.
I did not ever sexually assault women as a teenager (or an adult).
I did not even get accused of that.
I did not make questionable statements under oath. Ever.
If Brett Kavanaugh is the best the GOP can put forward, then - YES - he is UNFIT for a LIFETIME on the Highest Court in The Land and should be denied that privilege, given what we know...let alone what can be proven.
And, it's not even close.
5
"Is it now fair game to draw moral inferences about a nominee because he went to an elite prep school, or was a member of a rowdy fraternity, or said something mean and dumb in his yearbook, or drank somewhat more than he would like to admit?"
Um...yes.
"the odd souls who are either morally stainless "
I think that should be a requirement for anyone sitting on the Supreme Court with the power to change lives forever. If they're are odd souls, it's a sad commentary on our society, but other than that, so what? That's what we should expect. Kavanaugh's temper tantrum this afternoon was more than enough to disqualify him. He is not a gentleman.
3
It's kind of sad to see the recent bout of soul searching on the Right about "what will it mean for this country if the libs win," after they have completely refused to consider what Trump and his enablers and lackeys have already done to the country to get us to this point.
However, setting that aside, I would propose that as a society that has gone through most of its history ignoring, disbelieving, minimizing and retaliating against women who tell the truth about what men do to them, perhaps we need to go through a period of believing women without asking for hard evidence. It seems like the very least we can do.
4
Being a "member of a rowdy fraternity" or saying "something mean and dumb in [a] yearbook" is not equivalent to attempted rape or sexual assault. Clearly someone should not be shunned from public service if they simply drank to much or took part in some other indiscretions. However, what Kavanaugh is accused of goes far beyond this.
3
If a man with a checkered past will hesitate to go into public service for a fear of exposure, then so be it. More women will be filling in.
4
The solution is pretty simple. Maryland has no statute of limitation for sexual assault. Go to the police and file a report. They'll begin an investigation if it's warranted, bring in the FBI if required, and refer the case for prosecution if there's evidence of a crime.
But of course, that would eliminate the opportunity for political theater.
The conservative does protest too much. Kavanaugh, a nominee to the highest unelected position a person can hold in our nation, has been very credibly accused of sexual assault--period. He may be innocent, but the presumption of innocence and the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" are norms for criminal prosecution, not deciding the moral fitness of a Supreme Court nominee. For that court to keep its authority and prestige, its justices should be free of any criminal taint. Kavanaugh has been credibly accused, his morality called into question, and the burden is on him to persuade the Senate, and us, the people they allegedly serve, that he is innocent of the crime. If he can't do that, than he doesn't belong on the Supreme Court.
2
Please Mr. Stephens, do not describe people as so monolithic, so conformist - and so willing to undermine democracy and our constitution.
As a liberal, I have never considered any particular viewpoint as accepted truth in this controversy. Most liberals I know, and I believe this has been reflected in the opinions of MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell as well as the Editorial Board of the NYT, have coalesced around the opinion that an investigation of the various accusations is warranted. If I am not mistaken, Ms. Blasey Ford and her lawyer requested such an investigation after being asked to testify by Mr. Grassley, well prior to these recent allegations by Debra Ramirez and Julie Swetnick. I am not determined to derail the Kavanaugh nomination by smears. I just think we should pause and investigate, something a more civic-minded president, George H. W. Bush, did in the case of the Clarence Thomas - Anita Hill situation. And again, I do not believe that most liberals are willing to simply believe salacious allegations for partisan gain. Democracy and the tenets of the U. S. Constitution are not some power game, but a serious effort in using the concepts that emerged in the Enlightenment with regard to the value of the human spirit and the power of reason to attempt to self-govern. Please do not accuse me of subverting those important ideals, Mr. Stephens.
1
On the other hand, we're talking about somebody being or not being confirmed to the supreme court. It's not like if Kavanaugh does not get confirmed we throw him off a cliff. Being on the supreme court is not some "right". It seems completely fine to not confirm someone just because enough people have "doubts." I don't see a problem with not confirming someone even if it is because of something they didn't do. Gorsuch clearly did not have these problems, and you'd think it would have been a similar situation.
It seems as though you would want our Supreme Court Justices to not even be held to the "high standards" the NFL places on our football players. Because the tone of an article does not agree with your predrawn conclusions does not mean that article has drawn conclusions. The problem here seems to be that you have jumped to conclusions that the articles that you are reading have not jumped to.
I can understand Mr. Stephens’ ambivalence about these events.
“That’s why today’s hearings ... would have been helped by an F.B.I. investigation and sworn testimony from Mr. Judge.”
Let’s remember who kept this from happening.
2
I would not presume to say who is right or wrong.
But when “The Resistance” proclaims to do anything to derail Trump, false accusations would clearly fall under the category of “anything.”
Sexual assault is never acceptable. Neither is judging an adult based on his or her actions in high school.
Whether the incident happened as Ford claims is becoming irrelevant. Kavanaugh's response to the charges should be disqualifying.
He first paints himself as an innocent choir boy, an image that was immediately disputed first with publicly available information and then with claims of others who knew him in the past. So his honesty is in doubt.
And now with his testimony he lashes out at Democrats and "liberal" groups who he claims orchestrated all of these charges against him. Since he's now declared them his enemies, if confirmed will he recuse himself of any cases involving the Democratic party or liberal groups which will surely come up?
Come on GOP! There are plenty of other potential conservative Supreme Court nominees who can be just as hostile to women's rights, LBGT rights, labor rights, voting rights and campaign finance reform. Pick one!
5
"But it’s hard to imagine who — except for the odd souls who are either morally stainless or utterly shameless — would want to be subjected to the ordeal. Would You?"
No, Brett, I would not but that's because I recognize and fully take responsibility for my actions as a young man and the impact they had on others. But fear not, Brett, such difficult considerations will not stop future Trumps from thinking they can get away with past actions and attain the highest offices of the land.
3
"Apply a presumption of guilt standard to the people you oppose, and a presumption of innocence standard to the people you favor." Mr. Stephens, certainly you realize that conservatives are engaging in this very act just as equally as the democrats you rebuke.
1
Nice try Bret, with one "t". But the real question is ENTITLEMENT. Kavanaugh and his High School & college buddies ALWAYS felt entitled to whatever they wanted & they were told as much troughout their lives. Witness his entitled reaction to Dr Ford's testimony today.
2
Let's recall that Senator Mitch McConnell denied Merrick Garland his seat on the Supreme Court pandering to culture warriors of the right. Let's note also that Merrick Garland did not whine.
5
I agree with one thing: the alt-right, Breitbart, Alex Jones, every arch conservative party hack, is already lining up "witnesses" and "victims" to assault the first nominee that the next Democratic President names to anything.
Do both parties do it? Sure, but it's undeniable that the race to the bottom has been led by leaps and bounds by the hard right. From the obstructionist Republican Congress faced by President Obama, to the dereliction of duty regarding Garland Merrick, to birtherism, and now, virtually every other word out of President Trump's mouth, it's clear that one political party is simply so much better at lying and win at any cost.
I agree, the future of the political process, and governance itself, isn't going to get better.
1
Hmmm. This is scorched earth politics, of the Lee Atwater variety on the part of the GOP. They refuse to consider Merrick Garland, get Neil Gorsuch approved quite easily, and now they've hit a roadblock with Kavanaugh. But it's the #metoo movement and the Democrats' fault? And the media is also to blame. Hardly. When Orrin Hatch notes that Prof. Blasely Ford is "attractive" and "pleasing," we women know that we're in trouble once again.
4
If only people, including our so-called President, did not want to run from the truth and play with facts life would be a lot easier and Republicans would be a different party - one with values America has always stood for.
Let's be fair Bret, Trump has mightily assisted in the degradation of US politics as you have frequently noted. His personal record and vulgarity invite the sort of response we have seen in this case. I would have liked if you had painted with a broader brush here. It is the cynical, lying without shame, wholesale denigration of opponents as enemies that has contributed significantly to this mess. Could you pick this up in a later column to introduce a bit more balance?
A woman appears before Congress, at great cost to herself and her family; another makes a sworn affidavit -- if she's lying she'll lose her security clearance and her job. Let's stop pretending that these women really have any reason to lie about Kavanaugh. And let's remember that he has one very big reason to lie about his past.
3
Is it fair to draw moral inferences?
Yes, especially when the inferences drawn are from the not-fully-disclosed conduct of the judge as a young man.
Kavanaugh's less-than-candid earlier disclosures and 'choir boy' performance on Fox were both at odds with the truth: as a young man, he liked to drink and party hearty, sometimes all the way to lurid if not criminal behavior.
"Question for the people at CREDO Action: Is there any damaging allegation against Kavanaugh, of any nature and from any source, which the left would not automatically believe?'
A legitimate question indeed. So is a parallel question if we replace
"CREDP Actoin" and "Kavanaugh" with some right wing and left wing names, respectively.
The point is that the country is now so divided that we are becoming two ideologically separated parts sharing almost nothing with each other. The right wholeheartedly approved of the tactic used by McConnell - stonewalling President Obama's Supreme Court nomination, abolishing the super majority rule for Supreme Court nomination.
So I agree with the observation of David from New Jersey, the revolution has already eaten his children. Never mind who started it.
The United States is the only democracy on this planet that gives a lifetime appointment to its highest court. Like the 'electoral college', this is an 18th century anachronism, and must change.
9
This is a raw political game. The stakes are high and the tactics are vile. If the Left has finally figured out the new rules, so be it. When we play by the old rules we lose.
9
When camera phones became common a more than a decade or two ago, my group of friends had a horrible realization - none of us would ever be elected to anything unless the standards of behavior for the young past were relaxed, and or we suddenly found a new religion and were able to disassociate our entire past.
We never did anything as terrible as what this judge is accused of, but without context, we realized every photo could be interpreted badly.
The only people who would ever be elected would be those who were either so moralistic they had no life experience or mistakes to learn from or those who were so manipulative they were able to hide there past. Honestly, both those extremes should scare the living daylights out of us all.
7
@Adib. Your comment misses the point, and Mr Stephens editorial seems clueless as well. It is not about having to live down what you may have done as a teenager, it is about truth and lies. Having pictures available doesn't disqualify you, it means that it is harder to lie about yourself.
I just don't know how Kavanaugh can ever have credibility as a Supreme Court Justice if he is installed, and will forever taint the rulings. His appointment smacks of partisanship because of this process and his participation in the Clinton affair. I am sure there are many other highly qualified individuals to fill that role.
7
The Central Park Five, of course, were not so entitled to the benefit of the doubt by the man who nominated Mr. Kavanaugh.
13
Curious that you say for half the country the confirmation process is about a judge, pure and simple. No -- it is not. It is about getting someone on the court who will push your agenda. It is why the filibuster was ended and Garland not even considered. Time is running out on the Republican party's control of elective offices, but if they can dominate the courts (and they are doing it) they can control the direction of the country for decades.
10
The answer to NEVER believing women is not, alas, ALWAYS believing them. But why not subpoena Mark Judge, who was there. That would do more than anything to expel the cloud. He's lying about his drinking. His beer drinking is not the issue. Yes, he could get good grades and be on the football team and still drink sometimes to the point of blackouts. Stats show that about half of the people who drink too much do. What I see is a man who really--deep down--does not know whether he assaulted a classmate or not and would like to give himself the benefit of the doubt, who would rather not know himself. He is entitled to this. He worked hard. Why should high school derail him? And grace and redemption are certainly possible, but they must begin with the truth, and the first person he needs to level with is himself, and instead of this, he's playing victim.
5
Mr. Stephens asks for careful consideration, specificity, and corroborating evidence when it comes to allegations against powerful men. Yet he tars tens of millions of people with the same brush: "the left." Who, precisely, does he mean, other than the couple of fringe websites that he mentions? I am a progressive Democrat, and I do not automatically accept these accusations as true. What I do see is that it is the Republican senators who are refusing to mount a full investigation to find the facts.
15
Agree. However, if the attack did not occur and - as Judge Kavanaugh insists - the truth should come out, then why wouldn't his best buddy, Mr. Judge, from years gone by (also, a supporter and a conservative) not come forward to offer his testimony? He has been in hiding for weeks now. Is he afraid of the truth coming out, and ruining his friend's chance of becoming a Supreme Court Justice?
10
Let's ask Monica Lewinsky what she thinks of Brett Kavanagh and his intrusive questions that went - there
The Starr investigation was a win at all cost no matter how long and it is still playing out - anyone associated with it does not belong on the Supreme Court. Anyone this partisan should be disqualified.
12
Kavanaugh's defenders and apologists keep invoking a presumption of innocence, as if he were on trial for bank robbery. Nobody's talking about locking him up; we're talking about him proving himself worthy for one of the highest jobs in the country. His failure to insist on an FBI investigation to clear his name (or not) alone, never mind not taking a polygraph test as Dr. Ford has, indicates he does not pass that test. Deny, deny, deny simply does not prove worthiness by itself.
8
Maybe we can go back in time, and a column could be written about the repercussions of Mitch McConnell denying a nomination hearing for Justice Garland. Or maybe we could go further back in time and write a column about repercussions before the Dems got rid of the filibuster for judicial appointments.
Don't pretend we're at a turning point NOW. This is just a continuing evolution of politics in the USA. Things will continue to evolve.
The Republican Party will go to great lengths to put a man of questionable character and who appears to be nothing more than a partisan warrior into a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. The Democratic Party is going to great lengths to stop them. The big evolutionary surprise here is that the Democrats are fighting as hard and rough as Republicans do.
10
All these allegations must be taken seriously, but that does not mean we don’t give Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt. Nothing has been proven here, and if this was a criminal trial instead of a senate confirmation I expect he would be acquitted. What has been established, however, was that Kavanaugh was a party animal in school. That’s not a crime either, nor should it automatically restrict someone from high office. A couple of recent presidents also partied hard in their youth. It is not, however, the characteristic I would want in a senior jurist. I’d want a nerd for that job. Someone who stayed home Friday nights and studied when everyone else was out cutting loose. Partiers can become politicians because being popular, working a room, and changing people’s minds are essential skills for them. For a jurist though, the job is to make up their own mind, after careful and quite contemplation. Kavanaugh does not sound like that kind of person, and that is a character judgement I am comfortable making.
3
I think Mr. Stephens misses a key dimension to this spectacle -- the fact that this nomination has always been a "thumb in the eye" to a broad component of the American political spectrum. Mr. Trump's choice was not an attempt to maintain the Court, but to impose a new judicial majority and to upset a delicate balance. Had the nominee been less extreme, I seriously doubt that we would be having the kind of day we're having today.
Elections may have consequences, but winners who expect to push extreme shifts should expect that there will be an equal and opposite response.
6
The problems pointed out by Mr. Stephens could be mitigated by an FBI investigation, which of course the GOP members on the Committee are refusing to consider, and this is really the underlying issue. Yes, the allegation came out late in the Committee process, but that's largely explainable in light of Ms. Ford's understandable fears and hesitancy. Chairman Grassley's refusal to enlist the FBI for a more thorough examination and corroboration of the facts, or indeed to call in other known witnesses, is supported by nothing more than the phony excuse that time has run out. It's a cynical political calculation related to the timing of the midterm elections. In that sense, the GOP on the Committee are not operating in good faith.
4
As someone who wrestles with questions of journalistic ethics everyday, I'm left with this.
"If I report it before all the facts are known, I'm debasing the industry I love."
"If I don't report it while I check out the facts, what am I hiding?"
I've been accused of both.
In the era of non-stop, 24 hr news cycles, where instant gratification rules, I prefer the latter, but the community demands the former. (as do my bosses)
I'm not sure what the future holds.
Agree completely with the title of this article.
The revolution WILL eat its children. The Republican revolution, in all its win at any cost glory, will destroy the Republican party.
Actually, I need to change the tense: it already has.
139
@David
Let not be so sure - for the Republican narrative historically is - or will stay - and yes with modifications and lessons to learn albeit rebirth or repacking its brand - History is a greater force than the immediacy of predicting the future - and the nature of culture in mind, spirit and pragmatics is always guiding the path - is how our operational systems universal functions.
What most of us on the left want, at least those that I know, is a proper investigation. Was it politically motivated that the Dems sat on Ford's letter? Probably. But now here we are. How about there's an investigation and witnesses are interviewed etc. If the FBI says it's a ruse, we stand aside. Perhaps I'm being too simplistic, but seriously, why is there no investigation?
3
Even if Mr. Kavanaugh fails to be confirmed for a supreme court seat he still maintains his present position as a sitting federal court judge with a lifetime appointment, one of the best jobs in the world. He cannot emerge a loser from this process regardless of the outcome.
7
We are squandering our civic values. At the same time, women who assert claims like this are being believed. Believed in this case as if no harder evidence that 30 year old memories. One wonders what might have been made of all of this had it been reported at the time.
Would it have been handled in the past and now hardly remembered? Perhaps, perhaps not, but for me, that would have been best. Listening to her, it is hard to dismiss here allegations; but to use that testimony to bring forward the accusation and the punishment to a Kavanaugh family and the society in the face of all of our due process and normal truth ascertaining procedures, well that too is ridiculous. We are trashing everything to atone for this person and to assuage others similarly situated. Is tossing out centuries of progress in justice rendering procedures worth this political victory.;.and no doubt it is also a political move by Democrats. They will win this at a loss for the country and ultimately justice for many.
2
Apparently, Stephens forgot about the Whitewater Scandal and the Clinton Impeachment.
We are not an inflection point, let alone a revolution. Rather, the Kavanaugh affair simply continues a now very American tradition of turning political matters into low theater.
Strip away all the drama and hyperbole Stephens injects into the controversy and what we have is a nominee very credibly accused of a heinous and revolting act.
Dr. Ford's powerful and poignant testimony leaves no doubt that here accusations are true.
Her motives are beyond reproach.
Kavanaugh, by contrast, has said he was essentially a choir boy, only later to admit that he loved to party.
He's badly damaged goods. An honorable man would today announce that he no longer wished to be considered for the position.
3
@Ricardo Chavira: I know lots of very nice men (and women) who enjoy partying, drinking, smoking to and having fun -- and they really ARE choirboys (and choir girls).
Also Kavanaugh never used the term "choirboy" -- that's a left assumption. All Kavanaugh said is that he did hard work in school and sports, and attended church.
Despite the rhetoric, it is quite clear that Stephens is NOT a student of history, in fact, he might want to remind himself that during the Hill/Thomas hearings the "holier than though" tandem of Grassley and Hatch insisted that before any hearings on the appointment of Clarence Thomas move forward, that the FBI conduct an investigation because, in the words of Orin Hatch, "it was the right thing to do". It seem these two 85 and 86 yr.old dinosaurs have forgotten that video existed back when they stated those words.
Clearly, Stephens has disregarded or conveniently forgotten about these facts and instead of whining about the circumstances behind the Kavanaugh situation, he take a long hard look at a pathetic excuse for a hypocritical Republican party that will do anything to ram through Kavanaugh's appointment regardless of its consequences.
2
Bret Stephens,
Why can’t conservatives nominate a decent person that doesn’t lie?
Why they nominate someone and then hide 90% of his documents?
7
Anybody remember when Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs and the rest told us for weeks that the Nunes Memo would be a catastrophe for Democrats and the FBI?
There are so many stories like this from the right we don't even remember them.
2
Standards are standards, and yes, standards do change over time.
But I ask the question -- how is it possible that someone can be elevated to the highest court in the country, be given the responsibility to adjudicate the validity of countless laws, rules, and regulations without also judging whether that person has the moral character to be benefited with such a responsibility?
And how can anyone who would subject another human being to the humiliation of a sexual assault be found to have a moral character acceptable for such a responsibility?
Doesn't it at least cross the line that an individual accused of such behavior at least be subjected to a more thorough investigation of their character?
This opinion piece is ENTIRELY unfairly one-sided. While some may find the accusations against Kavanaugh unjust, far more unjust is the manner in which the GOP is trying to ram this nomination through the Senate. It is a disgrace to the institution, a disgrace to their party, and a disgrace to the nation.
4
Bret, you miss the issue by a light year!
What anybody did in their minority (younger than age of 21) and especially in their teens, one hopes will be grown out of and life corrected. This appears to be the situation with Kavanaugh.
The issue with Kavanaugh is his honesty about his well documented drinking & ugly behavior while under the influence of alcohol.
HONESTY counts. THIS is a mark of maturity. Kavanaugh's statements before and during the testimony on 27 Sept belie a man who remains with feeling of inadequacy in from of his father and also unable to acknowledge the reality of his youth. Kavanaugh is either a pathological liar or a complete failure. He is not the person who should on any court bench.
3
“Is it now fair game to draw moral inferences about a nominee because he went to an elite prep school, or was a member of a rowdy fraternity, or said something mean and dumb in his yearbook, or drank somewhat more than he would like to admit?”
This isn’t the issue, at least not yet. The question is around Kavanaugh’s moral compass. Did he try and rape someone? Did he systematically abuse women? Is he willing to lie about it to get what he wants? We’ll likely never know. What we do know is that this process is breaking, if not already broken. Do we have the will to fix it? And however it turns out Americans’ faith in and respect for our governing institutions will be further diminished. It feels like we are inching closer to a tipping point where enough people feel disenfranchised that, barring meaningful reform, the faith that binds our system together may fail.
1
Bravo Mr. Stephens.
1
What Mr. Stephens writes makes some sense on a basic level, and is something I have thought about myself in the abstract since the Kavanaugh story first broke. However, I'd be much more inclined to accept his sentiments as sincere and to agree with him had he expressed similar outrage when it was reported widely that several prominent GOPers, led by the current occupant of the White House, falsely and without basis accused Barack Obama of having had his Hawaiian birth certificate altered somehow to hide the fact that he really was born in Kenya.
2
Of course I wouldn't want to be subjected to such an ordeal. That's why I didn't try to rape anyone in high school.
Well, that and the fact that I recognized women as human beings who might have some say in how they are treated. That recognition is deeply embedded in me. I would like to believe that it's deeply embedded in anyone we put on the court.
I hope your article is not interpreted as saying that if a woman or girl is drugged and can't remember, or is reluctant to report, then you've gotten away with rape or assault. I don't think we want to declare open season on women like that.
As to burdens of proof--this is not a criminal trial. The whole point is to determine his fitness to sit on one of the most powerful bodies in our country (that didn't come out right, but oh well...). The burden is on him and his sponsors to prove his fitness and, I believe, to rebut and credible assertion that he is not fit.
4
@Justin: but what if someone SAID you raped them and you did not?
You can't seem to imagine that maybe Kavanaugh really IS innocent of rape or attempted rape.
You are in fact, assuming he MUST BE GULTY because someone made an allegation against him -- and that HE must prove he is innocent.
If there are no standards of innocence in the US Senate…then where is there any? do you want people denied jobs because of baseless slurs and allegations?
Nobody has suggested Christine Ford was DRUGGED. She says she had one beer that night (underage…but it's OK for WOMEN to drink underage…for Kavanaugh it is a CRIME!).
We cannot have any kind of legal system, if it is based on 35 year old allegations without witnesses.
This article gives mere lip service to the need for a thorough investigation of the accusations and related events, but ignores the sad and insupportable position of the Republican majority in the Senate that no FBI investigation is needed, and that there must be an immediate vote to usher an accused sexual predator into a lifetime appointment on the U.S. Supreme Court. If this is allowed to occur, that Court will be permanently damaged; more, there is no legal impediment to prevent further investigation by journalists and proceedings by legal authorities in some jurisdictions, as the recent conviction and sentencing of Bill Cosby amply illustrates. Justice takes time and procedural care; this decision on a Supreme Court nominee's moral fitness to be on the Court should proceed carefully and cautiously. Mr. Stephens blames the press for trying to block the Senate majority's rush to confirm this nomination notwithstanding the obvious need to fairly and thoroughly evaluate the bubbling new evidence of alleged, serious misconduct by Kavanaugh and friends that surfaces almost daily. He should blame the Senate majority instead. So, Mr. Stephens, let's agree: The full light of thorough discovery should shine long and hard on this nest of allegations, denials and related events before any vote is taken, shouldn't it? Forrest Lammiman
1
Bunch of literal nonsense.
Make it easy on yourself Brett. Just believe both are being honest. That way you are favoring no one. If neither are lying then it boils down to recollection. And with that, it's pretty safe to say we simply need another choice for a Supreme Court justice.
If we are to simply believe Kavanaugh is innocent before being proved guilty, then Ms. Ford is due the same "good thoughts". Really makes the next step simple. Choose a candidate without any baggage. And before any can say all placed before Democrats will be roadblocked, we will say is that (Gorsuch) accurate?
