I agree with almost everything Bret writes in this column.
I’m becoming slowly convinced that this isn’t at all about Brett Kavanaugh, but about vindicating the self-respect of Democrats who were so badly shattered and humiliated by McConnell’s outrageous actions to keep Merrick Garland off the Supreme Court. It could have been the shade of Mother Teresa whom Trump nominated this time out – it wouldn’t have mattered. Whoever was nominated had to be destroyed, by whatever means, at whatever cost. They couldn’t do it with Gorsuch, because he turned out to be more bulletproof than Mother Teresa, and Dems aren’t that intelligent or resourceful – just look at how blatantly obvious Dianne Feinstein’s reprehensible, patently political machinations have been during this mess. Look as well at Harry Reid’s clueless repeal of the filibuster for presidential confirmations OTHER than Supreme Court nominees, which predictably opened the door to McConnell’s repeal of that last bit. But Kavanaugh is more human in that he drank too much as a kid in high school and at least part of college. That was the chink needed.
But McConnell started us down this road of “anything goes” in the modern era (it’s been a long time since Teddy “borked” Bork), and subsequent actions are merely attempts to one-up the last outrage. That a man’s life is in the balance matters nothing to Dems – what matters is their successful one-upmanship; and, besides, by allowing himself to be nominated, he bought in …
35
Kavanaugh wholly believable? Why? I'm a year older than Kavanaugh and, back in the day, I was quite fond of beer, too. So, I understand fully the times Kavanaugh grew up in. If I was accused of sexual assault & I was "100%" certain, like Kavanaugh claims, that I did not do it, boy, would I act differently than he does!!! I would have demanded a thorough FBI investigation, as long as it takes, to clear my name. You say my best buddy was in the room? Subpoena him, please! I want him to testify right after she does. He can tell everyone that it was not me. Kavanaugh stated, on the record, that he didn't watch Dr. Blasey testify. I would have hung on every word listening for an error that would help prove my innocence. Kavanaugh certainly made a show about how "wounded" he was, but when presented with ways to clear his name, he refused them. I think the good judge had a drinking problem. I think he spoke to his high school buddy & his buddy told him he couldn't remember anything happening, but that he had passed out drunk. Kavanaugh tried to portray himself as a "virgin" angel & all the evidence states otherwise. If Kavanaugh said that he had a drinking problem back then, doesn't remember anything about the day in question, doesn't think he did that, but he drank heavily & has gaps in his memory as a result, THAT would be wholly believable. But that's not the picture the judge tried to paint at all. Anger does not equal honesty. It can make for good theater, though.
299
Bret -- I have always been grateful for your columns -- until this one. Kavanaugh's petulant hyper-partisan tirade on Thursday afternoon disqualifies him for a seat on the Supreme Court quite apart from whatever the truth is about his sexual behavior in high school.
And yes, there must be a presumption of innocence. But your Republican pals on the Judiciary Committee have done everything they could to ignore testimony that calls Kavanaugh's innocence into real question. You write: "To deny Kavanaugh’s confirmation based on Blasey’s allegation alone — never mind those of Deborah Ramirez or Julie Swetnick -- "
Really, Bret? "Never mind?" You are way better than this.
114
Bret, this column is beneath you. Or beneath the rational conservative I thought you were. Your selective memory when it comes to Republican manipulation, your willful ignorance of Kavanaugh’s mendacity , your obvious partisanship...though I rarely argreed with you, I still respected you. I guess I’ll have to change my opinion.
148
You lack basic street smarts if you couldn’t tell that Kavanaugh was lying. His wounded frat boy persona replete with crocodile tears, yelling, asking Senators about their drinking habits showed he isn’t fit to be a judge anywhere. How could anybody not see this? Ideology clouds judgment.
305
Much as I enjoy Stephens, "this seed" was "sown" when Senator McConnell denied Merrick Garland even a hearing.
That liberals could embrace a new McCarthyism is quite possible but opposition to Judge Kavanaugh began with a belief, confirmed by his testimony, that he would rule for Presidential powers not embraced by Madison, Jefferson or Washington, thus rescuing Trump from the swamp which Mueller is investigating.
The question now is less about whether rsexual abuse is provable in a rushed FBI investigation but whether Judge Kavanaugh has lied to protect himself. In particular did he lie about what appears to have been his binge drinking during high school and college?
The lesson of Watergate was that the cover-up is what ruins you.. By saying he never "blacked out" just "went to sleep" after drinking Kavanaugh sounded more like Tricky Dick than John Sirica.
112
"But to vote on the basis of a belief in things unseen and unproved is a road to national ruin." ????? This may be the most inane comment I've read about these hearings. The Senate would have been voting on something unseen and unproven if they were voting on Kavanaugh's vaunted fair-mindedness, lack of partisanship and judicial demeanor, as well as his sworn truthfulness. However, after his testimony and behavior on Thursday, they have seen a little more of the real Kavanaugh. It was a sorry sight.
256
"It could have been completed, with much greater thoroughness, weeks ago if Dianne Feinstein hadn’t concealed Blasey’s allegation from the Judiciary Committee for much of the summer — a remarkably cynical ploy suggesting motives other than honest truth-seeking."
Simply false. I'm shocked that a NYT reporter has bought into this fiction.
198
Now that the Democrats have the nation's attention they need to move on from Kavanaugh's teenage years and make sure people hear about his closed minded, santimonious, right wing deeds as a federal employee and judge.
52
Forget every other thing...
You would seriously hire a person who cried, got snippy and high handed and just generally melted down when things got a little tough?
I bet not.
Your partisanship is showing.
289
Nice try, Bret. When I watched your buddy Kavanaugh, I saw saw a spoiled brat having a temper tantrum because his white male entitlement to a seat on the Supreme Court was being challenged. Maybe the GOP should stop nominating sexual predators to high political office, and stop the fake outrage and tears of self pity when they and it are called on their rank chauvinism and hypocrisy.
88
Brett, you missed the whole thing. Disappointing.
33
"Do you believe Kavanaugh? I watched him — meticulous, wounded, furious (wouldn’t you be, too, if you were innocent of such an accusation?) — and found him wholly believable." No. not just no but H... no. If I had been wrongly accused I would have insisted on an FBI investigation, My friend who was accused of being in the room to testify and every other accuser interrogated. I would not have lost my composure, my self-respect, my temper, my dignity, and made an absolute fool of myself. Kavanaugh did exactly what all men in high positions do when guilty, feign outrage and blame someone else, in this case, the Democrats. And hope his sycophants do the same. Congratulations, you and shemale Lindsey Graham qualify.
94
This is nothing more than partisan hackery. I’ve lost some respect for you.
200
Part of the reason we want to know what happened 30 years ago is what it could tell us about the type of person he was and may still be.
But he did a much better job of showing that he is an angry, nasty, entitled little boy.
106
Or, Brett Kavanaugh could just take a lie detector test, as did Dr. Ford.
88
Better that Stephens is a columnist. It’s about CREDIBILITY. A credible historian is then believable And the credible historian here was Dr.Ford.
Let’s review:
1. BK wrote Renate Alumnius : testified it was a term of endearment. FACT: Fellow classmates scoffed at that saying it was a sexual reference;
2. BK testified that Leland Kaiser,under penalty of felony made a statement that refuted his presence at the party. FACT: Her attorney wrote she had no memory of the party.
3. BK testified that he “Ralphed” due to a weak stomach FACT: in the 1980s that word was similar to BARF-which any red blooded American college kid when I was growing up knew it was about upchucking after drinking oneself beyond drunk.
4. BK claimed that on July 1, 1982 he went to Timmy’s house & that in attendance were Judge, PJ & other folks. And he used the word “skis” as in brewskis. 3 of the 4 persons named by Dr Ford as present at the party where she was attacked were present on 7/1/1982
He questions her “ believability, because she wasn’t clear on the exact number. But she got the three named above and on BKs calendar at a house party on 7/1/1982 & she was exacting as to the house- the stairwell, the room with the bed to the right, and the bath across the hallway from the bedroom. She named her attacker & Marc. ID isn’t at issue because she actually KNEW, BK and Judge. They had socialised in the past. And she named both in 02 And ‘12.
So I ask who is the credible one?
79
So, I guess unbelievability will Make America Great Again!
62
Clearly, you are witnessing a different process than I am. Kavanaugh's fate is in the hands of Mr. Trump and Mr. McConnell. Had Mr. McConnell been able to ram a vote through the Senate this week, he would be on the bench. Now that he is being held hostage by an investigation, Trump is going to use him and dump him. Trump will blame Hillary, George Soros, and a myriad of other evil forces fighting Trump's personal, political agenda. Kavanaugh is a perfect martyr for the coming election; a poor innocent white man destroyed by lefties and whining liberal women. Kavanaugh's fall is a clear call to Trump's base for revenge. It will bring them out in masses to save the House and Senate. That's the play. Listen to AM talk, and Foxnews. I'll be dollars to donuts I am right.
71
“I believe” descending into reaching for raw power. Isn’t that what occurred when “people of faith” (that is, “believers”) voted for Donald Trump?
61
"If Kavanaugh were to step aside in exchange for a deal in which Donald Trump nominates conservative federal judge Amy Coney Barrett and Democrats agree to vote on her nomination before the midterms, the country might find a chance for compromise, closure, and even a moment of grace."
You must be kidding. If Democrats did this, the three branches of our government would be totally and forever corrupt.
Compromise? Closure? Grace? Is that what you call getting in bed with the devil? It's bad enough that Donald Trump and the GOP are near fascist in their tactics. Now you suggest roping in the Democrats? And the next Supreme Court as well?
My God, Bret, have you lost your mind?
112
Sure there's always been a presumption of innocence in America, if your rich, male, white and in with all the elitist machinery, we got all the presumption of innocence you can handle.
If your black, female, poor and politically insignificant, you only have the right to remain silent.
73
Its the end of the world!!
10
The right wing is where all "believability" problems come home. These people "believe" Trump is fit to be President, when he really is unfit for ANY public office.
I "BELIEVE" Trump is a danger to the survival of mankind and anyone who can't "believe" this is blind, ignorant, or a party line dunce.
This journalist is an equivocating dissembler. He should just come out and salute Trump with a raised arm, pam down.
31
McCarthyism??? Not one of your better ones.
How can Christine Blasey Ford and Joe McCarthy be mentioned in the same world?
... and in the face of the slurs from Senator Graham and his henchmen, go tell Christine Blasey Ford to believe in "fair play."
150
How many times does Judge Kavanaugh have to lie for a conservative to find him unbelievable?
154
Poppycock. Senator Feinstein gave a perfectly logical, and believable, explanation of why she didn't rush to make Dr Blasey-Ford's allegations public. A conservative's knee jerk reaction is not to believe her because she's a Democrat. End of the discussion.
142
Me thinks the gentleman protest too much.
89
Et in mendacium parvae res magnum in mentior. Kavanaugh is a liar. Re: Mr. Stephens argument, I am continually struck by how well intelligent people (in this case Mr. Stephens) can rationalize almost anything.
148
Bret Stephen’s argumentation is rich in sophistry, wrong equivacies but missing a moral compass.
59
Mr. Stephens:
Let’s just boil this down in simple terms. Even if you take out Mrs. Ford’s issue, he is lying about the culture he was in and created for himself in high school and college, with alcohol, etc....LYING!
We can’t have a lying judge on the SCOTUS. Get a grip!
206
Why did Stephens ignore all of the lies Kavanaugh has been caught telling? He is demonstrably untrustworthy.
This is a he said, they said, he's a proven liar case.
228
You manage to say so many reasonable things on your way to an entirely unsupportable conclusion, Brett, it boggles the mind. Look at your closing paragraph again. Who is in charge of this committee? Who nominated this judge? Who tried to avoid this hearing and tried even harder to avoid having the FBI investigate these claims? Who is retiring from the court when he knows that the Republicans control everything so that one of his former law clerks can take his place? Who vented his gentile anger at the Democrats for the most unethical sham since he entered politics (in 1995)?
Now tell me again how this disunity and lack of comity is because the Democrats put together a Machiavellian plan to (drumroll please) get the FBI investigation that DiFi and Dr Ford had asked for this summer and which a different Republican president at a different time ordered without having his arm twisted? Huh? Is that our prize, that the entire Republican caucus will pretend for a week to care about learning the truth of a serious accusation against a man nominated to a position of immense lifetime power?
It is hard for me to believe that you are that obtuse, so I'll credit it to your empathizing with Kavanagh's obvious emotion. But when Kavanagh (or another arch conservative) is on the Court by Christmas, and there was no sustained campaign to shut down all nominations and the Fed writ large a la McConnell, please have the decency to acknowledge that your blatant biases cloud your basic reason.
45
On Thursday, I saw Kavanaugh as a bombastic, aggressive, nasty person. I would not like to be with him when he is drunk - you might never know what he may do.
186
She will "face ruin" whether she is believed or not.
He will not "face ruin" whether he is believed or not. His male colleagues will secretly high-five him--whether he is believed or not. He will do just fine.
That's the essence of the "bro culture" we have in this country, and frankly, women are just sick of it.
The root cause of this whole mess is that your Republican party allowed an unfit, corrupt, misogynist to ascend to the presidency.
Do you remember the Women's Marches the day after the inauguration? An old lady, me, got up and marched. I'd never been to a protest in my life. I had to go because you allowed an utterly despicable individual to take the oath of office one day earlier. We women have had enough.
You ought to have paid more attention to those marches. Politics aside, the moment a credible accusation was made against Kavanaugh the Judiciary committee should have asked him to withdraw. The partying/drinking culture at his and other private DC area schools during his time there is well documented. But, no. He denies everything, and you circle the wagons around him. The Anita Hill debacle taught you nothing.
Don't you Republicans have a single, stainless, decent man to nominate to our highest court?
Don't blame liberals for this.
361
These, Mr. Stephens, are counsels of despair. Let me touch on a few.
(1) Senator Feinstein "kept back that original letter" as a "cynical ploy"? Hoping to toss a last-minute monkey wrench into the proceedings?
No. The letter (a cri de coeur if ever there was one) came from a fearful, vulnerable woman. She had asked her name NOT be brought forward. Considering the dreadful celerity with which right wingers fling death threats at people they don't like, maybe that was understandable.
(2) Your notion seems to be: the truth is simply unknowable. We'll NEVER find out what really happened. Oh but I believe HER. Oh but I believe HIM. Who do you like? Who not?
Both hands lifted desparingly.
Like the man in Bacon's essay. "What is truth? said jesting Pilate nor would stay for an answer."
(Though I know, sir, you are far from jesting.)
No, Mr. Stephens, we CAN dig a little. Can't we? We CAN ferret things out. We CAN uncover things. Let's get going. Unearth as much in a week as we reasonably can.
AND NO, MR. STEPHENS. NO--NO--NO--NO!. . . . ..
Let' s NOT confirm Mr. Kavanaugh UNTIL we show some "due diligence" here. Probe--discover--detect.
No matter WHAT that Russian guy says.
We're not disintegrating, Mr. Stephens. Not THIS nation.
Not yet.
Not yet.
11
Brett Kavanaugh is a smart, hard-working, family oriented, church attending, swell guy who has ascended to the highest level of his profession.
Bart O'Kavanaugh is a mean, nasty drunk who lies to cover up criminal behavior. He's the stereotypical frat-boy who bullies, and feels entitled to everything. Worst of all, he's hopelessly partisan which disqualifies him to pass judgement on fellow Americans.
He's both of these people, and anyone who is half Bart O'Kavanaugh has no place on the bench, let alone the highest court in the land.
37
I'm baffled by the ignorance and fear around the simple reminder, "believe women". this is not to the exclusion of men, but *as well as* men. this is a reminder the balance is *still* out of whack. too often, the knee-jerk reaction is "I can't imagine it, so it can't be true". how can we object to a grievance being taken seriously, and not pre-judged by looking only at the surface?
crazy, I know, to ask people to refrain from pre-judging a case immediately in our heads!
4
Stephens says the strongest argument against Kavanaugh is that we should not elevate to the court a man under this “pall of suspicion,” a man victimized by liberals who will come to regret the process they “never intended to be fair.” Kavanaugh’s lack of integrity is not at issue.
I expect this willful blindness from Republican partisans. From Stephens it’s a disappointment.
On CNN last night, Liz Swisher, a respected oncologist and former classmate of Kavanaugh’s, says he lied under oath about his drinking behavior. She says she has no evidence of sexual assault and would have “stayed on the sidelines” if he had just told the truth. But “to lie under oath, to lie about that, then, what else is true? In the highest position in the judiciary in our land, to not know the difference between truth and lies – that’s just terrible. It’s not about women versus men. It’s not about Democrats versus Republicans. It’s about the integrity of the Supreme Court.”
Swisher gets it. Why don’t our leaders?
71
Accusing Democrats of unfairness in a process that has been controlled from the start by Republicans is the most ridiculous thing in this essay of ridiculous falsehoods and omissions.
37
Let’s get off this Feinstein bashing. Imagine for a moment that weeks earlier she had revealed this letter. The GOP would immediately demand that they reveal who made the claim. Absent that information, they would dismiss and ridicule the claim as “fake news” or the work of a coward. Brett, did you not notice the response to the anonymous Times op ed? You are being as disingenuous as the Republicans.
Kavanaugh displayed his true self and disqualified himself by virtue of his temperate. As a judge he threatened retribution: as you sow, so shall you reap, a clear threat to the left and Dems. He would never tolerate the actions he took toward Sen Klobechauer if it had been instead a defense attorney responding to him similarly if he sat on the bench. He is clearly unfit. Stop trying to rationalize.
28
Just have to love the comment about showing grace by voting on judge Barrett before the midterms. Where was this grace when judge Garland was nominated?I
24
Mr. Stephens, as much as I have enjoyed your thoughtful comments over the years, on this issue you're a little out of your experiential depth.
What I mean by that is that since you were brought up in Mexico you really have no personal understanding of the sense of expectation, birthright even, that those from Kavanaugh's social class in this country have. It's not my view alone, Kavanaugh stated it often with his cris de coeur about his qualification which sounded like his application to Yale.
More relevant, though, was how he referred to the girls he knew in his Catholic preppy days. He made a point about saying how he only socialized with the girls from the local Catholic schools and was liked by them, a claim supported by the glowing endorsements from them. Then again, I'm sure none of them were pushed into a bedroom to be raped. After all, one does not foul your social nest. Ford was another matter.
As he said, she was not of his social circle, but he knew her and she knew him, and so when he spotted her at that party she was the ideal victim, known to him but the others in his nest.
Ford was a sweet, innocent girl who was lacking in rancor to the extent that she even said "Hi!" to Judge when she saw him at that Safeway, weeks later.
Kavanaugh almost ruined Ford's life, a crime for which losing the a Supreme Court seat is only a fraction of the punishment he deserves.
33
Bret, you should read the rest of your newspaper; then you'd know why they were NOT equally believable.
I'm sure you were equally outraged at McConnell's shenanigans over Merrick Garland.
37
Either you think she is lying, or you don't care. There is no middle ground. The evidence shows that Kavanaugh has lied under oath, multiple times.
Surely Republicans can find someone who will always rule in favor of the powerful over the vulnerable, capital over the workers, whites over minorities, men over women, straight over gay, rich over poor, and DOESN't have a history of sexual assault and dishonesty. I mean, really, you guys act like there isn't another one out there without baggage.
56
The question is whether the man is lying now, as a fifty-two year old man under oath.
He testifies that "Renate alumunus" is a sign of affection. Obviously a lie. Devil's Triangle a drinking game? Please.
(By the way, just who was in charge at Georgetown Visitation? Why were the students allowed to put this in their yearbooks? The nuns at my Catholic high school in considerably less tony Brooklyn, New York would have put the kabosh on this and summoned the parents immediately. )
Seems that Kavanaugh was told that Trump wanted an all-out And so he lied, just like Trump does all the time.
Senators Collins and Murkowski -- can you be confident in whatever he told you that made you think that he won't limit Roe v. Wade past recognition? After the lies and circumlocutions in his sworn testimony?
One could see shades of the belligerent teenaged drunk in his testimony. Look at the disgraceful way he behaved toward Senator Klobuchar. Imagine how his parents felt watching their son behave in this way.
Is this kind of person what we want on our Supreme Court? Every day of the week, we expect criminal defendants to behave themselves as they are accused of terrible crimes during excruciatingly long trials. He can't behave decently for a few hours.
35
Democrats never intended a fair process! Wow!
8
I did not believe Kavanaugh. Because he lied. Repeatedly. I certainly can believe that he didn't remember the incident (though his own calendar evidence makes even that less plausible, not more.) So he may have been truthful in his denial - if he didn't remember it, how could it have happened?
But he lied about the meaning of "ralphing". He lied about the meaning of the "Renate Alumni." (I wonder if that woman believed his flimsy explanation? I doubt it.) He lied about the meaning of "Devil's Triangle".
The fact that he drank to excess often -- and LIED about it -- that's what makes him unfit for the job he seeks. And it's also what makes Blasey-Ford's allegation MORE likely to be true.
Her story has remained constant. Two DRUNK boys assaulted her. It's only Kavanaugh's that changes over time.
I believed her because she is telling the truth. He is not. And obviously so.
34
I believe what I saw. Brett Kavanaugh does not belong on the Supreme Court. What a cunning dumbing down it is to keep saying, "wouldn't you react the same"? "You" is not being proposed for Associate Justice.
22
Arguing that one Bret should support another Brett has more justification than all the reasons this Bret offers for approving that Brett. Beyond the strong indications that Kavanaugh was an immature misogynist drunk in high school and college, the performance he gave Thursday proved that he is an intemperate biased partisan who shouldn’t even be hired to clean the toilets in the Sepreme Court.
20
No, but an FBI investigation might
3
remarkably cynical ploy... taste of GOP own medicine?
4
As a fairly centrist leftist, I usually appreciate Bret’s opinions, but here he goes completely off kilter. He seems to completley discount the damage of both Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas and the Merrick Garland nomination fiasco, laying the blame at the feet of democrats, while absolving Trump and the conservative organizations who put forward a nominee just as unqualified as Thomas, but thoroughly vetted so as to tow the party line. In yesterdays hearings Kavenaugh outed himself as completely unqualified in a breathtaking partisan attack that I’m sure made Ol Bonespur proud, as he prevaricated, obfuscated and shrieked and lied his way through several hours of testimony.
And by the way Bret,..do you like beer? How many, and what do you like to drink?...And while you’re drinking just remember this is a lifetime appointment! The candidate failed the interview...Only one person is telling tne truth here, the other is constructing a fantasy.
One has nothing to gain by lying., the other has a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court by which to get even. I fear you’ve finally fallen into the never Trump except when his policies align with mine.
35
Wow, convincing column, however might have had the opposite effect than intended.
It isn't a belief system, but a classification system what is mostly likely to be the case, and how do we minimize the cost of an error in classification. He is not the only option so we can get another so we need to minimize the false positive (appointment). Some notable features of his time in front of the committee.
I am convinced that Brett knows the definitions of "boofing", "devil's triangle" and the significance of the "F" s. By not addressing what the common definitions are he convinced me that he was hiding something.
His temper when question also was disqualifying, justice Thomas was more measured, the feature of the his responses also places him in the don't appoint class.
But you are right, blind belief (faith) is a major problem, and when people base their classification on a single feature (anti abortion for example) mistakes can be made.
Again, you convinced me, thanks.
14
Bret, you normally make pretty good sense, but today you're all over the place. You do realize that it's not just on the allegations Dr. Ford presented that the Dems on the committee opposed Kavanaugh. It was also because of the Republican leadership's refusal to let all committee members see the documents pertaining to his stint in the White House. And after he became unglued in front of God and everybody, its also his lack of temperament that befits a Supreme Court justice; not to mention the obvious fact that he lied to the committee when he said he would be non-partisan on the court. Saying he was going through this meat grinder because of the Clintons? Get real. Bret, do you really want a hothead sitting on the court? History does show that it's the fascists, and not the liberals, who win the raw contest for power when politics becomes a matter of I Believe. This approaches exactly what the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee were shooting for by the inexplicable, mad rush to push Kavanaugh through, based on their likely belief that it really doesn't matter if Kavanaugh did what Dr. Ford said he did, and no amount of forced kindness showed to Dr. Ford by the Republicans can erase that.
30
So many of the comments here confirm Stephens’ fear — liberals are indeed happy to die on this hill and jettison the presumption of innocence from society. They will regret it. We all will.
5
Watching Kavanaugh behave like a petulant privileged brat. Watching him lie about the clear meanings of terms in his high school yearbook. Watching him obfuscate about the exact nature of the testimony of the other witnesses. It became clear, even if he didn’t try and rape Blasey Ford, that he doesn’t have the emotional character to be a judge in traffic court let alone the Supreme Court.
His appointment would finish the politicisation of the Supreme Court and lead to the unsustainable position that the US has no institutions that can command bipartisan respect. This is not a place we want to end up.
34
Kavanaugh is a serial liar and a partisan. He lied throughout his testimony yesterday and bitterly attacked "the Left." Whether or not he tried to rape Blasey Ford 36 years ago, he clearly lacks the integrity and temperament to serve in the public interest. Can you imagine any other justice in the modern history of the SCOTUS giving such testimony?
18
There is a more serious problem here than the corruption of the US Senate, it’s the corruption of the courts, including now, the Supreme Court. Claiming to ‘believe’ them both but Kav (as he is affectionately known) should still be confirmed is disingenuous and a convenient excuse for maintaining white men’s paternal power. The message is, loud and clear, we ‘believe’ you but we don’t care since it’s all a Clinton plot. Kav is an alcoholic plain and simple; a judge should not be caught between I didn’t do it (because) I can’t remember doing it.
25
Yeah, we mustn't just reflexively accept the accusers. We have never paid much attention to them before and things are just fine. For the last how many thousands of years females have been subjugated to men and by gosh that's how it should stay. Yeah, Stephens.
Kavanaugh revealed himself to be a thoroughly sub-mediocre, intemperate, and embarrassingly self-centered, privileged jerk. I guess that's good enough for Stephens and Trump and the rest of the whistle brains in the republican party these days.
Chief Justice Roberts should implore Trump to withdraw this nomination because the idea of serving next to Kavanaugh for the rest of their lives must appall all of the rest of the justices, Thomas excepted, of course.
47
Excuse me? #Metoo is just like McCarthyism, which was a good thing that got a little out of control?
9
Dude:
please PLEASE quit whining about a “ fair process”.
The GOP controls all three branches of the Federal government and the processes attendant to it. My goodness even Kavanaugh was blaming the Clintons own of whom has been out of public office for 18 years and the other a defeated presidential candidate.
Kavanaugh is unfit and he showed us why, or at least those of us who heard and saw him with an open mind. He lied .Repeatedly. He was blatantly, derisively partisan and condescending to the peoples’ representatives. Even you are not so subtlety promoting an alternative : afraid of what the FBI might find?
This column was not one of your better ones.
67
Bottom line, Kavanaugh's job interview went poorly. He ranted and blamed. There was nothing judicious here. Let's move on to the next candidate.
41
It seems that the vast majority of NYT readers need to learn about motivated reasoning.
Then ponder that they just might be wrong.
9
Sorry Brett, I not buying what you have for sale. Just some more conservative snake oil .
I don't know what I abhor most, the Lindsey Graham raw power play version of conservatism or your Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm, prep boy entitlement version of conservatism.
55
Mr. Stephens, you completely ignore the possibility that he may be one of those 'mean drunks' who don't deal well with too much. They become aggressive, forgetful, belligerent and hard to control. He is not the choir boy type from witnesses to his behavior.
I know a bit about this. An old great grandfather in my family was like this. Many stories of what he was like when sober - kind, generous, hard working, very funny, good to the grandchildren. But stay out of his way when he was drunk. He raged around the house, tore up furniture, mocked his wife's God, threw out the last food cooking on the stove.
If this is anything like Judge Kav's behavior, he doesn't belong anywhere near the SC.
34
If you couldn't tell the difference between the testimony of Kavanaugh and Blasey- Ford you are missing something. By the way no one has to prove anything for him to be rejected as a Supreme Court Justice. Unseen? Give me a break. Most everyone else could see clearly the difference in these two testimonies. If you couldn't see it that says something about you.
26
The impulse to nominate aggressive political operative Kavanaugh was the flaw here. Recall that he spent lots of time/energy trying to prove that the Clintons killed their best friend Vince Foster (nuts), and that he illegally leaked Starr Committee data to reporters (craven), and he thought Bill Clinton's lying about a consensual affair worthy of impeachment and removal from office (hypocritical). {Yet he was clearly OK and complicit with Bush/Cheney Torture.} Let's remember the lies under oath about stolen emails, plus the lies about Judge Koszinski's grotesque office behavior for years. The guy is an overly ambitious hack who should be nowhere near the SC. This was Trump's doing, naming somebody just like him. That's the real problem here, not that of the nation.
68
If the author believes Kavanaugh can proceed to the next stage based on Thursday's Senate hearing, then America and its institutions are in deep trouble. Irrespective of anything that happened some 30 pus years ago, Kavanaugh's deportment at the hearing showed he has neither the probity nor the gravitas to sit on the SCOTUS. Such a candidate sitting on our pre-eminent court - our High Court - would be inconceivable. Thank heavens.
41
Everyone seems to agree that Dr. Ford was most likely sexually assaulted, yet some question if she truly remembers who did it. My guess is if any person was on their back, pinned down by a older, bigger, stronger, and drunken lout – who they knew – and who was trying to rip their clothes off, and was smothering their screams, that person will remember forever whose face was inches from theirs. It's not a case of mistaken identity, it's a case of who is lying. She has no reason to lie and has paid a high price for going public. He has every reason to lie and will pay a high price if he doesn't. I think we are simply witnessing further struggles of sexist male dinosaurs (of all colors, parties, and beliefs) who are now immersed in tar pits of their own creation. Eventually their cries and struggles will fall silent and they will all be gone. It will be a better world.
26
Wow. Going way out on a limb here. Just couldn't wait until the FBI looks into it, could you. One thing you failed to mention- just which of the "believable" welcomed an FBI investigation? Which wanted the uninvited witnesses questioned by the FBI?
18
"Do you believe Kavanaugh? I watched him ... and found him wholly believable."
From what parallel universe were you watching Kavanaugh's pathetic display, Mr. Stephens?
Going into this dog-and-pony show, Kavanaugh was already a proven liar. As for his performance Thursday (for that is precisely what it was), Shakespeare provided the review centuries ago: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." (Hamlet: Act III, Scene II.)
A judge, like Caesar's wife, must be above reproach. Kavanaugh is manifestly not. Nor does he have the fitness — or temperament — to sit on any court, much less the SCOTUS.
18
Well, a little fresh air of intelligence.
"Historically, it’s been fascists, not liberals, who tend to win such contests."
Your most telling sentence. Whatever Democracy America had has been trampled to death in the last three decades. What's now unfurled is its flag at half mast.
14
He lied repeatedly under oath about matters great and small. All of that is detailed ad nauseam in the pages of this newspaper and elsewhere, from his fanciful definitions to his drinking habits as a young man. That's all there is to it. What will tear us apart is the spectre of eleven grown men pretending to believe him, to take seriouslyludicrous answers that you couldn't get by your mama. What will tear us apart is people like Bret who will tolerate from a Supreme Court nominee what a judge would slam the gavel on in a shoplifting case. There ought not to be two sets of rules.
40
Ok I get it. We can't base our decisions on the He said She said conclusion. Her version may not have all the factual evidence required to be 100% certain. But his white washing of his youth left me feeling if we believe his version of it, we would believe anything. I was the drinker (and druggie) that Kavanaugh was . I completely stopped, cold turkey, about 33 (can't remember the exact date or time---imagine that) years ago. But I can tell you how out of control my substance abuse was. I may not remember all the episodes back then. But I can vividly describe a lot of them. And, let me tell you, there is no "gray zone" here. You were or you weren't. I did not hang around with people back then who didn't behave similarly. And I could accurately portray their behavior from that time. Most, but not all, matured and live successful lives. And they could accurately portray me as who and how I was back then. The bottom line for me as a person who lived that life: Kavanaugh is grossly under portraying how he was back then. I see through his testimony. And I hear the philosophy of what happens in____, stays in_____. He did , in fact state that. Remember.... the other followers of that philosophy also have something to hide. And they absolutely have each other's backs. I want a Supreme Court Justice who is ethical enough to stand up and not hide behind a cover up philosophy. If it walks like and talks like and smells like.....that's a philosophy too. Vote NAY.
22
Ford told the truth.
Kavanaugh lied. He lied about "Devil's Triangle", about "Boofing", about "ralphing", about "Renate Alumnius", about being of legal drinking age as a senior in HS (MD raised the age to 21 seven months before he turned 18). He lied about having no knowledge of stolen emails while in the White House.
Ford stuck to what she knew, and was explicit about what she was guessing about or assuming.
Kavanaugh lashed out with wild conspiracy theories about how this was revenge for the Clintons (his work on with Ken Starr? Trump's victory? Both?) He recycled Hillary Clinton's "Vast Right-Wing conspiracy" as "Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy" to "get me". Huh?
And, at the bottom, Kavanaugh showed us two disqualifying characteristics--A belligerent, contemptuous, arrogant, elitist, outraged that ANYONE dare challenge his entitlement. And a totally partisan, non-impartial reactionary activist who won't follow the Constitution, won't follow precedent, won't follow Stere Decisis, and will enable Trump's march toward unitary powers as a tyrant.
35
I, too, found both Ford and Kavanaugh's testimony compelling. But on reflection, the latter's answers were full of evasions and "white lies," while the former's stands as truthful, if incomplete.
It's within the realm of possibility that Ford is mistaken in her identification of Kavanaugh/Judge as her assaulters. But there appears to be plenty of people who are willing to testify that Kavanaugh frequently drank to excess, which he certainly knows and attempts to hide by his "choir boy" assertions.
Kavanaugh's partisan rant to begin the session shows that he will bring his political party to the Supreme Court, if seated. There must be better candidates.
5
I don't see why, if the hearing proved to be "a wash," that automatically means confirmation. If both are "believable," why automatically go with Kavanagh? If all things are equal, why not go with Blasey-Ford? Obviously for Stephens, something tips Kavanaugh over the edge, but what is it? That he's male? That he's a conservative judge who will push through the Republican agenda? Stephens says "to vote on the basis of a belief in things unseen and unproved is a road to national ruin." But, maybe the road to national ruin is to seat a judge who many believe committed an assault. Maybe the national ruin comes when our entire justice system is viewed as corrupt, partisan and illegitimate. Clarence Thomas has already put one nail in the Supreme Court coffin, casting a shadow that exists to this day, and convincing many Americans that his judgement was forever skewed by his confirmation hearing. How can we believe in the impartiality of our highest court if we have two judges who are seen this way?
10
Bret,
Nobody is suggesting action based on testimony alone. Give the FBI all the time it needs to get to the bottom of this. The problem is ramming through a bad candidate. Clarence Thomas should have been investigated as well.
4
I have been grateful to Mr. Stephens for his columns these past two years, and will continue to read him religiously. His words ring so true to me even as an avowed Democrat. His words "Americans have a longstanding credulity problem........." extends to this Supreme court nominee. I contend that when Mr. Kavenaugh spewed his "Trump victory......Clinton conspiracy" he lost ALL CREDULITY. He must NEVER sit on another court again. He cannot be trusted to be an arbitrator of truth.
6
“We should beware of what will happen in the country as cultural norms shift toward reflexively believing the accuser.”
Are you insane?
What happens when anyone reports a crime? An investigation to discover if the complaint is credible. This is not reflexive. This is the scale of justice.
Credible testimony is at the heart of every single court case and hearing. Believeing the testimony of even expert witnesses IS the basis for procedural justice. Even presented factual evidence can be seen in different contexts. Prosecutors and defense attorneys rely on the jury to believe one interpretation or an other. They work to sway belief.
No person, male or female or other should be denied the procedures of justice that include the careful listening and assessment that preceeds belief in a credible claim of harm done.
That begins with the openness of belief for the stories of all involved and not a bias against claimaints of abuse.
6
Stephens is guilty of breaking his own premise, and basis this whole column on his own beliefs, not the facts:
"an F.B.I. investigation... could have been completed, with much greater thoroughness, weeks ago if Dianne Feinstein hadn’t concealed Blasey’s allegation from the Judiciary Committee for much of the summer — a remarkably cynical ploy suggesting motives other than honest truth-seeking."
Feinstein has very explicitly explained that she followed proper procedures in handling Dr. Ford's letter (especially by following the stated requests of Dr. Ford for confidentiality!).
The fact that Stephens doesn't "accept" this fact, and ascibes a "cynical" motive to it, demonstrates that he's a hypocrite for not practicing what he preaches.
The fact that Feinstein and the Dems requested an unbiased investigation BEFORE the hearing further undermines his point. If the Dems wanted to scuttle Kavanaugh, they wouldn't have asked for an investigation; they would have merely put unsubstantiated claims out there. The fact that the Reps refused to have an investigation (on the grounds that the hearing "couldn't" be postponed) demonstrates that Feinstein was acting on reasonable ground; the Reps were the ones who were ramming things through because they didn't WANT to believe Dr. Ford.
Which group made public pronouncements BEFORE the hearing about whether they "believed" Dr. Ford.
Stephens is just as hypocritical as the rest of the Republicans.
13
Kavanaugh failed a test yesterday. He was auditioning for a Supreme Court seat where his intellect and character would be tested for the remainder of his career. He failed because he revealed himself to be an extreme partisan with an innate bias against his political enemies. He was, as he had been earlier in these hearings, dismissive, evasive and disrespectful to people whom he deemed unworthy of his respect: i.e. Democrats.
But the fault is not merely his. The real fault is the Federalist Society's, Trump's, and the Republican Party's. They lost the popular vote in the last election. They stole the Garrick seat. And then, instead of offering a candidate who will assure the public of a willingness to fairly and judiciously consider issues which will come before the court, they select a man who participated in both the theft of the election in Bush v. Gore, and the vile Starr investigation--a hack. Instead of attempting to unite the nation with their pick, they chose to further divide it.
9
There are two principal problems with Mr. Stephens argument.
The first is that the Republican party has based it's entire existence on "I believe" since it's re-creation in 1980. From Christmas who vote for a thoroughly immoral man for President to elected officials use of Laffrr curve style tax cuts for the ultrs-rich during he recession of 2008 to the misinterpreted use of the phrase "American exceptioalism" to imply a halo of divinity around military adventurism in the Middle East, Republicans have ignored reality in pursuit of their tñ"truth" and they have used the Hadtert Rule and founts of campaign cash to enforce their religion.
The second problem is that the entire foundation of this administration is ato pump out a fire hose of lies, attacks on truth-tellers and secrecy to hide their intentions and actions. How does an earnest citizen accept anything that is said?
Finally, Judge Kava sigh was an awful witness. He behaved like a teenager caught in a lie, pouting, lying, obfuscating and blaming others for his misdeeds. He has proven himself to be morally corrupt, a disqualifying standard , according to the Founders.
4
Kavanaugh's explanations of his yearbook comments were farcical. In the previous hearing, Kavanaugh also lied about the documents from Miranda. His demeanor in the first hearing was evasive. His demeanor in the second hearing was petulant, whiny, abusive, and with the comments about a Clinton revenge, irrational. These are a few of the reasons Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme court.
9
1) You believe he never drank to the point of not remembering events? This contradicts his OWN writing and best friend's memoir, and he got super defensive about it when asked. So, no, they are not equally believable.
2) Supreme Court Justices should be models of integrity. So, yes, credible allegations can be disqualifying even if not proven. Your equating this to conspiracy theories would be laughable if it were not so insensitive.
(3) Yes, we oppose him on the issues. But 20 other judges on Trump's list would overturn Roe v Wade just as well as Kavanaugh, so that's not why we're in this fight today. This is about the integrity of the court, which would suffer from the presence of this evasive, intemperate Trump stooge.
(4) "Reflexively believing the accuser"? The accusers are begging for the FBI to investigate their claims, and Kavanaugh was practically begging for them not to. Did Kavanaugh take a lie-detector test like Ford did? No, the reflexive belief is still on the side of powerful white men.
(5) Feinstein respected the victim's wish not to come forward. The fact that someone leaked her identity and triggered these hearings has absolutely no bearing on Kavanaugh's fitness. Accusing Democrats of shady tactics is rich, coming from the only party that ever stole a seat. If this fails, it will be a Republican own goal. You could have nominated a much less shady person to overturn Roe v. Wade.
18
Bret, if you interviewed someone for a job and they behaved like Kavanaugh behaved on Thursday, would you hire him? Would you want him to work in your office?
9
“Do you believe Kavanaugh? I watched him — meticulous, wounded, furious (wouldn’t you be, too, if you were innocent of such an accusation?)”
A personal experience -
Few years ago I confronted my then-boyfriend whether he had been seeing another woman. Sure enough, his reaction was that of righteous indignation - he shouted and yelled at me that he was “sick of accusations”. I did not believe his anger, on the contrary, I grew even more suspicious. On the very next day, I found out he had indeed been seeing another woman and lying through his teeth.
So, as much as being wrongly accused can cause a furious, angry reaction, it can also be an automatic, default defence of an habitual liar.
Mr. Cavanaugh’s anger and fury does not prove anything. It merely shows him to be a person lacking self-restraint and decorum.
8
Dr. Blasey Ford was totally believable.
Watching Mr. Kavanaugh caused me to believe I was watching a drunk. I grew up in an alcoholic household. I have been in recovery for 26 years. Kavanaugh acted like many of the drunks I have known over the years.
I am a retired physician and have spoken with colleagues who completely agree with me.
We must not have a another sexual predator on the Supreme Court. We must not allow a drunk to sit there, as well.
I pray that the FBI addresses the alcohol issue, too.
21
Last night we were having dinner at our favorite brew pub. We sat next to a very nice couple and ended up conversing through our entire meal and for a beer afterwords. We agreed on so many local issues, parenting, etc. Then all of a sudden near the end of the night, the wife stated that no only was Kanahanuhh absolutely telling truth, but that she believed woman should never serve in higher office, or the Supreme Court because they are “too emotional”. My girlfriend and I are Democrats and just kept our mouths shut because there was no middle ground with this woman. The woman was absolutely raging about Dr. Fords nerve for speaking out and ruining Kavanaughs reputation.
Why are we so similar yet so incredibly different in this country? It’s like we are two different species.
I attended a talk recently with a Dr. of political science from the U of M. She put up a chart that showed the actual differences between Democrats and Republicans vs perceived differences. The truth is we are a lot closer than we think. Yet I hear both sides talking about radicalization. Who is driving this narrative? Possibly that is a story worth reporting.
5
If fair play is what you wish, Bret Kavanaugh is not the horse to ride and the GOP process is not the path to follow.
Kavanaugh belittles the charge against him as a partisan witch hunt and vows revenge. He shows contempt for the Senators who don't stand behind him. He uses anger and accusation in lieu of answers. He dissembles. He lies. He shows he has much to hide.
Kavanaugh was a bad teenage boy - a jock who ran around with like friends, drinking illegally and having the fun bad boys do. Did he do what Dr. Ford says? My answer, watching bits of the hearing and reading and viewing more after: Most probably, yes. Ford had no reason to create this we know of. More than that, Kavanaugh's history and explanations of his teenage behavior and jottings scream that he was capable.
As to fair play, I find little to quarrel with from the Democrats. They didn't create this accusation. And they were facing a GOP in full celebration that it was about to take over the courts. They chose a man with a massive history of faithfulness to the party and provided a chosen smattering of his history to divulge. Leadership chose to ride him to victory and have him on the court in time for the election.
But they chose a partisan hack with a hidden, checkered youth. An entitled youth. A youth they generally excused away.
The problem is not the Democrats. It is not a lack of evidence.
To claim otherwise is blaming the victims.
12
How easily and uncritically you respond to another man's tears. I've never known a bully or abuser NOT to cry or fly into an entitled rage when confronted by the truth or by the threat of exposure. But we'll leave that to the FBI. We will likely never know the truth, but I believe Dr. Ford. The indisputable fact is that Brett Kavanaugh displayed a blatant partisan agenda, a clear tendency to obfuscate during questioning, and a lack of judicial control. There is a case looming in the Supreme Court (Gamble vs. US 17 646) that is likely the REAL reason the GOP and our mafioso "president" are so desperate to push through his confirmation. THAT, Bret Stephens, will be the real road to national ruin.
4
Bosh! It's been the Reps that haven't been interested in an open and fair hearing. From the beginning, they stonewalled his documents, refusing to release hundreds of thousands, then releasing a massive dump the night before the confirmation hearings were set to begin. How are the Dems supposed to do a reasonable job of advising on a nominee, much less consenting, without all of the information. Not to mention (listen up Lindsey Graham) when Elena Kagan was nominated the Obama White House supplied ALL of her documents. Could the Reps be trying to hide something? AND, the Judiciary Committee knew of at least one of the three allegations before they became public and they tried very hard to push the nomination through before it became public.
It seems that, after her testimony, most people, left and right, don't doubt Blasey Ford's truthfulness. Personally, it doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility that Kavanaugh doesn't remember such an incident, because it simply wasn't a big deal to him. Generally, he shouldn't be judged on things he did in his youth.
What disqualifies him, though, is the way he testified. By barking his defensive screeds at Dem senators he displayed for all to see his immoderate nature, a high sense of entitlement, and a nakedly partisan bent that are the exact opposite of what we need on the highest court in the land in these divisive times.
Trump should put up someone more moderate who won't cause such a fight. Merrick Garland perhaps?
9
What’s up with that “little girl voice” of the doctor-professor?
She was exceedingly well prepared for all the softball questions, with just the right amount of feigned coyness. After thirty-six years, is it really believable that this strong, self-assured woman remains terrorized and traumatized over the alleged event? The name of Brett Kavanaugh was originally floated in the “New Yorker” in 2012 as a possible Mitt Romney pick for the Supreme Court; all of her recollections came thereafter.
Why was her social media scrubbed from the internet, and what are her political proclivities?
Other than the depraved, who is not opposed to sexual assault? But at least in my book, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark”.
2
Being of no particular political affiliation here are a few of my thoughts, it would appear that just about everyone agrees that Dr. Ford experienced something traumatic, even though, some seem unwilling to admit that the trauma was caused Kavanaugh. This reasoning smacks of one clutching at straws to admit that Kavanaugh is more than likely guilty. Kavanaugh...I saw a man enraged, unhinged, and at times belligerent. His indignation I imagination springs from the very real fear that his aspirations to Supreme Court are becoming increasingly dim. Of course, he had to put on a credible show of outrage that he is being so falsely maligned. However, I daresay, the judge doth protest too much, and went way out of his way to appear to be such an innocent teenager. They say alcohol is a personality enhancer, that is, when a person drinks, the person you see is the real person. Fellow contemporaries of his college years say he was a mean drunk. I believe them, I saw shades of that at the hearing. Also, side note, Kavanaugh has the complexion of a heavy drinker with redness of the face very evident. Even though, chances are we will never know 100% what happened that night, there are too many questions and a cloud of suspicion that hangs over him, not too mention his own obvious efforts to obfuscate the matter. I say move on with someone else. Gorsuch was not popular with those on the other side, but no one questioned his morality.
11
We live in a world where millions of Americans believe crazy right-wing fantasies on issues from climate change and immigration to criminal justice and health care; a world where Trump's daily ration of lies is eagerly lapped up by viewers of Fox News. These lies have already prevented the US from adopting sound policies on a host of urgent issues. But the true danger, Bret Stephens says, is that we might believe Christine Blasey Ford. Please.
6
Judge Kavanaugh is believable?
Did you believe Kavanaugh when he said Devil's Triangle referred to a drinking game?
Did you believe him when he said 'Renate Alumnus' referred to the fact that she was a great friend?
Did you not think he was evasive when asked about the Ralph Club reference and he answered that he was the top of his class blah, blah blah?
I believe he lied and was evasive but I guess others saw things differently. I would think the FBI can ask others at Georgetown Prep what these terms in the yearbook meant. If he lied, what does that tell us?
I was in high school/college during the same time period and excessive drinking was as described by some of the witnesses.
I also have a distinct memory of my boyfriend in college telling me about a "train" (he used that term) he witnessed at a fraternity house so Swetnick's description is believable to me - I know it sounds outrageous but I believe this stuff happened.
12
Mr. Stephens,
Judge Kavanaugh lied (dissembled/misstated/distorted/shaded the truth/fudged/prevaricated/misrepresented/etc.) about matters large and small throughout his testimony. Does this have no impact on your "believability" calculus? Because it did for me...
6
Kavanaugh has slammed the door to an ignominious return to the DC Circuit. But for him, it would be a more favorable result than 20 years (a black out alcoholic is not likely to survive a 30 year tenure) on the Supreme Court, dragging his history behind him like a chain.
2
Bret is either clueless or disingenuous to suggest Amy Coney Barrett as a compromise candidate. Her membership in a conservative religious community that teaches abortion is morally wrong and in which the spiritual advisors assigned to female members (men have them too) were until recently called "handmaidens" virtually guarantees fierce controversy. That word in the context of membership in what some will portray as a cult-like group is political dynamite, particularly on the heels of a failed Kavanaugh nomination. Is that grossly unfair to her and the organization? Absolutely. But realistically, that's what will happen.
If Bret really wanted to compromise, he'd suggest Trump nominate Merrick Garland.
Bret also ignores three other major issues that have emerged in the Kavanaugh hearings: his use of highly charged partisan language (revenge for the Clintons) in his defense, calling into question his pledge to be fair and non-partisan; his abandonment of judicial temperament in a crude Trump-like effort to bull his way onto the court and his repeated untruths on everything from the meaning of his yearbook entries to whether he received stolen documents or worked on specific judicial nominations. If he gets in, he will be permanently tainted not only by Dr. Ford's allegation, but also by the actions I have outlined above. Every vote he takes will be viewed as partisan or an act of revenge against the tens of millions of Americans who are Democrats.
7
"Democrats never intended a fair process" ...
As Judge Kavanaugh stated "What goes around, comes around". Majority Leader McConnell threw down the gauntlet over President Obama's nomination of Judge Garland. Scorched earth politics -- here we go again.
No sir, they have no decency.
3
Of course none of the Democrats will vote YES to Kavanaugh, even if he is found spotless of sexual assault. Before the allegations were made public, there were already too many red flags about him. What is most depressing is that all of the Republicans except Flake would vote for him despite Thursday's unhinged display of partisan, injudicious behavior by Kavanaugh. If he's innocent of the charges, of course he has a right to be upset, but if he's a Supreme Court Justice, we have to expect that he will be able to respond to difficult issues without spewing venom in a partisan manner. The Republicans on the committee (except Flake) would vote YES despite his partisan leanings. So it's not the Democrats who are missing the point in this instance.
6
Bret, “I believe” Kavanaugh is an angry man who believes he has paid his dues (prep school, Ivy League, Republican operative) and deserves a seat on the Supreme Court because of his loyalty to the cause. Fortunately, after his performance on Thursday, many Americans were able to see that for themselves. Let’s see what the FBI has to say. I can imagine what you will have to say if the report is less than flattering!
1
Believability. Not he road to ruin. It IS a loaded word that has become a meme and which Stephens uses to replace credibility, which is really the issue.
It is key to day to day interactions of all sorts. Employees/employers, parents/children, even defendants/juries. Why - it's almost as if credibility lies at the core of testimony, eh? Any decent lawyer will tell their client to maintain control - something ol' BK couldn't do. Not a very credible witness.
First, the GOP said her claims were not "believable" Then she testified and was a very credible person - someone who was actually "believable". Now GOP lackey Stephens wants to attack that fact.
They're either liars or even if they are telling the truth, we should not let that get in the way of the goal of GOP rule for ever and ever. Is that about it Bret?
2
The party of unfairly refusing to consider Merrick Garland's nomination is demanding better standards of fair play?
This, Mr. Stephens, is a nauseating joke. The GOP is a nauseating, biased, self-serving joke, so long as they -- like their most recent (but hardly the only) nominee -- continue to break every standard of decency, collegiality, fair play, and responsibility to the country and ALL of its citizens in their naked pursuit of wealth and power.
The GOP, particularly in the Senate, particularly as led by Mitch McConnell, has lost all right to whine (or bellow) about "fair play." They have destroyed all semblance of it. What happens from now on is that whirlwind the loudly self-pitying, investigation-avoiding, facts-averse Kavanaugh invoked.
4
Reference is made to a comment I made earlier (and apologies for a couple of omitted words, I was in a hurry).
Link to an NYT article from today/yesterday that should be required reading for each and every senator before voting on Kavanaugh's nomination (assuming we reach that point):
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-fact-chec...
When they next run for re-election each senator should be queried in detail about their vote with the points in the article (and whatever else comes out in the FBI investigation) as the backdrop. Their answers should be evaluated not just in terms of their vote, but just as much by how responsive they are. 'Responsive' here means the degree the answers are not 'Kavanaughian' or 'Trumpian' (not real words, at least not yet, but you get the idea).
4
To focus on partisan politics at this juncture is hypocritical. No Mr. Stephens, your argument does not stand up given the GOP's denying of even giving a hearing for Judge Garland. It is Kavanaugh's unfitness, his obfuscation, partisan politics not to mention his immature character that makes him unfit. Oh and let's not forget why he was picked by Trump lest we forget that Kavanaugh has doubts about a sitting president being indicted.
2
I never thought the testimonies would make a difference in the outcome of whether Kavanaugh was confirmed or not. I thought the Republicans were humoring Dr. Ford in order to not be seen as reflexive unfeeling jerks. I went in to watching the testimonies expecting both parties to appear equally convincing, and with the 'she said, he said' problem, to have no more hard evidence than we already had.
What I fond shocking was Kavanaugh's behavior. He should not be confirmed because he is an immature baby. Because under extreme stress, he shows himself to be defensive, taunting, biting; inshore, to behave like my young children when angry. Sure being angry is reasonable, but acting like an adult, especially given the job you are proposing to do, is absolutely expected.
I am certain there are other "qualified" candidates who will vote along party lines as the Republicans want (anti Roe for a start). Kavanaugh should be dismissed from consideration because his display on Thursday will tarnish the whole court if ends up on it. And our faith in our 3 institutions of government will finally be uniformly torpedoed (faith in the presidency went down 2 years ago, in the senate during the past two years, and now here goes the court). And NOT because of what they believe, but because of how they behave! Whiny children in the top echelons of our country. Now that, Mr Trump, is Sad
7
Dude, for a conservative, you say a lot of compelling and intelligent things, even when done from a purely "conservative" perspective, but this is not one of those times. You're totally missing the point. The Democrats aren't saying we should simply chose who's the more sympathetic person in a he-said, she-said story, they're saying have a professional, investigative body spend some time on this matter, gather facts, and see which claims are corroborated or refuted. Fortunately for us, we have such a body at the ready, called the FBI. This is not a court of law; this is a job interview. Kavanaugh acquitted himself VERY poorly, exhibiting nothing like the presence or gravitas one might expect for a Supreme Court nominee. He came off like a petulant child. By the way, if it comes out that he lied under oath, that should be enough to kill the nomination. I think he IS the orange menace's nominee. My dear Bret, you might consider getting on the right side of history on this one.
5
As political as the motives may have been, it is disingenuous to claim anyone sought to "deny Kavanaugh’s confirmation based on Blasey’s allegation alone", and so beside the point to monger doom over what that would have meant.
The political aim was to subject Kavanaugh to a (yes, unusually harsh) test of character, in the hope this would reveal someone Republicans would balk at supporting. Had he done better in that test, the Right would now consider the whole exercise a slam dunk, with the nomination strengthened and Democrats ethically soiled. No doubt some do think that, but most of the reaction I've seen is not moral vindication, it's entitled how-dareyouism of just the sort that made Kavanaugh's testimony such a failure.
I watched his testimony with a conscious effort to presume innocence. Would a wrongly accused man (and one of the nine fairest people in the United States) react as he did? Angrily, sure, but wouldn't he take the charge seriously, and answer it? If he said, yes, those yearbook comments were as ugly as they plainly seem; if he admitted to being other than perfect as a teen; if he were honest about which parts of Blasey Ford's account were true, we could weigh his central denial against that honesty. Instead he sneered at his judges, claimed sex had never occurred to him, and found a dozen ways to demand "don't you know who I am?". A tantrum is conspicuously not a denial.
He asks to be judged only on who he is, and that's what he's getting.
8
As for your concern about "not overreacting," we cannot overreact until we react at all. At the present moment, the vast majority of sexual assault victims never receive justice or help.
"Do you believe Kavanaugh? I watched him — meticulous, wounded, furious ..."
Where in the world did you get that from, Bret? I saw evasion, histrionics, and lies about the severity of his drinking and the sexual innuendos in his supporting documents. Moreover, there is nothing "unseen and unproved" about what Kavanaugh showed us during the hearing: an unjudicial temperament and a partisan belief in wild conspiracy theories.
"I came away from the hearings feeling no more confident than I had the day before of who was being truthful."
That I believe was precisely what the Republicans wanted, a circus. They had no interest in a fair, impartial or informed hearing. Their aim was to hide the unsavory facts associated with Kavanaugh, and prevent a proper investigation.
"Americans have a longstanding credulity problem — 9/11 trutherism; Obama birtherism; J.F.K. assassination theories; the 'deep state' ..."
That isn't correct. Republicans have a longstanding credulity problem.
14
Really? Would you want someone possessing Kavanaugh's reserve of anger, arrogance, peevishness, evasiveness, and dissembling sitting as a judge in a case involving your interests? The hearing may not have settled the respective credibilities of the two witnesses, but it sure settled the question of judicial temperament. I guaranty you that nearly every attorney watching that temper tantrum would hope to God they never draw a judge with that kind of explosive anger.
13
I just don’t believe that Stephens finds Ford and Kavanaugh equally believable. That’s the sort of contortion that conservatives subject themselves in order to justify standing by their man— a would-be rapist. The circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly supports her recollection of events. My god, who would want to add a second front door to their home to escape an attacker? If this country is being ripped apart, you can blame it on Republicans who have constructed an alternate reality based on white identity politics and the demonization of liberals. And Stephens, in order to maintain his standing in Republican circles, is carrying water for the movement. No, Brett, Kavanaugh’s a liar and an unworthy candidate for the Supreme Court.
3
“A stronger argument against Kavanaugh’s nomination is that we should not elevate to the Supreme Court a nominee over whom there will always be this dark pall of suspicion.”
Oh, you mean like Clarence Thomas? Mr. Stephens, in Washington, when has truth, justice, accountability and fairness ever prevailed over politics? Never! We have standards to uphold!
Brett Kavanaugh should be nominated and ratified by the end of October. Long live DKE! Long live Bluto Blutarsky! Long live the Supreme Court! Long live elite privilege!
Occam says he did it in a blackout. It is the simplest explanation and all the signs are there. He is a partisan hack, favors an imperial presidency, and is almost certainly a practicing alcoholic. One day he may seek recovery and forgiveness for hurting others. Until that day, he needs to suffer the consequences of his actions.
4
What might be the urgency you suggest in confirming anyone...anyone at all... "before the midterms?" Your whole point is undermined by that one small statement. The midterm madness is cruelly ironic in light of the last Supreme Court go-round, and it fits nicely within the "clarification," if one chooses to call it that, of Sen Lindsey Graham, who moved the tectonics away from the sobbing and claws of the nominee to the arena of national shame occupied by apologists for boorish behavior and winking boyhood.
7
Face some facts - Kavanaugh was not merely "furious", he was unhinged. "Furious" might be understandable and even expected in private but he was scarily unhinged in this very public arena.
Also, the road to national ruin was paved by the Republicans' refusal to even consider Merrick Garland's appointment to the Court. Your failure to mention that watershed moment in this column speaks to your clear bias in this matter.
11
Pretty hard to claim Ford was a plant or actress. She was exactly as the author claimed,
The collateral information coming out shows Brett to have been a classic rich kid. entitled brat who drank too much and displayed silly behavior
His aggressive political hack performance at the hearing seems to show that aggressive impulsive little punk still lives inside him. That ridiculous attack on Sen Amy Klobuichar asking her if she drank too much beer,,,,not a good look Brett.
Seems to me he should have just admitted he was a wild kid, but that he grew up, became a man, was a star student of the law and now has gone beyond his childish impulses, But I fear that the truth is somewhere in the middle. All that credit card charging for baseball tickets.,,perfectly legal, but really?
It would have been better if all this drama and the display of the total divide between Red and Blue not be transmitted to the world, but this hearing demonstrates how uncivil we have become,
It should be a huge cautionary reminder that SCOTUS should not be, as it seems to be becoming , a group of political hacks voting for their party as they pretend to interpret and apply the constitution.
7
You have got to be kidding. Kavanaugh issued Two threats. What goes around comes around and reaping the whirlwind. Then identified his target as the Democrats, those horrible people he fought against when in the Bush white house and Starr inquisition. Blamed the press too for reporting accusations against him.
He is his splendid resumé. When challenged he repeats it as a barrier against any criticism. As a judge he's used to criticizing Congress. As a Supreme Court judge his position will be to criticize Congress from on high. The hearing is the last chance for Congress to criticize him, and he couldn't stand it. He blew up. He lost it. He did all he could to demonstrate a lack of judicial restraint. He's better when on his pedestal, maybe.
Dr. Ford was a little person. A toy for his amusement while he built the resumé. She now accuses him and his defense is the resumé. His defense is her littleness, her unimportance in the grand sweep of his career. The thought that he owes her an apology is beyond him. He bestows blessings, not apologies.
He demonized his unfitness. Pay attention. It was not he said, she said. She was not asking to be on the Supreme Court. Their burdens were different, and he failed, badly.
14
Kavanaugh should be eliminated from consideration on the basis of his opeining rant of a statement of entitlement. Talking about the Clinton’s and a left wing conspiracy should not be the defense of an impartial judge at any level. How can any Democrat feel they can get a fair trial in his court.
Furthermore, his total disrespect for the Senators on the committee and the American people shows his arrogant righteousness that disqualifies his ability to sit in judgement of his fellow citizens. Kavanaugh defames all judges and the fairness of the judicial system if the likes of him can rise to such levels.
Kavanaugh is hardly fit to sit on a park bench next to a decent human being and for sure should not be on a judicial bench.
15
As another commenter noted, you've entirely missed the point.
Judge Kavanaugh in full hysterics on Thursday afternoon showed that he does not have the basic qualification to be on the Supreme Court: a judicial temperament. He was unhinged. He was insulting. He was conspiracy-mongering. He was evasive. He articulated extreme, bitter partisanship against liberals and Democrats, and count on it he is pretty bitter about women too. I almost feel sorry for the Republicans like Lindsey Graham who seem to have lost all moral compass in their eagerness to please Trump. The moral blindness on the part of the Republican Party and commenters like you is astonishing. Cultivate some self-awareness and stop defending moral embarrassments like Kavanaugh.
6
Mr. Stephens, you are turning into a political hack. Outing an abuse survivor without her permission is wrong. If Sen. Feinstein had done so, she would have betrayed Ms. Ford and been subject to attack from women's abuse survival organizations across the country -- not to mention from Republicans who would then have pretended to care about abuse survivors.
You conclude: "Democrats never intended a fair process to begin with, toward either the nominee or his accuser; they treated allegation as fact; and they raised their sense of belief above normal standards of fair play. This may be the hill they want to die on. The rest of America should be careful not to follow."
Wait a second. Who failed to ask for an impartial, nonpartisan investigation into Ms. Ford's allegations? The Republicans, who had complete control over the process. Who failed to subpoena the one person who could have resolved the factual conflict between Ms. Ford's and Mr. Kavanaugh's testimony? The Republicans. Who failed to even consider allegations made by two other women, one of whom has multiple security clearances? The Republicans.
What happened on Thursday happened either because the Republicans wanted it to happen or because they did not understand how deeply Ms. Ford's story resonated with millions of American voters. They came across as not caring. That was completely within their control. They just didn't care.
17
Bret, in this piece, I think you fell short in trying to equate the two testimonies as believable, hence, a wash, since presumption rests with the accused in court, hence, borrowing some attiributes of a courtroom, Mr. Kavanaugh is presumed innocent and should be affirmed.