Why write in a calendar that a team won a game? It's an event in the past. Gambling?
I am delighted that Brett Kavanaugh is no longer cozying up to his colleagues at the Times, but has found his voice and is calling them out (if not by name) for tearing our country apart by trashing basic standards of fairness and decency in order to gain their political ends.
2
Amazing euphemisms in this article, such as say 'antics'. We are talking about dramatic accusations of possibly drugging young girls into gang rapes, a hideous crime. And we are to worry that one should be held accountable for the crimes committed in the past?
2
This is a thoughtful and insightful column. And yes, it's impossible to know the truth about these allegations with absolute certainty. But that's exactly the point. We're not talking about depriving someone of his liberty or his rights - we're trying to determine whether he is worthy of a seat on the Supreme Court. If there is any doubt about this matter, the answer is no.
2
"Is it now fair game to draw moral inferences about a nominee because he went to an elite prep school, or was a member of a rowdy fraternity, or said something mean and dumb in his yearbook, or drank somewhat more than he would like to admit?" The rowdy fraternity is sandwiched in here, but if a person seeking power willingly belonged to an organization that did bad things, I would think that would be very important to investigate. Not to automatically infer, but to investigate. Yes, I would say there were indications in Kavanaugh's yearbook that his behavior should have been looked into. And yes, I would like a paradigm shift where people who aspire to positions of power do not advance themselves by joining boys' networks whose team bonding includes cruelty to women (or men). I'm no fan of sloppy journalism, sloppy politicking, or sloppy generalizations. Those are no friends of true justice, but the basic dichotomy Stephens proposes is false. You don't need lying to expose bad behavior. There are a lot of people in this world, including men, who have not behaved as badly as Kavanaugh. The price of moving on from accepting such behavior need not be too high. Indeed, the price of accepting it has been high indeed in the psychic toll on those who were the objects of the stupidity and the cruelty. Young people today are willing to accept the message that their behavior matters, and that is good for all of us.
1
Report first, verify later. I only that credo had been challenged when Hillary Clinton ran for President.
2
@MaryC exactly....where was Brett and Ross back then???
Mr. Stephens, it's a little late to be worrying about our 'civic culture'.
The accusation against Kavanaugh is not that he "went to an elite prep school, or was a member of a rowdy fraternity, or said something mean and dumb in his yearbook, or drank somewhat more than he would like to admit." The accusation is that he ambushed a girl and held her down while trying to rip her clothes off, covering her mouth, all the while laughing his head off with his buddy who stood by. And that's just one of several eerily similar survivors' stories (we're now up to five, but the day is still young).
2
Bret - why was this paragon of virtue "grounded" on the 14 and 15th according to his callender?
1
Mr. Stephens,
Did you complain about Republicans and the birther movement?
3
Have you, Brett, discussed this thought with the criminal in the oval office? He's the guy who pushed us to this point with 19 allegations of sex assault and one significant admission.
2
Ordinary fairness? Does that apply to everyone, or just those with means?
2
My husband, my son and myself all managed to get through high school without ever being grounded for one weekend, let three in a month. Play hard, work hard, party hard? I prefer the nerdier sort of SCOTUS justices who spent their teenage years reading and debating, not partying.
2
Well written. So right.
1
Wow! African-American teens are held to standards higher than this. They can merely be in the wrong place at the wrong time to be shot and killed by law enforcement.
Mr. Kavanaugh will be deciding our collective fates for decades to come. I think the commonly known predator culture of fraternities and all-male prep schools and his embracing of their culture is of interest to the general public.
10
At no point has the NY Times or any democratic elected official stated as a fact that "Kavanaugh is a rapist" or anything to that effect. All that has been asked for is an investigation into the matter. On the other hand, several Republican elected leaders have directly challenged the authenticity of the accusers and called it a "con job". Who is asserting opinions (disguised as facts) before verification??
As for the nomination criteria, all Republicans are trying to make this in the form of a criminal trial - is he guilty or not? However, nomination to the highest court in our land is NOT a right (as are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness); it is a privilege and should hold a much higher standard. Are there troubling questions about Kavanaugh that seem genuine and cannot be answered? Yes!! Then, he should not be confirmed without proper investigation by authorities (not by senate oldies).
4
However reasonable this piece may sound, the author ought to acknowledge that Republicans brought this on themselves. They spent 8 years playing toy soldier overseas and destroying thousands of lives in the process, another 8 years savaging the first African American president and trampling on his nominee for the Court and then they elected an ignoramus to sit in the White House. They've been on the wrong side of history for as long as anyone can remember. I'm sick of hearing their "thoughtful" responses to problems they created.
4
Brett, One ingredient in this story you seem indifferent to. Brett is running as honest and upright: sports, altar boy, church, student, a virgin until well into his college years, if then; aside, that is, from occasionally imbibing in a few boyish beers. One thing your normal person detests as much as sin is hypocrisy, maybe more. You left hypocrisy out of your sensitive portrayal of Brett. The signs are everywhere, from his roommate depicting him as a frequent drunk, often incoherently so, and mean; to the reminiscences of his friend who called "Bart" in his memoir. Not your average altar boy. But most telling to me were his memos crafting the cross-examination of Bill Clinton which he wrote for Bart Starr. We know Bill is a sinner for sure but the tone, temper and detail of Brett's prepared questions for the sinner showed, as its creator averred, no mercy. And these were for a sitting president unfairly being questioned about a consensual affair. Aren't you the least bit queasy over the idea of this man, this merciless hypocrite, charged with crimes at least from five women, being sent to the Supreme Court?
4
Maybe we just shouldn't let men on the Supreme Court for a few hundred years? Probably this won't be an issue then...
... you know, the way women weren't allowed on the Supreme Court for a couple hundred years?
7
The fact that Gorsuch made it through the confirmation process without any of this drama makes your entire article nonsensical. If the GOP had done a better job of vetting Kavanaugh then they wouldn't be having these problems.
And why do we assume Kavanaugh's guilt? He has proven that he's a liar and a perjurer. He has zero credibility.
6
Post-Kavanaugh world? More like post Garland world.
1
consider the behavior described and charged, dude
1
They could have saved a ton of money just by asking how he would have voted on roe vs wade.......
who saves calendars with no photos on them?
Hey Brett, wasn't the American Revolution "borne by high ideals"?
Mr. Stephens, you wrote:
These are: Report first, verify later (if ever). Use the accumulation of unproven accusations as evidence of their plausibility, rather than as charges to be investigated separately or as variations of the same fundamental untruth. Apply a presumption of guilt standard to the people you oppose, and a presumption of innocence standard to the people you favor. Hear something you like about someone you don’t — what used to be known as gossip — and repackage it as “news.”
This is Fox News.
But you already know this.
You just think that we don't know it.
2
Hmmm...you might be right about a revolution but lets get the date right: this started when Clinton, Lewinsky, and their families were destroyed and humiliated over lying over a consensual sexual relationship by Kavanaugh and friends
1
Wow, it's almost as if this is the sort of thing that happens when one side stonewalls the possibility of an impartial investigation and refuses to subpoena any witnesses.
Ford asked for an FBI investigation and has gone under oath. Her corroborating witnesses have submitted sworn statements, but Republicans won't talk to them. Ramirez wants an FBI investigation and will go under oath, but Republicans won't hear her out before they vote. Swetnick wants an FBI investigation and will go under oath--and has already submitted a sworn statement--but Republicans won't hear her out before they vote. Ford has passed a polygraph. Swetnick has said she will take a polygraph if Kavanaugh does, and Kavanaugh has written an opinion defending the use of polygraphs.
Meanwhile, Republicans refuse to allow a non-partisan investigation or to hear the witnesses. Republicans won't even subpoena Judge, whom Ford alleges was in the room and who could exonerate Kavanaugh. Prominent Republicans have stated that they would plow the nomination through before hearing the testimony. Republicans scheduled the committee vote before hearing the testimony.
One side here has formed beliefs in advance of the evidence. One side here is relying on "the Gawker standard" of gut belief.
It is not the left.
Stephens should be ashamed for penning this twaddle, and the Times should be ashamed for publishing it.
2
Finally, finally, the Dems are giving back to the GOP what GOP "leadership" has been throwing at Dems since Clinton walked into the State House in Little Rock. And which bloomed into full obstructionism during Obama's presidency, and began to border on psychosis during the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Only instead of fabricated right wingnut lies, the Dems have the truth on their side, and finally they are not afraid to use it. Go Dems! (And by the way, Mr Stephens, were you ever raped by someone in high school when you were 15, and never told anybody about it? If not, then you have absolutely nothing to say about how or when a woman might be finally able to make it public. This is a job interview for Kavanaugh; go to all the lies he has told during the whole rushed and truncated "hearing." The drinking and abuse would make him lose a job as a manager at a McDonalds. It's the perjury, torture, abortion blocking, et al. that makes him a lousy choice for a lifetime job on the SCOTUS.)
2
A new low. Even for Mr. Stephens.
If this article were submitted in a logic class it would rate an F.
1
It just means that the Democrats are learning to play the game the way Republicans have been playing it for years. It's certainly no great loss if Kavanugh isn't elevated to the Supreme Court, and if the President the minority elected puts another nominee forward they should use every means possible to stall. "Let the people decide" after the next election.
1
I think Kavanaugh is cooked after what I just saw. This apologia for conservative political overreach is so...’true to form’.
Just admit it, apologize and explain what he learned as a result of being a drunk. How has he cleaned up his act?
No just bull through.
This man is being examined because he has women’s lives in his hand.
Mr. Stephens blows smoke.
1
What's your point, Bret? Give Kavanaugh a "bye" on his way to a lifetime appointment? Give Grassley and McConnell "byes" for violating the spirit if not the procedural letter of the Constitution. Speak for yourself on the "Gawker" standard. Ramming this nomination through in the face of credible character questions of the highest order shows, once again, damn little respect for the citizens of this country. Your meuling argument and innuendo add nothing to the issues.
Agree with some of the over-the-top, breathless reporting. Disagree that this is only about determining whether Kavanaugh is a good judge. Character is big, especially for this position. Kavanaugh has acted like an entitled, not-so-honest candidate all along. Why is Bret Stephens wasting his moral concern on this guy?
1
The News Paper of Record and Mr. Stephens make a solid point of order in this badly managed confrontation. The reality of a man denied his right to express compassion is monstrous. What could have been a powerful moment of humane empathy with the victim's pain is turned into a schoolyard squabble over status.
If this man doesn't remember the event it is not a reason to deny the memory of the woman. At 15 or 17, the brain isn't equipped with enough judgement. Clearly there is a concern about the drinking to memory failure. Young people die from alcohol poisoning in alarming numbers. What baffles me is the utter lack of adults, Who supplies this drug?
Stephens opines as an afterthought that the process would have been "helped" by an FBI investigation. But that belies his entire point that people becoming unconcerned with fact finding is what corrodes fairness.
The people presumably seeking "belated reparation for unequal treatment.." aren't the ones who have abandoned fact finding. The people he claims are concerned only with "the future of a Supreme Court nominee, pure and simple." are the ones refusing to authorize a FBI investigation.
Brett Kavanaugh was an illegitimate candidate from the moment he was chosen. A Senate fully committed to the historical norms of advice and consent would never have abandoned the filibuster and 60 vote threshold to consider a Kavanaugh confirmation. Brett Kavanaugh would never have even been considered against such a bipartisan threshold of acceptability. Given that the Senate abandoned it's sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, and given that Trump promised to only nominate candidates who would overturn Roe v. Wade, the examination of Kavanaugh's character and suitability for the Court fell to others. It is especially revealing of the sickness of conservative culture and worldview that it fell to women to expose the crimes that always come with the arbitrary granting of power, privilege, and immunity to rich, white, men. This is especially seen in the places where patriarchal rule is most entrenched, in the Catholic Church, in the Evangelical Christian church and other fundamentalist denominations where women are not allowed to have authority over a man, and now most especially in the all white men Republican Party. So no, for the time being, there is no credible claim made by a woman against a white man in power that I won't give a great deal of credence if not outright believe.
2
Just so.
Perhaps here and now it would be worthwhile to state that there are good reasons, that have nothing to do with political correctness, why it’s a good idea to generally have a diverse crew that “looks like America” at the head of our important institutions.
First, though this is a factual matter, I think relevant talents and skill sets are very probably more or less evenly distributed across races, ethnicities, religions, and genders. So you enlarge the talent pool for important positions when anyone who has the necessary character, talents, and skill sets has a legitimate chance at a position of responsibility.
Second, it’s important that we all think and feel that people generally are treated fairly and that we all have a stake in the success of our country, our localities, and our governing institutions.
Third, with a diversity of viewpoint one probably decreases the odds that groupthink will rule the day among decision markers.
There are probably other good reasons.
It’s troubling for reasons other than PC that a majority of the Supreme Court will consist of five men who belong to the same religion and that there are other relevant similarities as to race, class, or education to be found among several or all of them as the case may be.
2
Mr. Stephens makes some good points. Yes, political motivation can go too far. I'm wondering, did he comment on Merrick Garland's situation when it was happening?
6
The GOP Senators charged with the responsibility of thoroughly vetting a Supreme Court nominee actively obstructed a full and transparent hearing and evaluation of that nominee, creating a void of uncertainty.
Had they done their jobs, there would have been no space for these "Gawker Standards" to fill.
4
We would have had a full investigation and transparent process if Senator Feinstein had taken her charges seriously and not sat on it for eight weeks. Blame Feinstein, not Republicans.
1
No one knows or can predict what this era means for the future of our nation and society. One of the worst aspects of the current debate/battle is to increase even more the idea that we are split asunder, that we are divided into hateful sides that can never even talk sanely to each other, much less reconcile.
This from the column expresses the unfortunate attitudes of, I would guess, most people who feel engaged on this issue:
"Apply a presumption of guilt standard to the people you oppose, and a presumption of innocence standard to the people you favor."
Think about this. It is wrong to take such attitudes and its is doing violence to decency and our common acceptance of the presumption of good intentions by others. It is one more big, fateful step toward disaster, toward hating each other and getting ready for bigger, more dangerous fights.
To those who might celebrate that "men are finally getting what they deserve", we should keep in mind that we still have to live with one another when this current eruption subsides (I don't presume that it will end, only lessen in intensity). SOME MEN are truly getting what they deserve and many adjustments in attitudes, laws and enforcement are evidentially required. The question then becomes: what is next? How do we make necessary changes while keeping balance and cooperation as social and political goals? If we start with a blanket indictment of half of our society, this will not end well.
4
The revolution Stephens condemns is not new. It has been underway for a couple of decades now. Previous episodes include the treatment of Bill Clinton, and the country rightly decided that what he did was not at the level of high crimes and misdemeanors -- a decision that could have been reached years earlier except that Republicans were looking for a way, any way, to bring down the first Democratic president since St. Ronnie. They also include the treatment of Obama; McConnell's declaration that his primary goal was to make Obama a one-term president (rather than making sure the country continued its recovery from the 2008 meltdown) was treasonous and was repudiated by all patriotic Republicans. They put power above all, and so now they follow Trump.
Republican condemnation of deficits, running huge deficits when they were in power, and refusing to admit this or deal with it, is another example of behavior that destroys the conventions of politics and society needed by democracy to function. So is their behavior on global warming; at the very least, it might endanger our future, and the logical action would be to spend enough money on gathering data to find out how dangerous it was and what we could do to prepare for or avert it. Mr. Stephens is part of the problem here, and exhibits typical hypocrisy in condemning its results.
The Republican Party trashed democracy for decades in order to win at any cost, and thus prepared itself for Trump, their naked emperor.
2
"We need to get, as best as we can under imperfect circumstances, the truth of what happened between Kavanaugh and Blasey, two credible witnesses with stories to tell."
Those "imperfect circumstances" were the choice of the GOP, which controls the committee and the process. They got exactly what they wanted, as Stephens well knows but doesn't say.
1
I must ask: when the evidence shows that somewhere around 97% of all allegations of sexual assault and rape are true, why must we, the general public, be asked to automagically believe that every single accuser is part of the 3%?
I am very much in favor of a full and proper inquiry. If the GOP were giving a full and proper inquiry, I would be assured that justice was being served.
Given that the GOP has ruled out an FBI investigation, ruled out testimony from other accusers, and ruled out any inquiry lasting longer than a day, I cannot believe that justice is being served.
Well, except for a possible corrupt Associate Justice in a few weeks.
3
@Jacob Sommer
"Every single accuser is part of the 3%".
In this case, only Trump and his Republican "enablers" actually believe that.
1
@Jacob Sommer You are asked to automatically presume the accused is innocent because it is required by the Constitution.
1
@Grunt I’d be willing to do that if it was also done by Republicans.
The GOP, including Trump, have pre-judged. Their actions suggest that many Republicans in the Senate are moving ahead to vote Yea no matter what they hear from the accuser.
They do not presume innocence for others, though. I mean, “Lock Her Up!” comes to mind.
What you are predictably ignoring is that this change you bemoan is happening in the context of many women being sexually assaulted or raped, the vast majority of them not reporting it, many of those who do, not being believed and the vast majority of accused offenders against those who are, not being convicted. The man is more concerned that more men may be being falsely accused and wrongly condemned in the future. How surprising!
Forgive me for feeling that women - and the men who care for and respect them - might be more concerned to accentuate the positive, which is that less women will likely be sexually assaulted or raped, more will likely be believed when they report it, more men who sexually assault or rape will likely be convicted. Yes Bret, just like the past the future is a foreign country - a much safer one for women and perhaps a somewhat more dangerous one for men. Cry me a river (and I'm a man)!
2
The issue is Mr. Kavanaughs honesty. In the testimononies the evidence is there. Mrs. Ford has added to the claim that Mr. Kavanaugh is dishonest at the very least. We have the press & our political system developed to avoid a French Revolution aspect of our dynamic society. Just look at our last election, a perverted demagogue who is used to buying off or intimidating his opposition. He lied about his locker room antics ,denying his long reputation of thinking of women as livestock to be savored at Ruth's Chris. The same can be said of Mr. Kavanaugh. He & his friend ,Mr. Judge can be judged for their self developed reputations . They have until now,never corrected it,but have bragged of it. So as the saying goes about living & dying by the sword, so shall Brett, Trump, & Pence ,for dishonesty ,in the end , is the sword they will fall on. Just ask Mrs. Pence. She has probably found a reason to wear gloves . Hypocracy ? Yes,we are all but humans. But for as long as I can remember , the grand old party has been eating its children if it doesn't win. Just look at the embrace of Trump.
You Said: "Much to the good. Then again, it’s worth remembering that revolutions borne by high ideals have a habit of eating their children. If the price of this revolution is the subordination of ordinary fairness to abstract justice, the elevation of rumor over fact, the further debasement of journalism, the devaluation of the rights of the accused, and the complete toxification of public service, it will be a price too high."
This is a perfect description of the Trump Administration and the current Republican Party
2
The press reports that a woman has credibly accused a nominee to the Supreme Court of attempted rape.
This is not prejudging. Thus is not Gawker journalism. This is the press reporting the news. If the press did not report it, Senator Grassley and his gang of aiders and abettors would have ignored it and installed Kavanaugh on the court already without considering this evidence.
The press did its job here and it did it well. In a real sense, the only institution that still works in this country is the press.
4
Read Caitlin Flanagan's piece in the Atlantic in which she recounts an attempted sexual assault, which was immediately followed by remorse by the perpetrator. I think that if Kavanaugh had responded to this allegation with, "I have no memory of such an incident but I am horrified" we would be in a very different situation. It isn't just the accusation but his RESPONSE that has been so deeply offensive. He responds primly and categorically, with assertions that seem unlikely. He shows little compassion or empathy for the accuser. This is what we mean by character - not whether someone got drunk or high in high school. The man takes no responsibility of his actions but wants to sit in the highest court in our land, passing judgment on all of us. This is the problem, not whether he drank in high school, or honestly, not even that he likely traumatized the accused. He takes no responsibility for any of his own actions and throws her under the bus. That is the problem. His attitude now is repugnant. Time to grow up Mr. Kavanaugh. If this was 1962, I might say, "Man up."
1
"Will every future Supreme Court or cabinet nominee, Republican or Democratic, be expected to account, in minute and excruciating detail, for his behavior and reputation as a teenager? "
If they are credibly being accused of an incident of assault, you betcha! The fact that Kavanaugh has risen to the position he has without this behavior being uncovered - not just the denied sexual assault - but the 'mean drunk' behaviors.
Boys will be boys...They just shouldn't expect to gain positions in our federal judiciary. The fact that it isn't an instant disqualifer is another form of unearned privilege, isn't it?
1
Would you still say this if Kavanaugh was accused of chasing down black men with intent to beat them with a baseball bat? In one case he tripped the man and got in a swing before the man escaped, in another he just tapped the man and laughed, in a third (less corroborated) he actually beat the man or was with people who did while they did it. His friends from the time say they don't know for sure if he did any of it, but it's consonant with who he was and wouldn't surprise them.
Would the excuse that he was drinking excuse Kavanaugh? If the victims were drunk does it change anything? Would we make excuses that he was young, that it doesn't matter now, even though that same hostility toward the minority exists clearly in his jurisprudence? Or is it because all the alleged victims are women that we pretend sexual assault and attempted rape aren't serious, disqualifying charges?
3
Oh Bret how you have fallen so far with your "antics";Too bad your fellow Kavanaugh bro was not rich enough to join the Skull and Bones frat, that would have covered all sins then as they are so secretive. Which is the actual point, so their brothers can ascend to high positions.
If telling the truth is eating your children, we are in deep trouble. This country can well survive such puerile antics.
2
The tactic of discrediting the accusation by discrediting the accuser is not restricted to this administration or to Republicans alone. James Carville's characterization of Paula Jones after she made her charges against President Clinton (You can find anything if you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park) read like something I'd expect from Senator Lindsey Graham. The problem extends beyond any one party or persuasion. The problem is our culture.
3
Excellent article, Mr. Stephens. It will not be forgotten that the NYT has been the standard bearer in this transformation, or implosion of standards for both journalism and judgement in the court of public opinion.
At no point, in any article published by the NYT on this topic, except for your and Ross Douthat’s opinion pieces, have I seen any concern whatsoever for the possibility that Judge Kavanaugh might be innocent, and he might be the victim of character assassination. Apparently, the “moral revolution” requires blood. As someone who has lived under communism and is familiar with “guilt by allegation”, I can recognize it as what it is - moral involution.
73
@Gimme A. Break Here is another example:
"It would also be unfair if Judge Kavanaugh is innocent of such abuse, if he is a thoroughly honest and decent man, and yet is ultimately denied a seat on the Supreme Court because of the allegations against him."
This is from a NYT editorial, "Brett Kavanaugh, America Needs Answers Today," by the Editorial Board.
The Times is a standard bearer for fairness and civility in journalism. I respectfully suggest that you remove your blinders and read it more often.
@Gimme A. Break
Where is the FBI investigation? Where are 90% of relevent Kavanough documents?
Blocking information is automatically putting Kavanough under suspicion.
1
@Gimme A. Break, it sounds like you would never consider any testimony or any witness to be credible against Kavanaugh. Is there anything or anyone who said anything damaging to him that you would ever believe? Or are you so biased by your conservative views that you will defend him regardless of multiple witnesses testifying to his reprehensible behaviour towards women? What are the women that came out against him gaining, if not death threats, pain, stress, and damage? Why are you more concerned about the damage to his reputation than about the cost that the women who are coming out are paying in the name of truth and of holding up the reputation of the Supreme Court? The bias is yours first and foremost.
Really. It's the "inquest" that's destroying our civic culture. Good one. Your columns are funnier and funnier but, thankfully, still short as an undergrad's essay.
“Yes” the media is being asked to drill holes into the sea worthiness of their own profession. There are too many ignored issues of far greater importance that are being ignored by the media altogether, while we are being played with the trivial pursuits of the, did you have sex with that woman kind. Of course he did, so let the lawmakers decide for themselves if he is still fit to serve the public. Do we really need to know when the judge lost his virginity. Better yet, let the judges on the supreme court make the final decision, and then get to the real business you have been entrusted to carry out.
I hate to say this but you just don't get it.
What this frenzied inquest is about is that women know the truth and the Truth: this is the behavior of far too many men.
I hate to say this, too, but since you're a guy, you refuse to see the truth.
Always have to muck it up, sir, with this exception, or that consideration.
Just listen to women, please.
2
Republicans should talk to their daughters. You don’t even know what might have happened to them at frat parties. Oh but Republicans will explain to their daughters “Boys will be boys. “
1
So in short, you're "one of the boys" and have done the same thing. Well then I guess it's a good thing you didn't choose politics, isn't it.