But I think that inertia to presume innocence in sexual assault accusations needs reform since we've never been here before in a democracy where women are afforded such power to accuse. Presumed innocence may be the straight edge we use for most crimes, but has it served up justice in sexual assault?
No. The presumed innocence of the man has suppressed women's accusations and is ruining millions of womens' lives today, almost certainly among women you and I see each day. Patriarchy demands that.
A year ago I decided to change that and BELIEVE THE ACCUSER, flipping presumption since the accuser faces far more peril as a woman coming forward than in most cases. I've had to turn my back on a number of men and artists I respected. But I haven't seen hardly any accusations proven wrong, and in the mean time, seen empowerment for women soar. Which is good.
Every male teacher in America has lived, as I did for 30 years, knowing that one girl's accusation will take us down. Poof! The kids stop taking your classes. The principal and Superintendent get phone calls. And you're gone over night.
It works. When the refs are calling fouls, you play cleaner. By that straight edge, Kavanaugh is gone.
7
Thursday's hearings should absolutely prevent Kavanaugh's confirmation, but not for the reasons you cite. He should not be confirmed because he revealed himself to be a deeply immature man. Not to mention deeply partisan in such a way that makes his claims of judicial impartiality suspect. It was very depressing to watch, and I say this as someone who probably does not agree with anything he apparently believes in, beginning with the fetishization of sports and beer.
I do not want this temperament on OUR Supreme Court. It does not belong to Mitch McConnell and the Federalist Society.
11
Believability is not the criterion. Relative believability is. That's all we mean (or can) by evidence and truth.
Belief is a psychological event. BF Skinner would define it in terms of stimulus/response and reward/[punishment paradigms. Behavioral economics would test for an economic flipping point where behavior changes. The truth is that humans are not sure of very much, so we look to science for repeatable results. We also look to journalists and FBI investigations to improve our odds about something.
This process is not scientific. Politically the nomination has been sideswiped by this question: If, as claimed, the nominee has behaved badly when inebriated, and has assaulted women , is that sufficient cause to deny the nomination?
History indicates that we need an FBI investigation to gather what facts that can be gathered. Only then should the senators decide about the nomination.
The process is not determinate. The process will be helpful.
Some will be delighted with the results. Others will be disappointed. Without gathering the facts as best we can, everyone would be disappointed. If justice is blind, let it be informed.
1
Leaving the Merrick Garland nomination out of any discussion about the low level to which we as a nation have been brought by the Supreme Court hearings undermines any effort at discussion.
As the comments here reveal, the Republicans took what was already a contentious and partisan process and added scorched earth tactics through their action on Garland.
9
A Supreme Court justice should be able to conduct himself with grace in tough circumstances. He should be helpful in trying to ascertain truth. He should not be a conspiracy theorist. He should be humble and talk to his fellow citizens, including senators, with respect and honesty.
Mr. Stephens, whatever happened 35-36 years ago, on Thursday Brett Kavanaugh revealed that he lacks those qualities.
14
I a5tually think there is something to what Mr. Stephens is saying generally. But he is still clinging to a a false equivalency. This is NOT a case of "he said, she said". There was a third person in the room, Mark Judge has sworn in writing that he never witnessed any such thing. The problem is, Judge is a head case. He posted a video of himself online visiting Georgetown prep as an adult, and he acknowledges in the video that the school told him not to do the very thing he was doing. He says into the camera "Bring on the lawyers."
I don't know that Judge would help Blasey's case much, but he would have to answer the "Bart O'Kavangh" question, which would be the beginning of the end for Kavanagh. That's why the Republicans don't want him anywhere near a camera.
5
I thought Kavanaugh put on an act. His demeanor at the Fox interview was better, and that's what would've worked here. He could've been angry at the Fox interview and that would've been okay. It's about knowing your audience. I suppose you could say he was acting for Trump (as was Graham) and as were some of the Democrats but it was the wrong move.
Why did the prosecutor get cut off? Why wasn't the prosecutor allowed to set the template for the questioning? Why wasn't an FBI investigation done earlier, as soon as Ford's letter was made public?
But anyways, I agree, the Democrats could agree to confirm Barrett and this would be a way to move forward. I think they all would do the same but if Barrett is as credentialed as Kavanaugh, she may be the better choice.
I watched the hearings too. You have characterized Dr. Ford correctly. She was entirely believable and seemed to want justice more than revenge or score settling.
In stark contrast, the evasive, pouting and resentful and resentful answers delivered by a petulant Judge Kavanaugh revealed a dark character unsuited to sit in judgement at any bench. I’m sure he was stressed and enraged. All we saw was the partisan entitlement of Broflake who might be denied his ascension to something that belonged to him.
The most important thing from his testimony was the revelation of temperament. Aside from his guilt or innocence he is unsuited to serve.
11
I tried to find the column Bret Stephens devoted to attacking the hyper-partisanship of Mitch McConnell and the Republicans, during the 293 days they blocked the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. I couldn't find it. Can someone please give me the citation? I'm sure Mr. Stephens must have written several such articles about the Garland nomination when it was being blocked, for otherwise he would be the worst imaginable hypocrite.
11
Kavanaugh a judge?
He cannot tell right from wrong.
Makes me want to ralph.
7
Here’s what I saw. I saw Judge Kavanaugh make repeated factual errors (the drinking age was not 18 when the alleged incident happened). I saw Judge Kavanaugh make repeated errors about the nature of evidence (Ford’s friend saying “I don’t remember the party” in no way “refutes “ Ford no matter how many times Kavanaugh said it did). I saw Judge Kavanaugh invent vast conspiracies (blaming the Clintons) without any evidence. Any one of these things I saw should be sufficient to cause any senator to vote against promoting Judge Kavanaugh to Justice Kavanaugh. That’s what I saw
7
I watched as a candidate for a job screamed, cried, and blamed a conspiracy for the damage to his reputation. He vaulted into his diatribe without anyone insulting him with a first question. He was combative and disrespectful when asked questions he expected. He assassinated his own character and judicial temperament.
15
I'm straight white male in my fifties, a graduate of Yale Law School (four years after Kavanaugh graduated), married with children. I'm telling you, you're starting from the wrong premise. Kavanaugh was NOT believable. In terms of substance, he was evasive, obfuscatory, uninterested in truth, and frighteningly (for a judge) willing shade facts in his favor. In terms of presentation, he was entitled, condescending, astonishingly rude, crudely partisan, whiny, aggressive, histrionic. Everything he said reeked to me of smokescreen, of hiding something, of distraction, of appeal to the older white male Republican Senators, of insulted male privilege.
You sympathize with Kavanaugh's fury, implying everybody would react that way if thusly accused. I think you're mistaken. If you were innocently accused, if you felt your family was "destroyed" (a manipulative, untrue word, by the way), wouldn't you seek to calmly get at the truth is as thorough a way as possible, and passionately advocate for the most complete investigation possible? I would. It would be the only way to restore my reputation and "undestroy" my family. Assuming Kavanaugh is innocent, his statements and demeanor were deeply irrational.
19
Given his statements in the past few weeks, his anger, his demeanor, his appearance on Fox News and his narcissistic outrage, he comes across to me as someone who would engage in payback.
3
Who knows what the truth is here. I certainly believe one more than the other, but it is just an opinion.
What is true is that if the Democrats were concerned about this charge, and they should be, they would have brought it up immediately. Perhaps confidentially to the nominee, so he could bow out if he did not wish to go through this. And that would have been appropriate, since it is really unprovable at this time.
But they did not do that. They held on to it, and apparently helped the alleged victim get legal counsel, until it was time to spring it, and destroy Kavanaugh's reputation and family. Chuck Shumer had declared that he would oppose this nomination with everything he had. And he did. Just a disgusting way to handle it.
I can only quote Saint Obama, who said that elections have consequences as he rammed everything he wanted through, and god forbid anyone disagree with him they were branded racist. No way that anyone could have opposed his policies on policy grounds. Racist, because he was always right.
Guess what? This election did have consequences. And no, it was not illegitimate. You may not like the electoral college, but that is our Republic. You can scream "Garland" and I will agree with you. But Garland was not humiliated personally. This was a vile, avoidable, personal attack for partisan purposes.
It just cannot get lower.
5
One person in the hearing was clearly believable, and that was the one who asked for an FBI investigation. The other person was not believable because he consistently refused to ask for an FBI investigation that would, if his denials of her accusations were correct, clear his name. Beyond that, he lied about being a virginal choir boy in high school and Yale, he lied about his drinking, he lied about receiving stolen Democratic e-mails when working in the Bush White House and he lied about not knowing that a judge he clerked for was a sexual harasser. Lastly, his inability to control his temper in what was, after all, a job interview, showed he does not have the temperament to be a judge in any court, let alone the highest court in our land.
11
Rape is most often "unseen and unproved" and apparently Bret Stephens thinks it shouldn't matter in our country. Horrific thinking but that is the reality women are dealing with.
1
No, Bret. Forget about the sex stuff, which is extremely sad and extremely believable. Kavanaugh's temperament and prejudices against anyone to the left of far right (including "the Clintons" and "the Democrats") as well as his attested-to history (and very possible present) as a mean drunk, should automatically preclude him from consideration, never mind confirmation, to the Supreme Court. His flame-out in Thursday underscores my opinion; I wouldn't trust him to judge me fairly in traffic court, never mind on SCOTUS.
7
"Bottom line, I came away from the hearings feeling no more confident than I had the day before of who was being truthful."
Sir, do you read the NY Times? Because it has meticulously documented in today's papers the many untruths Judge Kavanaugh uttered before the Judiciary Committee during this hearing.
8
Let's pause to consider the rhetoric in the titles of Mr. Stephens' last two columns: "This Revolution, Too, Will Eat Its Young" and "Believability is the Road to National Ruin." What is the cause of this apocalyptic vision? That women's accusations of male misbehavior are finally being taken seriously! The sky is falling! What's most apparent is Stephen's inability or unwillingness to consider the evidence. No one is being railroaded. No one's life has been "destroyed" by allegations alone. The rhetoric in these columns is reminiscent of Lindsey Graham's temper tantrum on the senate floor--all heat and no light.
3
Does anyone wonder if Lindsay Graham has yet considered that Dr. Ford’s letter was make available to the press by a person who personally experienced sexual assault like the women who confronted Senator Flake in the elevator Friday morning (and perhaps not a political operative)?
1
This pablum is conservative tribalism, nothing more. Kavanaugh's half-answers, non-answers, and misdirection do not a credible SCOTUS nominee make. And his screaming, crying, pouting, and over-the-top ideological ravings demonstrate clearly why this man has no place on SCOTUS, although he believes it his birthright. I don't care if Kavanaugh imagines himself to be the King of Siam, the power to control the legal destiny of 330 million Americans is no one's right. The good of the country must come first. And Kavanaugh--he's no good.
By the way, is no one going to pursue Kavanaugh's potentially disqualifying $200,000 credit-card bill for sports tickets, a debt which seems to have mysteriously "gone away" after Kavanaugh was nominated to SCOTUS?
7
She's telling the truth.
Just like the people who go on Oprah and tell about how they were bullied in school and the bullies don't remember because it was insignificant to them. This has been going on since the beginning of time.
Get it?
3
You are so wrong, it's frightening. Since you asked: No, I (and anybody who I might want to consider for a seat on the Supreme Court) would NOT behave like a "wounded, furious" brat if I were innocent of similar charges. I would INSIST that an FBI investigation be conducted before my nomination was advanced. I would PLEAD with my old friend to subject himself to whatever modest discomfort he might have to endure to tell the truth. I would DEMAND that the Senate take as much time as it took to determine why/how this woman would concoct such a story at such a time -- whether she is a political operative or just a damaged, mistaken victim. He is so obviously a weasel, trying to sneak away from his past bad conduct that, in all honesty, he doesn't see as that bad. He's lying. If you can't see that, you're just not very attuned to human behavior.
17
This guy is way off base. Kavanaugh was not believable. His defense of him, is "wouldn't you be angry". No, not in the way Kavanaugh. Sorry, not getting on the Supreme Court will not ruin his life and family.
6
He Bret, or Bart O' Kavanaugh, where can I get a pair of those rose colored glasses you used to watch the hearings?
6
Your condemnation of the process used by the Democrats on this issue is definitely invalidated by the Republican political nonsense to deny Merrick Garland any due process after his nomination to the Supreme Court by President Obama. So to use your own conclusion, that is a wash (although the GOP Process was more despicable!). That aside, and also the age of this accusation makes it stale. What is not stale are these testimonies and their necessities, which are current. What I’ve seen from Kavanaugh is anger, nastiness, political leaning for a judge, and his air of entitlement that completely disqualify him from this position that he seeks.
3
The national ruin of the United States did not start with the Kavanaugh scandal. It probably started with the importation of African slaves. For me, the last straw was the war in Vietnam, so I left. A friend in Boston wants New England to become a part of Canada. I told him that they would be most welcome on the condition that they all learn to speak French.
3
Bret,
He just lied to the Judiciary Committee and the American public about his drinking to excess and that witnesses refuted Dr. Ford's account. Why do you believe anything he said?
7
Why haven't we heard from Rachel Mitchell? What was her impression of the two combatants? She might as well have been a pre-programmed "Alexa" robot, asking questions until Lindsey Graham said, "Rachel: Stop!" and then went on his own mad dog rant.
I'm certain (even though Mitchell was paid by the GOP wimps) that Mitchell has a view about who was more honest and truthful. Wonder why she's not saying?
8
The first and most fundamental principle of conservatism from at least Edmund Burke is that when in doubt, you should not act. To do otherwise is to betray your principles and any claim as a conservative.
5
What "rings true" (a reference to the nominee's mother's purported advocacy of common sense) is that the nominee frequently drank to excess and blew through his youth in and out of an alcohol induced black-out. Yeah, he did. Naw, he doesn't remember.
The truth is: he can't handle the truth. So this flawed, angry, I-am-still-trying-to-get-my-parent's-approval "judge" responds in partisan rage. A real judge would have been able to check all of that emotion at the door. Like Judge Gorsuch did.
If Mr. Kavanaugh should resign from the judiciary and run for office.
1
In my mind he had a chance until he angrily tore into the Democrats and became an obvious Republican hack. His objectivity as a judge disappeared at that moment.
4
> But that’s not always how countries tear themselves to pieces. Sometimes, they destroy themselves over the things they don’t see, not the things they do. Chief among those unseen things is belief.
The hypocrisy of conservatives knows no bounds.
Why don't you apply your twisted analysis to Merrick Garland.
But this is not even the main issue. There is more than enough to disqualify this person from the bench entirely. He seems to have mislead Congress multiple times under oath. These new hearings have uncovered friends who flat out claim he is lying.
He has revealed himself as nakedly partisan, even after we suspend our disbelief that a Kevin Starr flunky who advocated humiliating a Democratic President is somehow not partisan. This disqualifies him. The fact that conservatives can't see that only speaks to their myopic, vicious and self-centered world view.
This poison at the heart of the conservative movement is what tears countries apart.
5
Fascinating how Brett Stephens can be so tone deaf on some issues.
Kavanaugh’s petulant, partisan, vengeful screed (which I suspect was partially the result of WH stage management) is a disqualifier. Period.
4
Mr. Stephens,
You say you found him believable. Other writers have said his anger was righteous and understandable. I beg to differ.
If he had acknowledged a number of obvious points---he did drink too much in high school (and college); when he was young he was immature and perhaps not overly sensitive towards the opposite sex----but then said, "I do not remember anything like what I am accused of," THEN he would be more believable.
And being angry for good reason doesn't justify the public temper tantrum he indulged in---especially when you consider that the charges were no longer new to him and that he didn't listen to Professor Ford's testimony. Indeed, it suggests a lack of maturity.
I don't say this out of a notion that I am pure as the driven snow. In college, I drank too much on a number of occasions, and was often selfish (though not abusive) in my dealings with women. I also had anger management problems. Heavy drinking was easy for me to stop when I wasn't a student; being less selfish and managing my anger has been more difficult, and I am still far from perfect. But no one told me, "Oh, Andy, it's fine that you behave irresponsibly, don't care about others, and lose your temper in public---here is a position of immense power and privilege." Instead, I was told to improve.
Given that Kavanaugh does not even acknowledge his issues, I see no reason to confirm him.
7
Please give your readers one example of the harm that would be done if the nominee must wait until after the midterms to be approved by the Senate.
3
You found Kavanaugh wholly believable, did you? You think he "ralphed" all the time because he had a "weak stomach"? You think Devil's Triangle is a drinking game? You think "Renate Alumnius" refers to a friendship? You think he's never heard of the Kasowitz law firm, run by Ed Kasowitz, who he knows?
It wasn't about demeanor. When people testify, they are actually saying words, Mr. Stephens. Kavanaugh's words were clearly lies. I can't believe that you can't see that.
7
What should derail his confirmation are his murky finances, his perjury on his original confirmation, and his bizarre far right rant that this was all a well orchestrated, well funded, possibly Clinton-backed conspiracy against him. His life of privilege has had no barriers whatsoever, and his basic, extremely partison, frat boy self emerged in his opening remarks. That he actually sat and thought that out, worked on it, edited it, showed it to a staff member and then read that outloud, yelling, insulting the Senate in general and the entire committee, and followed it up with his belligerence toward anyone who questioned him (his "did you, did you" to Senator Klobuchar was grotesque), and small lies about the meaning of the words in his yearbook -- they are all the actions of a person who should not be on any bench, as someone filled with so much hate to an entire defined group (the "left"), he is incapable of impartial judicial rulings. Let him join the Heritage Society or Federalist Society, earning even more $$ (so no one else has to pay off his debts anymore) and leave the US legal system alone.
7
I have no idea what Mr. Stephens was watching. I, for the most part, was watching a young and spoiled and immature man/boy throw a tantrum. He thinks because he graduated from Yale (poor Yale law school) he deserves special favors. His face, when being pushed to answer about his drinking habits became angry and defensive. "I like beer!" sounded like the rant of a pre-schooler demanding more ice cream." What a disgrace to our country and what a stain on the Supreme Court to even consider this man.
15
As you found both parties wholly believable, let me ask you something. Imagine a role reversal - if Dr. Blasey Ford had acted like Kavanaugh, would you still find her wholly believable?
It seems to me that Kavanaugh was compelling (?) to some because he was channeling their rage and frustration. But again, let me ask you something. What if all the women are telling the absolute truth? What if Kavanaugh, too, is telling the truth, but he cannot remember he's a serial sex offender because he drinks to excess and then forgets events? If he forgets, does he get a pass?
Remember how Republicans were ready to tar and feather Bill Clinton because of a consensual affair? These are far more serious allegations made at the horrific personal expense of the accusers. I'd be willing to wager that there are people who haven't had accusations of sexual assault who are just as conservative, maybe even more so, maybe even teetotalers! who are fit to sit on the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, Republicans who are living by the Kavanaugh will die by the Kavanaugh. If you see nothing wrong in these proceedings, then you are a part of the problem.
1098
After Thursday's hearings, I do not need the FBI to produce evidence related to Brett Kavanaugh's fitness for appointment to the Supreme Court. The evidence that he is NOT FIT was clear in his behavior and testimony. He is too partisan, too willing to indulge conspiracy theories, too intemperate, too juvenile, too self-centered, too self-important. He showed the American people his beliefs, and they make him unfit to be appointed as a Justice of the Supreme Court. Many of these issues were raised when the ABA downgraded their rating of him 12 years ago before he was appointed to the Court of Appeals. He does not seem to have been tempered over the last 12 years. In fact, they raise the question of whether he should be impeached from his current position.
This is a job interview. Brett Kavanaugh did not present himself as someone who anyone would not have second thoughts about hiring for any job. For all the screaming from the likes of Lindsey Graham, Kavanaugh did not demonstrate justifiable anger, he demonstrated contempt for the Committee members and an evasiveness in answering questions that is disqualifying.
3
Stephens says that if this nomination does not advance:
"it will create overpowering political incentives to discover, produce or manufacture allegations in the hopes that something sticks."
No, that's nonsense. It will instead create "overwhelming political incentives" to nominate individuals who are politically palatable to a broad majority, rather than a slight minority.
And that will be a good thing. That's how our system (aka federal representative democracy) is supposed to work.
Then we will get to see which players are willing to conform to the interests and preferences of the majority, and which are determined to find some way to undermine democracy.
6
Fascinating that, far too often, the Rubicon that should not be crossed involves a credible woman (or minority) on one side and a white privileged male on the other. Mr. Stephens, the Senate crossed this landmark some time ago breaking all manner of norms and procedures, ignoring constitutional responsibiltities, and seemingly far more interested in political theater than respectful governance. Nothing was more telling than the Chairman allowing Mr. Kavanaugh to aggressively confront Democratic Senators asking reasonable questions particularly two women and remain resolutely silent. Who put on the mantle of the accuser in those exchanges?
2
I believe that Dianne Feinstein initially kept the information she had about Dr. Ford quiet because she was asked to do so by Dr. Ford. I also believe that for weeks between the nomination and the hearing, she (Feinstein) might have reasonably hoped that at least two of her Republican colleagues might vote against Kavanaugh's confirmation based on any number of legitimate doubts about his fairness, impartiality or respect for settled law. If that had happened, none of the other information would have been released. I don't know if she/her office leaked the assault allegations or caused them to be leaked, but I do know that Dr. Ford did this country a great service and tried to do it with as little disruption to her own life, and to Kavanaugh's life, as possible. Pushing him through with the justification that Feinstein acted politically is just more bad faith R messaging. And after his disgraceful performance this week, if he were a decent man, he would withdraw and save his party the shame of voting for him.
8
Anyone reasonable wants the FBI to check the accusation. If it can be proven or disproven, or supported or weakened by other fact or witnesses, then there is a basis for using the accusation in a decision.
The unsubstantiated accusation was by the design of republicans.
There is a very small chance that the republicans lose control of the Senate in the November elections, and see a democratic Senate sworn in on January 3rd. That is 96 days from now. An investigation that results in withdrawing Kavanaugh's nomination, would leave a very small calendar window for a new nominee.
There was no reason for the Thursday hearings. The proper course would have been for an investigation to attempt to corroborate the accusation. If evidence was found to corroborate (witnesses chiefly), then the Judiciary Committee could have held a vote with that in hand.
Republicans are worried that if the Kavanaugh nomination fails and they lose Senate seats in November, that they will lose the chance to confirm a conservative Judge. The hearing was a bit of a farce. Two people telling opposite stories, with no evidence basis to choose between them. That was all it could ever be (unless a critical mistake revealed one to be lying).
A pageant was produced by the republican Judicial Committee that had one purpose: to see two opposing stories told and catch one (Ford being their target) in a lie. One should not retrospectively lament that the audience then judges the apparent truthfulness.
There are certain events that are indelibly etched onto our memories. These events so traumatic that we remember in minute detail how they unfolded.
For example, I remember exactly where I was when John F. Kennedy was assassinated. I honestly recall the news on our old black and white television playing in the living room of our family’s first house. I remember looking into the well-lit kitchen to my left. I also remember funny details like the spindles on a crib in the living room. I remember not so much feeling sad, but rather confused.
Unfortuantely, I was only two months old at the time.
So, while I honestly have a very vivid memory of the event, it’s only a fictional one. My mind simply constructed a false memory based on the stories that my parents told of that day and my desire to believe and be a part of the event.
Good people can honestly, sincerely, and vividly remember things that didn’t happen. That’s why proof and corroboration matter. And when the memory is the basis for an allegation that destroys a person, the burden of proof is especially high and rests solely with the person making the claim.
4
Often, simple remedies stare us in the face, but the powers that be, for selfish reasons, refuse to implement them.
A couple of examples: Do we want to avoid another financial meltdown as we saw in 2008? Simple. Bring back Glass Steagall.
Do we want to avoid another Garland or Kavanaugh fiasco? Simple. Bring back the filibuster rule wherein 60 votes are necessary for judicial confirmations. This would have avoided the spectacle we saw this week. Simple, right? Good luck.
3
There is a lot of smoke here, and likely some fire. That he abused alcohol as a younger man is indisputable. That he has the capacity to be belligerent is clear from his testimony the other day. That he has a casual relationship to the truth is also clear.
Say what you will about the hypocrisy and cynicism in the process, there is still the devastating and heart-rendering presence of Dr. Ford. Do we just ignore it?
This not about substituting belief for reason or facts. There is a great deal of compelling evidence, certainly enough to give any reasonable person pause. Certainly, there are other qualified candidates out there. It’s ridiculous that two of nine Supreme Court justices would be plucked from the same elite private high school. That makes no sense, and is unacceptable, in this day and age.
I have no sympathy for Judge Kavanaugh. He brought this on himself. I have no doubt he has been a good man and a good friend and father and husband and coach and all the rest. I also have no doubt there are profound flaws in his character, and deep rivers of denial, and that he has not, and appears to have no capacity, to come to terms with them.
3
Sorry, but the tentative deciding factor for me was not her "believability" but his temper/demeanor. He cut off senators in mid-sentence while avoiding answers to their questions. He stormed at them (this is NOT the behavior of a tempered jurist as much as a temper tantrum of an entitled child). I don't care how threatened he may have felt, how much frustration he experienced; his responses were beyond what I believe a jurist of his experience should exhibit. That's the deal-breaker for me, not his stance on past cases.
3
The question of whether or not Kavanaugh has a history of being a "mean drunk" and a wild teenager is less of a concern when considering the elevation to the Supreme Court than his immediate lies to advance. The FBI investigation, which should have started as soon as the allegation was raised, could have discovered one simple FACT based on Kavanaugh's statement when this made the news - "I wasn't even at that party." Strange statement when there were no specifics given about the party.
The man who lied about his involvement in the "enhanced interrogation" memos and having Democratic documents related to opposition to a different Supreme Court nominee MAY HAVE lied about this incident, which led to lies about his high school and college activities related to drinking, gambling, and general partying. What else is he willing to lie about to advance? If that's his character, does it fit the character of someone we want on the Supreme Court?
Was he at THAT party, calendar from 1982 aside?
3
Actually, the road to national ruin is more likely to be paved by Supreme Court that will justify climate change denial, increased income inequality, and the destruction of basic social benefits, all while reserving privileges for corporations and the rich.
5
Bret Stephens is usually more self-reflective than he is here. He rails against belief without evidence, but attributes the lateness of the accusation to perfidy on the part of Dianne Feinstein who says she was trying to preserve the Dr. Ford's confidentiality. Is there evidence of that?
"the perception that Democrats never intended a fair process to begin with". that may be a Republican perception, indeed. but from my point of view, it was McConnell who broke the concept of fairness with Merritt Garland, and it cannot be fixed.
3
Many commentators have talked about Kavanaugh's petulance, snideness, combativeness, antipathy to the "left wing conspiracy", like Alex Jones, Hannity and other intellectual giants admired by people of his ilk . Which means he has now clearly displayed an obvious bias - visible and believable , unchained and therefore unacceptable in a Supreme Court Justice, whose job is to apply the law, not bend it . But that's why the Federalist Society chose him - their intention is to twist the law in a certain direction.
And no, Mr Stephens, it is an outrageous suggestion that the problem may be solved by a " deal in which Donald Trump nominates conservative federal judge Amy Coney Barrett and Democrats agree to vote on her nomination before the midterms".
Why should they agree to do this without conducting a thorough vetting, as should have occurred with the current candidate? But that wasn't permitted, as they decided that 100,000 documents were not for the Democrats/ American People's consumption and were irrelevant to Kavanaugh's confirmation. Had the GOP not been in such a rush, we might not be in this awful mess.
Why invite a similar mess, just because you are wedded to the GOP?
3
Underlying Stephens' argument is a mistaken view of the Committee's task. It did not convene as a jury, a "trier of fact". It convened to conduct a job interview. Things said in the hearing that would not be allowed in a trial were perfectly relevant to the Committee's purpose.
So, should the hearing be enough to enable the Committee to make an informed decision? I don't think so. There are at least 100,000 documents generated by Kavanaugh during his Washington career that would from a more suitable and less emotional basis for an opinion about his suitability. But the administration refuses to release those documents for reasons best known to itself, so the Committee will have to decide on the basis of the issue before it. "Believability" will be the deciding issue.
2
According to Bret L. Stephens:
"The enduring challenge of liberal societies is to react to such challenges, not overreact."
Perhaps it is best if everyone stops reacting, and started responding. There is a difference.
Mr. Stephens seems to have overlooked some things:
1. Even if Mr. Kavanaugh were never in the position of being accused (credibly, even) of any past misdeeds, he would still not have been fit for the Supreme Court. He is on public record as having provably lied under oath.
2. Juries convict, and judges award damages or levy penalties based on testimony that they believe to be true. This fact blows away Mr. Stephens' entire argument about belief.
3. There is less reason to believe Mr. Kavanaugh, because he has lied under oath before. Even if you did not believe that Mr. Kavanaugh was involved in the assault described by Professor Blasey-Ford, you can be sure she does describe something that happened to her.
4. If Mr. Kavanaugh were to be confirmed and seated in the Supreme Court, this will now be the third time that the Republican Party has elevated a man who appears to be against women.
Also, Mr. Stephens' argument here illustrates an important problem with conservatives and conservative thought: bad faith. They appear to be willing to set aside or discard principles they claim to hold dear once it is "one of their boys" who stands to gain from so doing, as well as to uphold what, to everyone else, is patently unjust.
2
I doubt very much whether Ms Blasey had been planning to mount some kind of attack on Mr Kavanaugh's appointment. To all appearances she had to be persuaded to talk about things from the distant past which she had tried to forget. That makes her more credible in my eyes. On the other hand what Mr Kavanaugh is accused of is indeed the kind of thing a certain type of young man will often boast about (other young men may do these things but have at least a sufficient sense of decency or shame to refrain from mentioningit.)
As far as I am concerned, the fact that the current President wants to appoint Mr Kavanaugh is sufficient cause to reject him. Not only because Mr Trump is antipathetic but above all because I have grave doubts concerning his judgment.
1
Some people believe passionately and sincerely in alien abductions.
Some even have vivid, detailed memories of being abducted themselves. These are decent human beings who are very convinced of their abductions, sometime even passing lie detector tests. They aren’t lying, because they really do remember the incidents.
That doesn’t mean that alien abductions are real. It also doesn’t mean that they are NOT real.
It simply shows that some stories are unprovable and should not just be believed.
Belief is not a substitute for proof. And the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
1
If Kavanaugh is confirmed it will have everything to do with the GOP’s rush to do so, denial of responsible investigation of credible accusations, and of course dismissal of Merrick Garland. If he is rejected or withdraws it will have to do with his ego, entitlement, temperament, financial mysteries, charges of sexual assault, non-disclosure of government records of his work for Bush, understanding of his work for Starr. If Amy Coney Bennett is nominated I hope she will be rejected over her dedication to her religious group.
3
Behaviors, statements and emotions are easily manipulated. There are two other considerations that help with assessing the truthfulness of statements: What does the author of the statement have to gain? What is the track record of the parties (In the case of a conflict)? Between the judge and the professor, it is not difficult to decide whom to trust if you consider the totality of available data.
2
Mr Stephens makes the very valid argument that of course Kavenaugh was angry, “wouldn’t you be angry if...”
Sure. But that’s not the point. Of course there are times when we all get angry; the question is what we do when we’re angry. Kavenaugh displayed a lack of control, and that lack of control revealed some deep-seated beliefs around how he views the world and politics. In short, he lost his temper on the most important job interview of his life.
Is that the behavior we want to see in a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States? Regardless of politics, do we want to see someone who cannot even pretend to be judicial and fair-minded when the stakes are high and he is being considered for a role that is the epitome of judicial temperment, and fair and open-mindedness? Do we really want to see someone who engages others with open contempt and disrespect?
Such behavior destroys marriages, friendships, teams, and companies.
Would it be nice to know the truth? Certainly. But we don’t have to believe or disbelieve either Dr. Ford or Judge Kavenaugh to observe his behavior and see who he is.
4
First, like most Americans, I did not find Judge Kavanaugh as credible as Dr. Blasey Ford. Kavanaugh angrily denied the allegations and blamed it on a left-wing conspiracy. There is no evidence to support such a theory, other than the partisan claim that the Senators on the other side of the aisle would do anything - including subornation of perjury - to defeat Kavanaugh. Even Trump found Blasey Ford credible, for God's sake.