4
Toxification of public service began seriously in the USA with Trump.
3
Substitute "Trump" for "Kavanaugh" and you're basically reading Stephen's argument for why it's OK for lying misogynists to have power.
Do you have children, Mr Stephens? Do you tell them Kavanaugh's "antics" (sic, they're CRIMES) don't matter to you, but that *he's* the victim of some awful culture of bad journalism? Do you think that of Trump as well? Bill Clinton? Roy Moore?
Unbelievable.
2
Because Trump, Donald.
1
Antics?
6
I believe Blasey-Ford's allegations, am skeptical of Ms. Ramirez's and find the rest just absurd piling on: "He was one of those elite, silver spoon preppies we never liked back then! He drank a lot! And worst of all, he was a horny 17 year old male who saw girls as sex objects!"
I don't know if these allegations, true or not, are even relevant to his nomination. (I don't like him for the Court for all the boring reasons, like that he'd rule too much for corporations.)
Today I heard Dianne Feinstein, my senator and a person I respect, decry the fact that "institutions have not caught up" with sexual harassment and other sexual misconduct in as much as that dealing with allegations requires the victim (almost always a female) to testify and "relive" the traumatic experience.
She's right. But is she then calling for the end of due process for men who are accused of these things?
"Burn the witch!" ends up with everyone getting singed.
2
The nomination and approval process for life-time judicial appointments has become increasingly weaponized. This is not a new issue - and it is an issue for both parties.
Until recently, all life-time judicial nominations were held to a 60 vote minimum. In the era of President George W. Bush, the president worked with democrats, agreeing not to move certain justices forward in return for approval of less controversial justices such as Justice Roberts and Alito.
However, during President Obama's tenure, the Republicans did not negotiate with the president and stopped moving candidates forward for any appointment. This resulted in the democrats voting to drop the filibuster for all but Supreme Court Justices. Ultimately, Senator McConnell refused to act on the nomination of Justice Garland for over one year, then revoked the filibuster of potential nominees to the Supreme Court resulting in the appointment of Justice Gorsuch.
What we can now expect is that unless one party controls both the White House AND the Senate, that there will be no new judicial appointments. This is a definition of insanity and a sign of a complete breakdown of our political process.
If any grownups were in the room, parties would start discussing all candidates for life-time appointments. There are countless highly qualified and moderate justices that could serve the entire American public's interest and improve our confidence in the impartiality of the highest court.
"Will every future Supreme Court or cabinet nominee, Republican or Democratic, be expected to account, in minute and excruciating detail, for his behavior and reputation as a teenager? "
Not if we appoint women.
4
What a surprise that Stephens is trying to cast doubt on the accusations against Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh is a longtime member of the Republican legal establishment, exactly the sort of person Stephens would pick for the Court if he were making the appointment. That's something to remember when reading what Stephens has to say.
What Stephens does NOT say is that in the earlier era that Stephens obviously views with nostalgia, Ford's accusations would not even be listened to, let alone given a chance of derailing the nomination. Why? Because even the "liberal" corporate media were reluctant to air such accusations no matter how much evidence existed to support them. What the corporate media report is what the people (men) who run it (like Stephens) think is important, not necessarily what most Americans consider important. The rise of social media has destroyed the stranglehold corporate media used to have on what the public saw and heard about our leaders. That means our leaders may have to deal with accusations and rumors that reach the public but are not as thoroughly vetted as would be done by the New York Times before publishing them. It also means that our leaders now have a much harder time burying unfavorable stories that are in fact true. To my mind, that's a good thing.
1
Well I may be white, which clearly has helped me in my life, but I came from the socioeconomic strata known as poor. Poor White Trash. I used classic means to rise out of it but along the way I saw these upper crust brutes at every step. These guys exist. There seems to be this denial of their even existence which baffles me no end. Who didn't see these guys? I have been bullied by these guys as recently as a few years ago in my own neighborhood near DC. I'm pleased to see this comeuppance. I think the expectation that this kind of guy will rise to power is disgusting. No more!
4
I stopped reading at the word “antics”. It’s s word of someone writing a parody of the ways that an assault can be minimized by word choice. Even the usual weasel word of “indiscretions” carried more opprobrium than “antics”. What’s next, “hijinks”?
Doubtless someone can make a case for the need for a more rigorous approach , but that approach isn’t brushing off sexual assault.
8
@Yeah
And I stopped taking this commentary seriously at the word "antics".
3
Can you really blame people for doubting the word of a Republican? They would be pretty naive at this point to believe anything that Trump, McConnel, Nunes, Pence, Graham or any of the other lying liars use against the people they have sworn to serve and protect. I personally believe that it is a waste of time to require a Republican to swear to anything.
5
Somehow you forgot to mention the irrefutable "Renate Alumnius" comment in his yearbook, which kind of speaks for itself, don't you think?
The Supreme Court is the de facto guardian of our national morality, as expressed explicitly and implicitly in our laws.
No man who, in his youth, together with his friends, publicly mocked the young girl they claimed to have bedded, should be a Supreme Court Justice. Further, this yearbook post, which stands untouched by time or ambiguity, adds force to the other, more uncertain allegations about this man.
5
I am a trial lawyer with over forty years experience. Mr. Stephens and his Republican brethren continue to refer to the charges against Mr. Kavanaugh as unfounded "rumors." Sworn testimony is NOT "rumors." We now have both Dr. Ford's sworn testimony and Ms. Swetnick's sworn declaration. These women are submitting their evidence under penalty of perjury. That is evidence, not "rumor."
10
Bret Stephens writes the occasional sensible column. He's seemingly on his best behavior with his shared back and forth columns with Gail Collins. Then he bounces back true to form with columns like this, and his prior one about Kavanaugh from September 21st.
He's a partisan hack hewing true to his reputation as a "conservative" columnist from the Wall Street Journal. Surely the NYT can do better if they want to represent the rational viewpoints from those right of center. Or maybe they can't?
Maybe, at long last, the Republicans have (again) lost all sense of decency? Maybe the women should be on the stand with McCarthy hurling accusations at them? Maybe these women are all part of a communist cabal?
Decency. Like family values, patriotism, and a host of other tossed about clichés which seem to be on the endangered species list when it comes to the GOP.
2
You have completely missed the point. It isn't the drinking, or the other questionable accusations that have surfaced that threaten Mr. Kavanaugh: It's the allegation of sexual assault by one extremely credible person that threatens Mr. Kavanaugh's nomination, although his drinking behavior lends further credibility to the allegation. Thanks for helping to further the stereotype that we white males will not yield our dominance by writing this ridiculous opinion piece. Only the blind believe that what is happening now is a step backwards for the nation.
3
It is indeed sad that it had to come to this, but SCOTUS nomination wars and the lack of reason was started by Mitch McConnell in early 2016, when he blocked the nomination of Merrick Garland. According to that mentality, the American people elect a President for three years, not four, because important decisions of the fourth year is differed to the next President. Just because McConnell said so!!
3
If there was ever a movement that eats its young its is the GOP/Trump/Tea Party movement. The #MeToo crowd is not an organized political party that controls the actual levers of power.
Mr. Stephens, have you actually looked the Republican primaries. We have gone from Reaganites to full-on nutjobs. GOP primaries are geared to rooting out anyone with the slightest hint of reason. When John McCain was not conservative enough, you would think you have a problem.
#MeToo may burn itself out. But the current GOP is a the Jacobin Party of 2018. And unlike #MeToo, the GOP is an actual political party and it is actually in power.
4
You are parsing and marginalizing the substance of what is happening here. Republicans are opposed to investigation. You say in light of there having been no investigation it is OK to proceed without benefit of an inquiry into statements which are credible. The character of the nominee is in question. That's a critical consideration for the post he's nominated for. It requires a substantive determination, not a Republican bum-rush flinging him willy-nilly into the Supreme court of the United States
3
@Bob
"Daylight is the best disinfectant." We definitely need an FBI investigation, but I understand that there's no statute of limitations on sexual assault in Maryland, so that might be a contributiong factor.
While we're at it, can we please look at whether John Roberts maintains offshore bank accounts? And look into why Thomas conveniently 'forgot' his wife's income from the Koch brothers, and neglected to recuse himself? Enough is enough.
1
First, were the allegations and actual accusations made against someone other than a high-status white male instead of Judge Kavanaugh, would the outcry be the same? Would Judge Kavanaugh’s supporters decry how these unfounded allegations were destroying a man’s career and future? Would the accusers be pilloried in the press? I doubt it.
Second, moral character and internalized integrity are formed in early childhood. In the Roman Catholic tradition, that is by age seven. By all accounts and his own limited self-disclosure, Judge Kavanaugh fails that measure required for confirmation of his nomination.
Third, we are expected to solely take Judge Kavanaugh at his word; I wonder what Justice Thomas thinks of that. He, at least, had some form of FBI follow up on Professor Hill’s allegation, however rushed.
Finally, no one is entitled to appointment to the Supreme Court.
I do not believe Judge Kavanaugh should be ruined over this confirmation process.
Having said that, it is possible he could have perjured himself, and if so his professional life may be over.
In the rush to confirm, the republicans and the president thought they would slam dunk the process, and in the end have done Judge Kavanaugh a disservice by not bringing in Mark Judge, which may have either scared Kavanaugh straight or corroborated his denial.
3
"We need to get, as best as we can under imperfect circumstances, the truth of what happened between Kavanaugh and Blasey, two credible witnesses with stories to tell.
But this is not what the Kavanaugh nomination seems to be about anymore."
Bret, I think you have it backwards...BECAUSE there's no investigation to get to the truth, no subpoena of Judge, this not just about a nomination.
GOP obstruction of Obama from day 1, shutdown of the legislative process by Republicans, and finally stealing Garland's seat by not even having a committee vote, and now flipping the other way and jamming through their nominee.
There is one single cause of the trend you fret about....the Republican party's scorched-earth loss of dignity.
4
The Kavanagh situation is an outgrowth of the Republican's failure to uphold democracy, beginning with the illegitimate elevation of Bush to the presidency, the lies that supported going to war in Iraq led by the diagnosable sociopath Cheney, then failure to compromise with the actually democratically elected President Obama, then the elevation through Russian influence of a full-blown sociopathic narcissist, ramming through all manner of changes and disorder that most of us find appalling, while setting up a tax cut that irresponsibly leads us to trillions in deficit for our children to inherit. So given these unprincipled power grabs and abuse of the power thus grabbed, you end up with a hyper politicized effort to stop, through destruction, another hyper politicized, undemocratically established appointment. The roots are owned by the Republicans, and the worry is how hard it will be to return not just to civility, Mr. Stephens, but to democracy.
2
Mr. Stephens states:
"Much to the good. Then again, it’s worth remembering that revolutions borne by high ideals have a habit of eating their children. "
He got that right. The Tea Party Revolution is now in the process of eating its own children." The President of the United States and the elder Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are destroying the Republican Party.
3
Isn't it true that alcohol consumption affects brain function? Mr. K is blatantly unfit for the Supreme Court of the US, except that he is the perfect candidate for the continuation of patriarchy in our society. Women's bodies do not belong to the state, and therefore noone has the right to invade women's privacy and tell her what she can and cannot do!
3
Brett, the fact that every witness Ms. Ford has named has refuted her allegations makes her the exact opposite of "credible"
2
Mike Judge, the other man in the room, says he doesn’t recall but refuses to testify under oath. Moreover the Republicans won’t subpoena him.
But it doesn’t take much for a woman’s sworn testimony to be “refuted” in some circles, does it.
3
@I want another optionD
Didn't 'refute'. All three say they don't remember a rather unremarkable gathering (for them) that occurred many years ago.
2
@Comp: no -- they specifically say that no such party (with only 5 people -- two 15 year old girls and three 17 year old boys) -- ever happened.
I agree with much of what is written here. Tuning into the hearings this morning all I could see were the photographers trying to get the ultimate shot. I agree that this incidence has been turned into a circus by many reporters. However, I disagree about what this says about the future of Supreme Court nominees and I sincerely hope you are wrong, Bret. What I ask is not if they are "pure" or did they drink or do silly things in high school or college, but I ask that they tell the truth about themselves-up front. How can they judge others if they deny their past? Simple.
2
Mr Stephens wrote "Will every future Supreme Court or cabinet nominee, Republican or Democratic, be expected to account, in minute and excruciating detail, for his behavior and reputation as a teenager?" I say Yes if the nominee is accused of sexual assault and if we are genuinely concern about women's dignity, safety and take serious enough the solemness of the Supreme Court and the elected public offices.
8
Finally a voice of reason. Rather than bolster Dr. Ford's allegations, the flimsy and uncorroborated accusations of others makes the whole idea of a liberal conspiracy to smear a nominee that they deplore seem more plausible. I am not sure if a 17 year old's bad behavior should be held against them 30 plus years after the conduct occurred. I do know it would be barred by the Statute of Limitations in most States. As it should be because there is no fairness in having to answer allegations that happened more than half a lifetime ago. Also, must we have endless open ended investigations about every perceived wrong that someone with an agenda digs up. I thought it was ridiculous when Ken Star's investigation found no wrongdoing with respect to Whitewater, but ended up trying to impeach President Clinton when the investigation veered into his sexual relationship with an intern. I am still waiting to Mueller to finish his investigation but will not hold my breath. We talk endlessly about perceived wrongdoing of those we disagree with. Meanwhile, we have a 21 Trillion Dollar deficit that is a real scandal and no one is discussing it.
2
@George
Yes, 'boys will be boys'. Only now if you ruin someone's life by sexually assaulting them, it may come back to bite you.
Merrick Garland didn’t have to worry about this type of treatment. This stuff happens when the nominee is not worthy of SCOTUS status, and the FBI is kept from investigating these allegations. You reap what you sow.
4
Bret S. asks who would want to endure what Brett K. goes through. "Would you?"
Sir, I'm a male in my 50s. I consider that an insult. I've gone to college and worked with women. I've never assaulted anyone, and I'm no saint, nor shameless.
I think I speak for many men: you don't have to be perfect to be decent. Perhaps Bret S. shares too much with Brett K. Both went to elite prep schools, where abuse may be common. Both went to elite universities, where wealthy kids get special privilege (and pretend otherwise).
I'll leave for others the author's insinuation that Democrats aren't interested in truth, only wanting to scuttle Brett K's nomination. Everyone would like the truth, but Republicans are afraid of it.
Brett K. is not a great nomination. He's much too political, Starr's attack dog, GW Bush's guard dog. Trump will pick a conservative, but he picked a loser. That's not Democrats fault.
4
Mr. Stephen's would have a better case if Judge Cavanaugh did not meanwhile have a record of prevarication and concealment quite aside his alleged mis- if not criminal behavior as a young man.
2
Let's be candid - Kavanaugh's alleged exploits exceed the level of “moral stain” by a mile. We're not talking about a youthful attempt to get past second base on a date in the back seat of Dad's car. What forms the basis for Cavanaugh's "ordeal" are allegations of repeated sexual assault. From several women who are themselves going through more of an “ordeal” that Kavanaugh ever will.
I don’t recall Kavanaugh having to move from his home because of death threats, or having his mental state or honesty questioned. Who’s suffering through the “ordeal” on this one? Not Kavanaugh.
2
You know what Mr. Stephens, throw out the claims of all of these women. I don't care.
In a just world, a man who machinated to force a 17 year old immigrant girl to have a child she didn't want would be manifestly unfit for the SCOTUS.
In a just world a man who thinks the President of the United States is above the law would be unfit.
And lets take a moment to look at the 250K dollars in credit card debt that just "disappeared" in a puff of smoke after sitting for years. How does something like that happen?
You want to toss out testimony, ok. But I want his fitness examined for real and not in a kangaroo court full of old right white men who are invested in keeping themselves and their ilk in power.
You are correct. In a functioning political system this man would have never been raised in the first place.
7
Revolution? Ha, tell me another one. Haven't you heard? Revolutions aren't televised. What's on TV right now is a circus. And morality? That ship set sail long ago, if it ever made port here at all.
1
The real issue that Mr. Stephens' piece raises is why the New York Times features Mr. Stephens on its editorial page. We live in a time when Republican party partisans, like Mr. Stephens, are notable for their lack of objectivity and credibility. They are in favor of one thing: The rich should continue to get richer; the interests of everyone else don't count. Please get rid of this guy. If we want to read him (or his ilk), we can go to the Weekly Standard.
Mr. Stephens is railing against the toxicity of the trump era. It took trump's brazen admission of sexual assault and his elevation to supreme commander to tick off enough women to start pro-actively seeking justice for the crimes committed by powerful men. It took trump fouling our institutions with crooks and dilettantes to get progressives in the streets and at the ballot boxes to resist the spreading stain on our nation's soul.
Whatever Mr. Stephens fears is coming, is already here, thanks to him and his party's greed over good ideology.
151
Nonsense. Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork were similarly pilloried. This is about abortion, plain and simple. IIn the unlikely event you want to criticize Trump fairly, you can do so for an injusicious nomination of the allegations turn out to be true.
People need to be responsible for their actions, even when a teenager. If this is too much , then don't aspire to be a Supreme Court justice. His yearbook shows who he really is, and he should drop out of this position. She was a credible witness and the committee of senators should have the two other women speak and also supena Mark judge as the other offender. Then we could say that this wasn't a fair hearing.
1
Mr. Stephens almost makes the link that he should really be featuring here, which is that a rush to confirm without adequate time for investigation produces a decline in journalistic standards, and a reliance on emotion and "belief" in the judgements of individuals and groups on all sides. The choice made by the Senate Republicans to press forward without adequate time for consideration is the fundamental problem which has left all of us relying on our native biases to a high degree. Distraught individuals on all sides should be clear about where to focus their ire.
Rushing a decision in order to disallow the development of organized resistance is hardly a new tactic in human endeavors. Senate Republicans chose to move quickly rather than thoughtfully with full knowledge of the possible consequences.
2
The present right, and what's left of the old somewhat-sane right, was all too happy to not even consider the previous administration's Supreme Court choice. The left didn't start this race-to-the-bottom -- politics as blood-sport.
Now, the left has no choice remaining but to join in. It has indeed come to this. We Americans all lose, but at least some of us are well aware of who started it.
4
What about accountability and taking responsibility for one’s actions? Cause and effect catches up eventually irrespective of the morality of the action. Surely as a judge, this would have crossed his mind?
2
Strange how Mr Stephens has no problem at all with the actions of the GOP to withhold thousands of pages of documents that could attest to the whether Judge Kavanaugh has been truthful - or has perjured himself in prior confirmation hearings. Nor does he have any problem with the GOP failing to call other witnesses who could corroborate or refute testimony, or the failure of the GOP leadership to have the FBI investigate allegations.
Sorry Mr Stephens, you don't have the moral high ground. This confirmation process has been a sham all along. The right wing has politicized the Supreme court and sown the seeds of destruction of hte Republic.
6
Great to see a balanced piece on this. It is striking how polarized commentary is. Either all for or all against. By definition this a nuanced, complex issue not close to the level of certainty of people's opinions. What does that tell you? That this is really not about the actual issue at hand? That the vagueness of the evidence let's people see what they want to see?
2
Mr. Stephens is treating the Kavanaugh episode as America's "crossing the Rubicon" moment. It's not. America crossed its Rubicon a while ago by embracing Donald Trump's reality-TV world of endless, non-stop lies and insults. The Kavanaugh fiasco is what America looks like on the OTHER side, where we now stand. The country made its decision, and unless we reverse that decision -- powerfully, through protest and in voting booths -- we can expect a LOT more of this kind of ugliness.
5
Years ago I worked with a woman who no one at the company cared for. One of the other employees, Suzy, knew her in college and when we asked her what she was like then her response was "I won't say anything because I know I did things in college that I wouldn't want to have repeated." I followed and believe this for decades and would say that it should apply here except that I don't think that Suzy ever sexually assaulted anyone.
It is not too much to ask that we should be pretty sure that anyone appointed to the supreme court did not commit sexual assault. An investigation could have helped. I am not going to say I am sure he did this, but there are so many parts of her story and testimony that are so credible that I cannot believe any person can claim they are pretty sure he is innocent of this. This isn't a criminal trial, nobody is asking if he should be put in prison or have his civil liberties limited. Nobody has the "right" to be on the supreme court unless it can be proven they are a sexual predator. Everything else you wrote here misses this fundamental reasonable idea.
4
This hearing is a circus. It is beneath us all. We are seeing a candidate for the supreme court sifting through the cinders of ambiguous events that happened thirty-five years ago. And if that were the end of the story, I might be outraged. However, we must all remember that once upon a time Brett Kavanaugh was instrumental in turning Clinton's Whitewater boondoggle into the lascivious and endlessly detailed pornographic soap opera that we all remember. Kavanaugh fully supported airing out every single, little bit of Clinton's dirty laundry. I say we should afford Kavanaugh the very same consideration.
9
Blame it ALL on McConnell.
ALL of this "incivility".
4
Mr. Stephens true feelings are shown in paragraph 2 – he does not believe a party boy with the right connections and a good pedigree should be held to account for his actions in high school and college. Does he extend the same largesse to minority youth in inner city schools without the connections and pedigree of Judge Kavanaugh?
Perhaps Mr. Stephens should have bemoaned the “Gawker-ification” of journalism when WSJ, CNN, FOX, etc. gave Donald Trump a megaphone to spout his unsubstantiated nonsense, letting his lies and innuendos fill countless hours of airtime and pages of print in 2015 without nary a concern for rebutting blatant falsehoods and vile gossip regarding his opponent and the opposition party.
Republicans are reaping what they sowed – they just did not expect the lurid gaze of all media to descend on one of them.
8
Time’s forward progress has returned us to a place of enhanced reason and expression at the personal level, a revolution that is proving itself capable of consuming all who would be the despoilers of man. A stopped right in their tracks phenomena, illuminating every place of his trespass, in a protracted process that is just getting started.
2
If this horror show means that only women will make it onto the Supreme Court for the next 200 years - I'm OK with that.
4
When we only elect an elite male type to our highest "public servant" roles, yes, it is time we look at who they are in terms of the rest of us. Good men are not bothered by this. And as far as debasing journalism goes, that is not the fault of women who have been abused. Get over yourself and your profession.
5
Mr. Stephens, the hypocrisy is stunning.
I have neighbors who still believe the Clintons had Vince Foster murdered.
I have neighbors who still believe Obama is a Muslim and was born in Kenya.
6
Is there any damaging allegation against Kavanaugh, of any nature and from any source, which the left would not automatically believe?
YES.
And it is important to note that the degradation of political discourse (Will every future Supreme Court or cabinet nominee, Republican or Democratic, be expected to account, in minute and excruciating detail, for his behavior and reputation as a teenager) started long before Kavanaugh. We have observed the rise of "alternative" facts ever since Reagan was elevated by Republicans to the highest office in the land.
We are well into the "complete toxification of public service" by those who use "government" as a wedge issue. Indeed Karl Roves' enthusiastic embrace of wedge issues is now a staple of Republican political strategy.
I applaud Mr. Steven's belated concern and wonder at why it has taken him so long to notice.
2
Mr. Stephens is right. Not in every particular, perhaps, but in essence.
The Resistance, the "Me, Too" movement, ignores his column at our peril.
We see the horrific damage that the fighters for the far right's corrupted cause to remake America into their own image do every day - from their "alternative facts" to the children they take from their parents and lock up in jails.
Whatever decent, honest, principled ends the right might once have had have been irretrievably corrupted by their deceptive, bigoted, unscrupulous tactics.
We have an incredible opportunity to change a "boys will be boys" culture that has been oppressing women and damaging men throughout history.
Shall we ruin it all by becoming the thing that we are fighting against?
By losing our moral compass and sowing injustice where we meant to help justice flourish?
If we do, we will betray ourselves, our cause, and every person we could have empowered.
And we will make life worse for the very people we care so much about helping.
1
Is there any allegation against B Kavanaugh the left won't believe? Well, when you refuse to investigate credible allegations and hide 90% of the guy's paperwork, all you're left with is your instinct. And my instinct is that when people behave as if they're trying to hide something, treat them as if they've got something to hide.
15
If one woman said that she was sexually assaulted and no one saw it, it is uncorroborated. If a second woman says that she was sexually assaulted at a different time an no one saw it, that is also uncorroborated. If a third woman, etc. Each of those accusations would be difficult to prosecute in a court of law and leave a reasonable doubt.
However, a Senate hearing is not a court of law and the issue is not whether Kavanaugh assaulted this woman or that but if he had been a sexual predator. If that is the case, then there are multiple witnesses.
The Senate hearing does not put Kavanaugh in jeopardy of losing his freedom but of losing a future lifetime position which should engender a high level of respect.