Second, confirmation of this candidate would leave the majority of Americans (who believe Blasey Ford) with the knowledge that at least two of the Court's members have been credibly accused of sexual assault and harassment. The risk of harm to the Court and Senate is too great. The Senate should not approve a candidate rejected by a majority of the public, whether the candidate is a Democrat or a Republican.
The Senators should remember that they represent all of the people in their states, and not just their base.
1
The notion that Democrats had a partisan motive to delay releasing Ford's identity seems counter intuitive to me. So does the notion that Kavanaugh's behavior is what one would expect from someone falsely accused who has a life time appointment on America's most prestigious court short of the Supreme Court. I had not previously read many of Bret Stephens' opinion pieces, but I expect to be reading fewer, if any, going forward.
1
The idea of “the perception that Democrats never intended a fair process to begin with” should be balanced with the same statement about Republicans. Though, in truth, the Republican game was obvious when they opposed having the FBI reopen it's background check of Kavanaugh. That would have followed precedent.
Was Feinstein's delay of informing the committee about Blasey Ford's allegations a political ploy, as Stevens suggests, or was it, as Feinstein claims, an effort to keep Ford's name from public attention. Both are believable, and both, potentially, true at the same time.
Kavanaugh, in my opinion, disqualified himself, dramatically and completely, with his abusive performance. He is a political hack that should be kept away from SCOTUS, and away from the bench, entirely. His record shows that he is not capable of administering justice, and is completely ideologically driven. He's free to be partisan, but it must have no place in a courtroom, anywhere.
3
The problem began with the nomination of a man who should not have made it to the short list. This is what happens when the process becomes so partisan and politically charged. Kavanaugh should be disqualified on the basis of temperament and trust alone after his display of partisan, histrionic dissembling on Thursday. His well documented heavy drinking in high school and college makes it impossible for him to deny with any certainty that he did NOT do the things Christine Blasey Ford remembers. We are not talking about sending him to prison, we are evaluating whether or not he is worthy of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. The burden of proof is on him and he has failed on many fronts to meet that burden.
8
Interesting to read today the world freedom index for 2018 and seeing the US sliding down the list to number 86, Kavanaugh if confirmed will insure this trajectory continues. Yes the Russian was off buy a few years.
2
Like many columnists, Stephens misses the point.
For my nearly 80 years, I have been a feminist, raised as I was by smart, strong women. But I do not accept at face value allegations pf sexual abuse by women or denials of sexual misconduct by men in these matters. They must be treated with respect and sympathy, and with good sense which comes with careful handling evidence and argument. Yet, to everyone's frustration, even by those standards, the truth of a woman's allegations and a man's denials may never be known.
However, the point of the hearing is not to adjudicate a case involving sexual abuse, but to assess the qualifications of the nominee: competence and character, with a special emphasis on judicial temperament.
I admire Dr. Ford; as an Independent Scholar, I see her exemplifying in her personal life everything best in her professional life: commitment to truth, winnowing of evidence, weighing of argument, and humility in these efforts.
Then there is Judge Kavanaugh. Reports tell me a little about his political activities and his judicial decisions. Direct observation show me his disregard of truth; disrespect of Democratic Senators; angry partisanship; resentment at wounded self-esteem, frustrated entitlement, damaged reputation; and lack of balance and self-control--all signs of a lack of impartiality, the essence of judicial temperament.
In short, Dr. Ford's credibility is not relevant; Judge Kavanaugh's injudicious behavior are--and disqualifying.
11
So now that Brett Kavanaugh's nomination is in grave trouble, Stevens wants a deal. Rush the next nominee through before the mid terms. NO. Have we learned nothing. REGULAR ORDER. That is what is needed. That is what should have been done in this case. That is precisely why this nomination is in grave trouble. REGULAR ORDER.
Stop playing games with the Supreme Court. It is a slippery slope leading to the destruction of our democracy.
6
If Stephens truly found Kavanaugh believable his judgement is questionable at best. Even a cursory examination of the record shows Kavanaugh repeatedly misrepresented evidence and flatly lied numerous times.
15
Looking over the fact checking the Times has done on Kavanaugh’s testimony, he hardly seems credible, much less a suitable nominee for the Supreme Court. The author also has to consider the extreme one-sidedness of even the most liberal modern societies when it comes to race, gender and class. We cannot simply bracket how two of those factors (gender and class) have taken center stage here. Kavanaugh clearly feels like he deserves this, and should not be subject to any embarrassment along the way. Ford, meanwhile, was sincere but apologetic, at one point asking a male republican senator if she could look him in the eye. If we have to step outside the norms of judicial comportment in order to catch these contrasts, then so be it. It only means that those norms were never as objective as we thought. This is not to say we should abandon them entirely, but they certainly need some work. The bulwark against tyranny has always contained some tyranny in it.
7
Mr. Stephens' argument looks like it's being fair. Both sides seemed to him believable. But it's not actually so. Ms Ford took the stand and the oath, and was credible. J. Kavanaugh took the stand and the oath and was not. So, this article can also be read as yet another apologia for privilege: Stephens assumes that J. Kavanaugh is qualified to be on the nation's court, and blames the Democrats for politicizing the process. The nomination process has always been a litmus test for extremist political views, and rightly, the process has always been contested where there are found to be some. The problem now has become that alongside the likelihood of starkly conservative and even partisan views (e.g., serving in the Bush administration; assisting in the now discredited Starr investigation), J. Kavanaugh in the face of adversity showed himself intemperate, hostile, blustering, petulant, and dismissive. To me, it looked liked lying, and some of his answers were at best evasive. J. Kavanaugh faced a just and reasonable effort to seek the truth on the part of the nation's highest legislative body. Certainly, a tough test, one he purports to be equal to. But he failed it.
3
Mr. Stephens, Clearly, you did not watch Kavanaugh's performance at the hearing. There is no way one can claim the prestige of the S.C. would not be diminished by putting this person on the court. The truth of the two positions is no longer the issue; the person displayed by Kavanaugh's abuse of the dignity of our Senate is now the issue.
2
You do not mention the troubling partisan rant he employed in his defense. He had previously assured the Senators he was not biased, despite his previous acts under Ken Starr. It is also very possible he lied about his drinking. Setting aside the accusations by Ford et al, he should not be on the Supreme Court.
11
If you don't like believeability as a test, how about temperament? If I were the hiring manager and saw the bitter, sour, raging, self-pitying, evasive person we all watched on Thursday afternoon, I would move on quickly to another candidate with more emotional control.
27
No, Bret, I would not be furious if falsely accused of something.
I have faced such accusations three times in my life and quickly found that anger is not the best response. Rather, a calm, reasoned reply illustrating how the accusation is false always seemed to work better. Even if there is no evidence one way or the other, anger to those sitting in”judgement” (as happened to me once) is surely not the way to behave. In a judge such behavior is highly disconcerting!
1
A couple of points. None of the conservative commentary I read mentions Merrick Garland, yet complain about Dems "politicizing the process". I guess that was just another example of boys being boys. Second, the rule of law depends entirely the acceptance of the citizenry of the legitimacy of the government. That is the believability that counts. Once people stop believing that the law is fairly created and faithfully executed they will begin to ignore or actively circumvent the law, leading the government to depend on coercive enforcement to try to maintain their vision of order. This is the road to fascism that I fear we a head toward. A substantial majority of the country already believes that the executive and legislative branches of our government are ineffective or illegitimate. Once the courts are viewed that way, the US might as well be Turkey or Venezuela.
3
A man telling the truth would not have behaved like Kavanaugh. Period! No one should be allowed to distort the truth especially those who are and will be in a position to render judgment on these matters. The expectation that all his classmates must concur on his at times uncontrolled drinking is nothing less than an effort to give him cover which he himself blew. More than a few people who knew him stated that the image of a choir boy who occasionally drank a few beers is totally inaccurate. What more do you need to "believe" that he is not telling the truth? Or, did we watch the same person squirming to avoid answering simple questions truthfully?
Also remember, the steps to the Supreme Court do not need "guardrails" and anyone who has to be protected by them should not try to climb those stairs. Mr. Kavanaugh should, and possibly will withdraw his nomination. He is unfit to sit on that bench.
7
I appreciate the logic of agreeing to vote on Amy Coney Barrett before the midterms: it is an effort to undo some of the harm that has been done. But it wouldn't really. So I suggest Donald Trump agree to re-nominate Merrick Garland-- someone both sides already agree is extraordinarily well-qualified and is already vetted-- and have both Republicans and Democrats vote on him before the midterms. That is the reset that is needed, and would meet the desire for fairness Mr. Stephens expresses.
6
Believability is not veracity. People with PTSD, as Dr. Ford acknowledged , develop Memory Distortion as part of the syndrome. This is just a clinical fact. Well compensated binge alcoholics may not recall anything in a blackout. True and True.
As is noted, the standard and process for high office is changing. If we are to use a high school yearbook and the level of testosterone in young men , then not many will survive scrutiny. Professional achievement, even life long and at the highest level, can be washed away in an accusation and /or a trip to Animal House.
Be wary of all this but not just for the reasons noted. The vast majority of people have been a version of Ford or Kavanaugh. Life is messy, we make mistakes, we recover but are flawed. It is who were are. Normal people , i/e., normally flawed people , will not accept the new moral police . Earlier , an article cited a blog from an administration wherein he discussed the validity of hate crime claims and their definition. His co workers saw this mere mention as " hate speech " and " racist".
All of this may satisfy many East coast progressives and media. But it will not play where elections are won.
The hearings were a job interview, not a trial. The same criteria apply as for any job interview. Believability is necessarily part of that evaluation. To think otherwise is to implicitly say that in the absence of proof, the candidate is entitled to the position.
Indeed believability is problematic when the President of the United States rejects documented facts as "fake news" while poisoning the political culture with a regular infusion of lies. Yet his followers believe him. We are left to rely on what is left of people's inner integrity and honesty.
Personally, I found Mr. Kavanaugh's testimony neither appropriate nor believable given what we know or suspect. It was not the response of a calm, judicious thinker ready for great responsibility over the lives of others. Instead what I saw was anger and outrage from a wounded sense of entitlement.
13
Where is the motivation and who has it? That’s what I was taught.
The timing of events is enough to sway me. The fact that all this theater could have been avoided. The FBI could have investigated and interviewed all these witnesses. If only these allegations had been reported in confidence to the judiciary committee weeks ago. They weren’t. Who leaked the letter? The motivation is not truth. Its not about what happened. Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh have already been thrown under the bus. What’s the motivation? Raw power.
1
That Russian prediction in 1998 is scary. However, the image of fragmentation is not quite correct if one imagines fragmentation to resemble a smashed vase. There would only be two fragments. The smaller of the two would be what are called 'Nativists', largely Anglo Saxon heritage who believe with fury that the country really belongs to them. Thus, they use labels such as Freedom, 1776, Tea Party, etc. to evoke images of the founders and the founding of this country which they believe, not without justification, was a product of their ethnic group. The other fragment is the rest of us, whites, non-whites, and so forth. These groups roughly break down percentage-wise to resemble those who support Trump and those who do not: approximately 35% Nativisits and 65%, the rest of us. Can this minority cause the disassociation of our country they claim to belong to them, when the rest of us wish it to remain intact?
6
Maybe the hearings shouldn't prevent his nomination, but the results of the FBI investigation undoubtedly will.
3
Beg to differ Bret. The Democrats never said, collectively, that they accepted the accusation as fact, rather they called for investigating the allegations fully. Time and again the president, that stalwart of intellectual acuity, said the FBI didn't do those investigations.
What you should be railing against is the sheer power the Republicans have attempted to exercise on the process by ignoring just about every call for a more careful vetting of the nominee.
As for Judge Kavanaugh, there has to be a good deal of alarm in the legl community about his ability to judge anything on on an objective basis in the wake of his rant on Thursday against the "left."
You are right, I think, in saying that he would be opposed by Democrats on the basis of his obvious leaning toward unbridled presidential immunity to anything criminal, something the legal community also should be attuned to. His view of the presidency being above the law is rather frightening.
Raw power may still prevail and elections have consequences. All this noise is meaningless until November, when the real verdict will be rendered.
3
Stephens’s suggestion to nominate the religious ideologue Amy Barret shows real deafness about what’s going on. The right wants to impose its minority vision and the left wants rights for everyone. The right wants to attack the constitution’s separation of church and state, and to rule for the powerful, and the left want to increase democracy by sending power downward. There’s no equivalence. To say Barret is a compromise is unthinking.
2
Anger is very often a mask for evasion. (Ask a woman who questions her husband's infidelity, only to be greeted with shouted denials.) The central issue in the hearings was not whether Kavanaugh was guilty of the allegations against him, but whether he is fit to become a Supreme Court justice. On the basis of his unhinged behavior, punctuated by unsupported, hyper-partisan charges against senators who were only doing their job (shades of Clarence Thomas's "lynching" remark) and preening, insulting non-answers to simple questions, Kavanaugh demonstrated that he is not the man for the job. Sadly, the playbook he followed was written by the man who nominated him in the first place.
3
Brett, your piece completely ignores Kavanaugh’s astonishing display of the vicious partisanship and contempt for his questioners that should disqualify any nominee for the Supreme Court. He may have been a sterling student and law clerk to Kennedy, but I cannot see how he could be impartial and thoughtful in cases of political import. And about fairness of the process: Have you ever heard of Merrick Garland?
3
As an older white southern male I got to say that he "doth protest too much methinks."
Come on Brett, the country has been through much worse and we will survive this too. Brett Kavenaugh is not on trial here, but he certainly blew his job interview. We have many other qualified candidates we can choose from. The guy has beome toxic. Time to quit wasting time on this, withdraw his nomination, and move on.
6
I agree, Mr. Stephens, that the hearing really did not definitively answer the question about what actually happened decades ago, and finding proof seems almost impossible. My questions about this nominee, which have not been addressed in these or the previous hearings, is what does Judge Kavanaugh believe now about a woman's right to personal autonomy? Was his allegedly getting drunk and acting like a sexual predator just a confluence of alcohol, hormones, and a social milieu that encouraged that kind of behavior in young men, or was it a symptom of his character now? Does he look at a woman and see someone who has less rights than he does; rights to her own spiritual beliefs, rights to say no, say yes, decide her future, take a job, think her own thoughts? His sense of aggrieved entitlement at the recent hearing concerns me also. It was almost like he thought that his apparent idyllic suburban upbringing, which included lots of sports, getting good grades, cutting people's lawns and attending church on Sunday, was proof of his innocence. I grew up in that kind of neighborhood and attended Catholic School. There could be a lot of ugliness under that perfect veneer.
6
But, Mr. Stephens, in a criminal proceeding, the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness could send me to prison for the rest of my life if the trier of fact chooses to believe that witness over an opposing witness. That’s black letter law, which, presumably, Judge Kavanaugh would apply from the bench. Are you saying a standard that’s good enough when someone’s liberty is at stake is not good enough when a Supreme Court seat is at stake?
5
Brett Kavanaugh is a member of the American upper class. He has an education and profession which labels him as such. He is accustomed to being treated with respect and deference. The young woman he is alleged to have assaulted was, an remains a member of the same class with an education and profession that sets her apart from most Americans. From early childhood she has been treated with the respect and deference to which she is accustomed. Mr. Kavanaugh, in a drunken stupor forget whom he was trifling with. She did not forget. He is neither a gentleman nor discrete. He does not belong on the Supreme Court.
7
The timing with which the Democrats released the Ford letter when seems to be a real sticking point for many republican senators like Lindsey Graham. But maybe the issue of last minute timing might have been avoided if the republican leasdership had not been so intent to fast track a very partisan candidate with many looming questions in his resume and writing, to rush and avert the normal process of such confirmations by releasing thousands of pages of documentation overnight before the hearing with no time for careful review or the raising of any serious questions; to see Lindsay then crying crocodile tears over a “Good man”being so mistreated by democrats, as, he says” has never been done before, with no mention at all of how Merrick Garland, another well qualified and uncontroversial “good man”, was treated by his own party.
5
What you write here is all fine and thoughtful, but I have to say the use of the phrase "cynical ploy" to describe Democratic maneuvering around a Supreme Court nomination is at best comical. Ask Judge Merrick Garland. If you're going to make such partial determinations, have the decency to acknowledge that truth. Both sides play the games, Bret, and blocking any hearing at all as the Republicans did in 2016 could never have been called a mere cynical ploy. It was an abandonment of the Constitution and an utter failure to perform the job for which they were elected.
5
I don't have to "believe" either one of them, but I need to be convinced that the candidate would make a good Supreme Court judge. Therefore, any doubts -- and there are doubts concerning other things than sexual assault -- make me want to move on to another nominee.
I have been interviewed for many jobs, most of which were denied me, for a host of reasons. Why is this different? The decisions are always subjective, based on some "belief" or intuition about the candidate.
Bret, your belief that Diane Feinstein carried out a "cynical ploy" divorced from truth-seeking is telling. What do you suppose you and others would be saying about her if she had shared the existence of the letter? Then she would be the betrayer of a woman's confidence.
I opposed his nomination from the beginning for reasons concerning his involvement in the Ken Starr investigation, the Bush White House rationalizations of torture, and lack of experience as a trial lawyer. These alarms do not mean that I or any other Democrats "never intended a fair process to begin with." It means that we seriously opposed this guy and saw a lot to investigate.
6
" But to vote on the basis of a belief in things unseen and unproved is a road to national ruin."
Evidently you remarkably managed to not see see a supreme court nominee who obviously has profound anger issues and was furiously unhinged for much of the interview process. One can't say he "lost" his composure because it was hard to pinpoint a moment when he actually had any.
His "questioning" of Senator Klobuchar was disgraceful, and displayed a temperament and judgement that don't belong anywhere near a Federal Bench, much less the Supreme Court.
I wouldn't sit on a park bench next to this guy.
Let's not even mention his preposterous charge that the hearing was an evil Clinton conspiracy engineered as payback for Trump's election.
Sorry, too late, I mentioned it.
And your conclusion after watching this "OK, fine, no problem"
He exposed himself as a fraud who has no business even applying for this job, and in a sane world, wouldn't have the one he currently occupies, either.
At this point, the decision doesn't need to rest upon a "he said, she said" thirty six years ago. All you need to do is listen to what he said and how he said it in that senate hearing to know that this guy is radioactive.
Applicant rejected.
10
I mostly agree with Mr. Stephens and though although 'm both a woman and a Democrat, My university tolerated make out rooms in animal houses. It all seemed a part of the terrain of a state university--almost socially acceptable.
What I do object to is the total burial of any other considerations as to why a Trump nominee should stay or go. Trump chose Scott Pruitt, for example, because he seeks to destroy the EPA from within, and there's plenty of evidence with Pruitt's successor as well. Yet Pruitt was fired for using our money to buy mattresses and install sound proof barriers within his office--we understand that reason.
We've been obsessed with the disgusting saga of Trump and Stormy,but Trump does horrific things behind the scene and these get buried in the headlines; it's all about prurient topics that we understand much more. Republicans must love it. Once they accept that Kavanaugh really was a virgin, they can continue to dismantle the rights we've fought for decades to obtain.
Kavanaugh lies and his originalism may doom significant protections of all kinds. He implies that Trump can pardon himself. Agencies like EPA may have to respond to the whims of Congress. We lost Merrick Garland for no real reason at all but all consuming partisanship. . I support Jeff Flake but wish one week could be five. Politicizing an appointment that could last 30 years is unacceptable as long as we ignore the full impact from his becoming a justice.
4
Your focus ignores: (1) the mass of written information about Kavanaugh's past career and (2) the rush of the Republicans for a vote, refusing to make these documents public and thus giving us the time to find out about his past career. More power to the president? Torture? What else of importance?
6
I agree with Mr. Stephens that there is a difference between believing someone and knowing the truth. We believe someone because of our biases, our political affiliation, our feelings about a person etc. and the truth is a set of indisputable facts. However, I think there is a good chance that the FBI investigation will find something significant, especially if they can get a confession from Mark Judge. We will see. Either way it is an absolute imperative that there be an investigation at this point to try to get some facts.
As for whether Kavanaugh belongs on the court, he doesn’t and any dirty trick the Democrats pull is completely justified because Merrick Garland should be on the court instead of Neil Gorsuch. This mess is the conservative’s fault, they blocked all of President Obama’s judges, they stonewalled Judge Garland for an unprecedented eight months, and now they whine because Senator Feinstein tried to protect Mrs. Fords privacy.
The Republicans poisoned the well and the only compromise that will restore comity to the Senate is for Judge Kavanaugh to step aside and for Trump to nominate and the senate to confirm Merrick Garland
3
i will add my voice to the chorus who say Kavanaugh was not not believable in many small but significant ways. What seems incredible is why Trump did not pull his nomination, and why Kavanaugh himself did not withdraw, especially if he is so concerned with his "sterling" reputation and future job prospects. He must have known (as his testimony showed) that he was going to be dragged through the mud. Trump and Republicans are just as responsible for destroying this man as the Democrats. And I agree his life will be forever altered whatever comes out of this. I have to place most of the blame on the Trump administration for it.
4
Mr Stephens, what probability would you assign to Dr Ford’s telling the truth? 95%? 99%?
That’s the same probability that you are advocating the confirmation of a lying, serial assaulter to the Supreme Court.
That “men and women lie equally often” (your statement from a previous column) does NOT imply that Ford and Kavanaugh stand at 50-50!
What portion of women in Dr Ford’s shoes come forward with lies? I don’t know about you, but I have believed the vast majority of women who have come forward, regardless of the political implications. You don’t seem like the type of recovering-Republican to only believe the women who accuse Democrats. Come on! What portion of powerful men lie to save their jobs and reputations?
It is far more likely, you’ll realize if you’re honest with yourself, that Ford is telling the truth than Kavanaugh. This isn’t 50-50, Mr Stephens; it’s more like 98-2.
98-2 ring a bell? That’s approximately the ratio of professional scientists who support the general conclusions of climate-change theory, to those who don’t. I’m suggesting that when the position associated with your political identity is preposterous (climate change is overblown; Dr Ford; etc.), your reflex is to reach for a false equivalence and then blame Democrats for their rhetorical choices.
You’re too savvy to keep falling into this trap! Come on, Mr Stephens— We need a sober conservative voice in these dangerous times!
2
A man who has nothing to fear does not respond to being questioned the way Kavanaugh has responded. Stephens finding Kavanaugh believable is impossible for me to comprehend. The road to ruin is paved when individuals ignore the obvious. The national ruin that Stephens fears is the hysterical response of a man who sees, but cannot force himself to believe the truth. When the truth is lost, all is lost. To quote James Baldwin "People who shut their eyes to reality invite their own destruction, and anyone who insists on remaining in a state of innocence long after innocence is dead turns himself into a monster"
3
Unfortunately, this piece will sway no minds. People have already decided what they want the outcome to be. And they will use anything available to justify sticking to that desired outcome. I can't wait for the roles to flip the next time a Democratic president nominates someone to the Court. There will be gross accusations without a shred of evidence. Democrats will reflexively say that they are not disqualifying. Republicans will reflexively say they are. This country is truly on a dark path.
1
A few observations:
1) Kavanaugh was asked if he had watched Ford's testimony. He said, "No, I was preparing my testimony." That says a lot to me. He didn't even consider listening to his accuser; her testimony wasn't worth considering. If he were innocent, wouldn't he want to try to find a way to explain how her testimony could be in error? Instead, he turned the attention to the Democrats and made them his enemy. Ford part of a conspiracy? It's laughable.
2) Gorsuch was only two years behind Kavanaugh at school. Perhaps he could shed some light on Kavanaugh's reputation at the time?
3) Anyone who has experience with alcoholism will recognize Kavanaugh's screed during his opening statement as a form of denial. I feel badly for him that Mitch McConnell's politicization of the nomination process and the GOP's lack of proper vetting (or did they simply not care about his background?) has left him hanging out to dry before the whole world, but his anger should be directed at his puppeteers, the GOP; not the Democrats for pointing out that the puppet emperor has no clothes.
5
Sorry Brett: This is not simply a question of whom you “believe.” I watched and Kavanaugh dissembled, deflected and evaded some simple, straightforward questions. In other words, he lied and that is perjury, clear and simple. So, do you want as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court a man who is dishonest? I don’t.
Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony was revealing on a number of fronts, not least of which the fact that he is blatantly partisan. I don’t blame him for being angry — his past caught up with him and now he may be denied a Supreme Court seat to which he somehow feels he is entitled. However, he is partisan to an extreme. Elevating him to the Supreme Court now will forever blemish that institution and deprive it of its moral authority and legitimacy as the Court of last resort.
5
This argument fails because it accepts without complaint the explanation of Dr. Blasey Ford's accusation as the result of pure partisanship. It was not. Indeed, it was delayed so long due to her well-founded fear of the consequences of entering an already obscenely partisan situation.
Now this situation is not Brett Kavanaugh's personal responsibility either, but he is already a participant. The dead giveaway was his use of the term "borking" during his opening statement. This verbal shorthand is used exclusively by right-wing partisans to express their sense of victimhood over how the resistance to Robert Bork kept him off the bench. But the attacks on Bork were largely due to the extreme character of his published work prior to the nomination, and for the rest of his career he amply confirmed the impression of what sort of Justice he might have been. The contrast with Judge Kavanaugh's pretense of having no particular predisposition to the issues facing the Court could not be greater.
There is actually a simple solution to this problem: Trump could send up a nominee who actually represents the broad consensus of American jurisprudence and would be readily accepted by both Republicans and Democrats. But Brett Kavanaugh is not it.
2
I did not find Kavanaugh believable at all. To me he appeared a privileged Ivy Leaguer who was enraged that those who were not his equals, and we're talking US Senators here, had the temerity to challenge him. He certainly didn't demonstrate a judicial temperament. His responses were flippant, disrespectful, and evasive, and sometimes outright dishonest. See Urban Dictionary for the meanings of boffing and Devil's Triangle. His crying, whether real or staged, made me wonder how he would hold up to pressures of being an Associate Justice. His life is not totally ruined, though his ambition to serve on the Supreme Court may be.
9
Mr. Stephens deems Dianne Feinstein's attempt to honor Dr. Blasey Ford's confidentiality request "cynical". For the record, Senator Feinstein says she didn't leak the letter, nor did her staff. The conspiratorial right will never understand that these things develop on their own timetable and achieve their own ultimate momentum, for reasons that ought to be obvious.
Stephens is correct to note that Blasey Ford could face social and professional ruin by lying, which is all the more reason to find her brave and credible for coming forward. The adjective I've heard more than any other is "guileless".
But the anti-lying symmetry Stephens imagines is not present. There is no corresponding disincentive for Kavanaugh to lie. If he's guilty of something that can't be proved, lying is his only plausible path to redemption and a seat on the court. At this point he's "all in". Alas, that's his unique burden.
Before Kavanaugh's unhinged Thursday testimony, I would have argued that weighing these relative probabilities was sufficient reason to pick a different nominee. It's still just a "job interview", after all.
But now we can, and must, add "judicial temperament" to the reasons. Kavanaugh showed himself to be as conspiratorially minded as any other right winger.
Kavanaugh's pre-judicial career is often described as "partisan warrior", and that depiction came gushing out uncontrollably on Thursday. The last thing anybody should want on the Supreme Court is a partisan warrior.
3
The only way to detoxify the process of Supreme Court appointments and make it as non-partisan an institution as possible is to require a supermajority for the appointment of justices. Currently, that means allowing the filibuster, annoying as the practice can be.
As to Judge Kavanaugh, even if we assume that he has been slandered, in his anger he revealed his extreme partisanship. "What goes around comes around" sounds a lot like a threat of retaliation once he is on the court. I believe the judge when he expresses his hatred and resentment of Democrats and the left.
If believability is the road to ruin, democracy is unworkable. It plays a part in every election to every political office. Humans are not computers. Empathy is the foundation of believability and informed by careful observation, tempered by common sense, it's not a bug but a feature of human nature.
4
I saw a partisan judge without the temperament required to be a fair minded justice. I saw a man who will seek revenge on his perceived enemies while on the court.
3
“(wouldn’t you be, too, if you were innocent of such an accusation)” No Mr. Stephens, I like to think I would not and most people, especially the truly innocent, would not. If you would like a frame of reference, you can look back at how President Obama responded to Trump’s relentless attacks on his citizenship. Or even Clarence Thomas in the Anita Hill controversy. I think what most of us found so disturbing about the hearings was Kavanaugh’s Trump like rabid, aaggressive and wholly partison testimony. He was also evasive and there have been other proven instances iof Kavanaugh lying. I agree that the Republicans are entitled to appoint a conservative justice, though they denied Obama his constitutional right. But what we learned from Thursday is that whether or not Kavanaugh committed the rapes, he is temperamentally and even ethically unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. We all deserve better. Last point - angry aggressive behavior such as Kavanaugh’s does not correlate with telling the truth. All you have to do is watch any news clip of Trump from any day to get that. In all, yours was not a helpful column in this issue.
6
It didn't take long for Stephens to case aside his mask of reasonableness to rally around the latest Republican misdirection. That being that this is all the Democrats fault. Sure, they may have been tough on Kavanaugh, a man more than able to take care of himself, but that's not the point. The point is whether or not he assaulted Ms Ford, and the Republicans have done everything in their power to hinder that investigation.
Now, Republicans are telling us that Senator Feinstein waited too long to go to Senator Grassley, and perhaps she did. So what? They claim that if she had, Grassley would have thoroughly investigated the claim. What in Grassley's behavior since he learned of the claim would lead anyone to that conclusion. Not only has he not vigorously pursued it, he's actively impeded it.
Perhaps the FBI investigation will give us some answers. More than likely it won't. Whatever the case, it's unfortunate that conservatives have made the issue partisan politics instead of sexual assault.
4
I disagree. It's not about who's telling the truth. They both are. The real issue exposed in both those testimonies was Judge Kavanaugh's temperament. He really believes the Clintons are out to get him? Seriously that's his reply to a woman who remembers a party differently than he does? No Bret , this is about character and paranoia. I would suggest, Judge Kavanaugh is incapable now of ever seeming to be impartial.
9
What decent person, especially male, will ever be willing to be nominated for the Supreme Court? All it will take is one accusation from a woman from even decades earlier to drag his name through the mud. What sane person would put him and his family through this? This is where the idea of (always) believe the woman ultimately leads. Yes, women suffer from sexual assault, and yes, women should be believed. But so should men and when one says X and the other says Y (pardon the pun), then we have to look to external evidence. But none of this is going to matter. Men are going to do a calculus of whether being vulnerable to these accusations in an social environment of always "believe the women" is worth it. No sane man will ever want to be nominated for the Supreme Court. Ever. This is a victory for women, and a big one. But, women and those on the Left, be careful what you wish for because as the ends have come to justify the means you have sowed the wind and you will reap the whirlwind. And so shall our country. And so shall our country.
Kavanaugh’s naked appeal to partisanship and tribal fealty rather than a dispassionate analysis of the charge and evidence provided against him forfeited his case for confirmation. Frankly, I am astounded to see Mr. Stephens apply some false equivalence to the testimony we all heard and saw on Thursday. It wasn’t even close.
4
This column makes me really angry. I wouldn't hire Kavanaugh based on his outrage, yelling, and his attempted takedown of Amy Klobuchar. The amount of disrespect he showed to United States Senators was appalling and embarrassing.
Does Merrick Garland ring a bell with you? Mitch's refusal to give a good man a HEARING was about as political as you can get. And you're trying to say the Democrats are being political? What's wrong with you?
Here's what it boils down to for me: Given what you've seen, would you hire Kavanaugh to work in your office? He is on a job interview for a lifetime appointment to the SUPREME COURT, but he's more suitable for Night Court (my apologies to those actors, it was a great show).
6
The underlying premise of this column is that the partisan battle going on in our elected governments is bilaterally equal, with the "blame" equally on the Blues and the Reds. That makes for good press, and keeps everyone stirred up.