6
“Apply a presumption of guilt standard to the people you oppose, and a presumption of innocence standard to the people you favor.”
From the President to the GOP judiciary members, this has been on full display. At first, they wanted a “he said, she said” hearing to summarily dismiss Dr. Ford as “mixed up” or “messed up”, then an immediate vote to confirm. The GOP, fearing a blue wave in November, wanted a trophy judge who would be their lasting legacy. Trump would have his “get out of jail free” judge, and corporate GOP donors could anticipate easier hegemony over the environment, worker rights, affordable healthcare, etc. etc.etc. The accusations involved here are not just being tipsy at an innocent party.....it’s attempted rape. Honorable men and women would call for an FBI investigation, but not the GOP. For them, and now glaringly for evangelicals, the ends justify just about any means.
5
The revolution that is eating its children is the revolution on the right. For years they have been building their power base boosted and buttressed by Murdoch and the rest of the right wing media here in the UK and in the US.
Now they are in power we can see them in their true colours. Vicious, self-righteous, horribly entitled, bigoted, old white men. On the back of rabid anti-immigrant hysteria they have stitched up the working classes, and have awarded themselves massive tax cuts both in hard cash and in deregulation. In the US you have a clear opportunity to hit back, much more clear than the sorry mess here in the UK
4
Four women who are not remotely connected to each other have now come forward with facts that sound alarmingly similar of a binge-drinking angry male who is sexually aggressive with women.
At what point do you acknowledge this fact and admit that there is more than small chance that Kavanaugh is guilty of the things that these women are saying?
And at what point do you quit defending the republican good-old-boys party?
You are making yourself look biased and untrustworthy, sir.
6
"Now it’s turned into an exhumation of his antics — real, alleged, rumored or merely insinuated — as a high school and college student."
Antics?
Attempted rape is not something reasonably characterized as "antics."
11
A person who has done nothing wrong should insist on an investigation to remove any taint, any trace of doubt. The unwillingness to insist on an investigation suggests that there are more women who were too afraid to come forward. Going on Fox News does nothing to advance our knowledge of the facts. Just the opposite.
People will disagree on what constitutes immaturity, horseplay or assault. But lying, saying what happened did not happen, now that's a disqualifier. Not for president, but for the supreme court.
5
Brett, there have been, in the last few years, examples of entitled men elevated to positions way above their ability and moral qualifications. There are many of us that put ourselves through college that didn't act like immature punks and would have no trouble with this kind of scrutiny. Having struggled with simply getting on base we never had the sense of invulnerability that comes with being born on third base and didn't really have the time to be a punk. There are plenty of good people that could be appointed to the Supreme Court that apparently are invisible to the Federalist Society.
9
Indeed, I agree that it is too bad the Republican-led counsel will so obviously neglect their jobs that reporters have to pore over Kavanaugh's yearbook and calendar for them, which you seem to imply is some sort of violation. You are oddly indignant about it. I'd like to remind you that Brett Kavanaugh is not "innocent until proven guilty" (your words) because he is not actually being tried for assaulting women, is he? None of these women are pressing charges. He is simply being evaluated for appointment to the Supreme Court. There is no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty" when you are not actually going to be convicted of anything, therefore that phrase does not apply to him, or this situation, and it is a mark of your personal bias and what I believe to be a carefully concealed deep lack of concern for the integrity and welfare of the American people, and the sovereignty of American woman on your part. You aim to mislead us by using that phrase, and you do it badly. You finish your columns by professing to withhold judgment, but really you mean that a man's fitness for the Supreme Court shouldn't take into account how he has treated women, half of the population, in his life as a young or old man. And that, Bret Stephens, is disgusting.
1
Would be great if Stephens could have a Times conversation with Jill Abramson, former executive editor of the Times, and author, with Jane Mayer, of “Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas.”
Her op ed today: "This Hearing Is Stacked Against Christine Blasey Ford.
It is almost unthinkable that there will be a second Supreme Court justice taking his seat under suspicions of perjury and sexual misconduct."
6
Mitch McConnell warned Trump not to nominate Kavanaugh because of his massive paper trail almost certainly revealing that Kavanaugh committed perjury with respect to his role in the GW Bush priaoner torture program. Kavanaugh also claimed to Sen. Collins that Roe v. Wades was "settled law" but he is on record stating that the Supreme Court can do what ever it chooses in this matter. Kavananaugh has revealed that he is not a person who can be taken at his word and his lends enormous credibility to his accusers.
This latest episode in Republican abuse of power is not about teenage drunkeness and "misbehavior" it is about the defiling of our well-established political practices under a one-party Republican dictatorship headed by an ignorant egomaniac Donald Trump - a person who humiliates the United States before the entire world.
The Kavanaugh debacle is but a symptom and is just part and parcel of the decay of our democracy that can only be saved by a massive voter revolt against the long list of offenses to America committed by what is called the GOP.
7
Mr Stephens you should be ashamed of yourself for referring to sexual assault as an "antic." Would you call it an antic if your daughter, sister, wife, etc. came home one day and told you that such an incident had happened to her? I used to respect your opinions but this attitude disgusts me.
4
@CD, Good thing you found out.
To the minority of the country Bret, this is about the use of raw political power to jam through a nominee to the USSC to keep their grips on power in a changing America. The Mitch McConnell's and Brett Kavanaugh's of the world, will use any means necessary to achieve power. Constitution be damned.
4
What impressive distortion, Bret Stephens. Such creative rationalizations. 'Reparations for unequal treatment---subordination of ordinary fairness'.
The NYTimes has to have columnists who support the radical right wing GOP. After all, this party dominates our 3 branches and most states.
The Times wants to show the range of views, no matter how far out into the Twilight Zone. That way, the Times refutes the accusations by Trump/Fox News that's it's a 'left wing' paper.
This is how the rw affects all media.
We get it.
4
Bret, I guess this was all part of the "background" McConnell was concerned about "coming out" when 45 first nominating Kav as a candidate.
Two thoughts: Maybe Mitch should have done the right thing on the Garland nomination and maybe this is just the beginning of their end and when he was worried over this nomination, he was right to be concerned.
Glad to see him suffer, Karma scores!
4
Antics! That is a most unfortunate and reductive choice of words, Mr. Stephens. I agree with the risks you raise in your last paragraph--the subordination of ordinary fairness to abstract justice is certainly too high a price to pay. But it is difficult to get past your second paragraph. "an exhumation of his [Kavanaugh's] antics" indeed! Surely the charges raised by Ms. Blasey Ford rise above the level of 'antics.'
6
Um, Bret, "fitness as a man" is an essential part of “qualifications as a judge.”
Sorry, didn’t mean to wake you up.
13
A prime example of mansplaining, and an especially sanctimonious one at that. It is easier for me to believe that the professor is telling the truth than it must have been for Stephens's friends to believe that President Obama was born in Kenya, but never mind.
7
Mitch Mcconnell’s political stonewalling of Merrick Garland signalled that total war was the Republican path forward with respect to supreme court appointments. You reap what you sow. If it takes the destruction of this nominee for “the left” to prevail, so be it. The Republicans deserve the lion’s share of the responsibility for our current toxic political climate. Mr. Stephens, for all his erudition, has a (willful?) blind spot here.
9
ANTICS? What an odd word for an attempted rape that was foiled because the victim was wearing a one-piece bathing suit and the assailant was drunk.
Kavanaugh is not on trial, though perhaps he should be. He is being vetted for a job. That job has enormous impact on women's rights and minority rights in our culture, The four incidents that have come to light are entirely believable, and they are a measure of Kavanaugh's character. Kavanaugh is unfit for the Supreme Court.
8
"or was a member of a rowdy fraternity,"
Mr. Stephens, either you are naive or choose to ignore the vile and odious behavior of fraternity culture. While not all fraternity members are sexual assailants the prevalent culture at fraternity parties allows that behavior to thrive. For the second time in two years my daughter has had a close friend assaulted (raped) by a fraternity member. While fraternities boast of their networking opportunities for future professionals my daughter's and her friends' experiences have been exposure to drunken debauchery. It's time to seriously consider their true current "value."
3
I would encourage Republicans like Brett to remember Gorusch...or Roberts, or Scalia, or virtually all other male Supreme Court nominees. You would get more sympathy from me if this kind of thing came up more often than just one appointee every 25 years. The only reason we are here is because of Kavanaugh. A normal appointee from a normal Republican Congress and a normal president wouldn’t have these kinds of skeletons or accusations.
If you are really worried about this, then call the left’s bluff. Pick someone else and see if they get accused. Stop carrying water for people who have harmed other and yet still expect their life to turn out like their dreams. Let Kavanaugh go back to his other lifetime appointment.
4
"It wasn’t long ago that Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court hinged, as it must, on his qualifications as a judge."
Fasle--and in typically Stephensonian fashion.
Kavanaugh's nomination has always hinged on a Republican majority in the Senate, not his qualifications. Homer Simpson could have been confirmed by those guys if the show's writers staff had been hired by the Koch brothers...
5
It is, as they say, the perfect storm. Ships will be lost, shorelines wrecked. The Me Too movement, male privilege and power, a nation torn by conflicting narratives: we watch awestruck as they collide off our coast. But such a storm is not the norm. Lesser disturbances will stir our futures. This mighty event will live in memory, but not in our days. It is not some dark, foul premonition. As difficult as it is to believe, we will once again know clear skies and calm waters.
1
As a liberal I respect your opinions and seek out your opinion pieces. I believe your concerns here are real, yet I believe the horrifying civil ill that brought us to this situation was Senator McConnell refusing to hear the supreme court candidate proposed by President Obama.
9
The revolution was the Republicans' denial of a hearing for Merrick Garland. Not all revolutions consist of tanks in the streets. So yes, I pray that the Republican revolution does eat it's young.
5
An excellent essay. Yes, there has been a rush to judgment. Yes, the NY Times spends too much time on salacious stories that seem to have incomplete evidence.
It is not just the MeToo movement which has gone off the rails, but in-depth reporting seems to be replaced by superfician op-eds. There needs to be news as well as opinion, but the news in the NY Times has become hyperpartisan.
I am finishing the excellent book Fear by Bob Woodward.
This book provides depth I have never seen in NY Times articles.
I am beginning to realize that newspapers likely are wrong when they accuse Trump of collusion with the Russians.
Woodward's book makes it clear to me WHY Trump is a terrible president. He is incompetent in choosing experts in foreign affairs, economics and science to guide him. Moreover, he fails to listen to the advisers he has chosen.
That the Trump presidency functions at all is a testament to a staff which works to prevent Trump's most irrational impulses.
Unfortunately, Trump does represent a sizable portion of the electorate which no longer believes the main stream news sources.
Many of the former working class see their living standards going down, and no longer believe in the theories presented by "experts."
The Kavanaugh hearings may be a further blow to due process. But other freedoms, such as freedom of speech, are being compromised.
Trump may signal a first step in the unraveling of democracy in the US.
2
You know, nobody ever accused Judge Garland of sexual misconduct. Where were you when the Right Honorable Gentleman from the Great State of Kentucky stonewalled that nomination?
3
Mr. Stephens is stressed that the vetting process for a SCOTUS seat is too harsh and bemoans the general "toxification of public service".
If that were true, how come we continue to see government so permeated with swamp dwelling bottom feeders?
Kavanaugh himself advises with a wink and a smirk that his antics through college should remain secret. I take him at his word so that he can quietly withdraw his nomination.
No, our problem in America is not excessive scrutiny of those begging to "serve" and "give back", but not near enough.
2
Yes, it is now fair game to judge men on their behavior. "To draw moral inferences about a nominee because he went to an elite prep school", where he kept glad company with men who participated in gang-rapes. Or was a member of a "rowdy fraternity" that gained infamy for chanting "No means yes, yes means anal" at a group of women. Or "said something in his yearbook" that implied he was part of a larger group of young men that had had sex with one woman, degrading and defiling her reputation. Or regularly became black-out drunk, to the point of being violent and belligerent.
Minimize Brett's behavior all your want; he's unfit for the job and has been exposed thoroughly as so.
5
Mr. Stephens, how many times have you been sexually assaulted and then vilified for telling the truth? Until you've walked even a single footstep in those moccasins, you have no right to defame these women.
3
I simply comes down to this: Bret Stephens. like Brett Kavanagh, is a blindly entitled straight white man with no respect or empathy for women. Period.
7
Mr. Stephens, there already is half of the population that is expected, as you say, to account, in minute and excruciating detail, for their behavior and reputation as a teenager. For whom it is already fair game to draw moral inferences because she went on many dates, or was a member of a sorority, or said something mean and dumb in her yearbook, or drank somewhat more than she would like to admit, or wore short skirts or a bikini, or wasn't a regular churchgoer. So now the "boys" are under a bit of a microscope and it's all so unfair? Cry me a river.
3
Antics? Is that what Stephens thinks allegations of sexual misconduct are? With that the rest of Stephens arguments went sailing right out the window.
4
Thank you for a calm rational editorial. Just as the Democratics regret getting rid of the filibuster, they will regret the climate they created when similar allegations are made about Schumer, Booker, Harris.
2
While the author could have endorsed an investigation a little earlier in the essay, his analysis is spot on. This is what it has become. Our democracy and processes and laws, representative government, built to quench the thirst and quell the unruly mob is crumblin, much to the glee of those who would demolish democracy. When leaders refused to punish financial crimes, refused to hear a fully qualified supreme court candidate they paved the way for mob rule. You can't see what lawfare looks like usually, bc it's hidden, the accused don't get to sit for interviews, but it is every bit as ugly as the author describes. This doesn't end well for democracy.
1
Ret, ever the republican tool. NYT: I’m getting tired of supporting this right wing propaganda with my subscription.
1
Has Mr. Stephens commented on the FOX network's use of "rumor over fact, the debasement of journalism, the devaluation of the rights of the victim, and the complete toxification of public service"?
4
"It’s worth pausing to consider what this frenzied national inquest could mean for the future of our civic culture." Let's forget McConnell's closure of Obama's right to nominate a Court judge. So our civic culture and Constitution were shredded by the GOP in 2016. We are 6-weeks away from mid-terms and McConnell wants to push this threw so a Democratic Congress doesnt do what he did. What does that say about our "Civic Culture." McConnell said let the voters decide. If that were true in 2016 what changed since 2018.
Of course he'll be confirmed. This exercise shows the GOP is only concerned with partisanship. We have a wildly unpopular President; the GOP has a 2-vote majority; basically the GOP has said screw the Constitution in 2016. No cries from you then.
The fact that the GOP got a sitting judge Kennedy to resign under scores to create this opportunity to appoint a new right-wing partisan SCOTUS member is a power grab. The Democrats are just pointing this out.
The American people deserve non-partisan judges. The GOP doesnt believe that.
3
Bret, the issue is less about what Kavanaugh might or might not have done as a teenager. Of course many people don't have good judgement at that age. What is important is that such attitude arose from the sense of self-entitlement, which Judge Kavanaugh evidently still possesses, as evident in him presenting himself as a choir boy while he obviously wasn't. The year book, the writing of his close friend Mark Judge, the recollections of some of his acquaintances from Yale all indicate that he participated in a heavy-drinking, boorish behavior. He believes he is entitled to such behavior but should still be regarded as an upstanding citizen. Is that a character trait we want in a Justice of the Supreme Court?
2
ken starr, ken starr, ken starr. as they say in the bible belt as you sow so shall you reap.
kavanaughs crime isnt his high school behavior, it is his apparent ambition that overrides his empathy for the victims ( if he is in fact guilty of these or similar acts) that disqualifies him. knowing what you know, do you think he is capable of judging wisely? as for the press, they are no longer able to report facts, because our government refuses to actually investigate.
finally, merrick garland, merrick garland, merrick garland. the revolution is currently eating its children.
4
The Republican controlled Senate refused to advise and consent on Merrick Garland. Perhaps they should reconsider.
2
Let’s get to what is really going on here. It’s not just about male sex acts.
It is about the dark side to our human nature. We know that this “dark side” is self-destructive. We know that it needs to be challenged. How do we accomplish this? A total metamorphosis of our twenty-first century human behavior will have to occur, one bringing forth a new human design. And this new design cannot be implemented without first challenging the core inherent weaknesses in those social, political, philosophical, religious and economic presuppositions have assumed to contain "inherent truths" that we now recognize as the cause of our problems.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
1
That the 'circumstances are imperfect' is entirely due to the Republicans on the committee who refuse to invite the FBI to investigate the claims against their chosen nominee - and their haste to have him sworn in before the November mid-terms. Slow down, boys. Let the FBI do its work and let the chips fall where they may. Surely the Republicans can find another stooge to overturn Roe-Wade!
Right now, I think guilt by association is all that we have. Republicans denied zGarland a fair process. Now they want to jam this nominee through irrespective of the doubts that swirling around him, a result of his drinking and his lying about it. If Republicans and/or Conservatives want to whine, let them.
2
The whole point of this disingenuous piece is to undermine the testimony of the other victims. Ramirez's account has corroboration. The gang rape account may be "lurid" but that doesn't mean it's false.
If Bret Stephens thinks attempted rape is "antics" I hope some investigative reporter is looking into HIS past misdeeds.
2
I look forward to the nominee explaining his year book entries: FFFFFFFourth of July, Renate alumnus, Devil's Triangle. Check a slang dictionary if you want to decode his meanings. Read what one of his best friends, Mark Judge, had to say about high school antics at GeorgeTown Prep--the Republican's won't allow him to be called as a witness even though he has relevant information. Brett Kavanaugh is lying to himself, lying to the American people, or most likely both, when he says that he consistently treated women with dignity and respect. There are too many people, in addition to the three women who report abusive behavior, poking holes in his stories, including his college roommate in his freshman year at Yale. His own year book entries do not square with his story. And, even one of the women who signed a letter in support of his character was sickened by how she was referred to by Brett Kavanaugh in the Georgetown Prep yearbook. If the Republican's vote another person who lies to achieve his personal ambitions onto the Supreme Court, the standing of our highest Court will not survive. They will have packed it with political hacks and opportunists who serve a Right wing agenda dictated by the Federalist Society.
3
We are not looking at jail time here. Just suitability for a lifetime position on the court of last resort.
4
Report now, verify later? The far more corrosive truth here is that of the Republican party: Vote now, verify you say what?
1
The rush would not have been so urgent had Garland not been blocked so shamelessly, and then Kavanaugh rushed through. Sexual abuse was the only arrow in the quiver that could bring down the quarry. That doesn't mean it's not legitimate.
So the Times, in the name of broad mindedness, publishes an apologist for
"shenanigans" — aka gang rape, aka drug- and alcohol-induced rape (which can be seen also as coerced detention), and massive lying by the nominee. Reprehensible.
Is Mr. Stephens perhaps minimizing deeds that he himself feels he might have guilty of? I for one, as a man, feel disgusted and repulsed by Kavanaugh. It's quite obvious that he has lied. Why should anyone vote him onto a lifetime appointment? The burden of convincing is his.
2
Sorry, Bret, but the question isn’t whether Kavanaugh behaved like an insensitive lout in high school and college, but whether he is a liar.
We knew he was, from his first public statement about being nominated, when he said – in a Trumpian echo – that no previous President had done a more thorough search or talked to more people about whom to nominate. Hah!
As to the charges of sexual assault, it could have been a minor hiccup if only he’d said: “I may have sown some wild oats in High School, I regret that behavior, and I learned some valuable lessons.”
The American people are lenient.
But he chose to stonewall, and deny everything. That posture isn’t credible, and we can’t have a liar on the Supreme Court, or any court.
2
Civility was broken the day that the Republicans decided that the best strategy to deal with the Obama presidency was to oppose Obama no matter what the issue, a destructive opposition by any account.
I am not in the left and I use to define myself as a conservative, until this term was stolen by the racists and the flat earthers, but it is clear that we will have to get in the mud to get the Republicans out of power for good, piece by painful piece.
2
... or, if you indulged in certain kinds of behavior in your younger, more libertine days, you can acknowledge it when you're presumably older and wiser.
1
As a man, #metoo has pushed me to bring to the front of my mind something I've long known - that men have had their boot on women's neck for a very, very long time. We were/are all part of that system and have to find some way to have that knowledge inform our future decisions and actions.
Kavanaugh was unquestionably part of a toxic high school and college culture. I don't have to question it because I saw it where I grew up.
This guy wants to be part of America's unelected ruling council. If he can't stand in front of us and say "I grew up in America's toxic culture, I was an underage substance abuser (drinking in high school was illegal in the 80s - should we deport him?), and I'm sure I hurt people along the way then he's either a liar or delusional.
Flawed people should be supreme court justices. People willing to distort reality to protect themselves or their biases should not.
3
I remember Trump and the whole GOP, backed by the Murdoch media empire, said that without evidence that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and therefore was an illegitimate President.
I don’t remember any hand wringing from the right about what damage that did our civic culture.
But then again, Obama was black and therefore deserving of no respect in the eyes of the GOP.
The first start to solving the problems this country faces is to be honest about what a sorid spectacle the GOP has become.
1
Yes and may it gobble up all the men who assaulted, demeaned and denigrated women and a who are now ready to assume high office. Seems to me not too much to ask that our Supreme Court justices be squeaky clean, after all, they hold our collective fates in their hands. No man is going down in flames because someone lied, (these lies are always uncovered, unless one is a white male, aged 50+) men are going down in flames because they have done awful stuff and are being called to account. Finally.
1
Bret, this is so one sided and ultimately hollow. Also on this front page is a debunking article that shows how the right has attacked the accusers with flimsy stories and contrived doppelgängers of the accusers. It reminds me of what Adali Stevenson said about Republicans all those years ago. "If you stop telling lies about us, we'll stop telling the truth about you." You're playing poker with a cool handful of nothing.
3
How can we know whether the Swetnick and Ramirez allegations are deserving of skepticism or not until they are thoroughly investigated? Are you not jumping to the same sort of hasty conclusions of which you accuse your fellow journalists in this opinion piece?
While Bret Stephens may not have meant it to sound this way, this piece comes off as hysteric and paranoid.
Stephens in the past has come off as paranoid at times. As has much of the "new right" who has been building this persecution complex while subsequently bullying women like we see here who are generally simply standing up and saying: Enough.
Stephens writing is histrionic enough here to smell farcical. You have no crystal ball which enables you to see all these things. We have been down this type of dialog, even in the New York Times, more than once before. Tiring, and that's assuming people hold even remote credence for the story line being presented here.
So your concept is that this is some kind of watershed? Not the smears that Kavanaugh himself helped dig up as part of the "vast right wing conspiracy" that set a perjury trap for Bill Clinton? Not Pizzagate and Benghazi and all the rest of the half-baked things that the right has believed for years about Hillary? Not to mention wasted millions of dollars investigating...
So, no, this isn't a watershed. It's just chickens coming home to roost.
3
Your gallant defense of journalistic integrity, at this #metoo moment, rings hollow to this career journalist. I wouldn't argue with your assertion that we need to verify and pursue fact before elevating accusation and opinion to the status of acceptable truth. In these cases, however, we have only the words and memories of the victims on which to base our understanding of what happened so long ago. We can not go back and verify, except through the eyes and memories of the men who were in the room. Is there any such honor among thieves? We've yet to hear anyone complicit in those hi-jinks admit shame and guilt. It's all about closing ranks, to protect the group when the group failed to protect the human dignity and rights of its victims. My former father-in-law never admitted or apologized to his daughter for the clandestine "love" he shared with her. It ruined her life. I lived for two decades with her hurt and self-loathing. The scars of rape ripple outward forever. I believe the women who have come forth, and blame the parents of those once young men for not providing them the wise and stern counsel my father gave me: "Never, ever use your greater physical strength to hurt a woman." I miss my father. I wish someone as good and decent as him occupied the highest office in the land. Two years ago, one did.
4
This is what happens when a thorough background check is not allowed to occur. Kavanaugh himself could have asked for one. But he didn’t. He could publicly ask his buddies to come forward to defend him and possibly clear him. But he hasn’t. Instead, he repeats himself on an entertainment channel and goes to the White House, of all places, to practice his answers.
I am struck by what a lousy lawyer he is. It’s either that or Catholic guilt has finally caught up to him. In that case, it’s time for a sacrament.
3
“Ordinary fairness” ?!? Just what do you think that is, and why is being called to account for behaving badly not “ordinary fairness”?
Sincere, demonstrated contrition might warrant leniency and I would encompass that within “ordinary fairness” - but stone-faced denial puts the bad boy beyond “ordinary fairness”.
1
What is important for a Supreme Court nominee is integrity. What disqualifies Cavanaugh is his categorical, blanket denial of any sexual misconduct even when he might have been drunk more than three decades ago. Anyone who claims to remember not having done something while he was intoxicated is deliberately lying, and lacks integrity. Whether or not the allegations are factual, and this should be ascertained as much as possible, Cavanaugh's obvious lie disqualifies him to be a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Mr. Stephens,
It is really easy, let the FBI investigate.
1
Any chance that I might wish to hear your opinion ended with your use of “antics”. If the allegations were properly vetted by the FBI, and/or corroborated by witnesses, the behavior attributed to this nominee could be criminal, certainly threatening and vulgar. But then, you’d likely stand by “ boys will be boys”. Well not by any grown man who won’t own up to his past. And yet, the bigger issue is that it appear Kavanaugh sees himself as above the law, as he does the President. Any senator with a shred of integrity should vote NO.
1
You're right. But where were you when Al Franken was brought down? And did you object to Donald Trump insisting that Obama is not an American citizen? There are more stepping stones that led us to where we are now, many of them placed by 'journalists' from across the political spectrum. Is Fox News more trustworthy than Gawker? And are they the problem or a reflection of who we are?
1
“Will every future Supreme Court or cabinet nominee, Republican or Democratic, be expected to account, in minute and excruciating detail, for his behavior and reputation as a teenager?”
Yes. This does not mean that objectionable behavior is automatically disqualifying. Barack Obama had honestly disclosed his past partying behavior, including the use of cocaine, in his first memoir. Holding government officials to a high standard does not mean an unfair standard - just the opposite. The difference between Kavanaugh and Obama is of course integrity and the effect their actions had on other people. Barack Obama was honest, while Bart O’Kavanaugh has been anything but. (Does anyone honestly believe he was innocent as he claimed to be during his Fox News interview?) The second issue, is that Kavanaugh’s (alleged) actions were harmful to the women he attacked. This “detail” makes all the difference between teenage partying (forgivable) and disqualifying behavior.
To your point about automatically believing unsubstantiated claims, I must ask: why is it that you want to give Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt, when his credibility has been so damaged? Yes, we must look at accusations with skepticism. But Brett Kavanaugh has proven himself to be a serial liar. He lied under oath during his hearings (first in 2006 and now I’m 2018) about his history in the Bush administration. He lied on Fox News about his reputation as a teenager. Why would he tell the truth about raping a woman?
1
So much of this commentary is simply beside the point. This nomination has always just been a political fight both sides are trying to win by any means necessary. Investigations and testimony about stale allegations, whether about sexual coercion, chronic inebriation, financial problems, or anything else, have no meaning on their merits but are only relevant as a method of mobilizing sympathetic opinion and swaying senator's votes. Public relations and power are the issues. The rest is political posturing and sanctimonious nonsense.
2
The Times they are a changin' that's for sure. #1 - we're changing into a status that says "believe the women." Always, believe the women. No matter what. So a woman's voice is now privileged over a man's. #2 - facts and supporting evidence don't matter - emotions do. If you're emotionally upset AND you're a woman, you're really to be believed. #3 - newspapers like the Times really don't have a mission to report the Truth or truth... but rather to be "on one side" and not "on the other side." Prediction: nearly all the nominees to the Court will be women, as that is the safe bet. Kudos to the fairer sex. Well played.
Stephens frames the question of who would want to run for his position if every one of their misdeeds could come back to haunt them. This is a disingenuous way to treat the issue at hand. First, there are lots of people (strangely, mostly women) who don't have episodes in their past of abusing others sexually or otherwise. Second, there are certain categories of misdeeds that are harder to just overlook, while many are readily understood as stupid misjudgments reflective of youth. There are gray areas and there are ways that responses to one's own bad actions might also change how they matter in the present. But excessive drinking as a teen, which is trivial, is rather different than sexual assault, since assault involves exercising power over others. Someone who used their physical power to abuse someone else in the past, whether it's because they were drunk or just plain cruel, can and should be asked to account for how they haven't made that a pattern in their life to the present. People who clearly show that they learned nothing from it all and are unwilling to critically reflect on their own possible misdeeds have no claim to making consequential judgments for the rest of society. Stephens's position is just another way of resisting the need for the powerful and privileged to justify those things to society.
1
We are here because of an assault. The victim was the Constitution, and the perp was Mitch McConnell.
1
You keep avoiding the obvious Bret, 100,000 pages of background documentation was shielded from public and senatorial view. Why? Kavanaugh refused to take a polygraph. Why? The Republicans refused to conduct a three day investigation by the FBI. Why? In the interest of fairness and truth, why? Isn't it tragic enough that we have a prolific liar in the WH let alone that possibility in a for life appointment to the Supreme Court.
4
Conservative writers never seem to mention Merrick Garland. If Obama's choice for SCOTUS had been given fair consideration, we would not be where we are today.
2
The author calls sexual assault 'antics'. That shows you he doesn't take any of this seriously. Leaving that aside, I feel that anything that can be used to prevent this unqualified, perjurer from ascending to the Supreme Court is acceptable. After the Republicans stole a seat from President Obama, I don't care what the Democrats do. If the Republicans want this to stop they should withdraw Kavanaugh's nomination and nominate Merrick Garland instead. Otherwise they, and their apologists in the press, should stop whining. They brought this on themselves.
2
To all of Stephen's questions?
This could have all been handled in a professional manner if the GOP
had simply referred all of these allegations to the FBI.
Instead they chose not to and bullied ahead with their quest to get him nominated at all costs.
I could car less about how this circus has affected BK and his family.
It goes with the territory. Buck up frat boy.
Personally from what I witnessed of his initial hearings and from his various speeches over the years, he is unfit for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.
Look into the mirror Brett. The blame is squarely on your hijacked GOP.
1
@Futbolistaviva...Yes, if Feinstein had delivered Ford's letter to the Committee in a timely manner as is routinely done with the huge volume of such allegations that accompany every nomination process, then the F.B.I. could have investigated Ford's allegation in a timely manner and this circus could have been avoided. Now, the F.B.I. investigation should include Feinstein's attempt to obstruct the nomination process.
And none of this would have happened if a proper FBI investigation was done. Left without evidence, we are victims of the winds of rumor. Just the way President Trump likes it.
1
There are good points here and caution is needed. We had what are described as the two most abysmal candidates in 2016 and that will not improve if that time you mooned the Statue of Liberty on the Staten Island Ferry coming home from a wild night in Greenwich Village when you were 18 would be disqualifying. Who does not have moments of notoriety in their wild youths?
But sexual assault is the exception. This is not smoking joints, being a jerk at a party, having a pathetic puberty or being a teenage “mean girl.” This is much more brutal, more high stakes and more insidious. Not to mention, criminal. Abusers tend not to self-reform so easily. Patterns of sexual abuse mixed with out-of-control alcohol consumption are a red flag for me.
Is it possible the left is guilty of Salem witch trial hysteria? Yes. But it is more likely the right is to blame for their obstinate refusal to run a quick FBI investigation and subpoena Mr. Judge.
Instances of obvious false statements made during this and his 2006 confirmation hearings have seeded the idea that Kavanaugh is willing to lie to advance his career. And, frankly, he was simply weird on Fox. He defended himself by startling us all with the timeline of his virginity. TMI. And the legal drinking age in Maryland was raised to 21 the summer before his senior year, so his statement about seniors legally drinking is false and bizarre. A cohort entering senior year just as the legal drinking age is raised surely would remember that.
1
Mr. Stephans quote about his hard drinking pal Kavanaugh is precisely the point about his fraternity bro's accuser; but one has nothing to gain and the other has everything to lose.
I think Mr. Stephans knows who is who and which is which.
"But it’s hard to imagine who — except for the odd souls who are either morally stainless or utterly shameless — would want to be subjected to the ordeal."
1
I have no sympathy for the Republicans. Remember what they did to Merrick Garland? You reap what you sow.
3
No, it is not fair game to draw moral inferences because he went to an elite prep school, or drank too much. Where are the suggestions that they are?
Yes, each and every Supreme Court nominee should absolutely be called to account if his teenaged behavior included sexual assault. Sexual assault at age 17 is not disqualifying?
No, the monolithic "LEFT" (no such thing, Mr. Stephens) isn't using unproven allegations as proof. Who is it that has denied the possibility of evidence being gathered by the FBI to corroborate these allegations? (Hint: not the monolithic left.)
Yes, newspapers should look for corroborating evidence. I agree with you. Not all on the left are frothing at the mouth, Mr. Stephens. ALL allegations should be investigated. Explain to me again why that's not happening? Because male republican senators and our dear leader won't allow an FBI investigation. Witnesses who can corroborate the story (I believe that is called "evidence") aren't testifying under oath because republicans won't allow it.
No, I wouldn't want to be subjected to the allegations that I am a predator and a stone-faced liar (and possible perjurer). Mr. Gorsuch was not subjected to this and anyone with a shred of decency was outraged then, too, at the utterly disgraceful actions of Mr. McConnell. I don't remember any suggestions like this back then.
Maybe he is a sexual predator and a stone-faced liar. But it's not because of Democrats' stonewalling that we won't fully know.
3
"Is there any damaging allegation against Kavanaugh, of any nature and from any source, which the left would not automatically believe?"
More than anything else, this comment by Bret encapsulates his true feelings, the true point of this column defending Brett. We need not even introduce the many problematic and shaky aspects of his testimony before the his accusers began to step forward and the resultant forced admission that he was not actually a choir boy.
A more and actually dispassionate analysis can be found in today's NYT by Linda Greenhouse.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/opinion/editorials/kavanaugh-clarence...
3
If this price of this revolution is a decreased chance of my daughter being raped or assaulted because more men are aware that their actions have consequences, I am good with that.
1
Some good points, dude, among your arguments for a return to the freewheeling days before our leadership was caught with their pants down. The collateral damage -- "revolutions eating their children" in your formulation, is, in this revolution, limited to males. Add it up, multiply it by a thousand, and the (male) collateral damage is a drop in the bucket compared to the emotional carnage wrought by your good old days.
"Is it now fair game to draw moral inferences about a nominee because he went to an elite prep school, or was a member of a rowdy fraternity, or said something mean and dumb in his yearbook, or drank somewhat more than he would like to admit?" The answer: Elite prep school? No. The others, yes. Always has been fair game, it seems, to form judgements about a person's fitness for a critical position by viewing his past written words, membership in a morally corrupt organization, and drinking habits. By conflating these with "elite prep school" you bring such schools into suspicion, too. But your conflation says more about YOU than about the topic. It's disingenuous and manipulative. Caught you.
There are so many fine and capable men in America, eager to serve, who would welcome and and want to be subjected to what you call "radial transparency." (What's radical about it, anyway?) It's only an "ordeal" for the unfit. If you personally can't think of anyone, that's your own limitation and fault. Perhaps you should cultivate a wider circle. If they'll have you.
1
I keep coming back to Kavanaugh's revolting senior profile and the awful photos of the "Renate Alumni" in that yearbook. Obviously this was/is condoned and therefore encouraged at Georgetown Prep. Where was the faculty advisor, the faculty or parent outrage?
I am so sick of this wink-wink culture of adults who instead of guiding their children away from vile, cruel behavior, tolerate it and so inflict on society another generation of abusers who think this is a right of passage or part of their entitlement as privileged young men. I read that one of Kaganaugh's classmates from Prep said of the third accuser "Never heard of her. We didn't hang out with public school girls." Words of the entitled with no shame about their utter disdain for all of those they feel are beneath them. Sickening.
Kavanaugh obviously thinks this all still very funny as reflected in his 2015 statement "What happens at Prep stays at Prep." Heh-heh. Nudge, nudge. He's not in the least ashamed for his behavior.
I can't help seeing the parallels in his statement with the Catholic Church scandal and the absolute invisibility of the victims to their abusers : If WE say it didn't happen, it didn't happen. Then look what a civil investigation found.
3
All revolutions eat their young.
1
This is an excellent column. It is one of the very few pieces I have read in this newspaper that provides a balanced perspective on what is happening, and the deleterious consequences to our society, and to the profession of journalism.
There are many examples is our history from which we should have learned, but did not. These include the Salem witch trials; McCarthyism; and the alleged (and usually false) cases of child abuse at day care centers, that consumed the news media during the 1980's. There are many other examples - the list goes on.
Thank you for this column! I'm guessing that as an opinion writer at the New York Times it took fair amount of courage to write this, and that you will get a lot of push-back from many of your colleagues. But it was well worth publishing.
1
"Will every future Supreme Court or cabinet nominee, Republican or Democratic, be expected to account, in minute and excruciating detail, for his behavior and reputation as a teenager?"
No. But perhaps they will be expected not to lie about it. For myself, and I suspect for most, the problem isn't that he was once a very callow young man with poor judgement and little if any consideration for women as equals--it is that he won't own that, say he was wrong then and a changed man now. Makes me think he isn't much of a changed man despite his public flaunting of his religiosity. That is a completely valid reason for this man to not get this job, so try to keep that in the front of your mind, Bret.
3
This blaze could have been avoided if the nominee had been fully vetted and presented honestly with all pertinent documentation made available. The Merrick Garland theft was tinder and the GOP's disregard for women is an unending supply of gasoline. This fire was never going to be controlled or contained.
5
This administration sullies everything and everyone it touches. The very institution of the supreme court has become one of its victims.
1
Cavanaugh is accused of a vile sexual assault and other reprehensible behavior. The accusers are credible. Even Daffy Donald accepted that they should be heard. If the GOP leadership focused on serving justice rather than their own political ends then they wouldn't be trying to force this through as fast as possible, and instead would put it on hold while the claims are investigated.
If they weren't trying to rush past the allegations, there would be considerably less energy from those writing from the left, because there would be less worry that the GOP will inflict another Clarence Thomas on the country.
1
Were it not for the utterly shameless GOP leadership of McConnell -- denying the voters and a president the constitutional authority of the 4th year of his second term, and paving the way for an utterly shameless, serial abuser of women to be leading the illiberal, uncivil remaking of America -- that Mr. Stephens would now be entertaining such defenses of civic culture and warning of the "complete toxification of public service". Mr. Stephens, high ideals did not lead to THIS revolution. It was simply a coup.
3
Last I checked, calling on the FBI to perform an investigation is not "automatically believing" a story.
2
I was raped in the 1970's when I was 13 by a friend of my sister's husband. He was extremely pleased with himself the next day, because "it's natural for men to spread their seed as widely as possible". I didn't tell anybody and neither did my sister. Fortunately, I didn't get pregnant.
DNA evidence and ubiquitous cameras are our friends. I hope men are afraid enough of getting caught that they behave better than barnyard animals. Nothing else stops them.
Still, the guy in Alaska got a slap on the wrist for strangling a woman unconscious, even though there's no doubt about his guilt. The field is nowhere near level.
2
Well written counterpoint to the vast pilings on digital media..
1
The problem with your argument is that this kind of spectacle seems to only be a problem when the man has actually behaved badly. Gorsuch didn’t have this problem. Neither did any of the useless sycophants in the cabinet. Kavanaugh, however, clearly doesn’t have the moral compass to be on the Supreme Court, regardless of whether he did or didn’t do any specific thing he’s been accused of
I would challenge your notion of 'fairness'. You point out how "lurid and last minute" these allegations are, but that is because of the extreme speed at which the republicans are pushing this nomination. In my mind the intent of these women are to bring forward behavioral flaws about a nominee to one of the highest offices in our government, one which is going to be ruling about some very serious issues these women care about. They are well within their rights and civic duties to air their perception of the nominee. The burden lies on the senate to investigate the nominee to ensure he will be a fair to the country. I think we can all agree this 'hearing' doesn't accomplish that, and that the strategy being employed by the majority is to simply rail-road this nominee through the confirmation process as quickly as possible before the rest of the country makes their own decision about whether he should sit on the bench. Is it really so hard to imagine in the era of Weinstein, Moonves, Lauer and the 97 other men who have been the focus of #MeToo allegation (all of whom denied such allegations) to believe that a privileged, drunken, white teenage boy sexually assaulted a woman? Clearly we have yet to finish learning lessons of the past year. This is entirely a he-said she-said moment, so why are you putting the burden of proof of journalists and not the senate? Would you rather this not be reported at all? Leaving Americans in the dark?
3
"Report first, verify later (if ever). Use the accumulation of unproven accusations as evidence of their plausibility, rather than as charges to be investigated separately or as variations of the same fundamental untruth. Apply a presumption of guilt standard to the people you oppose, and a presumption of innocence standard to the people you favor. Hear something you like about someone you don’t — what used to be known as gossip — and repackage it as “news.”"
As much as I might typically disagree with you, this--unfortunately--strikes me as being spot on.
2
"Antics"? Mr. Stephen's is part of a centuries'-long tradition of minimizing the damage caused by interpersonal violence. Sexual violence is not a rite of passage for young men - in fact, very few young men commit these acts, but they tend to be serial offenders. The majority of people in this country recognize Dr. Ford's honesty, in contrast to Judge Kavanaugh and his GOP enabler's corrupt dishonesty. There are many, many more good men than bad and many of their mothers, sisters, wives, daughters and friends have a story like Dr. Ford's. We're all sick of the violence, and the dishonor that the GOP exemplifies in their handling of the Kavanaugh debacle.
1
Another possible outcome of this "frenzied national inquiry" may be that teen boys and college men think twice before harming others when they realize it could hurt their futures in serious ways - just like thoughtless and cruel actions can hurt the victim's future in long term, serious ways. I know as a college student I resisted minor criminal "pranks" and drug use a few times knowing that an arrest would ruin my law school ambitions.
2
I just listened to Dr. Ford, my body is shaking and I have tears to my eyes.
How did we get to this point.
it is impossible not to have compassion for Dr. Ford and the men about to question her are ruthless and conniving.
So that`s all I am saying now.
2
@B.Sharp...The conniving and ruthless men about to question Ford are ALL Democrats. No Republican men are allowed to question Ford. Feel free to get the facts and truth right.
1
@Albert Edmud
You got it is all wrong.
Dr. Frod is stating the facts and Brett Kavanaugh is up for a position of lifetime. And the man should be questioned.
Let us not forget the Republicasn in the committee are all white male up in their ages.
1
You're right: it's debatable whether a man's loutish and possibly criminal behavior in school should affect his fitness as a judge.
While the loutishness has been confirmed by his friends and his own yearbook and calendar entries, he may have reformed.
And while the Republican leadership refuses to let the FBI investigate the new criminal revelations for their own reasons, preferring a media debate instead, we'll never get a legally definitive answer on that.
BUT the issue is really the candidate's credibility. He has denied, to the public and the Congress, drunkenness and wild parties when he was young. Contemporary reports by his friends, his self-written yearbook description, and even strange notations on his calendar seem to disprove this.
He's asking for a lifelong appointment, where he can decide how the rest of us live our lives, with no oversight. If he's lying to get that job, it's reasonable to assume he'll lie while carrying it out.
It's not his life that'll be ruined if he doesn't get this one job. It's all of our lives that'll be ruined, if he gets it by lying.
2
You need to think about this in the context of Justice Thomas's harassment of Anita Hill, Trump's behavior toward women, the prevalence of sexual assault in this country, and the fact that it's not THAT DIFFICULT to find SCOTUS candidates who weren't drunken sexual assaulters in their youth.
3
Look at the backlog of federal judge appointments that the Senate refused to consider during Obama's administration. This behavior culminated with Merrick Garland. Starts and ends there. Mitch McConnell's behavior is hypocritical in the extreme.
2
I hope Dr. Ford or her attorney asks if any of the Republican Senators, who after all are the decision makers here, have the courage to ask any questions directly, or if they all intend to hide behind the skirts of the prosecutor they hired, not coincidentally a woman. What a pitiful and transparent effort to give themselves "deniability." The term "sniveling cowards" comes to mind.
Much of Mr. Stephens's column's call for even-handed unprejudiced inquiry seemed reasonable, as did his raising the issue of how far back into a person's youth do we want to dig and for what level of "transgression." Then he couldn't hold back from moving from "Credo says they believe Swetnick" to "is there any accusation "the left" (sic) would not believe?" Got an agenda, Bret? I think he dropped that rock he was going to throw, on his own foot.
Disclaimer: I have no idea whether Ms. Swetnick's accusation is truth, falsehood, or some or each.
1
Remember that time the Democrats cooked up an 11th hour conspiracy to prevent Neil Gorsuch from serving on the Supreme Court? Me neither.
There is ample evidence that Brett Kavanaugh does not have the character that the American people deserve to have in a Supreme Court justice. We have multiple accusations and testimonies that paint an eerily similar portrait of a frat boy who got drunk and degraded women to impress his friends. This isn't about a smear campaign, the man is unfit and anybody who wants to serve on the Supreme Court should be fully vetted for both jurisprudence and character.
1
"Report first, verify later (if ever)" is today's standard for news. It's all about eyeballs, because more eyeballs equal higher advertising rates (and other forms of remuneration). Today's news focuses on LIVE events with little analysis except for fact free arguments between people with opposing views. So news is mainly about crime or natural disasters where there is little need for and hardly ever any follow-up. After all there is always another "yellow tape" story for tomorrow's "news".
Mr. Stephens, if you wonder why we have "The Gawker standards" look to your profession's main interests, which long since stopped being "editorial standards".
1
Here's the thing: Judge Kavanaugh has evaded the facts of his youth in ways that his political pals do not afford to others. For Judge Kavanaugh and many of his ilk, he can now declare himself proper husband and father, a man of faith, and expects that all is forgiven---he's off the hook for any "youthful indiscretions," while those hurt by those indiscretions aren't so lucky...
2
I loathe your support for this year's tax bill, whose impacts are pernicious and justification indefensible.
But, I do want you to know that among those who find your politics as antithetical to a just and sustainable society there are many who agree with the very import concerns about the reaction to Dr Ford's allegations against Judge Kavanaugh.
When the leveling of allegations, without more, become an article of faith before they have been responsibly investigated, we enter the realm of Salem of old, and that has reverberations that will, in time, discombobulate both sides of the aisle.
1
Bret Stephens needs to stop ignoring the beavior of the Republican leadership who have prevented the proper vetting of Kavanaugh through the non-review of records by the National Archives and the release of a mere 7%. Then there is the failure to order the FBI to properly investigate these allegations. How then can he only complain about journalists who print allegations with our verification? There is no due process in the Judiciary Committee that would allow it. There is just naked political power that attempts to rush through a perjured (on various issues) candidate to a life long Supreme court position confident that he will not allow "President" Trump to be indicted or prosecuted for what ever Mueller turns up. And what about the change to deny the right to fillibuster a nomination. The Republicans started this cut-throat partisanship but you only complain when the left retaliates in kind.
1
The accusations against Kavanaugh and the prospect for male/female relationships in America?
It's obvious to me no society can be formed in which men and women are actually equal, because men and women are in fact unequal in so many biological respects. We can see today women are not becoming equal to men because of acting and accomplishing as men do, but because men are being constrained, having the extremes of their nature tamped down, whether this means violence or sheer adventurousness in the physical and mental sphere. Our world today is increasingly petty bureaucracy, sheer movement and control by time clock, mediocre process and control which favors average ability. Women become equal to men by a standardized public life, by censorship, by controlling men as much as possible, and why would we expect anything otherwise when men are characterized by women as next to wild beasts?
Society plainly has no idea what to do about all the incredible biological variation humans demonstrate. Society apparently cannot exploit all the incredible variation. Rather it does the opposite, constantly trying to hold to a false belief that all people, racial groups, sexes, religions, cultures, individuals etc. are equal, and this results essentially in a traffic jam atmosphere more than anything else. The human race cannot choose direction for itself because everyone and everything must be considered the same as everyone and everything else. Flatland philosophy.
Unfortunately, this is a life long job, and this man will have impact on woman's rights. Not releasing all information regarding this candidate earlier has led to his public "vetting".
And, yes, I managed to get through high school, college and young adulthood without subjecting others to humiliation, and boorish behavior.
1
Nature abhors a vacuum. And so does a necessary investigation.
If the G.O.P. did a proper vetting, if they didn't withhold documents, if they allowed the FBI to investigate a very credible accusation, if they didn't nominate a candidate who wasn't credibly accused to lying under oath in various Senate hearings, if they all didn't act like they had something to hide, if they would just do their job properly and honestly ...
... then the various wings of the media -- , responsible, partisan, sensational, faux -- would not have to step in and fill the investigation vacuum purposely created by a cynical G.O.P.
It would have also helped if the G.O.P. didn't seem so willing to give out mulligans on sexual assault with a "even if it was true" attitude creating a demand to keep finding more and more credible accusations until the G.O.P's willingness to forgive assaults against women they don't know personally was finally exhausted.