However, if this nomination didn't have the history of a recent democratic nomination denied any hearing, if republicans hadn't changed the filibuster rule to ensure that highly partisan nominees could be confirmed, if this nomination had been thorough and methodical from the beginning and not founded on the majority leadership's intent to use their "power" to rush the senate vote; the issue of the nominee's teenage indiscretions (or crimes) may have been handled behind closed doors. The nomination may never even have been made if Brett/Bart had been properly vetted, a process this administration seems totally unfamiliar with.
The timing of Ms. Blasey's revelation interfered with the confirmation committee's timeline to completion. However, that timing probably was due to circumstances out of the control of the democratic member who knew the story. The character of the nominee reflected by that story was disgusting and vile, it deserved attention no matter when it came to light, but the chairman of the committee decided that a methodical process wasn't required and turned it into a public spectacle/circus.
Sexual abuse should be a non-partisan issue, republicans have hung this one around their own necks. Accept responsibility.
3
Mr. Stephens completely fails to recognize that there are more than two forks on this path. This does not have to be a Kavanaugh yes/Kavanaugh no proposition. If Mr. Stephens would like to avoid the Russian's prediction of the democracy's implosion, he'd recognize that there are plenty of candidates with equally good or better credentials with none of the awful baggage -- petulance, privilege, anger and arrogance -- that this man totes with him every minute of every day. We have settled too often for the "lesser." It is time to settle for the "best."
2
To be honest, the best thing for Kavanaugh is to withdraw his name from consideration. He is so worried about how this is affecting his family, then get out. His display of anger, shouting, and crying made me think he doesn’t have the temperament to be a SCOTUS. Mr. Stevens gave him a pass because who wouldn’t be angry and emotional. I can guarantee if Dr. Ford had behaved that way, the Republicans would have jumped all over it, talking about her being “ too emotional,” “being given to hysterics”. Judge Kavanaugh will always carry this toxic cloud with him if he’s on the Supreme Court. No one, women especially, will trust his ability to render decisions without bias. I certainly don’t trust Judge Clarence Thomas, and never will. Kavanaugh should do the honorable thing and withdraw his name. As for a replacement? I hear Merrick Garland is a good choice.
5
The guardrails have already been removed. Refusal to consider the nomination of Merrick Garland accomplished that. The Republicans have weaponized every instrument of power at their disposal. The Democrats have responded in kind. All's fair in love & war and clearly, we are at war.
6
Oh, Mr. Stephens, come on. Even if we accept your conclusion, the premise is wrong: Judge Kavanaugh's testimony on Thursday was *not* believable. Those who can't dance blame it on the band. How would I have reacted if I were innocent? Exactly the same way I have when I have been falsely accused in the past: Calmly, directly, with assurance that the facts will support me. In contrast, Judge Kavanaugh threw can after can of smoke. Not credible.
6
I think what Bret Stephens is missing in this piece is that the hearings are a job interview. In any job interview, your qualifications, education, and experience are what get you in the door. However, every HR person knows that you don't hire solely on the basis of resume alone. You look at the whole person including temperament, approach, demeanor, and attitude and decide if this person is a good fit for the job your interviewing him or her for. What happened during Brett Kavanaugh's hearing on Thursday is that he revealed a lack of judicial temperament and impartiality that is a key requirement for being on the court. Sure, he had the right to be outraged if he felt he was innocent but now we saw him under pressure and what we saw was not pretty. On the basis of this alone he should be disqualified and the applicant shouldn't get to make deals about who succeeds him if he withdraws. Kavanaugh should be rejected on the basis of the fact that he is the wrong fit for this job.
4
In this case Kavanaugh's reaction to this inquiry was the more relevant aspect of this inquiry and whether he is qualified to be a Supreme Court judge, or perhaps a judge in any court. I saw a Trump like man who right before out eyes turned into a child unaccustomed and uncomfortable with criticism. His reaction was over-the-top defensive rather than the measured, deliberative response I would expect of anyone being considered for the job of Supreme Court justice. In those terms he's simply not up to it. On top of that I believed he was lying. His emotion and outrage made him appear as a small child caught in a lie, only this is big stakes stuff. We're not talking about a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar. We're talking about sexual assault by a man being considered for the Supreme Court and that man being unable to respond to the charges in the adult professional manner expected of someone being considered for a position of this importance. I wouldn't hire this man to manage a McDonalds based on nothing else than his reaction to this inquiry regardless of whether he's guilty or innocent. Who's trump's second choice?
3
But you are assuming we can take this confirmation hearing without context; without the context of a self proclaimed assaulter being elected to the White House, without the context of the Republicans denying Obama his right to appoint his own Justice, without the context of Republicans doing such awful, creepy things over the last five or six years including supporting Roy Moore. What you ask for, and expect, in that context, is not realistic. And though I am an Independent, those unrealistic expectations were the result of Republican actions. They are to blame for the loss of faith in their own candidate. No one else.
2
Why not just pick one of the thousands of qualified women or men who don't have a history of revolting behavior in their past? How hard can that be? And, why is it the Republican nominees that seem to have this problem? Stephens has lost my respect with this column: he knows better. The GOP started this and it's been war on the Democrats starting with Newt Gingrich and perfected with McConnell.
1
Things Bret Stephens fails to mention:
Kavanaugh made a number of statements about himself that were immediately disputed by the people who knew him then.
He has everything to gain by lying: if the allegations are true, he forfeits the appointment to the SC, he probably loses his current job, he becomes an instant pariah. All things that are worth lying to protect yourself against.
She has no reason to lie, unless she started plotting in 2012 to keep him off the SC.
His obvious partisanship makes him unsuitable for a job on the Supreme Court where impartiality should be a constant goal.
Every time you blame the Democrats for anything to do with Kavanaugh, just repeat these words: Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland.
1
"But if Kavanaugh ends up winning confirmation, it will have much to do with the perception that Democrats never intended a fair process to begin with" You mean like the fair process of Merrick Garland's appointment hearings Bret?
7
Parenthetically, for Lindsey Graham's benefit, I would like to point out that a quick internet search reveals that by 2012, 3,294 individuals had been appointed to Federal judgeships. There had been 112 justices appointed to the supreme court. My claim is that those 3000 odd judges who aspired to but did not receive an appointment to the Supreme Court did not have their lives ruined.
After the hearing this past Thursday, Sept 27, which I viewed, 'I believe' vs 'you believe' is no longer relevant. I expect a supreme court nominee to be not just dignified, but extraordinarily dignified under all circumstances. I saw with my own eyes that Brett Kavanaugh failed the test. I don't need to worry about he said/she said or his well documented instances of dishonesty over the years to make that assessment.
For the last several years, the endless 5 to 4 rulings of the Supreme Court has shown it to be a partisan, crumbling institution. Thanks to the likes of Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham, it is now on life support, and if the savagely partisan Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, it's RIP SCOTUS.
5
Sadly this seed was sown when Neil Gorsuch was put on the court. Did the author speak critically of republican behavior at the time?
1
I agree that likability should not be the main factor in considering Kavanaugh's nomination.
Here are facts to consider instead:
1. Under oath Kavanaugh lied about the definition of Golden Triangle.
2. Under oath Kavanaugh lied about the definition of Boofing.
3. Kavanaugh become irrationally emotional in his angry opening statements, exhibiting a clear lack of proper temperament for the job.
4. Kavanaugh disrespected Senator Klobuchar in such a blatant and condescending manner as to show further evidence of his lack of proper temperament for the job.
That's all we need. No FBI investigation necessary. Trump needs to pick someone else.
4
A raging partisan political hack should automatically be disqualified from a position on the SCOTUS.
As a matter of fact, he should lose his seat as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals.
He is manifestly unsuited for either job.
4
Hogwash! And I even tend to like Stephens' commentary.
After posing the reasonable question whether we should want a Supreme Court justice about who there is so much suspicion, Stephens does a poorly concealed move back to a criminal justice standard of proof that is now repeatedly invoked by partisans. His slippery slope is one in which we slide to where mere naked accusation block a nominee with impeccable credentials.
But that is not this nominee. This nominee made his nut by being in the center of rabid partisanship. In the Starr investigation he advocated for detailing the most lurid accusations and showing no respect for man who was President. In the Bush administration, he supported the nomination of at least one racist judge and unlawful detainee policies. He employed stolen documents than anyone with an ounce of sense would know were such. And then he lied about them under oath. By the most charitable reading, he willfully misled the Senate and failed to give full and forthcoming answers.
So let's not pretend this is a nominee who was the perfect judicial candidate before Blasey Ford appeared. He was a rabid partisan hovering somewhere between willfully misleading and committing outright perjury. His angry invocation of "Clintons' revenge" in his defense of his own sense of entitlement on Thursday showed that this is someone who does not belong anywhere near the Supreme Court.
9
Feinstein should be chided for withholding information, but not the GOP for withholding Kavanaugh’s work history in the Bush White House? Trump was advised to pick someone else. He didn’t listen. Kavanaugh purposely portrayed himself as someone who didn’t have the time to party and never drank to excess. Others proved him a liar. By lying, he brought the further scrutiny on himself. His testimony on Thursday showed a man that is far more flawed, and if confirmed, will taint the court
6
Mr Stephens' myopia is stunning. Seeing is believing, and I saw an arrogant, entitled, borderline hysteric throwing a monumental tantrum. It is abundantly clear that there are no depths to which he will not stoop to collect the prize which is his obsession.
The idea that this man could sit in dispassionate judgment on any case remotely involving anything political is ludicrous. A sane Senate would impeach and remove him from his current position, not consider his promotion to the Supreme Court.
Dan Kravitz
4
Hogwash! And I even tend to like Stephens commentary. After posing the reasonable question whether we should want a Supreme Court justice about who there is so much suspicion, Stephen does a poorly concealed move back to a criminal justice standard of proof that is now repeatedly invoked by partisans. His slippery slope is one in which we slide to where mere naked accusation block a nominee with impeccable credentials.
But that is not this nominee. This nominee made his nut by being in the center of rabid partisanship. In the Starr investigation he advocated for detailing the most lurid accusations and showing no respect for man who was President. In the Bush administration, he supported the nomination of at least one racist judge and unlawful detainee policies. He employed stolen documents than anyone with an ounce of sense would know were such. And then he lied about them under oath. By the most charitable reading, he willfully misled the Senate and failed to give full and forthcoming answers.
So let's not pretend this is a nominee who was the perfect judicial candidate before Blasey Ford appeared. He was a rabid partisan hovering somewhere between willfully misleading and committing outright perjury. His angry invocation of "Clintons' revenge" in his defense of his own sense of entitlement on Thursday showed that this is someone who does not belong anywhere near the Supreme Court.
30
Nonsense! The circumstantial evidence is all against him and all in favor of her. He's lying! And if the nominee that succeeds him faces equally determined opposition, remember, it was the GOP who turned this process into a purely political one when they refused Obama's pick even a hearing.
3
Why this concern, Bret? We elected a president on things unseen and unproven. Trump is a fear monger of things that were not a danger. Same with George W Bush and he was caught lying. There was no threat of a mushroom cloud. There were no WMDs and Saddam was actually at odds with the people behind 9/11. But never let the truth get in the way of a good fear monger for political profit.
Whining about this now is a day late, a dollar short, and frankly, full of partisan blindness.
6
You found him believable? Really? Shame on you. I suggest you read the inconsistencies in Kavanaugh's testimony cited by the paper you work for. The highest legal calling, appointment to the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court, calls for the highest ethical standards which were were patently not in evidence Thursday. There have been not a few people who happened to know Kavanaugh during his high school and college years who dispute his disingenuous self-characterizations, further put into relief by his personal calendar. You might instead, Stephens, focus your talents on picking apart Lindsey Graham's tirade - a man whose presence in the society of women guarantees their safety - and on Orrin Hatch's sanctimonious put down of Blasey, both which indicate the reprehensible mindset of a majority of those white, Republican men pushing forward the confirmation of a nominee frankly less than stellar.
9
Anger is one thing, Bret, but belligerent, bellicose, ranting is quite another. He went totally off the rails. His rant against "liberals" and the Clintons and the democrats out to destroy him shows me it would be very hard for him to be non-partisan. In fact, I think it would be impossible for him to be non-partisan. And he was RUDE! Amy Klobachar was asking him questions, quietly and respectfully. And he acted like a spoiled child, throwing the question back in her face! Demanding she answer a question about her underage drinking. There was no excuse for that - NONE!
He may be totally innocent of the charges against him, but, there is one thing that is completely apparent - he does not have the right temperament to be a Supreme Court Justice.
39
The lynchpin of your and most Trumpian arguments for confirming the judge is that there is a significant possibility that Ford might not have told the truth. You don't have enouph proof. Watching her testimony, how could that possibly be the case? if you think she might be lying, how can you possibly explain her testimony?
Based on what we know about Dr. Ford how can we possibly explain the idea that she lied? She’s certainly not a political operative. The only other possible explanation is that she is insane. But there is not one shred of any indication that she is anything but completely sane, intelligent and mentally stable.
So this is what bothers me so much, how do you Trumpian’s explain her testimony? Why would she lie??? The only possible explanation is that she is completely and totally insane. But she’s not even a little bit insane, there is not even a whiff of anything that would suggest that.
You are saying that there is doubt and that she may be lying. I just can not begin to reconcile that idea, that she may be lying - with the testimony she gave and the facts surrounding her life.
My question to you is, how could you possibly recommend hiring him unless you are very close to being completely sure she isn’t telling the truth. If you are 20 or 30 or 40% sure she isn’t lying, then that’s got to be enough to move on to another candidate for this incredible important job. To do anything else would be a gross injustice to the American people.
2
You truly believe Kavanaugh even though he clearly lied in so many large (drinking, finance, stolen emails, pryor) and small (yearbook lingo) matters?
Lying is disqualifying, period.
19
A Republican who says he believes a woman but then goes on to say the guy should still have the job? Typical Republican: give lip-service but ignore the women.
2
While not wholly convinced either way by the hearing, I was struck by Kavanaugh's playing down of his much-reported heavy drinking, and by the partisan terms of his defensive outcries. The fact-checking in today's NYT (as well as another piece quoting a classmate that K's nickname was "Bart") convinces me, however, that not all of this can be a mere difference of opinion or interpretation, and that he was being patently untruthful about most everything.
10
Brett, you wrote:
"I watched him — meticulous, wounded, furious (wouldn’t you be, too, if you were innocent of such an accusation?) — and found him wholly believable."
Apparently, you watched a different hearing than the one I and vast numbers of others watched. I saw fulminating petulant and maniacal intemperance on display ... rife with evasiveness and false rectitude -- and found him wholly offensive and unbelievable.
And, apparently, you and your conservative pals are more than willing to embrace the fact that the GOP 's only intention from the outset was to ram this nomination through, regardless. So much for "fair play".
35
I had trouble following the flow, logic of your argument. I reread the last paragraph twice and still can't glean the meaning. Not one of your more cogent columns.
5
This is ridiculous. If senators don't vote on the basis of believing Blasey Ford, then by default they're voting on the basis of believing Kavanaugh. The idea that this will set a precedent for future nominations being torn apart by opposing unprovable "beliefs" is a total red herring.
3
Hogwash. Brett Kavanaugh has been evasive, deceptive, and out and out untruthful throughout the process, not just on this issue. Take the blinders off, he's a transparent partisan hack who has been elevated far beyond the level that his competence or demeanour merit.
6
What disqualifies him is his hyperpartisan venom. We may never know the truth of the events described, but we have good reason to know that Kavanaugh's judgments in cases involving liberals, democrats, or left-wing people (which must be many cases) are not to be trusted.
2
I hope and believe the president will withdraw Kavanaugh's name from consideration and put Judge Barrett's name in to replace retired Justice Kennedy, and the sooner the better."Il faut ce qu'il faut"is what a "denomme" Deloncle would say,although as the "grand chef" of an extreme right wing group which conspired to bring down the Third Republic, Eugene Deloncle was not a positive role model.But the words were his! Pardon the digression. Like all heavy drinkers, Kavanaugh' s temperment and temper were on full display Thursday, and in retrospect,he did not conduct his auto defense in a manner befitting someone vying for a Supreme Court position.The only thing to do with a mess is to clean it up, and right now Judge Kavanaugh's nomination has become an "affreux gachi!" On to Judge Barrett!
2
And I had such high hopes that Brett's take on our current national nightmare was softening, hopes that arose from his weekly conversations with Gail Collins. But I guess the Trump Kool-Aid has permanent effects on his opinions. He excoriates the Dems for fighting what still may be a losing battle with every weapon available to them, the most potent and important of which is the truth. Guess he would prefer they just do what the infamous weatherman, Tex Antoine opined about rape: "If rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it"'
10
OK, it is not supposed to be a trial, it was a job interview but UNDER OATH. And he lied about many small facts: the meaning of boof and renate alumny, his heavy drinking. Do the senators now think that he has shown the stable character expected for someone to be siting in the highest court of the land ? I dont,
5
Democrats violating norms? I wonder where they got that idea?
1
There are more than 50 names on the Federalist list.... if Trump had any sense he would move to name number 2. We don’t need more womanizers on the court or in the White House and any one those flunkies will do as they are told and vote to overturn Roe v Wade.
3
Stephens:
1. "To deny Kavanaugh’s confirmation based on Blasey’s allegation alone" is a disingenuous statement. Those who called for the Blasey allegation to be heard also asked that the allegation be investigated. That investigation was simply denied by Kavanaugh's Republican champions, who were in charge of the process. Only Friday was the investigation begun, presumably in addition following up on other similar allegations.
2. "It descends into a raw contest for power." What could you otherwise call the unprecedented refusal to take up the Obama nomination, and the Republicans' attempt to vote on Kavanaugh without an investigation. At the times of both, the use and abuse of power is what came to my mind before I read your shocking use of the word to refer to Democrats in this piece.
3. "that they [Democrats] treated allegation as fact" is simply a misstatement. But, you DO treat denial as fact in this piece it seems to me.
You should show some intellectual honesty and say that, to you, the allegation should be treated as a meaningless gesture after your man made a yelling denial, your elevating denial to a showing of a qualification for a judgeship. You standard is, to me, way too low.
P.S. A judge nominee we should expect to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Kavanaugh just did not.
6
Regardless of who you believe, Kav's unsubstantiated attack on Democrat's, the Clinton's, Left wing group's against him, almost using Trump's exact word's, should tell anyone thinking person that this man is now so angry that he could never be an impartial judge for all. Add a couple of lies to the Senate, the fact that Republican's are trying to ram this through, which is so far from normal procedure....withholding 90% of Kav's writings, no documents from the Bush Year's made available. C'mon, there has got to be a better candidate than this. I hope for the country's sake that he is rejected or withdraw's. This is and has been from the beginning a power play, steamrolling the country by Mitch McConnell. A true silent assassin. I want to see him go down hard for perverting our national congressional norm's and trying with reckless disregard and lack of fairness or humanity to subvert the heart of democracy. Truth.
4
Kavanaugh will not be confirmed, his career and reputation destroyed by this circus. He will sue Ford for defamation, destroying her life. Meanwhile, Feinstein will skip away unscathed.
2
You are usually an astute observer. Could we have been watching the same Bret Kavanaugh giving testimony? He told so many small, stupid, easily refutable lies that he should be denied confirmation based on that alone. We also saw more than a glimpse of the belligerence that many of his intimates described he would demonstrate when he drank. Sure he was angry about having to defend himself. But I expect a SCOTUS judge not to behave like a mini-Trump. The partisan contempt he showed the Democrats questioning him makes you wonder whether he could have adjudicated Bush v. Gore fairly or would be able to fairly adjudicate any future case involving the Democratic Party.
What was clear to me (and not you?) was that he did not want a new FBI investigation. The kindest interpretation is that he may not remember having assaulted Dr. Blasey but he suspects that it may have happened as she said. If he were truly 100% sure of his innocence and 100% honest in everything he testified to, then any new information turned up by the FBI could only be exculpatory.
Kavanaugh started his post-graduate life as a political activist and nothing has changed. He has no business sitting on any bench, guilty or not.
10
You say the enduring challenge is to not overreact ...but come on it’s already happened many times as you point out....and we survived. We will find a way to survive this guilty by belief episode of sexual abuse allegations.....we will go over board like we always do...and then we will correct....I have no idea how but I have more faith than you do at this writing. I am shocked however that you think Kavs behavior isn’t grounds alone for dismissal from any job of responsibility. He’s a bad person Bret...weird you can’t see it.
3
Brett Stevens perfectly encapsulates the incredible sense of entitlement of the white elite conservative movement. I am indebted to the New York Times for hiring him. I don’t subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and so I’m not exposed to this level of insolence on a regular basis.
Judge Cavanaugh is it admitted partisan. He’s an obvious perjurer and liar. Any college freshman knows that is lying about how much he drank in college. Will never know for sure whether he or one of his buddies attacked that fifteen-year-old girl. Everyone in the United States is sure that someone did.
We need judges on the Supreme Court who all the people can trust. We don’t need belligerent drunks who are partisan.
Whether or not he molested a fifteen-year-old girl is inconsequential. His temperament is such that he shouldn’t serve on any court, especially the Supreme Court.
6
Brett - please read Roger Cohen's column. This man demonstrated Thursday that he lacks even a slight amount of the temperament for a court position. You're focused on the wrong thing.
7
This is not just any moment of "believablity." It is grounded in the collective guilt of those who witnessed the "used and abused" victims of unrestrained male license--which is most of America. The fact that women were only too willing to join the free-for-all does nothing to dispel the sense that the sexual revolution was the scene of a great male crime that cries for justice. The carnage is such that finding an impartial jury is impossible. The fury will not abate until enough of the rich and powerful are made to pay for their misdeeds--when a few billionaires become beggars.
1
Mr. Stephens offers the following as examples of the gullibility of us unwashed rubes: " 9/11 trutherism; Obama birtherism; J.F.K. assassination theories; the “deep state”, but these are all right wing (now known as the Republican Party), nutjob theories. Yep, Gerald Ford obfuscating and surreptitiously handing off documents to FBI 'good guy,' J. Edgar Hoover, Trump's birtherism, et al.
In our culture it's usually the loudest who is believed (thank you cable "news") - and that other guy named Brett was certainly the loudest. Reminded me of my old high school Battle of the Bands. Good lord we were awful, but prevailed by being the loudest!
2
Never mind Ramirez and Swetnick? And what Kavanaugh lied more than once in his testimony. I don't know what you saw but no it was not believable. The Renate alumnus thing was not "affection. Raplphing is vomiting form beer not a "bad stomach" not to mention his assertion that the other slang meant things different than what was known at the time. His claim that he couldn't have had drinks because he had summer jobs? He couldn't be a rapist because he was on the football & basketball team? He couldn't be a blackout drunk because he went to Yale (which he did all by himself despite going to an elite prep school)? That's believable?
No. You are now reaching for reasons to dismiss Ford. This is why women are furious because even when obvious lies are being told, men refuse to accept them. They will find people credible who clearly are not.
22
To Bret Stephens: I guess you got our information about Thursday's testimony without looking at the screen. Would you want to be judged by a man who 'looked' the way Kavennaugh did at the height of his anger & thereafter? Who smirked as he taunted his judges. That's justice?! He may be smart (I doubt it) but he's a loser.
5
Stephens, you have a real problem in understanding what makes for a stable well functioning society. Kavanaugh showed himself to be seriously flawed in terms of temperament, self control, personal habits (drinking, gambling), extreme partisanship, and disingenuous behavior. All of this aside from the fair chance he has indulged in sexual predation. He is not the calm, fair minded influence you would like to see on the Supreme Court. The 'road to national ruin' is paved with rationalizations like yours as expressed in this article.
26
Cohen made a better argument in the other direction. Kavanaugh failed his job interview based on both his earlier "responses" to queries and certainly his latest display of anger, contempt and disrespect.
2
“likability is not what this is about”. No.
How about demeanor and temperament?
You’re not at all bothered by his partisan appearance on a Fox “News”?
You’re not bothered by his partisan attack on the “liberals” in his remarks?
Yes, I still do not have the facts from 37 years ago. Therefore, it must be decided on character. He should withdraw and find work as a coach.
4
Ask yourself Brett, what would you have thought of Dr. Ford coming out swinging in her opening statement? And does a man who has not only been basically a GOP political operative who comes out swinging against the Democrats, and the Clintons, like his boss, belong as a judge anywhere let alone the Supreme Court? His sniffling behavior was frankly appalling. And he did lie. The FBI probe should have been done before the hearing and we all know that.
6
continued: Kavanaugh did what Dr. Ford said he did, he just does not remember, because he was saturated with alcohol. And if Judge denies it, the same rational applies. Mr. Stevens, you need to read your own papers Fact Check article. Judge Kavanaugh is a privileged, self righteous guy, who yes has worked hard, but he does not have the temperament for a position on the Supreme Court.
6
There are confirmed facts which rule Judge Kavanaugh out! His testimony was riddled with misinformation and misdirection. He repeatedly made statements which he knew to be a misrepresentation of other people's statements about the event. And he spoke of how he had no malice against Dr. Ford while claiming she was part of a wide-spread conspiracy. In fact, the only way to read his statements is that she is a lying conspirator and deserving of respect, but he can't have it both ways. On multiple occasions, your opinion columns have attempted to thread a needle with no eye. This one fails as well. Judge Kavanaugh made it clear by his testimony that this is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue. Judge Kavanaugh's attempt to bend the truth or refashion the past proves him to be unfit for the court. It almost makes the allegation of sexual assault a secondary negative factor to the increased knowledge of who he is as a person. He is a mean, deceitful, arrogant man who will no doubt hold grudges against those who push back against his entitlement. How could anyone vote in favor of this person being on the court for the rest of his life!
31
How dare you say Democrats "never intended a fair process to begin with"? Remember Merrick Garland? Remember the rush of this nomination to get him in before the midterms? It is the REPUBLICANS who never intended a fair process in this, or anything. Mitch McConnell has blatantly stated it. The Senate is broken. Jeff Flake has taken a baby step toward fixing it and restoring some dignity and probity to the Senate. This travesty is all because of partisan zealotry by Republicans -- not to mention their misogyny and hypocrisy.
4
The main point may be how Kavanaugh"s handling of the accusations---with apparent covering up of his early history of drinking and sexual harassment with many discrepancies in what he said and what his classmates have said, and his exaggerating claims of his family and his lives being totally destroyed forever, and his extreme aggression and partisan attacks of Democrats---reveal the character of the man he is now in this current situation.
3
No! If it's a wash, he should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court. If it's a coin flip whether he attempted to rape this woman, confirmation should be out of the question. Would you hire a babysitter if there was a credible allegation that she smothered a few children, but she was pretty convincing when she said it never happened?
27
Did you watch the same testimony I watched? I think Judge Kavanaugh's ranting against Democrats is disqualifying all by itself.
3
Me Stephes fails to mention Garland and the GOP sabotage of his nomination. He gives a pass to Kavanaugh for his outrage and anger, not addressing the good judge’s threats, warnings and vindictiveness to the Dems. And there is the withholding of documents that might have critical information about Kavanaugh’s record. No, this nomination started off under a cloud of suspicion and just maybe we will all be better served by hitting the pause button. I guess even in the area of a prolific liar like Trump we think truthfulness and believability are merely quaint tokens of the past. Mr Stephens has called out Trump for his lies. But the president believes his own fabrications. What then is the truth?
2
Interesting that the author finds Kavanaugh believable when much of his testimony about his drinking habits were lies. The sex references and pseudonyms in his yearbook are very real though included as “wink wink look what we got away with in print” boyish, and boorish inside jokes. He lied about those references which under oath immediately disqualify him as a justice and cast him as a perjurer. He lied about the references in that yearbook to his female “friend” Ms. Renate.
As a teenager he was a cad. As an adult he is a liar trying to hide his past. What he cannot be is a justice on the Supreme Court.
3
Oh Dear. We must have been looking at two different nominees. I saw a crazed, unglued, sniveling, crying, rude, over privileged frat boy/conspiracy theorist who may or may not have shown up three sheets to the wind to give testimony for a life long appointment to OUR US Supreme Court. I would trust him for one second given this disastrous performance.
16
‘Normal standards of fair play” went out the window with Trump’s election....no, with Obama’s election.
2
At what date would Bret Stephens have had Feinstein release the confidential letter? So sick of this unwarranted blame.
4
I recall hearing the same exact hollow, self righteous bleating about this supposedly imminent threat to society if Anita Hill's accusations against Clarence Thomas were taken seriously. It has been more than 25 years and I still haven't seen this raging onslaught of women wielding false rape allegations.
I'm similarly fed up with the conveniently short memories that Mr. Stephens and his ilk display when charging Sen. Feinstein and others with politicizing Ms. Ford's accusation. Let the first US Senator who has not engaged in political maneuvering cast that dubious stone. Selectively whining about only your own perceived unfair treatment is called being a sore loser. That's exactly what the snivelling Judge Kavanaugh did during his shameful tantrum on Thursday, and it has become the go-to defense for a party that used to stand for pulling oneself up by one's own bootstraps.
2
This is a fair warning...but I equate it to asking fish not to swim in schools, or buffalo not to stampede over a cliff. Fish swim in schools for protection. Buffalo run of the edge of cliffs out of fear. We are not near the sophisticated animal we think. Your right, "belief" is often used as an excuse for doing what is comfortable. Chaos precedes autocracy. Tyranny has a methodology. Maybe Trump isn't as dumb as many would like to think.
1
all those conspiracy theories Stephens claims are America's credulity problems are actually Republican right wing credulity problems, just like Kavanaugh's.
2
Oh please. He ranted about the Clintons, went full anti Democrats, and conspiracy. This guy is not the right person for the position. He does like beer though. Do you like beer Bret? Setting Dr. Ford’s testimony aside, Brett cannot hold it together and is over the top partisan. The difference between him and the senators? Judges are not meant to be.
6
Bret, Kavanaugh committed perjury and your buddies are doing nothing about it. Kavanaugh is a political operative, a sophist, not a jurist. Every word he’s written has a partisan political ends. He thinks he not only deserves the Supreme Court seat, but that he’s entitled to it. That’s the rage you saw, not the anger of an innocent man. That outrage was something those us us with drunks in our lives know so well. And the collective Republican tantrum was the most embarrassing thing next to Donald Trump’s daily idiocy. Another thing worth observing here: both Kavanaugh and the Republicans do not represent the people of America. Both are clueless to life on the ground. They live in bubbles of exclusivity with absolutely no interest in anything but their pocketbooks. Maybe you need to get a little more truthful about the situation to understand it’s import because you may not even be capable of seeing the truth from where you sit.
21
Wow, believability is really so bad? It's hard to know what territory Mr Stevens is trying to defend in this rambling, goose-chase of a column; he begins with a Russian prediction of American disintegration (one would think of Trump as Russia's change agent in this case rather than #metoo) and ends with the Democratic party all dying on the Kavanaugh confimation hearings hill. In between, ever the master of false equivalency, Mr Stevens throws all the civil rights movements into a single basket and compares them to McCarthyism!
He is right about the main thing: "A stronger argument against Kavanaugh’s nomination is that we should not elevate to the Supreme Court a nominee over whom there will always be this dark pall of suspicion."
10
This article is laughable. Every charge that Stephens throws out against anyone who doesn't support Kavanaugh can equally be pointed to his Republican True Believers.
3
Sorry, Bret, but I believe only Trump supporters will find Kavanaugh convincing unless you want to believe he does not remember because he was a black=out drunk. His fury and his lack of courtesy at the hearing is enough to disqualify him because he did not display proper judicial temperament under pressure. That does not even take into account his evasive, legalistic answers. I did not have sexual intercourse--he was being asked about sexual assault...etc.
5
Perception is a reality, you don't want damaged goods to go to the Supreme Court, Thomas is damaged, so is he.
3
Who cares whether she was believable, he was believable, or what. His paranoid, partisan tirade (Hillary? Really? Still?) demonstrated that he clearly isn’t qualified for a job where he needs to be measured and impartial. Kavanaugh is a GOP party hack with anger management issues, not Supreme Court material. He isn’t qualified on those grounds.
50
"A stronger argument against Kavanaugh’s nomination is that we should not elevate to the Supreme Court a nominee over whom there will always be this dark pall of suspicion.'
Ahhhh, NO!