3
Most critics are not motivated by keeping a conservative off the Court. That is to easy Brett. Republicans will just submit another.
What is most upsetting is the Republicans refuse to investigate these claims. Imagine if your daughter was abused and authorities failed to investigate because she didn’t speak up sooner
1
This revolution is as much about the rampant, prevalent abuses and humiliations, large and small, that about 50% of the population routinely endure, for no other reason than having been born with two X chromosomes.
Deeply hidden stories are finally surfacing all over America. He's feeling sorry and high-minded about the wrong half of the population.
2
Mr. Stephens complains about the advocacy groups that take the victims' sides as being trigger happy. He ignores the reality of how sexual assault is handled by young victims, each to their own, little to no support available, little to no life experience with which to understand what has happened, the sense of shame and guilt combined with the feelings of violation and loss of safety, little to no understanding of the impact that the incident will have on their lives, their emotions and their psyche, until the years have passed and understanding finally arrives over a long period of time.
The burden that Mr. Stephens places upon what is to be considered a valid incident of sexual assault is reprehensible. A victim may have clouded memory of an incident for many reasons; it does not mean that the incident did not happen. Alcohol is often involved, and conveniently so.
Mr. Stephens, are you calling these women liars? At the least, the situation has permitted the nation a closer view into the life of privileged entitlement that Justice Kavanaugh hails from, and that is material to understanding his fitness for office.
“It wasn’t long ago that Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court hinged, as it must, on his qualifications as a judge.”
No, if “qualifications as a judge” were the criterion, Kavanaugh would never have been nominated in the first place, because the position would have been filled by Merrick Garland.
7
Mr . Stephens three accusers no "proof "-- by your standards . the Repubs refuse to call the FBI and refuse to ask their own questions , they just want to whine . All 3 accusers are accomplished and exemplary women , form what we can see in the press
The eye witness to Dr. Blasey Ford not only not called , but he has been in hiding. People are threatening to kill her , she is out of her
ome and she is being led like a lamb to slaughter to be publicly shamed and blamed . Whatever she has done or accomplished in her personal and professional life she is now known only as the 15 year old who ran away from an assault .
No proof but with Ms. Ramirez AND judge Kavanaugh's Yale roommates find her plausible. Consider that she came forward not to hurt Kavanugh (what's in it for her?) but because she saw Dr. Blasey Ford being railroaded as well as denigrated .She has been pilloried in the press , head about her character then and now every day and even read that you think her report should not be believed because she did not talk about it before -- its not the kind of thing that comes up in casual conversation
Mark Judge's girlfriend first brought up the drugging and gang rape and the victim , seeing how the others were disbelieved , came forward . She can certainly establish that all of this is plausible.
Another religious fundamentilist hoist on his own petard. And part of the Ken Starr possee to boot. There was no such hand-wringing on the right during the seven years of Clinton investigations. There was a unctious abundance of cheap moralizing from the likes of Gingrich, Livingston and Hastert. That Mr. Kavanaugh has been given the Clintion treatment is just desserts. That Mr. Stephens wallows in his own moralizing comes as no surprise and I find it hugely entertaining.
1
I think Mr. Stevens is correct that the toxification of public service is nigh and that a lot of men (and women), powerful and otherwise, are going to be caught up in this cultural meatgrinder. A lot of innocent people are going to be hurt. That's how the culture gets changed, with an axe. The conservatives set us all on this course by abandoning their principles and pursued "winning" through mendacity and promoting insane conspiracies to inflame the proles. It's a fever, it will run its course, we couldn't stop it even if that was a good idea.
This man, as a Supreme Court judge, will decide my basic human rights. If it is true that sees women as things, as garbage to be used and thrown away, then this does not bode well for my human rights. If it had been discovered that Kavanaugh had been present at a lynching when he was a young man but there was no proof that he had actually pulled the rope, would he still be a contender for the Supreme Court? Wouldn't there be outrage?
1
A word from Trump authorizing an FBI investigation would help everyone involved to get to the
truth. Both Republicans and Democrats have said they want to get at the truth. But they can’t get to
the truth in today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. It really does seem that the majority party is not interested in the truth. No one has to tell me that. The very way the hearing is structured shouts “speed up.” Five minutes per Senator? Really? No investigation? This a real shame to make Dr. Ford go through this charade. I apologize to you, Dr. Ford, for the way that my country is treating you.
1
"If the price of this revolution is the subordination of ordinary fairness to abstract justice, the elevation of rumor over fact, the further debasement of journalism, the devaluation of the rights of the accused, and the complete toxification of public service, it will be a price too high."
Such a result isn't possible when we get the truth.
1
I beg to differ! Bret is describing correctly how "most" people act and are and perhaps should be judged. The president, supreme court judges,congressmen/women should not be seen as just most people.These should be those odd souls you describe who are morally stainless. All of these men and women should be an example of what should be, not what most people are.That is not a high price for public servants and I think in turn will fuel our young rather than eat them.
1
All that matters here is the subtext: if Merrick Garland were on the court, this would not be happening. Period.
1
How about putting the blame where it belongs? Republican sloppiness and indifference to the process of installing a Supreme Court Justice. It was a naked power play and they chose the wrong guy. They will get the votes and confirm him. Thumbing their nose at everyone who opposes and this dubious character will proceed to deprive women of their reproductive rights.
1
Thank you; I worried I'm the only one who felt this way. While Dr. Ford's accusations may warrant rejecting this nomination, I'm skeptical of these new ones. So many things require explanation: if she witnessed this happening so many times, shouldn't there be many witnesses, and definitely more victims? It'd be reasonable to expect some be named. What's her explanation for why she kept going to these parties if she knew this, let alone drinking the punch herself? Also it's surprising she's 3 years older than her rapists, given the context of the rape. In my high school world it would've been unusual to have 20 year old women as regular guests at our parties, unless they had strong family or friendship connections to someone (in which case I'm back to wondering where are the corroborating witnesses).
Please don't interpret this as an unwillingness to believe alleged victims. It's actually fear that a fabricated claim could cause people to not take seriously legitimate ones. We've seen this recently elsewhere, for example last year a woman went to the Washington Post claiming she was a Roy Moore victim, intending to exposing the hoax after they published. Fortunately they did their journalistic due diligence and discovered the deception before the story got beyond even the initial stages. Don't deceive yourself that someone won't try this again (this time targeting someone without professional journalistic skills but a burning desire for publicity, aka Michael Avanatti)
1
First, women feel more free to speak up about abuse today than they have in the past. Of course we'll have more scandals and drama as a result, but that is by no means a deterioration of "civic culture". Learn to celebrate it.
Second, what Dr Blasey Ford says is no longer Kavanaugh's main problem. Even if we wilfully disregard all the victims' testimonies as gossip, poor memory, or rumour, Kavanaugh was a member of a deeply misogynist culture. The "Renate" boast was perhaps youthful "antics", but joining "Tit and Clit" cannot be waived away like that. This will forever taint any legal opinion concerning women that he pens or joins.
Even worse, there is no real remorse and he even takes pride in that culture ("what happens in X, stays in X"). And now we're supposed to believe in his enduring respect for Renate, both then and now. It shows a Trumpian relationship to truth that cannot be allowed to become the standard of the Supreme Court.
Finally, I think that it's commendable that Ms Ramirez admits to gaps and holes in her memory. It increases her credibility, not the opposite. If she were simply a liar, she'd surely have come up with something worse.
1
Bret Stephans has apparently never heard of Monica Lewinsky or Gennifer Flowers.
The irony of this piece is that it was Kavanaugh himself that drafted detailed questions about Bill Clinton's sex life during the Republican coup attempt of 1998.
Most conservatives lack the self-awareness to understand this irony. But to anyone else pieces like this are and the "concerns" they contain are simply absurd.
1
"Report first, verify later (if ever)"
Who is suggesting this? Many have called for independent FBI investigation.
The GOP refuses.
You are arguing in bad faith, then implying innocents are at risk. This is unprofessional.
2
Excuse me, but the allegations that have been leveled against Judge Kavanaugh are not, as you put it, an "exhumation of his antics" during high school and college. Pulling a 15-year-old girl into a room, locking the door, putting a hand over her mouth and drunkenly groping her is not an "antic," It's not a shenanigan. or a display of boyish immaturity. It's behavior that, but for the statute of limitations, could put a person, deservedly, in jail.
4
While warning women that a revolution does eat it's own you're forgetting to point out that that's what is currently happening to the GOP. Their 30+ year revolution of misogyny, racism, greed and intolerance to any beliefs other than their own, has led to this moment: a moment when they have no credibility left.
As to your point about baseless gossip, there is a simple solution: have the FBI investigate. You, and the Senators, seriously can't bemoan the lack of evidence while at the same time denying an investigation that would get you evidence (or not).
1
The dis-ingenuity of arguments on both sides over the last week is breathtaking because of the clear intelligence of the people who are making them. Fact: Anita Hill was investigated by the FBI, which found nothing worth pursuing with Clarence Thomas. That didn't stop her and the Democrats from pushing for a national spectacle anticipating the Kavanaugh standard. Fact: Judge Kavanaugh was investigated six times by the FBI, who found nothing worth pursuing. Fact: Senator Feinstein held this material for two months from the committee and the FBI, precisely so it could be used as a cudgel now. Fact: without contemporaneous corroboration, "Believe Women" makes about as much as as "Believe Canadians," "Believe Children," "Believe Men," or "Believe there are Canals on Mars."
1
Another thing, Bret. If you think what Kavanaugh did is just youthful “antics,” you are lost.
I have never behaved like Kavanaugh. Most of the men in my life have never behaved like Kavanaugh. If I had a daughter, and if I learned—even thirty years later—that she was treated the way Dr. Ford likely was, I would be knocking on that man’s door. I’d also question the innocence of any father who wouldn’t.
1
In most states, BK's heavy drinking in high school, college, and law school, would have been sufficient to keep him from taking the Bar exam. He has never been arrested for being publicly intoxicated. That's because he's well connected and wealthy, not because he has been a moral exemplar.
Not only should BK NOT be on the Supreme Court, he should also lose his license to practice law because of moral turpitude.
2
@BigGuy...feel free to name a few states that restrict Bar exams to teetotalers. Are those who have not been arrested guilty of moral turpitude?
What world surrounds you? Do you know no one who has not engaged in abusive or at least to some degree non-consensual sexual relations? Yes, I would gladly subject myself to "the ordeal" without fear that my past romantic relationships would disqualify or even embarrass me. And I know dozens of friends, family and colleagues who would also survive "the ordeal." The sexist attitude dripping from each paragraph of your article permeates all aspects of life, unfortunately including the Senate. For the first time American's are challenging men's behavior towards women. We must continue to do so.
1
DOCTOR Christine Blasey Ford.
But let's leave the human testimony aside for a minute.
If YOUR daughter were the teenaged girl targeted as the sex object - by this drunken 'alumnius' of her body - in writing, in a public keepsake for a school that cost several hundred thousand dollars, so that's not a throwaway book - and no apology or retraction were ever given - would you want that "alumnius" OF YOUR DAUGHTER on the Supreme Court?
He never apologized or retracted his slur. So yes, he wrote it back in high school when he was young and lacking morals-and we don't know if he still lacks fully morals today all these decades later, but what we do know, because of his lack of apology or recognition for the damage he has done:
He absolutely lacks conscience. And no judge should ever lack conscience.
2
If I read his calendar correctly, he was grounded three Friday nights in a row. Why? Seems his parents punished him for something. what?
Don't Trump's Base realize what they are witnessing today, this whitewashing of 'The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth' is exactly what they believed Trump was going to ged rid of as he drained the Swamp?
What aren't they understanding?
They've been duped. Plain and simply made fools of. And guess what? They'll continue to strive for more, working their fingers to the bone, but never getting it. Not during the next two years of tTump's term, that's for sure.
Trump's base will blindly continue to carry around loaded up credit cards, never paying them off like they planned. They'll continue to drive around rusted out pickup trucks, worse yet, drive around big, new Dodge Rams they can't afford, losing them when they can't make the payments to keep them. They're in the process of NEVER, never getting that bigger piece of the pie like Trump promised they would.
Trump and the Republican Party are in the process of eating its children and could care less. Sad, as Trump would say.
3
Brett, The pendulum always swings. The current outrage, right or wrong, is a reaction against the many decades of pillage by men. Social reactions are usually like the behavior of a spring mass system with a damper. The higher the stiffness (resistance to change) the larger the vibration (swing). The larger the mass dictating action the sooner the convergence to stability. The smaller the damper, the longer the continued motion of the system. I read your reaction as a defense of priviliged white men. You will be on the wrong side of history on this one. This is a civil rights movement. Women are demanding their due civil rights. Nothing wrong with it. Support it. Don't become a Wall.
No price will be too high to pay to put an end to an out of control elitist culture that has corrupted our society for far too long. It is not the "high ideals' that eat opportunities for future generations, it is the low. Low as evidenced by a moneyed society that continues to be praised as the best, when in fact they are all too average. Eat their children? Yuk.
2
Multiple allegations of sexual assault are not "exhumation of his antics."
Why do Republican men not understand this?
Is it because they would lose a fraction of their privilege and a smidge of their ability to dominate women's bodies and a sense of entitlement to sexual gratification?
However did Gorsuch make it through Georgetown Prep. without reports of him participating in "trains" or multiple sexual assaults?
2
Withholding documents by the White House which would have contained an accurate account of his judicial decisions in order to appoint a nonpartisan to the seat created the conflict. The hearings were a sham.
Kavanaugh should have demanded the release in order to avoid discord. What was he hiding? Refusing to answer questions using the excuse of hyperbole may not have been possible.
What type of man can refuse to shake an extended hand on the premise he did not know him? He doesn't know the 320 million people his decisions will effect either, that doesn't bode well for us.
He may not shake a stranger's hand but he has known what rings to kiss. He is all the more creepy with his braggadocios drinking stories from high school to Yale law school. A virgin in high school? Does he want sympathy or is that bragging for the Federalist?
1
Symmetrically, revolutions borne by low ideals are likely to eat their children -- there's a good chance that Trump and his supporters will rue the day he was elected
If he had been vetted properly the first time around by the FBI etc, these journalists would not have to be involved. The responsibility for this now lies with the Republicans bringing forth a flawed candidate and refusing to have the FBI re-investigate the allegations. What I find interesting is that apparently the FBI did a poor job in the first (few) times it investigated him! I don't think you can blame the messengers here.
Stephens Stop, please. If you're only able to see the world through a "Left vs Right" lens and are blinded to what is morally Right versus Wrong, your opinions aren't helpful - they are part of the problem.
2
Once again, another clueless male takes up the mantle of pity for Mr. Kavanaugh. And once again, I reiterate “what do these women have to gain by telling these lurid stories of their own youth that the world will now judge THEM by? Listen up, for the last time, it’s not about his misguided youth but rather the fact that he so easily and often can lie about it - under oath, if I’m not mistaken - and then be given a LIFETIME appointment to the highest court in the land. Therein lies the infuriation, the injustice, the incomprehension that’s fueling this blaze that’s currently only in the smoldering stage.
1
As a student of American history none of what we are witnessing today seems novel or evidence of a decline in journalistic or moral standards. Are we forgetting the birth certificate controversy concerning President Obama, the “swiftboating” of Vice-President Gore or the pedophile ring supposedly perpetrated by Secretary Clinton out of a pizza restaurant? These are just some of the more recent examples and don’t include the barrage of lies and half truths told almost daily by our current president. So yes, “the press” is flawed and ideas and even the truth has to compete. The system was designed to be like that - I refer you to Benjamin Franklin. Politics in our republic has always been dirty and ugly. That is why I read the editorial section of The NY Times - for perspective and viewpoints from both sides of the political aisle.
.
"Antics." That is an odd use of the word under the circumstances.
1
All of the frenzy Mr. Stephens bemoans could have been avoided if Senate Republicans would have done their due diligence, thoroughly investigated claims via independent FBI investigation, and were more interested in truth and fairness than in rushing their candidate through the process for political purposes.
Oh - and having the moral courage to ask their own questions instead of outsourcing for the sake of optics in a craven attempt to duck the women of their respective states would have been good, too.
277
Based on what we know, The dems held that information back, only to spring it when they felt it would cause the most damage, or the most delay, which is all they want.
Their behavior towards The dnc chair , Ellison, and the much more plausible evidence about his domestic violence that they ignore, prove that.
They don't care about women ( or they would show support for Ellison's victim), they just want to derail this nomination.
1
@Patricia, it could have been avoided if Sen. Feinstein hadn’t hide this information. Hide this information until Sept. 16th. Why don’t you ask Feinstein why she didn’t ask for an FBI investigation when she knew something, instead of playing politics and waiting until the last minute? If you want to blame someone for the lack of an investigation start with Feinstein!
Mr. Stephens,
You do realize that the franzy was perpetuated by the republican leader of judiciary committee and McConnell?
All they had to do was to follow "fair process" during hearing.
For example, not hold back key documents that would reveal Kavanaugh's legal stances on various judicial matters.
All they had to do was to stick to earlier senate norm of requiring 60-40 vote for SCOTUS appointment rather than going "nuclear option".
All they had to do was to let FBI investigate the issues and allegations rather than ramming through the nomination process because they know it is "now or never" for SCOTUS appointment in view of impeding midterm losses.
While your concerns are partly legitimate, you are failing to acknowledge that republicans are equally -if not more -responsible for this mockery of SCOTUS nomination process.
2
It is sad that our politics has become so dirty but the Republicans are to blame. When they obstructed Obama's appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, with no reason except they somehow think they have a divine right to run our country, when they let Fox News promote false accusations that Obama was not born in America and, especially, when they put an incompetent man who constantly lies (and who assaults women and brags about it) in the White House, then what did they expect?
Although the events Ford is bringing attention to happened a long time ago, I believe her. The drunken teenage boys probably forgot the event because it did not matter to them. However, the teenage girl remembers the event 30 years later because it traumatized her, and we tend to remember traumatic events.
328
@Carolyn, you mean the same Biden Rule that the Democrats tired to use to block a Republican appointment in the 1990s? The facts are clear the Democrats poison the town well and blame others. Had your party not done so many underhanded things in the past maybe Garland would have been considered. You many forget this but the elephant remembers. Just like it will remember this smear campaign when Dems try to do an appointment next time. You want a battle -you will get a war.
@Carolyn, the Republicans have been increasingly upping the game of filthy politics for at least the past 40 years. It's gotten to the point where they don't even bother anymore to try and HIDE WHAT THEY'RE DOING. They do it in plain sight and they're proud of it. They are corrupt to the core and the entire party needs to be destroyed forever as far as I'm concerned. If there are ANY actual conservatives out there in the United States, they need to group together and form their own party based on rational policy positions and respect for ALL people, not just old rich white men.
@Carolyn
I do agree that Merrick Garland should have been seen and come to a vote. That was a wrong headed move. However, the behavior of the Democrats is just as disgusting, if not more so. They have not stood up to the standard they expected. Instead they used this women to grand stand and time it for the midterm elections. Otherwise, why did not at least Senator Feinstein ask Judge Kavanaugh about this in her private interview.
In essence the Democrats have used her trauma to create advantage for themselves and send two families down in flames.
Mr. Stephens- should we have ignored the rumors about Cosby, or Rose, or Porter, or Weinstein, or Spacey etc? By the time anyone got around to a 'legitimate' investigation Kavanaugh, by you criterion, would have been safely ensconced on the SC.
I agree that rumor is not necessarily a guilty verdict, however, absent an impartial Republican Party, who already stole a SC seat, it was the only option to slow down a potentially unqualified individual from rising to that position.
Your conservative bias is showing. I can't imagine you had the same inclination when it was Clinton in the cross hairs.
4
@Peter...Kavanaugh has been subjected to SIX F.B.I. background investigations. What do you consider a "legitimate" investigation? Another F.B.I. investigation? The F.B.I. doesn't give credence to rumors that cannot be corroborated, so where does that leave your liberal bias?
Our government is already eating our children. Funny how Stephens ignores that, and must ignore that, to make his partisan, sexist argument.
2
To me this is about how the GOP did not allow a fair considertaion of Merrick Garland. The GOP broke the system, it is unfair to point fingers at the left now. The system needs to be fixed but it won’t until the GOP fixes itself first.
3
I agree with most of this, but: “antics?” Attempted rape goes well beyond antics. Why has Kavanaugh never himself requested an FBI investigation?
3
Be careful who you accusingly call the “left”. Many liberals aren’t taking the same position as CREDO. Please remember, many of us had questions about Kavanaugh’s previous perjury, his possible gambling, questions about debt. Kavanaugh has worked for years as a political operative, that alone disqualifies him.
The country should not have to go through this circus.
12
Our 'civic culture' passed away quite some time ago.
1
Pearl-clutching nonsense... Kavanaugh's supporters are defying both logic and precedent in refusing to allow the FBI to investigate these serious charges and to call as a witness the person who was alleged to be part of the attempted rape. The simple truth is that people who lie do not call for investigations by the FBI. In fact, the opposite is true. Presented with this whole, chewed and digested cover up, Mr. Stephens worries about fairness and civil discourse? I don't buy it, and neither should anyone else.
There is a reason that a youth's formative years are called formative years. They set the moral compass for all future actions as an adult. A 17-year-old athlete who would force himself on a 15-year-old girl, who belonged to secret societies and dishonorable fraternities is just the sort of person who would lie about his involvement in formulating government policy on torture and illegal surveillance.
That Kavanaugh is the product of an elitist community, private schools, libertine party culture and that he belonged to secret societies matters; it matters a great deal to the rest of us who he will sit in judgment over. And it matters that his sponsors are rushing to judgment without an investigation, without calling witnesses and without shame for foisting such a person as this on the rest of us. It matters that they are doing this without a care in the world that the allegations may in fact be true.
8
All this fascination on lurid detail and focus on hopefully unacceptable behavior is not about Kavanaugh. It is instead a function of distorted democracy, a lack of attention to rule of law, and ultimately a limited citizenry in which a minority has wrested power and is cramming their will down the throats of a whole population. In a real democracy, the will of the majority of the people would mean something, here it just means this perverted spectacle.
1
Toxification of public service? We have a grobian president abetted lovingly by the very people who, only a couple of years ago, bellowed about god, 'family values' and how character is so important. How shallow those values turned out to be. They are the ones who have created this toxification, not its victims.
7
Bret apparently laments the good old days, when women wouldn't rock the boat so much. What's a few rapes, more or less, or a few little ladies getting harassed, compared to society going through such upheaval now?
3
At this point, I think that even just the yearbook page—the part of this that is verifiable, and there for all to see—should be disqualifying. I went to an elite, all-boys prep school during the 1980s myself. (Indeed, more elite than Kavanaugh's, if it matters.) That yearbook page could have been authored by any one of hundreds of boys just like him there at that time. I saw the things they did to young women, heard the things they said about them, and in some cases witnessed the consequences for the women involved. It was vile. Vile enough that even as a teenage boy in the 1980s I found it vile, and I don't pretend to have been a particularly sensitive soul at that time either. So where did it all end up? Many of the girls will carry the scars for the rest of their lives. And the boys? Masters of the universe, almost to a man.
I am a parent now, and what I most don't want, is for my son to look out and see a world in which it's OK to be a drunken buffoon through high school and college and God knows maybe law school too, and it's OK to treat women like meat, to harm them, and then mock them and shame them publicly, because you're white, you're from a certain background, and soon it will all be forgotten, even the part that you were stupid enough to publish indelibly in your yearbook, and thirty years later: Bang, you're a justice of the United States Supreme Court!
This shouldn't have been OK in the 1980s, but sadly it was. We must not let it continue to be OK today.
3
Reasonable people can form different opinions on the likelihood of the attempted rape allegations (I believe Christine Blasey Ford), but to describe what Kavanaugh wrote in his yearbook as "mean and dumb" is to trivialize it. The appropriate way to describe it is to say he humiliated and objectified a woman for the amusement of himself and his friends. If the NY Times editorial department were hiring interns, and such a statement appeared in an applicant's social media posts, they wouldn't have a shot, would they?
7
Here’s a thought experiment, Mr. Stephens:
Try believing the survivors of the alleged sexual misconduct for just a moment.
Now, re-read what you’ve written:
“Will every future Supreme Court or cabinet nominee, Republican or Democratic, be expected to account, in minute and excruciating detail, for his behavior and reputation as a teenager?”
I can solve this one for you pretty easily—
If those “minutes” and “excruciating details” are prompted by credible accusations of attempted rape, shoving one’s genitals in other folk’s faces, and at the minimum, standing idly by while someone is gang raped, then unequivocally, YES.
Sorry, dude.
5
so you think it's ok for men to sexually assault women? just saying that in a sentence would have saved so many words
6
Supreme Court, presidency, Senate, House, Federal judgeships, State Legislators, Lobbyists, FEMA EPA, Federal Reserve, Cable News, FoxNews, Local Newspapers, On Line commentary trolls, Twitter bots, movie plots. The question is: how do Trumpublicans police themselves?
2
Jaw-dropping. No one has accused Kavanaugh of being "rowdy" or drinking beer. Credible women, at great personal cost, have accused him of sexually assaulting them. Your trivialization of these charges reveals your deep sexism.
3
The time has come to investigate the morals and ethics of journalists who must prove a life of credibility and superior morals before being believed.
This has gone beyond specific allegations to questions about Kavanaugh's honesty, including under oath. The accumulating number of allegations and character references from people who were at high school or Yale with him, or partied with him, agree on showing that he engaged in a culture of hard drinking privileged white guys who were abusive to women. This behavior apparently continued well into his 20s, past any reasonable "boys will be boys" allowance. Denying all these specific allegations, when even he acknowledges that his excessive drinking, makes him uncredible. And his active lobbying on Fox, and all-day strategy sessions at the WH are unseemly.
3
Sorry, Bret.
You don't get to lament the death of "ordinary fairness" and common decency when your team has made a living on refusing to be fair, to even recognize fairness as an option. Same goes for common decency, of which you-all appear to be bereft.
Common sense, too, is biting the dust via these hearings. Biting it hard.
How can you fail to see that this Justice wannabe has a single mission in life - to crush the freedom of choice for every woman in America, which renders his sexual history and his treatment of women however temporally distant or mild, the single critical issue in his nomination process.
It certainly was for your Republicans when they chose their nominee.
That and his bizarre insistence that no President can ever be held accountable for any crime because he or she can just go on ahead and self-pardon.
After your blatant exercise in rank ideological power, you doubt the right of those concerned with the actual issues of this nomination to speak?
You can babble on and on about the "frenzy" and the lack of journalistic standards, but that only marks you as a partisan hypocrite until you begin spewing the same venom on FOX and the illegitimate Right for establishing the new standards, for setting the bar well below grade.
2
Brett Kavanaugh's calendear reveals that he was grounded over Memorial Day weekend in 1982. Why?! The FBI and the Senate Judiciary Committee need to get to the bottom of this right away!
3
Judge Kavanaugh is adrift in a maelstrom of accusation and gossip - without anchor or port. Because he is being considered for such a high position, his background was due unusual scrutiny.
Before before he was nominated!
Now we have a man whose is reputation is in tatters. He and his friends from past are exposed to public condemnation and humiliation.
His family suffers great pain.
His accusers have come forward at great personal risk and cost. They are attacked and may never feel safe again.
Pain that was an event in the past is now fully alive in the present.
The country is further divided.
Government run by hacks and amoral idiots destroys all.
1
As I predicted Brett comes down ever harder against women who can't prove they are the Virgin Mary. All in service to a white male patriarchy he is obviously proud to be part if-- along with Trump and kavenaugh.
3
As others have already commented here, the issue is not not much whether the vulgar allegations against Mr. Kavanaugh are to be believed without further evidence, but whether the allegations merit some invetigation by the FBI. The ledership of the U.S. Senate has stated that it would rather plow the nomination through, and that is directly causing Mr. Kavanaugh's woes.
3
This is the Feral Republic that trump* and his supporters have ushered in. Rude, crude, vulgar and mendacious. It is called “telling it like it is.”
6
When the current president of the United States kicked off his campaign by citing that a certain class of people from a certain country south of our border are "rapists and murderers" he should have expected some kind of eventual blowback.
And now here it is in the form of Bret Kavanaugh, a nominee to the Supreme Court, being accused of attempted rape by some credible witnesses. So, maybe we should begin a national discussion on who the rapists in this country really are, where they're at, and how we can put them all behind bars.
1
Swetnick gave a sworn deposition. Ford passed a lie detector test. Kavanaugh whined on Fox. Is there anything a woman can do that would be more believable to you, Brett, than bro whining? Why are three women less believable to you, putting their whole lives on the line, than a spoiled brat who puts his own ancient conquest calendar out as evidence of his purity? At what point will male apologists understand the fury of women on this issue? At what point will male columnists just shut up when they have nothing useful to say?
4
No more trial-by-media!
I demand that these accusations be investigated by the FBI!
Are you with me, Bret Stephens?
2
Both sides can be accused of rushing to judgment - not just those on the left, as this author incorrectly implies.
2
Once again, Stephens exposes the gaping partisan blindspot in his analysis of our political morass.
He wrote:
"Is there any damaging allegation against Kavanaugh, of any nature and from any source, which the left would not automatically believe?" "In the post-Kavanaugh world, however, we have new editorial standards. These are: Report first, verify later (if ever). Use the accumulation of unproven accusations as evidence of their plausibility, rather than as charges to be investigated separately or as variations of the same fundamental untruth. Apply a presumption of guilt standard to the people you oppose, and a presumption of innocence standard to the people you favor. Hear something you like about someone you don’t — what used to be known as gossip — and repackage it as “news.”"
Gee, that sounds precisely like what Fox News (the most-watched source of news in the country) has been doing for 20+ years! Does Stephens mention that? No; he only attacks the tiny "leftwing Credo Action network."
He calls out Credo, but didn't mention Limbaugh, Breitbart, Coulter, Hannity, Beck, the Federalist, David Brooks, etc, etc? Did he forget about Birtherism? Swift-Boating? Seth Rich? Uranium One? Pizzagate?
Stephens is smart enough to remember these things. He's smart enough to understand that omitting facts is as unethical for a journalist as lying. He knows that creating false equivalences is just as bad. But he's guilty of doing these things none the less.
Shame on you!
12
Hey, Brett, if a young man did these alleged acts to your daughter, would you still call them “antics”?
5
At this point the dems have overplayed their hand. They've sounded the clarion for any and all who could produce evidence that they could have known Kavanaugh and are willing to state he abused them, They are hoping for quantity of accusations, not quality.
It is beyond any level of statistical possibility that these democratic women would come forward with recovered memories of events that they forgot to mention to anyone for 36 years all at the same time. We've gone from Kavanaugh being a creep (Ford) to a rapist (Stenwick).
We know this has been orchestrated by the left. Ford is an activist. Schumer said the dems would do anything to stop the nomination. Feinstein deliberately held on to Ford's letter until it was clear K had the votes. Then she released and demanded an investigation -- having let six weeks go by.
Here's accusers by credibility level:
1) Ford -- believable she believes what she says happened. But memories conflate, she told no one 36 years ago, the facts don't always match and no one can corroborate her story -- not the people she names as being at the party or anyone else.
2) Ramirez -- by her own admission can't remember details, was drunk, isn't sure it was K. But it's another accusation so the dems cheer.
3) Stenwick. Not believable at all. She lived 35 miles from DC, had graduated from HS before she went to these parties. But gang rapes by a few at parties attended by many, male and female -- not a shred of truth in that.
@Ralphie One woman is never believed. That's why it takes two, three or 100 to get any serious consideration for the FIRST woman.
May I ask what revolution you are referring to?
3
Where there’s smoke,there’s fire. A number of people have come up with eye witness accounts that show him to be - or has been - a sexual predator. These should be investigated. But they are not .And we need to blame the Republican majority for this problem. Garbage in,garbage out .
2
Let me quote Beto in responding to the win-at-all-costs Ted Cruz: True to form.
7
I just read Maureen Dowd’s column from 1991 about the Clarence Thomas hearings and realized sadly that not much has changed since then. That women are still afraid to come forward because of the repercussions they will face (check);an all male Judiciary committee (the majority party-check;at least there are some women on the committee but all Democrats, who according to the President are perpetuating a “CON JOB”); the false allegations about the women who come forward, I.e. Anita Hill-a little bit nutty, a little bit slutty” and Dr. Ford worked for a company that makes abortion pills so she has a financial interest in keeping abortion legal and she was drunk at the time (according to her written statement she was not)-check. And I could go on. And one question -all it takes for you to condemn the left is ONE organization that said it believes the latest accuser?! So no Brett I don’t think this episode will eat our children-maybe it will wake them up so that things will really change. And one more thing-Neil Gorsuch went to the same Prep School and nothing like this came out about him. So maybe you really can be moral and ethical even in high school!
3
I don’t understand why Kavanaugh didn’t discuss boozing, partying and qualuudes in his background
Is he so entitled that he gets to change history with categoric denials?
A mans man would own-up to his college daze behavior and asked to be judged fairly. The denial just means he hasn’t grown up yet.
3
Brett Stephens is trivializing sexual assault and even gang rape. These crimes have no statute of limitations in Maryland. It appears that Montgomery Co will start an investigation:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-moco-delegation...
There is the possibility that Kavanaugh will end up in jail.
He is also gratuitously denigrating three women who have made accusations. He advances no reason why their individual credibilities are less than Kavanaugh's -- together it is three-to-one.
Republicans frantic to get a hard-right nominee before the Democrats conceivably take the senate had better think through what happens if Kavanaugh is confirmed ..,. and then convicted next year.
3
Best column in the NYT, as usual.
2
"If the price of this revolution is the subordination of ordinary fairness to abstract justice..." Memo to Mr. Stephens: where was the "fairness" applied to Anita Hill in 1991? And your "abstract justice" produced Justice Clarence Thomas. Happy with that?
"...the elevation of rumor over fact..." You're guilty here of a false equivalence. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's allegations are based on her "facts." Rumors will not be sitting at her table in the Senate this morning. I think you're worried more about the judge than justice.
"...the further debasement of journalism..." Stop right there. Where was the due diligence the media applied to candidate Donald Trump in 2015-2016? You didn't give us news, you gave us entertainment. Are you sorry now?
"...the devaluation of the rights of the accused..." You have no right to such a statement. How have Judge Brett Kavanaugh's "rights" been "devalued?" He has not been tried of a crime, let alone convicted. Or are you mixing metaphors with Justice Thomas's ignoble "high-tech lynching?"
"...the complete toxification of public service." So what have you to say about Mitch McConnell's treatment of Judge Merrick Garland? Or the Republican party's silence in 2011 when Donald Trump went live with his unpatriotic "birther" scheme? And what about the Trump administration's very own "American carnage," a complete "toxification" of the American way since he assumed office?
You all on the Right love to mix and match when it suits you. Don't you?
1
During the trial of Marie Antoinette
horrendous charges were made against her
by people who were clearly lying.
The mob cheered as she was led through
the streets of Paris to her death by guillotine,
her hands bound by rope as if she were a threat to escape
and bring down the Revolution.
When I was younger I could not understand
how she could be convicted by lies
and how people could cheer her death -
I did not understand the mentality of mobs.
I have read every single comment concerning
the allegations against Kavanaugh and all the
news reports I could find.
I am ashamed of the New York Times for publishing
comments that are personal attacks on Judge Kavanaugh and
Ford that claim to be facts -
for none of the people who wrote those comments
know the truth of the matter
and yet they defame and insult
people they have never met
and the New York Times published them.
We have a Media Lynch Mob, that will quickly turn on
Kavanaugh's accusers as quickly as they turned on him,
if there accusations are shown to be false
and there are
dark secrets
in their past...
Ford reminds me of Charlotte Corday -
she thought she was
doing what was good by killing Marat,
Ford may be correct in her memory, she may not,
but the price this country and the New York Times
which declined to not be a member of the
Media Lynch Mob -
will pay in the future -
is an incalculable price
for once the Times' impartiality was lost,
and it is now lost,
it can never be regained.
3
Intolerable hypocrisy from an intolerable hypocrite. We understand that there is nothing a nominee who would uphold Citizens United or any other abomination could be credibly accused of that you would not say it's all about their qualifications as a judge. I remember when the GOP claimed it was all about personal responsibility, family values, the content of one's character (when it was Bill Clinton of course). Maybe it's time for you to take some personal stock Bret. Your act is worn out -- you decry DJT while supporting his policies and then you advocate for civility. How stupid do you think the rest of us are? Times editorial board. I completely understand your desperation to find someone on the right who has any credibility. Keep looking, no one said it was going to be easy.
7
The article in part says “However this ends for him, it may not end up too well for the rest of us.” It is amazing how we (non-white) and poor white males become “the rest of us” when society turns the flood lights on privalaged white males, acting like animals.
On the other hand, If Kavanaugh were in Central Park during an assault on a White female, while hanging out with his friends, . . . What would Donald Trump say?
When the smoke vaporizers —- we African Americans and Latin Americans, and Po white men —- instantly become (them), the men associated with being guilty until proven not-innocent and imprisioned no matter what the facts say. I am not saying everyone is innocent, but Justice must be served without regard to Pedigree.
If Kavanaugh hung out with rapists, watched young girls he recognized being gang raped but did nothing, while partying and engaging in excessive drinking he must be judged like “the rest of us!”. Most Americans don’t own pure silverware —— the rest of us got lots of plastic forks!
1
I don't believe this is about how stupidly he behaved as a teenager as much as it is about his flatly lying about it and denying everything, to ridiculous extents..
Also, enough with the "presumption of innocence" fig-leaf. This is not a trial, and presumption of innocence for Kavannaugh automatically implies presumption of guilt for his accuser (lies and deceit). That would be totally unfair.
1
Bit of a joke for a con job like Stephens to lament the hysterical and brutal tactics of the lying GOP, who have sacrificed their reputations on the altar of male religious hypocrisy.
2
Sexual assault is a serious allegation and is not in the same category as the typical dumb things a boy might do in high school. Repeatedly drinking to blackout, becoming aggressive, not owning that behavior, and lying about it is not the same as drinking a little more that one wants to admit.
1
And why does this remind me of the Clinton impeachment proceedings?
what this means for our civic culture: nominate justices who don't have long records of belligerent drunk sexual assault
1
Mr. Stephens this piece is so at odds with the rest of the NYT reporting and opinion pieces this week - mostly comparing all men to pigs. How on earth did a call for logic and fairness make its way into the NYT? You are far outside the NYT norm in asking people to be even handed and to think about what they are doing. Bravo!
2
What about Kavenaugh's unreleased documents and his use of I'll gotten Clinton documents and his callus treatment of a pregnant immigrant detainee. None of these issues mattered. This is a kangaroo process. Bring on the desperate attempt to have some say in the matter. This populism on the left is born of absolute frustration at the honey badger ways of people like Mitch O'Connel.
1
If this is “unfair” and inappropriate “witch-hunt”, what was your reaction to Merrick Garland?
Did you find that debasing?
2
The very fact that you still have a platform to espouse your concern over the well-being of men over and over again and in the face of very credible accusations makes me wonder what is really driving you and men like you. You follow me here, Bret?
The real concern should be the lunacy of a man like Kavanaugh getting elevated to the Supreme Court where he will impact the sovereignty of women's bodies for years to come.
Get a real issue. Something you can feel clean and proud about. This ain't it.
4
This smarmy drip is a liar about his objective on the Supreme Court: opening the door to theocracy in the US by judicially nullifying the "Establishment Clause" in the Bill of Rights. All the rest of his ugliness pales in comparison.
2
Of all that has happened in the last ten years, this is what is debasing our system? Seriously? Now the children are being served up for dinner? Where have you been, Bret?
3
Antics? That's quite a way to trivialized allegations of sexual assault.
an·tics
ˈan(t)iks/Submit
noun
foolish, outrageous, or amusing behavior.
synonyms:capers, pranks, larks, hijinks, frolicking, skylarking, foolery, tomfoolery
2
You (deliberately?) mischaracterize the reporting on Ms. Ramirez. The Times stated that it was unable to corroborate the allegations, NOT that Farrow and Mayer had so failed.
For decades (think about that) there were whispers of Judge Roy Moore's conduct towards young women and girls. And local and regional media investigated the allegations and never were able to substantiate them.
Until a last-minute first accuser came forward. Then another. Then another. You could have written this same column on Moore.
5
"Now it’s turned into an exhumation of his antics." So an alleged rape is an antic?
4
Bret(t)s of a feather stick together. Who did you hold down bret?
A frat-boy drunk. A compulsive gambler who racks up enormous debt, which is then mysteriously paid off right before his nomination. A confirmed liar. 100,000 pages of hidden documents. If this is the best we can do, then shame on us. Of course, considering grotesque liar and serial groper currently occupying the Oval Office, we've already hit rock bottom.
15
@M.E.
Amen.
Bret why do you not want an investigation of the allegations? Too late, you say? What's the hurry? You conservatives are petrified that your world order, based on racism, misogyny, hate and fear, is passing away, and well you should be scared, because it is. As to anyone in the future being subjected to the scrutiny Kavanaugh is now experiencing, just try to not rape someone and you 'll be fine.
8
@tbs..."...today's hearings are essential - and would have been helped by an F.B.I. investigation and sworn testimony from Mr. Judge". Feel free to actually read Mr. Stephens' article before making racist, sexist and intimidating comments.
Since this is not a trial but a job interview, Kavanaugh's new bosses (the people) can choose based on their gut. Their gut is telling them this was a toxic bro who got religiion. We're done with that kind of man.
3
If youthful drunken debauchery qualifies you to be President (we have had at least two examples now) then I don't see why it shouldn't qualify you to be a Supreme Court Justice.
Above paragraph intended ironically, for the literal minded people out there.
6
That calendar is a joke, plain and simple.
1
Silly me! When I saw ‘frenzied national inquest’ I thought you were talking about the Benghazi hearings.
11
Why does the writer continue to refer to Christine Blasey Ford only as “Blasey”? In his September 21 opinion piece he uses her full name only in the first paragraph. And now here as well. I’m surprised that The Times let the story run without correction. Everywhere else she’s referred to by her current name “Ford” or “Dr. Ford.” I can understand Blasey Ford but just Blasey? It is a sign of disrespect— maybe subliminally but it stands out to me under the circumstances. It frames her as the girl she was in 1982 and minimizes her credibility as an adult woman to be taken seriously. Language is important. Especially in cases like this.
8
Bret, I understand your concern for the fairness for Kavanaugh, but throughout this article, you have not once mentioned the fairness for women who suffered due to his alleged lew behaviors. It seems that you only worry about (mostly) men's fate and the future Supreme court appointment but not women being harrassed by badly behavior men. You have no clue how deeply women felt that they are hurt by the GOP kangaroo court.
2
You agonize over the damage being done to poor, poor Judge Kavanagh, and, by the way, our civic culture.
Could you have possibly spared a word for Christine Blasey Ford being driven from her home and having her life and the lives of her family threatened? Might you have speculated on the possibility of tracing and arresting the perpetrators of those threats? Is it possible that Ms Ramirez' recollection, hazy though it may be, has something to say about the inherent character of poor, poor Judge Kavanaugh?
Dan Kravitz
3
As usual Bret you are missing the point. If Bret Kavanaugh admitted that he had some indiscretions in high school and perhaps he had to learn some life lessons the hard way or even if he said he didn't remember violating Mrs. Ford and if he had he was extremely sorry for his behavior and he would like to meet with her and make amends, most people would give him the benefit of the doubt and this would not be such a big issue. The problem is, he is lying about it and he has lied about other things and some of us are aware of the fact that he is a liar. I don't want a liar to be a justice of the Supreme Court.
2
The republicans brought this on themselves: Merrick Garland should have had a hearing and a vote.
3
"Is there any damaging allegation against Kavanaugh, of any nature and from any source, which the left would not automatically believe?"
How about this: "Was there any damaging allegation against any Clinton, of any nature and from any source, which the right would not automatically believe?"
See how that works?
3
Well, right Brett, an FBI investigation would help here. Maybe the rush to judgment thing wouldn't be such a problem if his defenders would slow down and do the right thing. You barely mention that pertinent fact. Isn't that called "burying the lead" in your business?
2
This is utter balderdash from a columnist that is usually circumspect. The Republicans are trying to ram through this nomination without a thorough examination of the candidate (whose candidacy is itself a reward for his partisanship under Bush/Starr), including what he did or did not do during the periods of his blackout drunkenness. This, after the Republicans stonewalled a highly competent moderate candidate into oblivion. It is the Republicans who have obliterated the norms of democracy, inciting the fierce counter-reaction of democrats.
2
"In the post-Kavanaugh world, however, we have new editorial standards. The Gawker standards.
These are: Report first, verify later (if ever). Use the accumulation of unproven accusations as evidence of their plausibility, rather than as charges to be investigated separately or as variations of the same fundamental untruth. Apply a presumption of guilt standard to the people you oppose, and a presumption of innocence standard to the people you favor. Hear something you like about someone you don’t — what used to be known as gossip — and repackage it as “news.”
If journalists don’t understand why this is destructive to our profession, they have no business being in it."
Is anybody listening?
Those "odd souls" that Mr. Stephens refers to are exactly the kind of people we should be seeking to serve as Supreme Court justices. As the highest possible arbiters of jurisprudence, we have every right to hold these nominees to the highest possible standards of judgment. It's worth noting that Neil Gorsuch didn't have women coming out of the woodwork to make accusations. There is enough information on Kavanaugh at this point to reach one very simple conclusion:
The Republican Party, and our country, can do a lot better than this guy.
2
Thank you, Bret, for writing this. What the liberal mandarins do not realize is that we, the women of America, have fathers, husbands, and sons that we care deeply about and love, and this witch-hunt atmosphere where any accusation of sexual nature (no matter how dated and/or unsubstantiated) thrown at any man in this country automatically sticks infuriates and scares us. The liberal coastal elites do not realize that they are further dividing this country making it oh-so-easy to get rid of any man they do not like by throwing a string of accusations from their college years at them. they will taste their own medicine, I am afraid, which is not good for the country either. Where / when does this vicious cycle stop?!
One doesn't need to go any further than the beginning of the second paragraph here to discover Mr. Stephen's true feelings when he refers to the allegations against Kavanaugh as 'antics', as if allegations of sexual assault and the rest are just some good old fashioned hijinks, pranks and capers. Boys will be boys you know and they like to have their fun, even if they push it a little far sometimes, tsk tsk..... Well the alleged actions by Kavanaugh are not antics Mr. Stephens, they're sickening criminal acts. Throwing toilet paper in trees is an antic - sexual assault is a serious crime, and it's clear you and many of your conservative colleagues need to learn the difference.
369
@Peter What's also clear is that Kavanaugh is a willing follower. Raised in a rigid doctrinal culture, he feels most comfortable doing what the big boys tell him to -- then being an Alpha in the pack when it's his turn. When teenage boys drink and commit violence on their female peers, what they are doing is not exactly sexual. it's an expression of what I call "power in training." First you start with weaker guys on the sports field, then weaker girls in the sexual arena (the sexual arena is dicier for "nice guys" because they know what they're doing is wrong, so they have to get blackout drunk to do it). Then you get to move on to your career -- lawyer, doctor, business mogul -- where you get to exercise all that power you've been trained up for. And we call that "success."
@Peter
They are alleged actions. how would you stand up if you had to prove a negative if you were accused by a credible witness. You may really want to be held innocent until proven guilty. Are you sure you want to eliminate this part of our jurisprudence?
@Peter Sadly, it is "antics" to guys who do this. That's why Kavanaugh is so angry. He was most likely blackout drunk (which doesn't take that much alcohol for some people) or the incident was so inconsequential, he simply forgot about it.
we're not examining his past for a job at a google. if you want to be a chief justice, you should be prepared and WILLING for every aspect of your former life to be examined and for you to answer truthfully. if you want the job, this absolutely goes with the territory. "our children will eaten", calm down.
1
I love that calendar. Now we know how to defend ourselves if we’re ever accused of a crime. “Look at my calendar for that day, your honor. Just says “haircut” and “cut our lawn.” No crime. No crime, all day.”
(Who the heck says “cut ‘our’ lawn” on a calendar? “Cut lawn” I’d believe, but “cut our lawn.”? Unless Kavanaugh was a gardener and felt it necessary to distinguish his family’s lawn from those of his customers?)
1
Is this circus any worse than stealing the Garland nomination? I think not. I don’t remember any conservative anguish then, so stuff it now!
3
This points at why trust in the press is an all time low.
You seem to place ZERO responsibility on the failure of Grassley and his sham committee. No respect for the truth and an obvious hurry to fill the swiped seat. They distorted this process from the start and made a joke of their duty to properly vet Mr Kavanaugh and not smear Ford. McConnell met with boosters to announce their “win”. The digging for facts becoming a free for all is on Grassley’s head. This party before America move blew up because they lit a fire.