"To deny Kavanaugh’s confirmation based on Blasey’s allegation alone — never mind those of Deborah Ramirez or Julie Swetnick — '
Ahhhh, NO again!
If he is denied the stronger argument will be that he was blatantly political and conspirator in his defense of the accusations. Blaming the Clintons, secret money and nearly the entire Democratic Senate - that alone should derail his nomination. He showed , what many of us have know or feared since 2000 , Gore v Bush, Scalia decision - that the Supreme Court - under Republicans - has gone from conservative vs liberal justices - to clearly and obviously partisan judges - with children or spouses who work for political action groups. Roberts, though a conservative is not among them and hones to the older order, but clearly he is the exception among recent appointments.
Kavanaugh also showed his demeanor , one which harbors resentment and a feeling of privilege. He excelled through much of his life - so therefor this is his destiny - was his underlining argument - again NO!
If a man of color or woman exhibited that behavior before the Senate - he or she would be disqualified.
As for ' never mind Ramirez and Swetnick.." Why? Why ' never mind ?
Cosby, Lauer, Rose, etc all 'seemed' like nice fellows too to many and then we learned...........
2
I mistakenly thought that character and the ability to rise above partisanship were standard qualifications for Federal judgeships, of which SCOTUS is the pinnacle. Stupid me, according to Mr Stephens: only what’s on your resume counts.
Here’s a clue Mr Stephens: character isn’t measured on a resume. Anyone hiring for any position, much less a judgeship would have thanked Brett Kavanaugh for his testimony and hired ANYONE else. Anyone else with good moral character.
After all, this “unpartisan”Republican operative making vituperative political outbursts crying like the man who has failed to reach maturity, much less wise insight , would immediately be disqualified anywhere in America, or the world . Except in the partisan Republican controlled US Senate.
3
Dear Bret,
This goes back to the passing of Scalia and McConnell's stiff arm to Judge Garland and President Obama.
This President is under investigation on multiple fronts and yet Republicans are blinded by one thing, power.
I thought reading some of your columns you were beginning to come around, however, you too ignore facts when its convenient.
This piece lacks any moral standing, given the past recent history.
2
Kavanaugh is clearly a politician in a judge’s clothing. That alone should disqualify him. But he is so outraged to be challenged for a job that is a privilege, a custodianship—not his birthright—that he clearly has the wrong temperament for the job. Amend the constitution: put in a 3/5ths majority rule so Americans get centrist non partisan jurists in the highest count, not political creatures!
27
I watched the hearings too. And I did not see what you saw.
What I saw was someone blowing a job interview.
This sneering, intemperate, privileged, overtly partisan and angry frat boy does not belong on the Supreme Court. He should not be a Federal Judge. He should not be involved in any activity where sober good judgment is required.
He should return, with his Ivy League pedigree, to his job as partisan hack. His fealty and obeisance to the worst elements of the Republican mantra was on full display.
Next.
2210
Kavanaugh's true self sure came pouring out, didn't it?
And even though you are absolutely right about his job interviewing performance, look at who is president today?
The most disturbing revelation I've had regarding this sad story is the fact that, for a lot of Americans, they really don't care about competency or character or integrity. Like Trump, Kavanaugh represents those of privilege who have never worked or struggled with day-to-day challenges. For them it's all a big game that they are pre-ordained to win.
Kavanaugh will likely be confirmed and will pour his partisan venom into the blood stream of our legal system. Sad but likely.
3
@Lkf: I doubt Kavanaugh is any more mature now than he was at age 17.
4
@Lkf You couldn't be more correct. Spot on. Couldn't have said it better myself, tempting though it might be to try. Thank you.
2
There are many other possible candidates with suitable qualifications and without the rabid anger, excessive preoccupation with partisan beliefs, and marked lack of self-awareness not to mention a bad case of white male privileged. Kavanaugh does not meet high enough standards, particularly for the "whole truth".
3
All well and good. But how about his demeanor Thursday? Was this the temperate reaction of an apolitical jurist?
7
Bret Kavanaugh is not believable. My own take: He has been trying to wish away forever that night in Bethesda. But the nightmare is now real. Fess up, it happened, you didn't mean to do anything awful, it would have stayed put if you hadn't become famous, but now it has, you can restart your life by allowing that it happened and asking for forgiveness, coming forward this way will be your way out and the end of the nightmare, you will be forgiven by your accuser, and most important you will forgive yourself.
2
While the truth of these allegations may never be absolutely established,the demeanor of Kavanaugh,the attitude of entitlement he displayed and the lack of emotional control evidenced ,are disqualifying in themselves.
3
Believability is an essential characteristic for a judge.
2
Democrats were not interested in a fair process. Apparently the writer has had his head in the sand for decades. Ever since Reagan pledged that no more justices would be appointed unless the were truly conservative the process has not been fair. No more filibuster for lower court, then supreme court, then no vote at all if the Senate majority is of different party than the President. Yes with the pass over of Obama's nominee the die is cast. No vote unless president and majority of Senate is of same party. With the outbursts of Kavenaugh about Clinton, it now clear that justices are nothing more than politicians with a robe on. What's fair about that.
3
What Stephens describes is nothing new in America. Allegations made by the powerful against the less powerful have always been easily believed by society at large. Accusations of sexual assault by a black man against a white woman, accusations of theft made against a chambermaid by a hotel guest - these allegations have always been taken at face value, putting the accused in a difficult and often untenable situation. The white male elites that have ruled this country for the past two centuries have never been overly concerned about such things.
It's only when the allegations are made by the relatively powerless against the powerful that the elites cry foul. All of a sudden we need "standards" for such situations. Why is that Mr. Stephens?
2
"Senators are within their rights to vote against the nomination out of philosophical differences. But to vote on the basis of a belief in things unseen and unproved is a road to national ruin."
Please, let's not be naive. Senators will vote for whatever is expedient to their political goals. How they publicly justify their votes; philosophy, belief, or whatever, is window dressing.
For Senate Republicans to complain that Democrats are "injecting politics into the process" is raucous, bilious, hypocricy. That would be true if Democrats were to make the same complaint.
What will lead to national ruin is installing a psychopath in the White Houe and promoting another one to the Supreme Court.
4
What most threatens the viability of countries is not truth or equality before the law. It is the perceived illegitimacy of vital institutions and of government. We are already seeing that with the low confidence in our corrupt and broken electoral system. The Trump administration is seen as corrupt, tainted by foreign influence, inept and lacking legitimate authority. Ignoring things some don't want to hear and putting Kavanough on the Supreme Court will reduce the perceived legitimacy of its authority. Preserving confidence and trust in the political system requires a moral standard. It requires hearing and respecting citizens and serving our interests rather than treating us like disposable commodities for the benefit of an elite class. When government and the courts are seen as corrupt and illegitimate -- and we are close to that right now -- anarchy and collapse may not be far behind.
2
Typical "conservative" whining about due process and civility after after electing a president that is neither civil,or concerned with due process. The so-called Republican vetting process that delivered tRump has now delivered Kavanaugh...you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, Mr. Stephens. Also, we are in a cold civil war...no quarter, no prisoners...
2
And "believability" is what Trump has been selling for the past few years starting with birtherism - find a susceptible and gullible group of people, convince them to believe your version of the "truth", and run with it.
Education and open-mindedness are our only hope, but then Betsy deVos is in charge of that. Nevermind, our once great nation is doomed. Truth has become our hunger games competition.
1
Perhaps, Mr Stephens, you have never been asked to keep information confidential. If you had, you might not see Dianne Feinstein's behavior as a cynical ploy, but rather a promise kept.
3
This insistence on “facts” is beyond tiresome and well into being nothing more than political rationalization. Sexual assaults don’t occur on street corners in broad light of day. Attackers prefer this, obviously, so when called to account they can play the card Kavanaugh is playing now. The standard that Stephens advocates means pretty much no one would ever be found guilty of assault that wasn’t forensically rape.
Anyway this is not a criminal trial, this is about frankly the honor we expect in an appointment to our highest court. It is clear to all Kavanaugh has none.
2
"furious (wouldn’t you be, too, if you were innocent of such an accusation?)" No, Bret Stephens, no. A mature and sagacious innocent person does not play anger and self pity (except to ignite the base and Lindsey Graham). A wise person who KNOWS they're innocent cooperates in every way possible with the authorities to clear their name, especially when, as in this case, the authorities want to believe him. I suspect that Kavanaugh was a blackout drunk and can't remember, as evidenced by his behavior w/Sen Klobuchar. He suspects this might have happened, and in true alcoholic fashion, deflects and blusters rather than honestly attempting to face up to the truth. I believe Ms. Ford, because, even in the face of what happened to Anita Hill and untold numbers of other women, she humbly and conscientiously told the truth as best she possible could; she tried to help because she knows the truth. Bret Kavanaugh blustered, diverted, attacked, displayed a fierce temper, intimidated, and in all ways acted like a person who has something important to deny.
7
Thursday's hearings convinced me that Brett Kavanaugh should not be seated on the Supreme Court, but it was not Ms. Blasey Ford's testimony that did so. It was Mr. Kavanaugh's anger and hatred, especially as expressed against Democrats and Hillary Clinton, plus his prevarications, outright lies, and his refusal to welcome an FBI investigation that convinced me that such an injudicious and partisan person should not be promoted to our highest court.
3
I love how conservative pundits romanticize "process" when one of theirs is shown to be disreputable. Where was the concern about process when Garland was being mistreated by the Republicans? Kavanaugh is an emotionally adolescent disgrace and if conservatives want to abandon their beloved faux principals to sell their souls for short term gain they should should simply smirk and get on with it.
2
"We should beware of what will grow in the Senate once this seed is sown ." Sorry, but this "seed" was sown long ago and began to take root last year with McConnell's refusal to give Judge Garland a hearing. In fact, long before that we saw the handwriting on the wall with the Republican (read McConnell again) refusal to work with President Obama. If you are looking to lay blame you can go back that far...or maybe even to the era of Newt Gingrich.
2
One thing we know for sure from the hearing, Judge Kavanaugh lacks the temperament to sit on the Supreme Court.
4
Tortured logic by a wobbly Republican. There's no shame, Mr. Stephens, in coming over to the light. Going forward from here, our democracy depends on inclusion, fairness, and diversity like never before. We've got to get that right, starting now. And if women have always been the future, they are right now stepping up to claim it.
2
This ignores the clear instances where Kavanaugh has shown he is an opportunist, willing to bend the truth, obstreperous, and both raging and vengeful in his 'interview.' We don't need to know the facts, he has clearly shown he doesn't have the temperament to be trusted with the honor of sitting on the Supreme Court.
2
Kavanaugh's unstable, offensive behavior at the hearing Thursday disqualifies him. So do his repeated attempts to avoid addressing questions honestly and directly, So do the virulent partisanship and vengefulness he put on display.
The fact that he has been credibly accused of sexual assault doesn't help, but it isn't the sole reason this man does not belong on our nation's highest court.
3
Kavanaugh will not face "ruin." He will go back to his old job, an extraordinarily prestigious one, and live the rest of his life in relative quiet. He will probably also get a book deal, and maybe some nice lucrative speaking gigs. So let's not feel too sorry for him.
What he did show us is that he is temperamentally unfit for the Supreme Court. He could not contain his anger, spewing allegations (without any evidence) at an entire political party. A justice on the Supreme Court is SUPPOSED to be impartial, right? Given his performance Thursday, which is part of his job "interview," he blew it. Again, I don't feel too sorry for him.
10
I don’t know that Kavanaugh remaining on the Appeals Court for the rest of his life would be considered ruin.
2
Far from the Washington elite bubble, its pretty easy to sum up this situation. These children were raised in an elitist bubble by abstentee parents and were wildly immature. The lesson of growing up is always painful to learn in your 20's much less your 50's. That's why people teach their children at a young age that this behavior is forbidden. In that world is seemd "good grades" carried more weight than they should have.
This candidate, at least as a young man and through college exhibited behavior of an alcoholic. It goes a long way to explaining his extremism as a partisan warrior, at an extremenly young age, given that untreated alcoholics tend to white knuckle through things, embracing binary thinking and occasionaly lapsing back into the alcohol fueled frenzies when that doesn't carry the day.
Most importantly were the verifiable lies over things large and small, while under oath. To think he is qualified, and has the judgment, compassion, mercy and disposition to be a judge at this level is unthinkable. Unless you are simply a partisan Republican, like Mr. Stephens.
7
Sorry, Mr. Stephens, but no. You cannot "believe" both of them. One of them is lying, and Dr. Blasey was far more "compelling". If this man is confirmed, that will make two Republicans on the court under a lifelong cloud of abusing women. Conveniently, you omit the outright theft of the Democrats' Supreme Court seat. It is Republicans who have poisoned this process.
7
I have a better deal than substituting Amy Coney Barrett for Kavanaugh. How about Merrick Garland and an agreement that no
matter who controls the Senate after the election, we'll go back to requiring 60 votes for Supreme Court confirmation?
3
Mr. Stephens, your bias is showing. You say you watched Judge Kavanaugh's testimony "and found him wholly believable". What about his explanation of "Renate Alumnius", and "Ralph club" and "boofed", and his repeated statement that four of the people Dr. Ford named as being at the party where she claimed the sexual assault occurred had denied that there had been any such party when two merely said they didn't remember it and one said she believed Dr. Ford?
But more important, doesn't Judge Kavanaugh's intemperate attack on the Democrats show a partisan bias that puts in question his impartiality as a potential Supreme Court justice.
7
We have entered a terribly dangerous era that could well result in the fragmentation of the United States. Trump is a symptom and a cause of a disastrous choice to put attainment of power above truth telling, made first by the post-modern left in academic circles and implemented for all to see by Fox News, Trump, and cynical Republicans. The Ford-Kavanaugh hearing puts our problem in clear relief. If Ford is right and Kavanaugh is appointed, we place a man who is willing to deceive in order to achieve power in a lifetime appointment on our highest court. But readers of the Times need to spend more time thinking about our future if Kavanaugh is right (and is appointed or is not appointed). We have a future in which anyone can have their reputation mercilessly destroyed by accusation without evidence. And the left will have confirmed many of the right's accusations (fake news, #metoo as a mostly political movement to fight conservatives, etc.) Bret Stephens is right that history shows fascists and strong men are more likely to win political contests when truth is abandoned and naked power is all that matters. America desperately needs a political movement based on rigorous analysis of the evidence in search of the truth as the first priority. That will mean losing some political battles, but it is the only long term hope for a liberal society.
3
Stephen's has this 180 degrees wrong.
It is the Republicans who want to "believe" Kavanaugh without an investigation.
It is the Dems who want facts, an investigation.
Yes, Dem's have made some mistakes, but only in the delusional world of the Republicans can the idea that it is the Dem's who haven't been "playing fair" in cramming Kavanaugh through (how quickly we forget the Rep. withholding thousands of documents, and only after much condemnation, they did a last-minute document dump).
6
What Kavanaugh revealed about himself in these most recent hearings-- hyper-partisanship, petulance, self-righteousness, mendacity (drinking), --should be disqualifying for a lifetime Supreme Court appointment. To turn a blind eye to this because you disapprove the conduct of Dianne Feinstein or are (justifiably) reluctant to elevate the significance of allegations that may not be susceptible of absolute proof is not constructive. The genie is out of the bottle. Kavanaugh let it out.
3
Thursday’s hearing should disqualify a character like Kavanaugh from ever sitting on the bench. His clear partisan paroxysm’s illustrated a violent temperament that honestly should make us question his impartiality as a judge
3
Believability? Stephens couldn't see the gibbering wreck that Kavanaugh became at the Senate hearing (Sept 27)? He was more in need of therapy rather than of promotion to the SCOTUS. Indeed, one negative of the Kavanaugh-Ford episode is that it distracts from glaring history that disqualifies Kavanaugh from anything but a position like that of Rudy Giuliani or, before him, Michael Cohen. Kavanaugh's history is one of bitter partisanship and of judicial decisions in favor of the extreme right wing. However, the GOP position now has become: if the FBI clears Kavanaugh, he must be confirmed. I’m reminded of O.J.’s glove: if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit! And of Dan Rather; whose well-constructed story about George W. Bush was discredited by a planted forgery. Of course, I don’t doubt Dr. Ford’s veracity, honor, and courage. But it’s ironic that her tragic experience has become the pivot point in this hearing. And worse, GOP partisans have misrepresented the Democrats’ performance of their civic and constitutional duty as partisan knife-fighting. It’s a shame that Stephen’s has bought into this white man’s victimhood and the GOP’s weaponized language.
2
Kavanaugh was convincing to his partisans. Ford was believable to all but a few. Big difference. His yearbook - the only piece of documentary objective evidence - is replete with references to binge drinking and debauchery. He denies same. Enough said.
2
Indeed, Judge Kavanaugh was entitled to mount a vigorous defense against Dr. Ford's testimony. However and regardless one's political affiliation, belief in Kavanaugh's credibility, or simply feeling a man's outrage at a serious accusation, it simply boggles the mind that after witnessing the out-of-control, undignified, vicious contempt Kavanaugh displayed Thursday that anyone could seriously believe he is a suitable, circumspect, and temperate jurist for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. He reeked entitlement to that seat because he has "worked [his] tail off"; he is not. He literally shouted that he was destroyed; again, he is not. If he is not confirmed, he will still be a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, commonly known as the second highest court, hardly ruination. I appreciate that he is wounded and offended, but Thursday's display of arrogance and animus leaves him irrevocably compromised - at his own hands.
3
If you want the Dems to compromise in exchange for a quick confirmation here's an idea - nominate Merrick Garland.
3
I have encountered many patients displaying similar behavior as Brett Kavanaugh. He is an alcoholic. Who has been desperately trying to hide it for many years, except his male "buddies", whose approval he craves. He exhibits extremely labile behavior, ranging from passive-aggressiveness to outright aggressiveness followed with periods of high emotionality. His frequent lying, his fits of rage (expressed in exceptionally high volume), his evasiveness, his argumentative style, his frequent interruptions are hallmarks of his disease. An addict's least favorite word is "No".
His wife displays the passivity of someone in an abusive relationship, also.
He (and his family) need help.
He should not even be in his present position, let alone being considered for the Supreme Court.
4
I used to assist in agency investigations of waste, fraud and abuse. Our team almost always found that those willing to tell little lies (Kavanaugh—I didn’t get tooooo drunk) were more likely to be compromised in greater deceptions. Can we really take that chance on the Supreme Court? Aren’t there any better candidates out there who the American people will trust? I understand that choosing a conservative versus liberal justice is politically important but so is honesty and believability. I personally was appalled at Kavanaugh’s deamenor and his unwillingness to answer some direct yes or no questions. He seemed to be afraid of an FBI investigation.
6
I honestly don't understand how someone can give both Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford equal levels of credence. He has everything to lose by lying. She began speaking of her assault in 2012. She has nothing to gain by lying. He has shown himself willing to bend the truth from the very beginning. She came across exactly as you would expect a survivor to come across. He sounded exactly like an privileged entitled scion of the ruling class to sound when any lesser, let alone a woman (I'm not talking about Ford, I'm talking about Klobuchar and Clinton and other democratic leaders) dares to challenge them. Angry, belligerent, rude, mocking. He presented himself as the first ever Republican Supreme Court justice. She presented herself as a thoughtful, brave, honest survivor.
6
Rather than admitting to mistakes Judge Kavanaugh shaved the truth in his improbable explanations of various terms appearing in his high school yearbook, Renate Alumnius, Ralph club, boofed and Devil's Triangle. For those who need further explanation, Judge Kavanaugh offered interpretations of these terms that were clearly outside common usage and/or common sense.
Isn't it possible that he similarly shaved the truth in his denials that he had assaulted Dr. Ford and even that he had been at the party at which she alleged the assault occurred? As Senator Blumenthal observed, citing (in Latin) a common law rule, false in one thing false in everything, Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Judge Kavanaugh was false, or at least misleading in a way that's hard to square with truth telling, in five things, the four mentioned above and his repeated statements that all those Dr. Ford said were present at the party where the alleged sexual assault occurred denied attending any such party when two simply said they didn't remember the party and one said she believed Dr. Ford.
Perhaps we need to update the common law motto: False in five things, be very skeptical.
5
I was willing to wait to pass judgement until after the Thursday hearing. But Kavanaugh's Alex-Jones-level rantings removed the assault allegation as a primary concern. The White House wanted him to be less wimpy, more Trump-like. They got it. A conspiracy that began before he was nominated? The Clinton's? What came through was "unhinged". "Not temperamentally fit": the phrase was (correctly, as it turns out) applied to Trump, the country doesn't need it to apply to a justice on the Supreme Court.
3
Brilliant, breath of fresh air emanating from the NYTimes .
I also watched Ms Ford, I also thought that something happened to her, however, a 15 year old girl, who had consumed alcohol is not what I consider concrete evidence or an immpecable witness .
She did not know where she was, when it was, perhaps she also didn't know whom it was, she admitted it could have been Judge who pushed her, perhaps it was a different party and she, as a alcohol drinking teen was further confused, maybe she also had drinks at her country club (at 15 years old I had to work every day in the summer, no country clubs and beer drinking for me, that came later ), further she didn't know how she got there or got home. She also saw these boys at other parties. It just doesn't fit the narrative, and you must remember that famous line from OJ's trial.
" If it doesn't fit ".
2
My first thought while watching Kavanaugh’s seriously weird opening statement was that he knew his place on the Supreme Court was in jeopardy so he might as well audition for a prime time slot on Fox News. The pay is substantially better, and if he is confirmed, Fox News will have one of their own on the Supreme Court. They’ll get the inside scoop on every contentious political issue. In any case, this is once again a case where Rupert Murdoch’s propaganda empire is methodically deconstructing our republic. So Bret, I believe this is the road to “National Ruin,” but a very different road than the one you’re imagining.
1
It's interesting to me that Mr. Stephens is only too ready to ascribe bad faith to Senator Feinstein's motives (despite her protestations to the contrary), while readily extending the benefit of the doubt to Judge Kavenaugh despite a host of misleading and factually disputed statements he gave in his testimony. (I refer here to the Times's "Fact Check" article on the front page of today's edition.)
7
The conclusions of Mr. Stephens's essay could just as easily be applied in the opposite direction. What if Blasey-Ford was the one nominated to join the Supreme Court and O-Kavanaugh accused her of attempted rape? We would hope for some investigation into the accusation and context. We would look into character and history. Is Blasey-Ford a sloppy drunk? Did she brag about being the head of the cheerleading squad with all the Heathers-stereotypes that comes with that position? Did she brag about sexual interactions and present her intimacies as conquests, disparaging her intimate partners? Did she belong to a sorority and all the Animal House debauchery that goes with that? Did she professionally expose the intimate moments of other people for professional gain? Did she promote herself as a paragon of morality? Did she run to MSNBC to be interviewed when she felt threatened?
Everything about this episode is disgusting except for one thing. Blasey-Ford stood up to a privileged, entitled, beer-motivated frat boy. She stood up to the jock and the Ivy-league golden boy.
At this point I almost don't care about the truth of her accusations. It's clear that she believes them, and that's almost enough for me to believe them. But Kavanaugh is awful. She exposed the white-wash. He's the guy who made my high school life very unpleasant. I'm happy to see his ambition thwarted. For his ambition is predicated upon everybody else's handicap.
1
Kavanaugh's belligerent, partisan and untruthful performance gave us a glimpse of what a Trump Supreme court would look like.
No thanks.
3
The GOP inserts it will on everything they touch. They work like theives in the night. They are mostly in lock step on their positions about how this country should be governed. A tight-fisted agenda to dismantle civilian rights. Whether Roe v Wade, Civil Rights, Immigration, Public Education, Clean Air and Water. They want to dumb down our society keeping the prime jobs of running the country for the rich and super rich. Brett Kavanaugh fits into this narative. They want him no matter what. They the GOP manipulated his written record and held back 90% of it and only released (at the last minute) what they wanted to share with the minority. Then moved to vote him in while there were unanswered questions about this alledged sexual assault. This move showed how craven the GOP has become. But with grace and dignity Dr. Ford showed how to force an issue - encouraging other women to come forward. Thank you, Jeff Flake - for standing up to the bullies you serve with. You behaved like a man, a patriot, an American. I'm sorry to see you go. Going forward we are left with men like Lindsey Graham, who will do anything to be Trump's man in the Senate. A woman confronted him in the halls also - he didn't even stop to listen, just told her to go to the cops. So much for bravery.
1
If Judge Kavanaugh was being as truthful as Dr. Ford, he would be demanding an FBI investigation. The would be no downside and potentially a huge upside--helping to clear his name. The fact he has repeatedly refused to call on the Committee to request one tells me he is afraid what it might reveal.
As to what is owed Judge Kavanaugh, what about what is owed to the Supreme Court and our country? If one party has to get hurt in this situation, better it be an individual who has no right to a Supreme Court seat, than an institution whose credibility and respect is paramount to the functioning of our republic. Embedded in our concept of the law is that a judge must avoid the appearance of impropriety, regardless whether such impropriety actually exists or whether it is fair to the judge that it does exist.
6
The idea that this is all just a cynical ploy by the democrats ignores the fact that there were no such goings on when gorsuch came through. The idea that it is all Diane Feinstein's fault, that she held her hand, ignores the fact she was trying to accommodate the wishes of the writer (and if you really think the rest of the committee weren't shown or knew of the letter but ignored I've got a bridge to sell you) the idea that Brett Kavenoughs only possible reason for being furious is because he's innocent is not the impression I and many others particularly women got of someone whose every mistake and bad behavior has always been ignored or lightly treated and who has been rewarded all his life for participation in upper income bro culture furious that those rules would not still be in place, furious that he would be denied the spot he was already counting as his by right. And the idea that finding Blasey, Ramirez et al credible....yet placing him on the highest court without even the barest hint of an acknowledgement from him that his early years were rife with the kind of behavior that may have included this even if he doesn't remember(facts supported by his own calendar and yearbook and lied about), a humble accounting of how he's grown that might have convinced us he is a different person now, would not send chills down the spine of any woman whose case rose to appear before the supremes is delusional.
I believe that democracy can be gloriously messy, and we are witnessing that right now. I believe that Brett Kavanaugh behaved like a snotty entitled frat boy, and that he revealed extreme bias and a lack of impartiality in his testimony. I believe that your fifteen minutes are up, Mr. Stephens.
7
Mr. Stephens seems to overlook some important facts in his description of Judge Kavanaugh's reaction to the allegations. Judge Kavanaugh's initial reaction was knee-jerk, flatly denying anything like the incident had ever occurred. An inordinate sense of clarity from someone who's admitted abusing alcohol. He immediately tried to appear as though he had lived a saint's life as a high-schooler when he should have admitted to some bad behavior, even if nothing remotely resembling the allegations.
This is the reaction of a man unwilling to face reality, meaning even the POSSIBILITY of having done something as arguably inconsequential, albeit offensive, as having drunkenly grabbed Mrs. Ford's breast. Obviously, the allegations are much worse, but for Judge Kavanaugh not to even allow for the possibility of some variation (anywhere from 1-99%) of the allegations is totally disingenuous and evidence of a dishonest character. That should be reason enough to disqualify anyone.
The overwhelming evidence of his extensive relationship with alcohol is another. It is clear he is more than a casual social drinker. The evidence, including his own admissions, strongly indicate he is an alcohol abuser. Moreover, unlike his friend, Mr. Judge, Judge Kavanaugh lacks the wisdom and courage to have sought treatment.
I also note that anger may also be the reaction of a guilty man trying desperately to save himself.
Allegations aside, Judge Kavanaugh should be a Mr. not a Justice.
2
Believability has little or nothing to do with the fate of this nomination. Kavanaugh lied under oath. That alone is ample grounds to disqualify him.
8
"to vote on the basis of a belief in things unseen and unproved is a road to national ruin."
So let's get religion out of politics once and for all, Bret.
9
I have concerns about his views and I feel he is another lock step Federalist Society jurist with a defined agenda. He lacks the independence of mind, he has that arrogance and contempt for investigation prior to judgement. And in these last days he has revealed his own poorly formed characte; not given to Jesuit self examination, he is proud, boastful, emotional and given to self pity.
Not fit for the highest court.
2
Where did Mr. Stephens go to college? Was he not aware of the partying going on at the fraternities? I’m not passing judgment, I’m just marveling at his being either naive or insincere. Wow.
1
We are stepping over a line in this age of post-modernism that will be difficult to recross.
Having torn shared belief from our national culture, the belief system upon which our Constitution and Bill of Rights are erected, whether authored by Christians or by “Deists”, we will need to reckon with the nasty and difficult task of its writing its successor.
The new belief system, evidence-based science, can only be applied looking backward. It does not direct the heart, and it does not allow independent human beings to easily engage in decision-making, knowing both how they should act and how their peers and fellow human beings will likely act.
Without a shared belief system, we will need to erect a new means for establishing what is good, meaningful, and valuable. This “work in progress” has many unfinished chapters, and the early work is not encouraging.
Without a shared belief system, our notions of justice built upon Common Law will be reassessed as majoritarian or simply mob rule, the very kind that is fanned and exploited through sensationalism and social media. Right, wrong? What about the role of human dignity and the presumption of innocence?
Without a shared belief system and a sense of the “divine spark” in each of us, we are beings in a determinist world OR we have no credible obligation to each other, since we are hurtling to our long-expected death.
Our “future” would hold more meaning in a world accountable to God. That is no longer understood.
3
Bret Stephens, You are completely missing the point. This was not a believe her versus believe him trial, this was a focused lens on a man who could impact our country and every citizen in enormous ways for decades and decades. That individual must be extremely thoughtful, considerate, open, academic, and unbiased. Sexual assault aside, we saw a little boy not getting his way, we saw a shift of blame to the Democrats and a baseless attack of Democrats attacking him. We saw him attack a senator in a highly inappropriate way, asking of her drinking history. We saw someone rattled and unable or unwilling to answer direct questions. We saw a man unhinged. Yes he’s mostly a hardworking nice guy with lots of friends. He was a great student sprinkled with occasional awful behavior in high school and college aside, but Bret Kavanaugh is not fit to be a judge in our system and certainly not a Supreme Court justice.
5
Maybe Bret Stephens did not see the same hearings I saw, but at this point, who is telling the truth is almost irrelevant. What many of us came away seeing is that Bret Kavanaugh does not come near to having the temperament or honesty to be a traffic court judge, much less a supreme court justice. He also revealed completely that he is a totally partisan man who hates Democrats and believes in conspiracy theories.
This man should never serve on the Supreme Court.
22
You are so wrapped up on what is going on, just like everyone else in DC and the press, that you cannot see the forest from the trees.
Assuming the events described by Mrs. Ford did not happen, there is ample evidence by the judges own words and witnesses that the judge was a very bad drunk in lake high school and at Yale.
The fact that the judge does not, and will not, admit to those facts means he is either a liar or self deluded.
In either case that means his character is weak, as real men and women admit their faults. They must do so in public when they want a high position in the government.
That character flaw means he is not temperamentally qualified to be on the Supreme Court.
6
Obviously the man has a terrible temperament for a judge in any court He has no business whatsoever being a justice on the Supreme Court.
9
Come on, man. You're stopping at an arbitrary place. To the contrary, believability is NOT what this is about. This is about the Republican attempt -- so far successful -- to refuse an open and thorough investigation into Dr Ford's allegations. Even this rushed FBI week probably will not be sufficient to really present and deliberate on what Kavanaugh is like. Who is he, really? And that's just about his sexual past. What about how Republicans from the very beginning of the nomination process refused to release the vast majority of files and information regarding his highly political acts from the Clinton days on through working for George W Bush. Falling back on believability is not the point. Obfuscation is.
4
Bret: What are you going to say when Mark Judge pleads the 5th when he talks to the FBI? no statute of limitations for rape in MD. how about if he asks for immunity first and then says he has no memory.
6
Are you kidding me, Mr. Stephens? Despite what you and the rest of "Oh my stars and garters" media keep pretending, we are already beyond the pale. The GOP destroyed any last semblance of appropriate action with respect to Supreme Court nominees.
The GOP stole a Supreme Court seat--they STOLE it! They turned it into a political farce, and the current critiques of the Democrats are laughable, whether they're the hypocritical temper tantrums of Lindsey Graham, or your own hypocritical plea for high-mindedness.