With the rampant coverage of this issue in major left-leaning media outlets, why would we need an FBI investigation? I am sure there are plenty of skilled reporters at this newspaper who could investigate the claims, and probably already have. Yet, all we have at this point is an uncorroborated accusation by Ford. There is little doubt she believes the incident she described happened to her. However, with her memory admittedly being somewhat faulty, it’s possible she has him mistaken for someone else. If she forgot the name, it would be easy for her to put Judge together with Kavanaugh, whose name was in the news. Now, many ladies reading this would argue they don’t forget these incidences. But in the cases of random encounters with perverts and such, one wonders whether the pervert could be recognized today. It’s one thing when the perp is well known. Quite another when he is at best an acquaintance. Realistically: how often would you expect a 15 year old to cross paths with a 17 year old?
@Joseph Schmidt As a parent of teenagers, all the time. There are, in the words of my son, a group of older high school boys who specialize in this sort of thing.
1
@Joseph Schmidt. Actually, she names a co-assailant: Mark Judge. The GOP led committee refuses to call him to testify - maybe get your facts from someplace other than Faux News.
The Republicans could render all this noise obsolete by simply allowing a one week FBI review of all the charges sworn to by the victims.
This started over Garland and the Trumplican’s shameful one year delay in filling this seat.
You reap what you sow.
3
Rather a big strategic move on the authoritarian right. (Whether or not this particular author realizes it. I rather hope he doesn’t.) Deny a careful investigation, leave it the media, then blame the new reality that is born from those medias’ commercial imperatives and constraints for the aftermath on the media, not on the refusal to mobilize the agencies that could investigate. This is a more subtle undermining of the media than “Fake news! Fake news!” but it contributes further to a “break the truth” movement. By this method a bad investigation undermines the troublesome free press, a bad appointment undermines a Court that might---if not undermined---someday muster the courage for another Brown v. Board of Education.....
3
"Is it now fair game to draw moral inferences about a nominee because he went to an elite prep school, or was a member of a rowdy fraternity, or said something mean and dumb in his yearbook, or drank somewhat more than he would like to admit?"
None of these was addressed as a negative before kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault. If a nominee is not accused of sexual assault, they will not be addressed as negatives in future hearings.
Mr. Stephens, you are equating sexual assault with silliness. That is what is wrong with this "battle."
We do not value females. Rather, we see females as objects; things for boys and men to look at, play with, and treat as they deem fit; not human beings who deserve respect.
That is what is so frustrating and infuriating.
4
Excuse me Mr. Stephens but you seem to be ignoring two major facts:
The latest accusation against Mr. Kavanaugh was for an incident in 1998 when he was a grown adult in his thirties. Second, it is believed that Mr. Kavanaugh may have perjured himself before the Senate when he was being confirmed as a federal judge. I agree that the media tends to cling to hysteria or gossip without verification these days and that is unfortunate and dangerous. But what really bugs me is the complete lack of memory for even recent events in the news cycle - events that are alarm bells that this man is not to be believed. I wish that the senators and news commentators speaking against Kavanaugh would remind us why he should not be believed over these allegations...because he just recently showed us that he was a liar by hiding the thousands of Bush-era documents that might implicate him, by perjuring himself before the Senate during his previous confirmation, etc. This would add weight to why he shouldn't be believed now...it is proof of his tendancy to lie in general, not just regarding his private life and sexual proclivities.
2
You have to wonder how much of this is due to a "revolution" and how much of this is due to the utter disdain for norms and principles by Mitch Mcconnell's senate. Would we be here if Garland had a fair hearing? If we had an FBI investigation and allowed for proper vetting of Kavanaugh? If Kavanaugh had not been appointed by a president who admitted to sexual assault?
Or lets take it a step further and blame the Robert's court for legislating on behalf of corporations and fundamentalist Christian supremacists.
Liberals, moderates and anyone concerned with the future of American democracy should be very alarmed about the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh. Unrelated to claims about sexual misconduct.
We need term limits!!
1
There is all the difference in the world between silly teenage behaviour, such as drinking oneself unconscious, and aggressive behaviour involving another person, such as attempted rape.
If you believe, as I do, that alcohol releases inhibitions, revealing the true underlying character, then teenage behaviour is indicative in these circumstances of a person's true character which is carried into adult life.
So, yes, excuse silly harmless behaviour involving only the individual, but be wary of behaviour which negatively involves others.
1
The coverage of this event puts a spotlight on this occasion but the issue for us as a nation is the character of the nominee. Sadly, this nominee has more than this episode to make us question that. He is on record as having told half truths and/or falsehoods in testimony to this Committee and to the one which gave him the position he now holds. Even if he had not been accused of assault here, we have years of evidence of his heavy drinking. He has been both equivocating and mincing in TV appearances and before the Committee. The FBI should investigate all episodes of assaults by this candidate. Not to do so marks this Committee as an authoritarian non-democratic political violation of Truth. Mr Grassley’s complaint of not knowing about this assault and his implied excuse for not having the FBI investigate at this time is simply a smoke screen and fog thrown up to hide what is clearly their effort to simply plow through this nomination and ignore the accusation altogether — just as they tend to ignore the opposition in everything that happens in Congress.
1
Dear Brett,
I understand your points you valiantly make in this essay. I might even be willing to entertain the worth of these said points.. But let's turn back the clock a few years. Lets go back to '15 and find that senator Mitch McConnell blocking almost all federal judges from President Obama. Now did you write this essay back then? Ah that would be NO. We move forward an Justice Scalia passes away. Normal life. The constitution tells us that the standing president must pick a replacement. Mitch McConnell raises his hand again and this time will not even allow a visit to the senate. McConnell even goes so far as to publicly state several times.."Mr. President i will not allow you to make this appointment". So let me ask you again.. Did you write this essay then? Ah.. that would be NO. Democrats have always been willing to listen in the world of dirty politics. For a brief time it is time to fight for our lives and just play the game of obstruction as McConnell has shown to do publicly and privately. So while i am so happy you have opened your eyes and mind to the republican party you don't get to be "golfer the though" in this brief time of the history of this country. Democratic eyes have been opened and i hope they never forget the apathy or infighting that allowed a minority to rig the country and obstruct. This republican controlled congress has shown a level of hypocrisy that hasn't been seen in a number of years. Always remember to VOTE.
13
Bret, your last paragraph is priceless. This WAR, this Civil (ie uncivil) War, was started solely by Conservatives. Let us remember the Right Wing Conservative thought and action Leaders who: debase liberals, minorities, turned our national politic into a winners take all game of domination, a blood sport of destroying others
Gingrich
Limbaugh
Koch Brothers
Mercers
Adelson
Mike Savage
Hannity
NRA
Falwell
Ralph Reed
Federalist Society
Heritage Foundation
Cheney
Trump
The leader if hate, the winner of breaking American Civility, the Master of Hypocrisy:
Mitch McConnell
I defy anyone. Anyone. To name a Democrat or target of these people who has done even ONE percent of the harm and Injustices to other Americans, our civility and common good.
Rest assured. Abraham Lincoln would be ashamed of those on my list.
15
Questions for Bret Stephens: Is there any allegation against a powerful white man you won’t sweep under the rug? Is attempted rape not a relevant accusation against an individual who is supposed to apply the law equally to men and women? Do you think a thorough, professional investigation of such charges is required for candidates for the highest court in the land? Do you even think rape is a serious crime? Do you care that our society routinely protects rapists and punishes rape victims?
6
It is both completely reasonable for the candidates for a top post such as Supreme Court Justine, Fortune 500 CEO, etc. to be subject to intense public scrutiny of their past. I'd rather that members of obnoxious fraternities, those with a history of objectifying and demeaning women, and drinking more than they'd like to admit be filtered out by the process rather than be given positions with tremendous power.
When I was growing up, I was regularly warned to practice good behavior because bad decisions in youth would come out and I might lose a chance at a "dream job" because of them.
Let's reserve the 1:1,000,000 opportunities for the exceptional people that are both successful and practice good behavior.
2
Unfortunately, your article headline is literal. I cannot think of any political movement in this country’s history less concerned about the fate of its children and grandchildren, and more selfishly obsessed with its control of our future.
Trump and his ilk simply do not want to leave their future in anyone’s hands but those of these ideologically obsessed old men! What an awful legacy for presumptive political leaders! What myopia!
1
Bret Kavanaugh may or may not have been a frat boy fiend in college and an aggressive jerk in high school. My experience with members of DKE, of which he was a member, would say it's possible as it was a notoriously unruly jock frat. All that said, where we've come as a country is as you say the more important point.
If any person, man or woman, can be accused by an anonymous letter that is read on national television or printed in a major newspaper, everyone should hide in their bunkers. We've lost all sense of innocent until proven guilty, or responsible journalism.
If a phone call to Ronan Farrow can ruin someone's reputation and carreer in an instant, where have we come?
I'm so sorry to read that YOU, Bret Stephens, feel like a VICTIM. But I too understand what is going on here. There is a new paradigm in political discourse from the right. Whenever they don't like how their actions look, claim victimhood.
So, don't like how you are being portrayed by rape victims, claim victimhood. Don't like how you are being portrayed by gay community, claim victimhood. Don't like how you are being portrayed by immigrants, claim victimhood. Don't like how you are being portrayed by people of color, claim victimhood. Don't like how you are being portrayed by the media, claim victimhood.
So, here we have the latest iteration of victimhood. Let's not listen to women with claims of sexual assault because a handful of judgeship candidates might have their indiscretions as teenagers exposed. Let's sweep all the past indiscretions of powerful men under the rug because if we don't, these powerful men might not step forward to HONOR us with their service.
So Bret, while you have my deepest, most sincere sympathy for you victimhood, I don't feel the least little regret that Christine Blasey Ford has come forth to make her allegations of a sexual assault by Brett Kavanaugh. On the contrary, I'm so very happy she did so. What the Supreme Court does not need is another sexual predator and good old boy on the court.
For those readers who do not feel victimized by women coming forward to report sexual assaults, I hope you will join me and
VOTE OUT ALL REPUBLICANS
3
Kavanaugh's detailed anatomical questions for Bill Clinton certainly also illuminate on man fixated on the prurient. Ironic now for him to be in the hotseat while trying to get a job promotion from which the nation may not recover should his rulings from the SCOTUS bench address any number of vital issues from abortion to criminal sexual conduct etc.
4
A far better question, is there any right wing talking point, any lie, that you will not utter to get a partisan hack onto the supreme court?
'Party over country' is and has been the republican mantra since the despicable Reagan begin the great lie.
2
The very moment the former football player frat boy said he categorically did not do the kind of things frat boys do when they drink and play with qualuudes, it was plain as day that he wasn’t being truthful.
5
Radical transparency? It’s radical to want transparency? There are plenty of qualified people of integrity... but in today’s culture where lying is promoted to children from the highest office in our republic, that may diminish the future pool. If K is guilty as B describes, this isn’t a Mis-step, it was attempted rape, the locking of the door, the turning up of music, and the hand covering her mouth... radical transparency indeed.
My fear, assuming he gets confirmed, is the personal retribution he’ll bring into his rulings as a Supreme Court justice.
No one can simply unhear what they’ve heard. And because of his intellect, his rulings will sound erudite and we’ll reasoned. But deep down, get ready for another series of “I’ll get you!” opinions when he takes his seat next to Clarence Thomas.
3
Disingenuous at best.
It was long suspected that Judge K lied. That alone should disqualify him from the highest court.
The republicans have long ago politicized this process. Not unlike the Trump presidency this has to be played out until the bitter, bitter end. It is ugly, it is brutal but it needs to be done.
Misogyny, racism, blind polarization. It all needs to be dealt with. If this is the venue then so be it. One must trust that America will come out the better for it.
1
Loved the inclusion of Kavanaugh's May 1982 calendar, & particularly loved the Monday, May 3rd entry "cut our lawn". Who writes this down on his high school social calendar? Or was this really printed in The Onion?
2
Before dismissing Bret Stephens, ask yourself whether Senator Al Franken had anything to offer as a public servant. He was sacrificed to the cause. Many others will be too, and there will be more liberals than conservatives, because liberals, being the self-righteous judges, will have to judge themselves most rigidly.
.
I'm surprised we haven't heard more discussion of President Bill Clinton. By the standards being used for Judge Kavanaugh, Bill Clinton should have been enthusiastically defenestrated from the oval office; instead Democrats and feminist leaders kept an admitted and active sexual predator in the highest office in the land. How can this hypocrisy be tolerated? Those around in the late 90s to defend him should be required to either debase themselves and admit their wrongdoing or be removed from public life, and the Sexual-Harassser-in-Chief should be removed from the party, and never allowed to speak at a Democratic event again. If this is the standard we hold ourselves to, then it must be consistent. Otherwise we're all just as hypocritical and driven by only partisanship as the GOP claims.
Mr. Stephens you have wrongly named this a "post-kavanaugh" world...this is truly a "Post-Trump" world in which truth and facts do not matter. And when Mcconnell said his greatest accomplishment was blocking a SCOTUS nomination of President Obama.
This revolution that the republicans are waging is disgusting and revolting, and it is most certainly eating our children and the very soul of democracy.
Typical Republican talking points.
First the Republicans deny Obama his rights as President to nominate a replacement for the Supreme Court, then they try and ram through this nomination at an incredible speed and a process that is an abuse of their power in Congress. Then in the process they refuse to release 80% of the documentation so this nominee could be evaluated. Then they refuse to allow the testimony of all but Dr. Ford. Then they limit the Democrats to 5 mins each. Then they schedule the Committee vote for the morning after the hearing. Then they bring in a woman prosecutor so the Republican men don't have to dirty their hands. Then we have to read this stupid op-ed that ignores all that and decries the situation of Judge Kavanaugh having to face up to his accusers.
And yes, the process should go into the minutia of a nominees life. Yes it should consider his years of being close to or at the legal age. This is for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land and it's members should be beyond reproach. Beyond reproach.
2
Bret,
I wonder what skeletons Merrick Garland has in his closet?
I guess we'll never know, will we?
Your GOP tossed out "ordinary fairness" a good while back.
So don't cry for me, Argentina.
3
He said she said .. the classic ... we have unleashed and condoned
a very Soviet political behavior.. rumor and ruin with no proof.. the loud blurt of media in bleed and lead fashion tempers to a very tacky potential .. perhaps it is in order for a more "thorough"
investigation ... one that would prove out as much as the Mueller
run farce of "Russian" persuasions.. and if such a loss look were to be agreed on... let us in a complete sense scan the personal and sexual history and makeup of several other notables of the swamp now and from the past
This is so true today, as it was back then about the social class that people like Judge Kavanaugh belong to -- from politicians to hedge fund managers.
—“They were careless people, Tom and Daisy – they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”
— F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby
8
The Republican Party has attempted to rush Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings to a positive conclusion from the start and they, generally speaking, don’t care how many women he may have harmed or what that would imply about him not only as a person, but also as a potential member of the highest court in the US who should, presumably, be prepared to treat the female half of the country as human beings and equals rather than targets and objects worthy of abuse. That is the real story here. Shame on you, Bret Stephens, for writing this nonsense.
7
None of your arguments matter, Mr. Stephens. When the Republican senate committed the unprecedented act of denying a sitting president his constitutional obligation to fill a vacant Supreme Court seat, the entire process of advise and consent, of, indeed, governing took turn from which we may never recover. I've always considered myself to be a fairly articulate man, but today, when I look at this body of white men with their blow-dried hair, words elude me and the only thing that seems to want to emanate from my mouth is vomitus.
If Grassley, McConnell, Graham, et al had not dismissed Dr. Ford and her claims against Kavanaugh out of hand, perhaps a civil discussion would have ensued and calmer minds prevailed. Unfortunately Kavanaugh went along with it and now finds himself in an indefensible position...claiming status as a good guy because you didn’t lose your virginity in HS?! Really!? That’s on the job description? Personally I want to know if he ever smoked pot.
2
Welcome to the "World of Trump". America has not been made "great", it has been made vile, with its very underpinnings being decimated by the lies and criminality of a narcissistic sociopath.
We should be making social progress but have been thrust kicking and screaming into a dystopian dark age by a Trumplican cult and its leader.
We, as a nation, are obligated to clean the slate in a few weeks using the BALLOT BOX, assuming it will not have been hacked by Russian intervention like it was in 2016. Nothing has been done to prevent this because it is in Trump's favor, and he is a complicit traitor in all likelihood - lest we forget the Mueller investigation amidst all this other distraction.
So, WE MUST VOTE and regain legitimacy. ANY vote for a Republican is a vote for Trump.
6
This fully orchestrated dem and progressive end of days charade will soon come to an end - and, MANY THANKS to Harry Reid, Kavanaugh will be confirmed next week.
The poor and sadly manipulated Ford will get to enjoy additional mental torture while continuing to live inside of her story that she believes to be true but remains highly - no, hugely - suspect in every one of its “alleged facts.”
Feinstein is desperate in her re-election of a “monstrously too old to be a senator” campaign and worked all this out ahead of time with ol’ pious Chuck to withhold until the final hour. She has NO credibility and is part of the disgusting manipulation of Ford squad.
A charade that will cost her and the Dems greatly going forward. Good!
Bret, a valiant attempt to justify a party of liars who try to corrupt and misdirect the process that they the Republican control.
Unfortunately in order to protect your party you too have to lie and misdirect. "will eat our children" is a lie you try to peddle to justify an unjustifiable Supreme Court nomination. No one will get eaten if an alleged RAPIST, alleged by multiple people we might add, does not get to be Supreme court justice.
2
Dear Bret:
1) Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
2) What is truly breathtaking is conservative chutzpah: conservatives whine about fairness after spending years of outright lying about just about everything.
10
I have a solution to your dilemma. Nominate women. Skeletons in the closet appear to be a male thing.
Mr Stephens has been around DC long enough to know that Democrats, so-called ‘progressives,’ and their Red Guards will stop at nothing to destroy a decent man in their pursuit of power and their Cultural Revolution. It’s Mr Kavanaugh today but it could be any man or young boy in this nation in the future if it suited the mob.
Liberty is in grave danger in this nation when a man can be destroyed by an agenda-driven mob based on unprovable allegations from decades ago. And that is exactly what Dems and their allies want. This nation is in incredibly dangerous territory and you may thank the Democrat Party for it.
I’m waiting for female candidates to receive the same level of scrutiny about their sexual past. If we’re not allowing the slightest indescretion, turnabout should be fair play.
Males are of course guillty of sexual assault. That is a religious tenant. Our young men are treated as predators instead of people. Any interaction, real or imagined, with a girl can be turned into a weapon. The worst part, though, is that this decade of witch hunt has destroyed the credibility of female victims, who should be treated with dignitity and credibility, but are now lumped in with the charlatans political activists.
There is no revolution and our children are not at risk.
The American Revolution left most black Africans as enslaved property then denied that women and Native Americans were divinely naturally created equal persons with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Brett Kavanaugh is no Emmett Till nor Clarence Thomas. Christine Blasey Ford is no Sallie Hemmings nor Anita Hill.
This is all mainly white folk's business. And the only thing that matters is how the majority of the white Republican Party in the U.S. Senate votes in giving their advice and consent to this nomination. Kavanaugh already has a lifetime federal Appeals court appointment. Dr. Ford has tenure.
2
I basically agree. Now write a column about Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell and the Tea Party who have brought us to this pass.
Merrick Garland. Fox News. Old white men making laws about women's bodies.
I know I'm doing false equivalencies, but I am that angry.
1
This is the Bret I remember from the WSJ.
1
“Question for the people at CREDO Action: Is there any damaging allegation against Kavanaugh, of any nature and from any source, which the left would not automatically believe?”
The left is as willing to believe, faith-like, any damaging allegations against any republican...
The right is as willing to believe, faith-like, any damaging allegations against any democrat...
Now, fix it!!!
Mr. Stephens’ complaints about allegedly debased journalistic standards (“Report first, verify later. Or never.”) would seem less partisan if they were leveled equally at right-wing media, specifically Fox “News.” Birtherism, Benghazi, Seth Rich, should I continue?
2
Since his first column for THE TIMES, Stephens has shown himself to be a standing embarrassment. He is not a "conservative columnist." He is an ideologue and an apologist masquerading as a moralist. Complaining about CREDO Action as if it were a representative voice is a thin reed on which to hang an indictment of "the Left" and the decline of the culture generally. And it is to ignore the context of the Kavanaugh circus completely.
It would be a good time for THE TIMES to retire his number.
2
One can opposed Judge Kavanaugh because he’s a member of the white privileged male class. He’s had every opportunity handed him in life and therefore, you not be elevated to the court over someone who had to work harder to get there. We need more diversity on the court, simple as that. How about a gay justice?
1
As a Republican for almost 40 years, I am ashamed of my own party. They have become soulless. There is nothing in the approach to Mr. Kavanaugh's hearing(s) that resembles a scent of seeking the truth. From hiding thousands of documents, to not having an FBI investigation of the alleged assault, to having 12 old white dudes decide the fate of a man who is accused by a woman, and yet not having the guts to do the interrogating themselves. My party has become the swamp that will never drain itself. We desperately need a new GOP.
3
Conspicuous in Bret's writings as this process has unfolded is the absence of any comment beyond the credibility of the accusers and now this, a smug lecture about the damage these ever zealous lefties might inflict.
Absent is any questioning of unprecedented actions in withholding documents regarding the nominee; the refusal to allow FBI background investigations regarding charges like this; the refusal to speak to the only other person in the room when the alleged event with Dr. Ford occurred; the nominee's past issues with credibility in his testimony regarding receipt of stolen emails; the nominee's denials of any knowledge of the actions of his mentor Judge Kozinsky who was run off the bench as a result of his affection for porn; the nominee's assertion of his choir boy existence in the face of yearbook postings and the comments of roommates; and on and on. One wonders whether there is anything the right can do that Mr. Stephens will not pass off as solely the hysteria of the left promoting the interests of hysterical women.
1
a simple apology would have avoided much of this
1
Antics? It’s called assault.
6
Time to go back to the Wall Street Journal to promote your narrow viewpoints. You think America will be fine with incremental moves.
We have severe problems with income inequality,but obviously you don’t care about that .What is the left in America ?
3
Tread lightly Bret, you run the risk of mansplaining journalistic ethics* to a rabid newsroom. That is the sort of thing that will get you fired in today's feelings > facts culture.
*which were tossed out the window years ago by the likes of Brian "There I Was" Williams and Dan "If I knew then" Rather (who, some might recall, ran the GWB draft dodging story without verifying the key docs).
All my life I've been subjected to lies and indoctrination. The society is indeed shifting but it's not in a cellphone or on a reality TV show. I personally stopped watching TV about 50 years ago because it was full of racist, misogynist lies. Yet I'm au courant, as they say. Just read the BOLD HEADLINES on all the websites. Digital "truth" used to be called dumpster diving. Perhaps I'll be eaten. Or I'll be dead - which happens to all of us. Remember that? Or are you just lemmings?
Wow what a world must live inside you people's heads. "They" (read: we) might not believe stories that didn't completely have the ring of truth; or if these women, unconnected to each other, weren't all basically saying the same thing; or if your boy (and his boy) weren't a known liar. Or if lying and the abuse of women didn't constitute your party's entire brand. Maybe if those things. That's before we even consider the irony of conservatives saying that about... well, anyone.
And besides, he's obviously one of those fake smart guys... like Gorsuch. And Thomas. And Trump. And the last guy you people not-really elected to the presidency.
Credibility is a thing. You should stop wasting our time.
1
Bret defends Brett and clutches pearls over how investigating allegations against a Supreme Court nominee might cause us all to live in agony. Tut, tut Bret. Remember the guy who was withdrawn from consideration because he had smoked pot in college? Remember Obama's candidate who was not even given a look by the Republican Senate because....well go figure it our your self. Remember last week when Mitch promised the rabble that he would push Brett through regardless of allegations of sexual predation? We would not be harmed as a nation by a long hard look at Brett, we would be harmed by the lack of same.
7
Bravo Bret.
I am more interested in his blackout drinking, why he had huge debts and who exactly paid them off, why and when. I think he is very likely guilty of the behavior ascribed to him.. along with many of his high school classmates.
Calendar cites "Grounded" for what? forgetting to shine his halo? Unlikely
Mrs K should get out now while the money is there for her....her husband is a creep
1
If by “civic culture” he means “docile acquiescence to the rule of privileged white men” — which is exactly what conservatives usually mean when they use faux-noble phrases of this sort — then he's 100% correct.
Trying hard to think of a scenario where I wouldn't want charges of sexual misconduct investigated rigorously and to chase down all ĺeads relative to a Supreme Court nomination ... Nope. Can't do it. Of course I'm not a Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. And I'm not Bret Stephens.
3