It is beyond unfortunate that a decent woman like Dr. Blasey Ford has to be drawn into this, and that her trauma has become another weapon in the battle against the GOP power grab.
Kavanaugh's testimony on Thursday has done what the media can't: acknowledge that the GOP Supreme Court appointees are political hacks that will always put party loyalty over legal duty (and no, John Roberts' one vote to only weaken Obamacare rather than destroy it outright doesn't count as putting legitimate law before party).
This is sadly no longer about allegations and 35-year-old possible crimes. It's about the dangerous GOP, and how they have done nothing less than destroy the credibility of every last branch of our government.
Face the truth: any control of the Supreme Court by conservatives is illegitimate given the theft of a seat. The only question is whether a cloud of sexual assault (or at least another one, lest we forget Clarence Thomas) will further poison its reputation.
3
The road to national ruin, and the collapse of our republic, began long before the 2016 electoral college election of a man who didn't win the popular vote.
And some of its decay is attributable to the machinations of one Brett Kavanaugh, sidekick to Ken Starr, who enjoyed taking Bill Clinton apart and wanted every hideous detail about Clinton and Lewinsky spread across the land, fouling us all.
It wasn't necessary, but he enjoyed doing it. He reveled in it.
What goes around comes around??
Look at him, shouting, whining, crying, complaining about the damage to his reputation and to his poor, beleaguered family.
In fact, Kavanaugh is much more of a political operative than jurist, and there is a connection between his history of drinking to excess and his predatory sexual behavior and his conduct as a jurist.
He's arrogant, entitled, expects his world view and his desires to be accommodated and if thwarted on a bed in a Maryland suburb, or by anyone who would prevent him from being appointed to the court, he lashes out, acts out, has tantrums, and blames others .And lies.
A better word than believability would be credibility. People with no character, like Kavanaugh, lack credibility.
People like Dr. Ford have credibility in spades.
You've picked up Kavanaugh's cudgel and are blaming Democrats. Since you threw in McCarthy, and I'll throw him back to you.
Have you no sense of decency, sir?
Have you no sense that Brett Kavanaugh has -- no sense of decency?
7
Compare and contrast and then publish whom you believe more. I did not need to hear the testimony of either--though I felt confirmed after I witnessed the performance of Judge Kavanaugh.
Someone help me: who said".....thou doth protest too much"? This is a man cloaked in self righteousness and if seated on the Supreme Court, will make life miserable for those not born just like him "white, male. privileged and heterosexual!
9
Mr. Stephens is wrong.
What we saw this week was a crucible (with apologies to Arthur Miller). It was the white-hot container that burned away every impurity to reach the truth.
The truth is a furious and entitled white man who took umbrage that a woman in a quavering voice could block his path to pre-ordained power. His string of answers ranging from inconsistencies to obvious lies reveal a man without a judicial much less judicious temperament. His calendar entries and his high school yearbook comments are at odd with the sober young man he sought to portray. He clearly has issues with women, alcohol, and the truth—issues of longstanding.
This is no longer a he said / she said puzzle. At best, it is a soon to be classic lesson in how to detect lying. At worst, it is the ascent of a man unfit to wear the robe to work.
5
Kavanaugh was NOT believable. He lied about his drinking. He dodged questions. He attacked rather than answer. Being understandably upset is not the same as being plausible. He showed exactly the sort of self-obsessed, entitled, lack of self control and self awareness that one would expect to see in a man who wouldn’t even notice that what he was assaulting for the entertainment of his buddy was an actual human being.
4
We all know that the hearing was really about the resistance and little more. Gorsuch was seated without this kind of fight but the left was just getting started and now they are in high gear. As to the comments about his temperament, I wonder how many people wouldn’t behave as he did if they had been accused of being a serial rapist. It was a very human reaction to an awful accusation.
1
Mr. Stephens,
I cannot comprehend your seeking to equivocate between Blasey's straightforward and believable testimony and Kavanaugh's phoney anger, multiple lies about alcohol, knowing evasions, bad faith and defiance. I've worked, known and lived with liars, alcoholics, political partisans, religious extremists, conspiracy followers, and people who have been inappropriate and even abusive of others.
Perhaps your life has been more sheltered. So sheltered you can believe Kavanaugh?
Its no fun dealing with addicts, abusers, people with anger just below the surface. But you judged Kavanaugh's testimony. Are you qualified?
Do you know that rapists and abusers are more often seeking power, not sexual satisfaction, when they attack others? Exercising power over their victim makes them feel powerful.
You see Kavenaugh's anger as the response of the falsely accused. I see that anger, and the wild accusations about revenge for the Clintons and and left wing extremists spending large sums of money, and I wonder, how long has this guy been so angry?
The incoherence makes me question his thinking. Do those charges reflect sober deliberation? That is not how judges talk.
We have his friends' description of his drinking, in high school, and in college, We have his belligerent and evasive answers to questions about drinking in his testimony. Most addicts lie about their addictions.
So no, I didn't find him believable, and I didn't think the two testimonies were a wash.
12
In response to Mr. Stephen’s assertion that the Democrats “never intended a fair process”, I say Merrick Garland.
9
I find the democrats to be disgusting. The fact that a large portion of this country does not, worries me. Our country is heading off the rails and we have the power hungry democrats and those that vote for them to thank for it.
3
@JP Let me take a flying leap off those rails into the great unknown and suggest you might be partisan in this view. Republican, perhaps? FYI: That "large portion of this country" you allude to is a majority of voters, even in the last election. The last time I checked, this is still a democracy. Democrats believe in progress.
1
@JP,
This comment would be hilarious if not for the fact that it is terrifying in its alternate, extra planetary reality
2
@JP I find the republicans to be disgusting. The fact that a large portion of the country does not, worries me. Our country is heading off the rails and we have the power hungry republicans and those that vote for them to thank for it
2
When you write “normal standards of fair play” by Democrats it sounds awfully hypocritical considering Republicans failed to even give Merrick Garland a hearing.
3
Are you kidding me? Somebody who behaved like Kavanaugh during a job interview, regardless, would be shown the door so fast. He is not fit to walk my dog, let alone to be a judge.
3
Even if the FBI provides no conclusive information, Kavanaugh gave the country a reason to reject him. There are ways to display anger but he flunked that test miserably. His demeanor was worse than awful. He obviously believes in conspiracies and doesn’t like democrats. He can’t be trusted to be fair.
if this how he acts sober, I wouldn’t want to be around him when he’s drunk.
If a woman acted like that, she’d be judged as hysterical and too emotional for the SCOTUS.
22
@Sharon "If a woman acted like that, she’d be judged as hysterical and too emotional for the SCOTUS." Well said.
1
Among everything else, it is a minor point. But when Lindsay Graham complained in his unhinged rant that Democrats were trying to delay beyond the elections, I could hardly believe it. I tried to recall the "11th hour" Republican maneuver against Merrick Garland. Oh, wait. You cannot have an 11th hour if you don't have a 1st hour.
4
This line of reasoning is infuriating and tediously over-dramatic! Bret Stephens, do you believe that Mitch McConnell and the Republicans stole a SCOTUS appointee from Barrack Obama? If you don't, then conversation over. Basically, your argument is that the Democrats are the ones who have to play nice, because you know that Mitch McConnell never will. He changed the rules so that whoever controls the Senate gets to control the SCOTUS appointees by a simple majority - until either changes the rules back to what they were before, then those are the rules and the Dems can play with them however they like!
3
Sorry Mr Stephens but it has very little to do about Dr. Blasey Ford's accusations. Kavanaugh has obviously lied. The nonsense he tries to sell about his yearbook comments is outrageous. Anyone who ever went to high school has seen and/or heard comments like those and knows exactly what they indicate. He has lied about stolen documents and judicial recommendations. He appears to be lying about his drinking. But the most disqualifying action for me is his obvious and vociferous partisanism. How could he possibly offer an unbiased opinion after the rage he showed us Thursday. Disqualified.
24
In repeating the Republican talking points shouted by Kavanaugh and Graham, this essay overlooks inconvenient facts:
1) It was NOT politically expedient for Feinstein to keep Blasey Ford's letter confidential. She did this at Blasey Ford's request; it came out only when news media learned about it through leaks. It would have been much worse for Kavanaugh if this had been introduced back in July or August, as it would have shaped the initial hearings that he fibbed his way through and created a much higher bar for centrists such a Flake, Murkowski, and Collins.
2) The main Republican argument seems to be that we don't know enough, so Blasey Ford's allegations don't matter. At the same time, they have obstructed the investigation that Blasey Ford and the Democrats have called for from the very start -- remember that Feinstein's initial response was to send this information to the FBI. In resisting an investigation that would reveal the truth, and particularly in refusing to take seriously other allegations or call key witnesses, the Republicans have tried to make this a matter of mere "belief" when there are, in fact, more facts that we could have learned. Clearly, they were afraid that these facts would support Blasey Ford and undermine Kavanaugh's denial.
Women make their way through the world under daily threat of sexual assault. This threat is compounded by a cultural resistance to taking allegations seriously. It is unfortunate that you support rape culture.
2
Since the Republicans refused to proceed on the nomination of Merrick Garland, there are no "normal standards of fair play" for US Supreme Court nominations. Fugget about it.
13
1. “Americans have a longstanding credulity problem — 9/11 trutherism; Obama birtherism; J.F.K. assassination theories; the “deep state” — so the ground is already fertile.”
Almost all those “conspiracy theories” are widely believed only by Republicans.
2. Whether or not you believe Dr Ford, Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court will always be tainted by doubt. There are many judges who are well-qualified for this position. Rumor has it Merrick Garland is still available. And Republicans can hardly claim that it would be an injustice to not seat someone whose qualifications are widely acknowledged.
3. Assume there is just a 50% chance that Kavanaugh is lying. In that case, he has perjured himself under oath several times. Can we risk having that stain on the Supreme Court?
4. By his intemperate and nakedly partisan attacks, Kavanaugh has shown himself unfit to sit on the Supreme a court. Even if none of the above were true, the Court’s impartial standing will be damaged even more seriously than it was after Bush v Gore.
2
Stephens is ignoring some obvious problems with K's testimony. He is completely partisan for one. He lied in his response. His demeanor when replying to Democrat Senators, especially the women, showed disrespect for anyone who disagreed with his fixed mind set of a privileged frat boy. He has not grown up into a judge, just a pretend one.
Meanwhile, only a small portion of his documentation was released which put the D's at a disadvantage. Turns out, they didn't really need it as K is pretty much an open book, an arrogant, spoiled adolescent who is entitled to all the honors reserved for his class.
That Stephens still feels that K is qualified and entitled to a seat on the SC tells us much about Stephens.
11
He lied under oath. (Legal drinking age.) More than once.
You were saying?
2
Not only did Kavanaugh show a lack of judicial temperament during his questioning, he flat-out lied under oath about the meaning of those yearbook entries. Everyone knows it. The Republicans seem to be operating on the theory that perjury doesn't matter if it's about high-school behavior and/or if it's necessary to maintain a Thomas-like blanket denial. But as far as I'm concerned, he's a liar and is disqualified for any sort of judgeship.
3
Please. We can forget intentionally. We can convince ourselves to black out about something, thereby not lying when we are lying. Our psychology includes intentional forgetfullness thereby not lying when denying what we definitely did do. Kavanaugh's emotional outbursts are what makes him unfit. He could humbly apologize for whatever he's accused of and go on. But he does not. Neither did Thomas.
3
kavanaugh exposed himself to the nation on Thursday. he is dishonest, evasive, disrespectful, belligerent, paranoid, histrionic, and boastful. not quite the list of attributes we might hope for in a judge. irrespective of whether dr. ford's totally compelling account will be supported by the fbi, kavanaugh is unfit.
17
The problem is, Kavanaugh was NOT wholly believable. So many aspects of his testimony are contradicted by other classmates of his, whether it was his lies about never drinking to excess, his pretending not to know what a Devils Triangle was, or his dissembling about being a Renate Alumnus. To put his testimony in the same league as Dr. Ford’s is being deliberately obtuse. Finally, his bellowing about partisan witch-hunts and the like, by itself, reveal that the man is nothing more than, h8mself, a staunch partisan who has know business being confirmed to a lifetime appointment on the nation’s highest court. There is absolutely no equivalence between the twotestimonies, and at the end of the day, I hope those pundits and politicians who can’t see that have to go home and explain this to their daughters. Disgraceful, Mr. Stephens.
11
And if suspicion based on allegation — even or especially “believable” allegations — becomes a sufficient basis for disqualification, it will create overpowering political incentives to discover, produce or manufacture allegations in the hopes that something sticks
This man's greatest fear is that women will accuse every man that says,"Boo!" to her will be accused of sexual assault. This is the surest sound of white male privilege. Why? Because since man carried a club and wore animal hide, he has seen any woman is less than. He fears a false allegation while little girls fear their molesters and women fear their rapists. What does think when he hears Trump call the women he sexually assaulted "liars?" Even though DT admitted to his acts.
I was molested by my 5th grade teacher. Because no one believed me, there was no moving to another class; so it lasted for a full year. Every time I hear a man doubt the word of a survivor, I hear my parents call me a"liar." Guilt (or something uglier) made my mother remind me all the time for years about the liar I am for accusing my teacher.
I'm relaying this story not to get pity, as Kavanaugh has done, but to relay the fact that so many women I know share Dr Blasey's pain with experiences more or less traumatic. But any of these are by far worse than being accused especially because most accusers are truth. I know this because just speaking my story scares me. The partisan judge who's a Jekyll and Hyde gets no pity from
1
Mr. Stephens, you found Bret K. "believable"? This is difficult to fathom, given the temperament he demonstrated, and the many evasions (lies?), e.g., what 'boofed' means. or his refusal to DEMAND an investigation.
Further, your criticism of Feinstein as "cynical" is disingenuous given that anonymnity was initially requested by Dr. Ford.
3
In your opinion, you see no problem appointing a judge to a lifetime position who has a stated vendetta against Democrats? His partisan alliance was amply and loudly demonstrated in his opening "arguments". Justices, especially supreme court justices, are supposed to be apolitical and impartial. Now it would be naive to believe that any justice is totally apolitical and impartial to one party or another but his blatant hatred of Democrats can not be overlooked. To do so would imperil our nation. Justice is supposed to serve all people. To be blind to race, religion, creed, gender, sexual persuasion and especially politics. We have only nine people deciding the fate of millions of people. It's imperative to have a supreme court that is impartial, not owned by religious dogma or party ideology. Kavanaugh's dog and pony show was a disgrace, whether you believed him or not. His disrespect of the Democratic senators, especially the women, was disturbing, indicative of his misogynistic tendencies and his disdain for those he is at odds with. His arrogant demeanor in questioning the Democrats who were interviewing him show a total disregard for the rule of law and an arrogance that doesn't belong on the supreme court, or possibly any other court. If this were a court of law he would have been held in contempt. Much of his performance bordered on being un-hinged. We already have a dangerously unhinged president. We don't need another unhinged person residing over our supreme court.
4
You know Stephens that I usually appreciate your lines of argument, but you are so off on this, painfully off.
To begin with, it is a bit late to worry about guardrails. The guardrails were off 200 years ago. Just look at how Washington complained about what people would say ... etc. And second, Brett Kavanaugh is simply not even close to be a solid candidate to the Supreme Court. If you find him believable, you were not paying attention. He was vulgar, screaming, maneuvering and coward macho that just took offense (= Trump), and avoided answering questions.
You need to check why on Earth are you so incensed and cannot look at thinks for what they are. The Republicans selected a flawed candidate ... because what is what they have become: flawed, deeply flawed citizens.
3
Kavanaugh admitted to being an out-of-control drinker, and when he says he did not assault Dr. Blasey Ford, we all thought - he may not remember it, but how can he be sure he didn't do it? We've all known guys like these. If it happened while they were drunk it didn't matter because, well, they were drunk and they didn't remember, and everyone should just shut up about it.
You didn't think that, after listening to her tell her story, and then watching him be unable to manage his feelings on national TV? How about now, that I have pointed it out to you?
The byline is "Thursday's hearings should not prevent Kavanaugh's confirmation." Of course it should. His history of rulings and beliefs hinge on the idea that women, minorities, and people who are not like him (including apparently, all Democrats) should just shut up and let him make decisions for us, even decisions about whether or not to have sex or to have a baby.
Also, he believes that anyone who doesn't agree with this plan is in a conspiracy to thwart his plans for making decisions for them. In the first hearing, he forgot he was going to a job interview and appeared unprepared and ill equipped to deal with an unfamiliar situation. During the second hearing he behaved as if he were on trial. This was not the behavior of an innocent, competent, confident man.
Mr. Stephens, your partisan blinders are interfering with your ability evaluate this man's fitness to hold high office.
4
Mr. Stephens, you disappoint me. I thought you were supposed to be a principled conservative. After hearing the testimonies and still claim it's about believability revealed your real principle or lack of it. I think after FBI investigation or even before its completion Kavanaugh will be gone and replace by an equally or more conservative judge, but at least I hope he/she will be a judge who does have integrity and not a sexual predator, even though it was 36 years ago.
1
Bret -- Do you believe Judge Kavanaugh's description of his high school drinking, his explanation of "Devil's Triangle" and "Renate Alumnius," his account of his return from Fenway Park, and his claim that he couldn't both study and party at DKE while at Yale? If the answer is yes, the judge is believable. If the answer is no, it doesn't really matter what he says about anything else.
6
Wrong. It is that Kavanaugh does not deserve confirmation. Period. He and his enablers past and present blew it and badly. His angry, woe is me display of partisanship alone was disqualifying. He failed the job interview. But far more disqualifying is his refusal to admit wrongdoing, his scorched earth denials. That Dr. Blasey so valiantly and with nothing to gain and everything to lose put her life on the line of fire, literally, to the point of having to seek protection, should have caused Kavanaugh to withdraw. That he has not to-date is what constitutes a national disgrace.
4
This one's actually pretty easy. If you don't know who to believe, you trust the one with no incentive to lie.
4
It seems implausable that false accusations of sexual assault could ever become the norm. No one accused Neil Gorsuch of such misconduct, and no nomination had ever been so politically charged. "Believability Is the Road to National Ruin" sounds exactly like the kind of headline that SNL lampooned.
1
The road to national ruin is that of allowing false narratives, like those routinely floated by FOX News and shock jock radio, to flourish.
One such narrative being floated is that Feinstein deliberated did not bring the specifics of Dr. Blasey Ford's objection to Kavanaugh to the attention of the committee much earlier due to political purposes - when, in fact, we know that she did even have all the information until relatively late in the game (and that Blasey Ford was unsure whether she wanted to go public).
These kind of false narrative harm a nation - and they must not be allowed in the paper of record.
Furthermore, if we care about national unity, then we should not tolerate things like voter suppression, gerrymandering, and the loathsome Southern strategy - each of which profoundly threaten the bonds of political union by undermining faith in the system.
We also should not tolerate deliberate efforts to make an electorate dumber - by filling its brains with conspiratorial nonsense - like that being voiced by Kavanuagh at his hearing on Thursday.
These accusations were about exacting revenge for the Clintons?
Gag me with a spoon, frat boy polemicist - but just don't throw up on me or try to manhandle me when you've drunk too much of your beer.
Inasmuch as I have already moved beyond the nine Justices of the Supreme Court paradigm, I don't much care if this power drinker makes it to the Court. But I will be forced to care if his presence makes us dumber.
3
In my opinion Judge Kavanaugh disqualified himself.
He is a partisan. It is all about him, not justice.
Kavanaugh blamed the mess that he is in on a Democratic Party conspiracy where the Clinton’s on the master minds behind a plan to discredit him.
How did the Clinton’s manage to find and convince Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick to come forward after so many years of keeping of being silent? I would like an answer from Kavanaugh.
Given his campaigning for the job as Supreme Court Judge on Fox News, I won’t trust Kavanaugh to referee a basketball game much less serve on the Supreme Court where fairness and impartiality are a minimum requirement.
4
'I watched him — meticulous, wounded, furious (wouldn’t you be, too, if you were innocent of such an accusation?) — and found him wholly believable.
Really? I found him to be incredibly disingenuous. He really doesn't have any idea how much beer would be too much? He indicated he still drinks today - and still has no idea? If this is true his mental capacity isn't enough for him to be on the Supreme Court.
The above is but one example of a number of his statements that grown men shouldn't say they "wholly" believe. It's naive to do so.
11
Here's what I believe, Bret:
1. I am Judge Kavanaugh's age. I grew up outside of New York City, not as well-heeled as the judge, but far from impoverished. I knew lots of guys like him - smart, over-achieving, wealthy, entitled and by seventeen, like many of us, a "partier". There is nothing in the most lurid account of his youth ("Renate Alumnius", "100 keg club", Dr. Blasey's testimony) that doesn't ring true to me. Indeed, it's easy for me to imagine worse.
2. I am Judge Kavanaugh's age and, like him, I grew up. I am not the person I was at seventeen, let alone at thirty. I am confident that the judge is an excellent father and a faithful husband. That he has been a loyal friend, a valued mentor and an honest broker in his profession. He has, in all likelihood, led an admirable adulthood.
3. I am Judge Kavanaugh's age. I did a number of things in my youth that make me cringe when I think of them. None of it keeps me up at night and maybe it's because none of it was that bad. One thing is for sure, I woudn't want to have to sit before the American people and explain it all. On the other hand, I'm completely confident that there is no one in my past that can say my actions at the time traumatized them for the rest of their lives. But, how would I react if someone came forward and said I had? Especially, if the job of a lifetime was within reach? Well, I'd like to think not, but I might lie about, just like I believe Judge Kavanaugh is.
5
Bret, where were your concerns when the GOP was willing to hold Scalia's seat open until the election, and then if Hillary won, for the next four years, thereby denying President Obama a Supreme Court pick. Crickets.
4
By any reasonable, non-ideologically-blinded-into-unreason viewpoint - the hearing and Kavanaugh himself - showed the U.S. once again (as if Trump and his crew wasn't enough) to be a total freak show of gigantic proportions.
It was so clearly an almost hostile take-over of the Supreme Court - or an attempt to do so. It was so clearly reactionary, ideological and utterly rabid. Kavanaugh further disgraced himself with his temperament and snarls about Left and the Democratic party - this is no somber jurist, but a boy-man with a very bad temper - who can't control himself under pressure and without doubt - views the DEM party with contempt. He's as ideological as you get. This is a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court - no matter what kind of pressure or so-called "false" attack on his dainty reputation - someone in that position should have some self-control. He, and his GOP bros - disgraced themselves and seemed hysterical and unhinged before the nation of all intelligent people as well as around the world. Even before the recent hearing he was slimy - avoiding direct answers. When will people simply say no more to this stage-managed balderdash.
And, what has been entirely overlooked is his record - torture, anti-choice, pro presidential executive power, pro government surveillance into everyone etc. etc. He's a dangerous man.
And to sum up - if Bret Stephens really thinks this little, whinging male belongs on the SC - then that's a real pity.
5
Bret Stephens is right: Diane Feinstein could have expedited an FBI enquiry if she had wanted to. But the GOP senate, in denying Merrick Garland a hearing on the grounds that a seat had become open in the second half of a president’s term, had created a too tempting horizon. Why shouldn’t Dems take advantage of this rule, too? Oh, and there’s the small matter of Kavanaugh’s history as an anti-Clinton smear-meister almost without equal (a history that former GOP henchman David Brock has recently described). The result is ugly, but real: “They put one of ours in the hospital. We put one of theirs in the morgue.” Though I hope, as I suspect will be the case, that this is a temporary interment. Because fighting Kavanaugh The Ivy League Groper will be easier than fighting Kavanaugh the Martyr.
I believe: Kavanaugh was a popular guy in high school, hanging out with other popular guys and girls and sometimes opening his exclusive social circle to younger girls less popular and less well connected, such as Dr. Blase Ford; the assault as described by Dr. Blasé Ford did happen as she testified; to Kavanaugh and Judge, however, the assault was just drunken pals exercising their studly privileges to victimize a younger girl who was not really in their social circle and carouse unashamedly without accountability; that the assault had all the horrible consequences for Dr. Blase Ford that she described in her testimony; that Kavanaugh probably does not remember the assault since it was no big deal to him, just another swaggering and unmemorable assertion of his prerogative as big preppie dude, number one in his class, captain of the basketball team, weight lifter, and beer lover -- not to mention church goer and calendar and diary keeper; that Kavanaugh has systematically lied in his testimony; that Kavanaugh displayed temperament in the latest Judicial Committee hearings that displayed his sense of entitlement that likely was at work in his assault on Dr Blase Ford; that Kavanaugh should never serve on the Supreme Court or perhaps any other court.
5
You are tone deaf Mr Stephens. Kavanaugh's defense boils down to this: Dr Ford is either lying or confused and Democrats cleverly found a Stanford University professor with incredible acting skills, manipulated her into a situation that has jeopardized her life and that of her family in a cynical ploy to alter the makeup of the Supreme Court.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? Apparently not.
Just because there are millions of ignorant Americans who tend toward conspiracy theories we should disregard the allegations against Kavanaugh? Is that what you're saying?
For the last time, (well, probably not the last time) Feinstein held onto the letter because she was ASKED to by Dr Ford. Only a tone deaf person would fail to understand this appeal for confidentiality. The letter was disclosed after leaks from other sources made it impossible to withhold and she had Dr Ford's permission to do so.
Yes there have been a few high profile cases of false accusations. The percentage is about a thousand to one. You're basically saying that because there is that one in a thousand, Dr. Ford should be ignored.
Kavanaugh revealed himself to be completely un-judicious, evasive, irrational by dealing in conspiracy theories, and talking in language well known to those in recovery as the language of an alchoholic in denial. Keep this guy away from our Supreme Court.
6
Good grief, Bret. You have equated “believability” with two non-equal statements. Dr. Ford had much to lose with her testimony. Kavanaugh had much to lose by telling the truth. His vitriol at the Democrats on the committee, his blaming of the vast left-wing conspiracy, making sure he kept hydrated so he could continue with his crocodile tears, left no doubt in my mind that he is not qualified for the DC Circuit, let alone the Supreme Court. He lost all semblance of impartiality. He is not fit for the Court.
10
No thoughts on why McConnell could block Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland for 9-months so the voters could decide; but that this SCOTUS appointment engineered by GOP getting Justice Kennedy to resign must be completed before elections in 6-weeks? Corruption thy name is GOP.
6
Senator Feinstein's "cynical ploy" was in fact the only ethical course of action: honoring a request for confidentiality from a woman alleging a sexual assault. Had the Senator broken that trust, I have no doubt Mr. Stephens would be complaining about that instead.
3
It’s the little lies that are most concerning. And even if we are not certain that they are lies, let’s hope the FBI investigation can get more information. Kavanagh’s “perspective” on his own drinking is hard to believe. I expect there are many witnesses that would be able to corroborate his version of how heavily he drank and what his condition was after drinking or dispute it (how about college friends Liz Swisher and Lynne Brookes?). There are a number of his high school classmates who used the same terms in their yearbook description that can corroborate his definitions of what some of those terms meant or dispute it. What about his saying he threw up because he had a weak stomach, not because he drank to access. I’m sure there are plenty of witnesses that can corroborate or dispute that claim. He clearly lied about his getting stolen Democratic information. And what about the fact that he refused to independently call for the FBI investigation, as all the accusers have. Why wouldn’t he do that? So even if we come away from the sexual abuse allegations with a he said, she said stalemate, I bet the FBI (if they have the horsepower to pursue them) can find out about these little lies. Won’t that change the calculus of who is likely to be telling the truth concerning these allegations?
2
The issue is not whether Ford or Kavanaugh will face ruin. A mistaken/lying Ford will at worst derail Kavanaugh's nomination leading so some other highly accomplished, but conservative, judge on the SC. A lying Kavanaugh, if successful, will lead to the US having a dishonest SC justice. That will certainly lead to what Igor Panarin had prophesized about the country disintegrating.
3
Stephens seems to have forgotten McConnell's counsel on Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, "Let the people decide". So, elections are just a few weeks off. Why not postpone a vote and let the FBI do a thourogh check, then vote in December?
Apparently, for Stephens, truth is not the final arbiter of good policy. Yet, our governments credibility and survival depend on it.
3
By delaying the vote yesterday I learn that Judge Kavanaugh while White House associate counsel for President Bush 2 was involved in the development of the President's policy on torture and treatment of detainees. Judge Kavanaugh denied his role while under oath in 2006 during his hearing for a judicial position on the Circuit Court. In July, 2018 two former White House officials during the Bush administration have stepped forwarded to acknowledge that Kavanaugh was involved and that he "mislead" the Senators Durbin and Leahy. Lying under other for a court position should disqualify you immediately. No two ways about it.
11
At this point with his partisan outburst and temper tantrum he is unfit for the court. Going on Fox news with his wife to declare his virginity, which was quickly denied by his friends, makes him unfit. His lying years ago to congress makes him unfit. His covering up his high school and college drinking makes him unfit. Drinking in H.S. and college isn't abnormal but his coverup was. He is not judicial material for the highest court. The republicans didn't help him by demanding a quick hearing, not releasing his paper trial, and acting like the old sexist men they are. They may have single handedly created a november blue wave. Women across this nation were appalled
3
I would not be too worried Mr Stephens about this little Senate fight causing something (not clear to me what) which leads to national ruin. The US has withstood much more divisive issues thousands of times over its history, and has survived. This is just the usual politics, and besides we are only talking about a few weeks of total delay at most - so what's the problem exactly?
But, your assertion that the Democrats never intended a fair process and therefore Judge Kavanaugh could (or is it to be read as "should"?) win confirmation, is horrifying. The investigation will figure out what is possible to know, and then the Senate should proceed based on what is known.
1
Mr. Stephens is correct in all his arguments. Still, as a conservative, he may not be right in his conclusions. What Judge Kavanaugh has also revealed are aspects of his temperament, truthfulness and even character that flowed directly from his latest presentation to the senators, and the nation. A man can be better known by how he reacts to a critical evaluation of his ideas and even life. He did not come off well, and that could be a basis for rejecting his nomination, and yet Mr. Stephens thinks that he should be confirmed. Are we to interpret that as his endorsement of lack of calm judicial temperament, something that does not sit well with conservatives. Or is he being forgetful?
We have heard enough testimony. It is time to vote and move on. Delays are just that -attempts to avoid a vote. It is time to put he matter to rest. Let’s vote.
1
Thank you, thank you, Mr. Stephens. Your views reflect my own. I'm incredibly bothered by this turn to emotionalism. "Believe all women" means guilty until proven innocent, not innocent until proven guilty. The standard should be listen to all women then assess credibility. Yes, this isn't a criminal trial, but there are implications for them, and the changing perception of criminal justice proceedings. Let's not kid ourselves. And no one seems to be thinking about the underhandedness of the female politician who could have handled this better once she got word of what was going on. So does Dianne Feinstein escape censure? It isn't as though she is some type of novice. She has been in office since 1992.
4
It’s worth remembering that up until 18 months ago, Kavanaugh would have needed 60 votes to be confirmed. When Gorsuch couldn’t get to 60 either, McConnell simply eliminated that requirement, making the threshold 50 votes.
So if we’re looking at what constitutes a fair process, I’d suggest changing the rules so that you can drag your man across the finish line by a one vote margin is not it.
We know the Gorsuch seat was stolen. But this seat is being filled in a frantic rush so that no new facts can emerge. That’s what’s actually happening. Insisting on an investigation is hardly unfair to a man about to get a lifetime appointment.
3
I agree that citizens should be having a serious discussion about how allegations of sexual misconduct are to be handled- in and out of courtroom settings. From Democrats and Republicans I would have preferred statements to the effect of "this is a serious allegation and it needs to be carefully reviewed" rather than "I believe her" or "I believe him" prior to Thursday's hearing. I would also be interested in Mr. Stephens thoughts on how Senator Feinstein should have handled Ford's allegation and simultaneous request for confidentiality.
On the presentation of evidence---yes, so far a wash; but on the job interview front--he is unfit to sit on the highest court in the land. Intellectually he maybe ready, but emotionally is lacks the temperament to develop any form of objectivity in the cases that come before the court.
In a recent decision, Judge Kavanaugh quoted himself: " . . .sensible principle dictates that we hold the line and not allow encroachments on the President’s removal power." He will almost certainly become a tool for expanding executive power. Shouldn't the legislature simply be able to say, no we reject this candidate for his political bias? Given that this administration's reckless approach to environmental issues will affect billions of people?
1
Judge Kavanaugh revealed clear and bitter partisanship when he was asked to defend his claims of innocence. In my view Supreme Court justices need to be measured, nuanced and neutral. He is not the right person no matter who you "believe."
2
Mr Stephens: while I agree that belief alone is a very dangerous standard in which to conduct and run a government and society- Not all allegations are created equal. And this isn't a criminal trial . Who has the motive to lie- Ford or Kavanaugh?? And a Supreme Court position is not some divine right- although kavanaugh seems to think he deserves it by virtue of his work ethic and position. Sorry that's not how this works. His refusal to answer Durbins direct question as to whether there should be an FBI investigation to clear his name says it all. Period.
2
Stephens: "But if Kavanaugh ends up winning confirmation, it will have much to do with the perception that Democrats never intended a fair process to begin with"
Mr. Stephens, your choice of setting the starting point for determining what is and what is not a fair process, only perpetuates my belief that the exercise of raw power by the oligarchical GOP has gained the upper hand over the exercise of democracy.
1
Withdrawing Kavanaugh in exchange for an agreement on his replacement is exactly the political bargain that should happen.
The Supreme Court absolutely! should! be above suspicion. Don't brush aside the best solution because "that's not likely to happen." An FBI investigation was unlikely to happen until a Republican senator decided to go for it, but now all of a sudden it's happening.
If Republicans offer that bargain, there are Democrats in the Senate who will fell great pressure to agree, and it only takes a few.
Offer it.
The original political sin was the refusal to give Merrick Garland a hearing. That was the real source of the corruption and disintegration of the Senate and legislative norms related to judicial nominations. That was the action that fatally wounded the credibility of the Supreme Court. What we’re seeing now is an institution dying slowly from that mortal wound.
"But to vote on the basis of a belief in things unseen and unproved is a road to national ruin." Isn't that exactly the central tenet of the Religious Right? For that matter, isn't that also the central tenet of Republican fiscal policy?
1
Belief systems are powerful things. Many have used this fact to create and maintain wealth and power. And now we see how non-stop feeding of partisan belief systems has fed the beast of distrust. It is the monster that we should all be afraid.
Failing to get that genie of trust back in the bottle will be our undoing.
Stephens can't be serious in saying Kavanaugh's appointment will be fueled by concern for the confirmation process. That process was destroyed by McConnell and his GOP henchmen, when they denied Garland, a mainstream jurist by all accounts, the chance to have his nomination even considered by the Senate.
2
The question is beyond any determination of guilt. The obvious is we no longer have an honest government. It has escalated into a constant exchange of actions promulgated by one side and responded to by the other. The stone walling of the last president's supreme Court nominee to today with what may have become a war tactic by an opposing party. Who is wrong? And since it is rare someone steps up displaying any semblance of real statemenship instead of the never ending cycle of one upsmanship, we will never have a representative government again. There no longer is a real defense involving righteous behavior. Well at least not very often. Coons and Flake constructed a mechanism to quell the discontent. One party has the opportunity to save face while the other earnest intent. Or it could flip depending on what is revealed and to what side the flop folds. I feel the man Kavanaugh has run a convincing but stilted game over the years but yesterday, he played his hand. One that others always suspected perhaps. One that surely reinforces why the president needs him . But do we? And that is the rub. I have to choose the side that has tried to work for me over the past years. Isn't that they job?
Kavanaugh should not be confirmed because:
1. There is no justification for giving him a hearing and not Garland
2. The driving force behind Kavanaugh's appointment is political. Every justice has political views but they shouldn't have a hatred of the other side's views which Kavanaugh clearly has
3. Believability matters when it comes to the appointment to not just any court but the highest court in the land - and not just the highest court but the swing vote on the highest court
4.If the tables were reversed, Kavanaugh would be first in line screaming that believability matters - he cut is legal career on trying to impeach Clinton. He deserves to be judged by the same standard he judged Clinton.
2
Despite all the denial, bluster, prevarications, distractions, and claims of victimhood, Kavanaugh has already destroyed his credibility in the minds of reasonable observers. An FBI investigation is all but bound to further highlight his tendentious and tenuous relationship with the truth.
Now Bret Stephens tortures logic and credulity by claiming the fate of the Republic depends upon Kavanaugh’s elevation to the high court. Stephens, perhaps, avoids denial and claims of victimhood, but he is certainly engaging in bluster, prevarications, and distractions.
The issues of sexual misconduct and their relationship to professional qualifications are certainly troubling and difficult to encompass. This is especially salient when an accused person’s desperate efforts to mount a defense lead to a tangled relationship with truth and memory. In this context it’s interesting that Stephens does not address the Monica Lewinsky scandal, a consensual embarassment to both parties, in which Brett Kavanaugh played a role in setting perjury traps which led to our nation’s second impeachment trial of a sitting president.
There IS a role (and a NEED) for more of us to consider how the current scandal is affecting the institutional health of our republic. But none of us can do that credibly without owning our own partisanship which is also an essential component of politics in a liberal democratic republic.
I wish both sides would realize we share one country, and the partisan right and partisan left are going to cause great harm that the country could avoid if both sides could see that now.
1
Bret, I normally enjoy your columns though I do not always agree with you.
But today you disappointment me.
Whatever the truth is (and, full disclosure, I believe Blasey Ford and do not believe Kavanaugh although I acknowledge that he may believe himself), Kavanaugh's performance yesterday said that this is not a man fit for the country's highest court.
Even if one had not watched Blasey Ford's testimony and saw only Kavanaugh's, any reasonably independent observer would have said that this is not the type of person that should be on the Supreme Court.
2
Kavanaugh did not show the temperament of a Justice in this last round of hearings. He is suspected of hiding the truth even before Dr. Ford’s charges.
Mitch McConnell stole a court seat. That should not go unpunished.
When there is a tie, a man should not win simply because republicans want a conservative in the Court in time to help win elections.
We can disagree on why Sen. Feinstein chose to keep a document secret. Obviously Dr. Ford’s wishes should be discounted according to republicans.
trump’s nomination and fight for Kavanaugh seem more to his benefit than to the country’s.
And thank you to Sen. Flake for trying to keeping this country together.
2
This sentence from Mr. Stephens' essay caught my eye: "But to vote on the basis of a belief in things unseen and unproved is a road to national ruin."
Isn't that what the Religious Right would have our representatives do every time they vote?
1
If Brett's point is that we must follow the facts not quickly accepting as true whatever claim is consistent without our bias, then I agree. However, we can see how great the challenge as Brett concludes about Senator Feinstein-"a remarkably cynical ploy suggesting motives other than honest truth-seeking". It seems that he concluded Senator Feinstein's stated reasoning of honoring Dr. Ford's desire to stay anonymous was not true but a cynical ploy. In absence of facts speaking to Senator's motivation we have Brett demonstrating the challenge and hard work of discovering facts and not tilting positions to fit assumptions.
1
I don't agree that believability is the question at this point. I also watched Blasey and Kavanaugh on Thursday, and I came away from that experience strongly convinced that Kavanaugh should NOT be elevated to the Supreme Court. That conclusion is not based on questions surrounding the alleged assault. That conclusion is based solely on Kavanaugh's highly partisan statement and his inappropriate conduct during questioning. This should be an automatic disqualifier.
5
I would agree with you, Mr. Stephens, about the importance of casting out believability as the standard to judge a judge. However, I do believe how each of us comports ourselves to the world matters.
Judge Kavanaugh's opening statement and the scathing diatribe by his supporter, Senator Graham, both serve to show how each hides behind the mask of privilege and decries the need for any accountability for one's actions.
If you can believe anyone deserves a privileged position because he (or she) is rich, white, of the correct political party or religion or for any other reason, you simply do not belong in a position on a Court whose very building trumpets "Equal Justice Under Law".
Privilege defends inequality. It should never shield one from accountability and should absolutely never give anyone the right to sit in judgment over another.
That is more fundamental than Judge Kavanaugh's teenage actions, propensity to use the drug alcohol to disastrous effect or his political leanings.
Merrick Garland, Koch brothers and Mercer family buying elections, making the EPA useless, Spending 770 b on the military this year, creating a space force, gerrymandering, subsidizing coal and cutting out wind and solar, not doing anything on infrastructure. creating a "market approach", meaning subsidizing the biggest with tax cuts, while the rest of us get 35% taxes taken out of our earnings. Yes, the road to national ruin is here, rich boy.
2
They are both telling the truth. She remembers an event and he doesn't remember the event. But he didn't remember the event the day after it occurred as it likely meant so little to him.
1
I have a visceral reaction to character assassination. I have always felt -- and I felt this way during the Clarence Thomas hearings -- that it is almost impossible to get your reputation back, once it is lost. In the theatre of political drama, there are high stakes. Both parties have much to lose. There could be many things concealed from ordinary citizens such as myself. What, really, do we know? Only what we are shown. So I've had to rely on my instincts. In this case, after watching both witnesses on Thursday, I felt myself believing fervently in Dr. Ford. There was such raw pain, such a genuine lack of selfishness, in her testimony. Anita Hill, calm, aloof, left me cold. She may very well have been telling the truth. But this felt different. On the opposite side, Brett Kavanaugh seemed like a spoiled, outraged child being deprived of his nightly ice cream. He evaded questions. He threw questions back, using all the nasty tricks in his lawyer bag. He ranted. He raved. And he lost me. That's where your article falls apart, Bret. Some things can't be given over to cool judiciousness. It is time to put politics away, and do the right thing.
1296
@catgirl54
Clarence Thomas survived, as he's on the SC. The Mayer/Abrahamson book proved he lied. History is judging, as it gets the last word after the circus leaves town.
2
Stephens points are well taken. Though I 'believe' we're on different sides of the political fence his reasoning often impresses me. But I think there's a more fundamental reason for Judge Kavanaugh to be rejected; and that is simply that these hearings are not a criminal trial, no loss of liberty or punishment is at stake. Decisions here are not required, and should not be required, to be BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. They need only be based on
the perception of character, of demeanor and of forthrightness. We are appointing someone who will be making judgements that will affect all of our lives. We need to have a faith in them. If there is credible evidence to doubt that faith, then they should never be given that power.
1
This is simple. This is a job interview, not a judicial proceeding to try someone for a crime. This about making the best choice, based on the best information at hand. The committee should be judging a person's fitment for a job.
We can strip all of rancor and upset and look Mr. Kavanaugh's testimony to see that he is unfit to serve as a Supreme Court Justice. It is problematic that M. Kavanaugh rolled out a Trumpism that promotes the notion that Democrats, burned by the 2016 loss and burned by the loss happened to Hillary Clinton, along with millions of dollars, were gathered together into a deep state effort to keep him out. This is fantastical.
He was impertinent and mocking of those who asked him about his drinking habits even though that lay at the center of allegation made by Dr. Ford.
But the most telling instances were where he could not express support for more FBI background investigations. I suppose he is afraid of having the facts revealed to all for consideration.
Critical periods in lives occur to everybody in life. Difficult times do not test our character, they reveal it. Any number of allegations could be the basis of the last few days of high-level contention. His behavior was very revealing.
Kavanaugh is a bad bet and bad choice. We can do better. Move on to another nominee.
1
A great piece, Mr Stephens. This is one of the few thoughtful writings I have read in the Times on this topic in a while.
The problem here is that while Kavanaugh seemed believable, it also seems he lied or obfuscated about his drinking and about the meaning of his yearbook and calendar pages.
This needs to be checked, Do we want a Justice who lied to the Senate in his confirmation hearing.
1
Three strikes, you're out, Bret. I'm done with you on this issue.
The question is whether Kavanaugh is worthy to be on the Supreme Court.
His hyper-partisanship -- on display in his testimony as well as throughout his career -- as well as his temperament and demeanor have no place on a Court whose legitimacy depends upon the perception that it is above politics and partisanship. That reputation has of course been in danger for some time now. Kavanaugh would be the final death of the very foundation of its legitimacy.
And I cannot fathom or believe the equivalence of 'believability' you see between the two testimonies.
Kavanaugh offered nothing more than a bald denial mixed with (increasingly obvious, based upon testimony of his classmates) lies about his own behavior and character, as well as evasion, dissembling, temper tantrums, attacks on his questioners rather than answers, and so on.
This was all the more evident in contrast to Dr. Blasey Ford's testimony, like night and day. Not just in 'believability,' but in substance and honesty.
He displayed the behavior not just of the type of entitlement that would fit with the behavior of his several accusers, but also the behavior of an addict. There are still unanswered questions about his magically disappearing and mysterious debts, and so on.
He is not entitled to this seat, and it is not being 'taken' from him by partisan tricks. He has to show that he is worthy of it.
He has not and he is not.
5
From a list of reasons Mr. Kavanaugh is unfit to hold the position for which he is being considered, should it come down to the sole issue of his believability versus Dr. Blasey Ford? I think not. Here's just one that is not even mentioned: TV commercials have been running in support of his becoming a Supreme Court Justice. Why is no one questioning the urgency of corporate interests to elevate this man to the SCOTUS? Do you honestly believe he would be an independent arbiter of cases involving their interests? As Mr. Kavanaugh himself counseled his interrogators, apply the common sense test.
1
So Mr. Stephens, if Justice Kagan or Sotomayor had railed in their hearings about the GOP, about any GOP issues and grudges they might have. If they had laid down their hand as to how all future decisions might be colored, should their nominations have continued? I surmise you would consider them disqualified and rightly so. Although I chose the most recent appointees by a Democratic President they happen to be women. It would it have been unacceptable for a woman to present herself in the same manner period. Our integrity is at stake when we continue to apply double standards.
Thank you, Mr. Stephens, for laying bare the conservative bottom line: justice doesn't matter; winning does.
4
The Republicans sewed the seeds of destruction when they denied Merrick Garland a hearing. Then in 2018, the Republicans rewrote the Senate rules to prevent a filibuster of Neil Gorsuch. The filibuster was too often abused. But it did serve to prevent a slim majority in the Senate from taking raw partisan action the public did not support.
In the Kavanaugh hearing they are feeling a stiff breeze. If they that ignore that freshening breeze and pack the Supreme Court with Kavanaugh or another right-wing ideologue, that breeze will increase to a gale force wind. In 2021, they will reap the whirlwind of destruction. They will have left a Democratic majority with only one option to restore balance to the Supreme Court -- increase the number of justices and appoint two partisan Democrats to the Supreme Court.
2
FAILURE OF OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM
The underlying problem is that many Americans are not educated or disciplined enough to replace belief structures foisted on them with efforts to ascertain fact or truth.
That so many can be led like sheep into the kinds of conspiracy theories peddled on both the right and the left is a failure of our education system.
It is time for a society-saving investment in grade-school training for how to tell fact from opinion and how to recognize propaganda for what it is.
I fear that the evangelical threads in parts of our society work to train people to accept things "on faith" instead of on the basis of discoverable fact. Inn other words, religious training creates a gullibility that Fox News and the Koch Brothers can exploit to sway elections....
3
Dear Bret:
Throughout history, Americans have died on many hills of battle to advance Justice, Moral Standing, Freedom, and to defeat those who would not honor nor subscribe to these beliefs and values.
This is one of those times, a battle cry from Americans that there yet remains another hill to scale, to perhaps die on, to protect and advance the values that past generations died for. We must not now or ever drop our American Battle Flag.
I am sure there are many conservative women from many different social and cultural walks of life who are perfectly qualified for a judgeship on the Supreme Court. Republicans could save face, and even increase their chances in the midterms by pulling his nomination and replace him by her. But they are too entrenched in Trumpian thinking to make a rational decision that could benefit them and the republic.
I strongly disagree with the statement that "What happened Thursday should not prevent Kavanaugh’s confirmation".
His emotionalism and willingness to inject personal political animus into a discussion are grounds enough to not confirm this person.
Coupled with his unwillingness to accept that his drinking episodes could have included "blackout" periods shows a remarkable ability to deny the known reality of heavy drinking and the conclusion to reject his nomination become stronger still. Those that deny they could have experienced "blackout" episodes during heavy drinking are simply engaged in self deception.
We expect Judges, certainly Supreme Court Justices, to be able to exhibit self control in emotionally charged situations and set aside their own personal beliefs and to be firmly rooted in "reality".
2
Believability is all we've got Mr. Stephens because this has not been done properly. The original FBI investigation only went as far back as 1994. And now the new investigation will be limited in time and scope. How can we base our views on anything but believability if a thorough background investigation is not done?
Regardless, what has happened is that we've seen a side of Brett Kavanaugh that we hadn't previously and, to me, and many others, it does not look good. This is the most important piece of the puzzle in my mind at the moment. he did not handle himself like someone who should get a lifetime appointment to one of the most important positions in this country.
3
It's true that Thursday's hearing didn't change many people's priors about who was telling the truth. But it made clear that one side is interested in getting as many facts as possible, while the other is interested in minimizing facts in order to get this over with as soon as possible.
It's true that a thorough F.B.I. investigation could have been completed weeks ago if Senator Feinstein had revealed the allegations earlier, violating Dr. Ford's requested anonymity. It also could have been completed by now if Senate Republicans had requested one as soon as they heard the allegations rather than reassuring everyone that they would go forward with the confirmation on schedule regardless of the new information.
It's true that democracy will suffer if unsubstantiated allegations are routinely used to block judicial nominees for reasons that are really pure partisanship (and the Republicans on the committee know all about blocking judicial nominees for reasons that are really pure partisanship -- consider not just Merrick Garland but the entire Obama administration). But neither should such allegations be dismissed lightly on the assumption that they can't be substantiated: that too smacks of pure partisanship.
Regardless of the truth of Dr. Ford's allegations, Brett Kavanaugh showed a temperament that would immediately disqualify any female nominee, and that will call into question his impartiality on any partisan issue for his entire tenure on the bench.
2
I understand Mr. Stephens overall point and think he provides a good counter argument to the proceedings, but there are some important issues to consider. First, the GOP has been fighting dirty for many years and it is about time that a Senator, like Feinstein, did something to counter, without breaking the rules. Plus, by all accounts, Blasey told Feinstein to hold the information, so Feinstein was simply following the request. Second, these are Senate hearings, not criminal proceedings. This is exactly how the US works and this is what has been done for a long time. The GOP has been overreacting to the political left for many years, all the way back to McCarthy and before. Third, the Founders created the Supreme Court to be a disinterested party. Kavanaugh's attempt at defense was horrific partisanship by a judicial candidate. The Senate will do well to keep Kavanaugh out.
2
You’re right; believability is not enough, likability is not enough. I guess what is enough is is a well-rehearsed, violence fueled performance of an entitled prep school boy who showed how low the bar is to get a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. There are many fine conservative candidates available to Trump but not many that show the love and fealty to him. Kavanaugh showed a partisanship, a love of conspiracies that could only be topped by his patron. This is what will lurk behind every decision he makes, what will follow him around for ever, thanks to his performance.
2
The timeline matters here. Feinstein says that she did not bring the issue forward earlier because of the expressed preference of Blasey. Therefore, if this is some sort of conspiracy, one must believe that either Blasey is in on it, Feinstein should have defied her wishes and brought it up earlier anyway, or Feinstein could have brought it up sooner with Blasey's approval.
Yet there are two additional things that deserve mention:
First, whatever the timing, this is no more politically pernacious that what the Republican leadership pulled on the Garland nomination. And at least there is a larger social issue being adressed.
Second, from what I saw of Kavanaugh's behavior during the hearing, this is a man who should not be in a position of judicial authority at all, much less on the highest court with a lifetime appointment.
6
I agree with Mr. Stephens. Believe should not be the basis for a decision as important as the one involved in the confirmation of Bret Kavanaugh. Before I watch Kavanaugh, I would have voted for him. But after I watched his contemptuous remarks, his anger, his composure fall apart, his demeanor fall from grace. I would not support his nomination, not on any belief, but on the fact that this man has shown me a petty character underneath his polished masked. His True Self showed up...and has a lot of undigested shadows.
8
Of course, no one should automatically believe an accuser. So, how about this: the Republicans better examine their candidates. All of the claims were clearly knowable in advance. Feinstein waited far too long...but the GOP could have vetted these claims well in advance with a thorough investigation. They did not. They could adhere to their old line that character matters. They did not. They could have sought the truth. They did not. They could have acted as if they cared about how the nominees conducted himself. They did not. They are the party in power. Instead, they tried to ram through a candidate who clearly revealed himself to be a spoiled kid with a strong sense of entitlement. His clearly lacked judicial sensibilities and demeanor once his entitlement was challenged. Truth is knowable. Mr. Stephens has bought into the idea that it's merely subjective.
2
At this point, in my opinion the primary issue is not "believability." Kavanaugh demonstrated a temperament that was defensive and angry, even out of control at times, not that of the highest court in the land. What woman would have been confirmed after that demonstration? The lies he told are reason enough for not confirming him. No Republican senator has questioned Dr. Ford's "believability." But they (Graham specifically) have clarified that they are intent upon confirming their nominee before the midterm elections at all costs. Evidence - or believability - does not matter. The Supreme Court is no longer a third branch of government, but an arm of the Senate.
Mitch McConnell owns a large part of the blame for this debacle. Remember when he said that the main goal of the Republicans was to keep Obama a one term president? In other works, let us not work together to solve the problems our nation needs to solve. And further when a Supreme Court nomination came up he refused to put Merrick Garland's name forward for over a year. I came away feeling that the Republican party had become partisans over Americans, bad men. I am further shocked by Trump, who could be a Russian agent, who continues to poke the majority in the eye while he enjoys minority rule. This is simple straightforward poisonous partisanship. In the past it was left at the door by the Supreme Court and the Senate and at least was attempted by the presidency. If there are sins against our democracy, they were minor until now. But your point is well taken, as Lincoln said "A house divided cannot stand". Partisan-ish politics is accepted, but not this, because we are not a dictatorship or a one party rule country, yet.
It’s just a job interview, not a trial. There is no presumption of innocence and proof isn’t necessary.
So say liberals.
This is dangerous and terrifying on several levels.
It encourages people to make unprovable allegations. If they are based on vague, decades-old memories, they can be neither proven nor disproven.
As such, if anyone wants to hurt someone for any reason, they can use such an allegation made to the media and/or employer. They can destroy a person’s livelihood and ability to support themselves. They can wipe out the value of years of education, training, experience, and sacrifice with a single unprovable allegation.
Moreover, it incents people to be first to make an allegation. The first person making an allegation tends to be believed. If the accused makes a counter-allegation, it is suspect because it could just be for revenge and deflection.
It also incents people to make extreme allegations, which will have more impact than minor ones. After all, both are equally unprovable.
The cost/benefit balance of this new standard of justice is frightening. Massive damage can be done with no need for expensive lawyers and time-consuming court appearances. Accusers face no perjury danger because they aren’t under oath and are simply recalling memories instead of citing facts.
If the need for proof and the presumption of innocence are discarded, even for a job, society will soon enter a very dark time.
3
Aside from the allegations and expected denials heard Thursday, what are we to make of Brett Kavanaugh’s belligerence, bristling hostility and outright disrespect toward the process and those conducting it? His irrational rant of conspiracy, revenge of the Clintons and a plot by Democrats, in general, calls into question any ability to act with the needed temperance, wisdom and impartiality. When accepting a nomination for a position such as this, one must accept what comes with it: an investigation and hard and sometimes embarrassing questions about the past, and, then, the duty to respond truthfully, graciously and willingly, even to skeptics, even to members of a different political party. He is not entitled to the job because he was nominated; the committee has a constitutional obligation to determine his qualifications, whatever that might involve. Brett Kavanaugh clearly couldn’t handle the idea of criticism or the questions into his background with the needed grace and dignity, let alone clarity of thought. After his opening screed, his answers were alternately rambling, evasive, off point, sarcastic and childishly defiant. He left no doubt as to his deeply felt partisanship and utter lack of judicial temperament. We don’t need to address which individual between Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford we believe. We need only to have observed this appalling performance to know he is profoundly unfit for the promotion he seeks.
4
With all due respect, this is just some pseudo-analytical garbage. We are a nation of laws, Mr. Stephens. It does not matter who we believe. We need to ascertain the facts, which is why the FBI Investigation demanded by the Democrats matters. And yes, you can ascertain the facts, even in old cases; or at least make an effort at due diligence.
Kavanaugh is a metaphor for the sad state of the Republican Party. That party long ago succumbed to a fringe element called Conservatism, something that most people in the US find deeply unpopular because it means voting against their (mostly economic) interests (e.g. healthcare).
That fringe element is authoritarian. Republicans think that the rules are for the "others". You saw it in the exchange between Amy Klobuchar and Kavanaugh on the drinking issue. Far from any semblance of judicial temperament, Kavanaugh revealed just who he was, a partisan culture warrior disinterested in "fair and balanced" and more interested in trashing the Clintons.
But more than authoritarian, the Republican Party seeks to divide through fear and intimidation. That came through loud and clear not only with Kavanaugh's attitude, but with the way the Republicans structured the hearing; a second rate star chamber, with a prosecutor seeking to examine Ford not unlike a criminal defendant.
In a democratic society, nobody should really care who we believe in these matters. We believe in facts, something sadly missing from the Republican Party.
3
For a high position that holds such sway over our lives, even the hint of impropriety, no matter the vintage, MUST be sufficient to torpedo a nominee. Period. Like all of us, Kavanaugh has the right to free speech. The right to association. The right to defend himself against criminal charges. A jury of his peers. The right to confront accusers. But this isn’t criminal court. Miranda does not apply. Representation does not attach. And so, he needs to step aside or be pushed. He has no more abstract right to be a SC nominee than I have to be the starting pitcher for the Yankees. And I can’t hit the side of a barn with a basketball from 30 feet.
3
Using fear that woman coming forward to demand equality will tear the country apart and lead to the decline of the country is a weak and partisan argument that flies in the face of our history. If we fear the truth and the search for truth then maybe Stephens is right. But voting against an angry man is not one reason to think the U.S. has anything to fear.
1
This is NOT an issue of believing one party or the other as Mr. Stephens would lead us to believe. Nor did they "treat the allegations as fact" when they and the witnesses repeatedly asked the FBI to investigate. Kavenaugh has a believability problem he created all on his own and that alone should disqualify him from any kind of judgeship, regardless of pedigree. The real norms broken here were the refusals to allow an FBI investigation and the ram rod approach of Senators Grassley and McConnell - which I may point out, is not unlike the kind of abuse of power intrinsic in sexual abuse cases where those in power do what they want simply because they can, so matter how unfair or unjust.
2
So, let me understand this correctly: The Democrats, for fear they may be perceived as purveyors of the politics of truthiness, must concede the Kavanaugh nomination, whereas the Republicans, who are becoming the party of truthiness itself, must be conceded to in the interest of 'fair play?'
Give me a break, Bret.
1
Interesting Stephens finds Kavanaugh believable; Kavanaugh did not answer many questions, seemed uncomfortable with an FBI investigation, and appeared to not give factually correct answers for other questions. Interesting Stephens wants confirmed when he does not show the proper temperament for a judge and clearly looks at life through a deeply partisan lens.
2
But unless you're a God or very, very lucky, every reaction to these complex challenges will miss the mark (over or under). The trick for liberal democracies is to make sure that no one gets control over the process in a way that obviates the ability of the "other side" to correct the inevitable errors.
The GOP is trying to control the process right now, to use their temporary death grip on government to manipulate and ensure their error-filled agenda. In that, lies ruin for their party or revolution.
1
Did Mr. Stephens not find Judge Kavanaughs assertion that 'the Clintons' were behind all of this even a little disturbing? Where was the evidence for such an emotional outburst? Isn't evaluating and citing 'evidence' fundamental in making legal decisions? Whether we 'believe' her testimony isn't the only issue here any longer. It was his behavior that called his abilities to be a fair and wise Supreme Court Justice into question.
1
There is another solution which Stephens ignores. Get rid of the nuclear option implemented by the Republicans and return to needing 60 or even 2/3rds Senate votes for confirmation. It would get rid of the ridiculous partisan and political nominations and result in selection of judges that are more central and open to the views of both the left and the right. Judges would be selected by both parties on the basis of their jurisprudence skills rather than their political allegiances. Such nominations may someday heal the deep wounds the nomination of Kavanaugh has opened.
About Kavanaugh, you "found him wholly believable." Even when he said there was nothing he ever didn't remember after drinking? This is critical, because it seems the most plausible explanation for the discrepancy in his and Ford's testimony is that he does not remember.
1
If Judge Kavanaugh was a viable, if highly partisan, choice, he lost that viability after his televised rant. I can understand being angry, but I don't think that anger springs from being falsely accused, but from being challenged. His inability to maintain a reasonable semblance of judicial decorum did not inspire confidence. Someone mentioned he was channeling a lot of Blanche DuBois, furious and tearful that his facade as a learned gentleman was being publicly shredded.
1
Bret Stephens is a product of the same elite private school culture as Kavanaugh. He found the "angry, wounded" Kavanaugh believable, and I imagine that an innocent man wrongly accused could be quite plausible. Unfortunately, it's also a very possible reaction for a guilty man found out. What can hardly be doubted is that he lied repeatedly about small things - his drinking, the meaning of the "Renate alumnius" slur, as well as such terms as "devil's triangle" and "boof." He also dodged and filibustered on practically every substantive question.
Even more telling was the exposure of the bitterly partisan conspiracy theorist. Guilty or innocent, he doesn't belong on the Supreme court.
4
Let's assume for a moment the Democrats have been playing a cynical game the whole time. That they're trying to thwart the will of the party that won the last election. Okay, that "win" was the result of a system specifically designed by the framers of the Constitution to protect slavery, and to prevent the childlike sweaty masses from having a say in the adult business of political governance. The electoral college put Trump in office in defiance of the popular vote. WY has the same number of senators as CA, because 18th Century slave states wanted to prevent more populated non-slave states from using the federal government to outlaw slavery. And the GOP can argue that it's fair, since they are just playing by the rules as written, and elections have consequences. Well, the election of 2012 should have had consequences, and the GOP chose to ignore the rules and refused to even consider the appointment of Merrick Garland. So, if the rules are rigged to ignore the will of the majority of its citizens, and then even the rules themselves can be ignored when it's convenient, then why should anyone respect the rules? The good news is that the GOP looks desperate. They are frantically trying to plant as many booby traps as they can in the judiciary before 2020, since they won't have control of any elected branches of the federal government after the next general election.
You say “it will have much to do with the perception that Democrats never intended a fair process to begin with, toward either the nominee or his accuser”. When I read this the name Merrick Garland came to mind. This destructive nomination process that we are going through has clearly been fermenting over a long period of time but a certain amount of civility was maintained. When Mitch McConnell and the Republicans refused to extend the curtesy of meeting with a Presidential nominee they were the ones who placed the grease on the sad slide that we currently find ourselves on.
8
I'm sorry.
I must have read this too quickly. I didn't catch the part where you discussed the Republicans' refusal to consider Obama's nominee for the SCOTUS for over a year citing the upcoming election for president as some kind of justification. I don't want to read it all again. So could you please just clarify your position on that anti-Constitutional move on the part of Mitch McConnell and what role such illegal actions the Republicans are engaging in might over and over again might be contributing to the tearing up of the country, tit for tat, as it were?
4
Your critique of Democrats in this matter is unnecessary. Being from San Francisco Diane Feinstein career of public service since she was a city supervisor has been a constant through my life. She may have made a bad call holding onto the information but accusing her of being cynical is just wrong.
Whatever you want to chastise Democrats for in this process, you then need to double down or triple down on Republicans. The real mistake Democrats made was trying to filibuster Neil Goesuch. By going nuclear knowing full well McConnel would eliminate the filibuster was a huge mistake. If you look at aan alternative universe where the filibuster was still in play there are so many ways that Kavanaugh’a nomination could have been stalled or scuttled:
1. The president may have never put forth his nomination since Dems would block him due to his views on presidential power.
2. Dems could have used the threat of the filibuster to get alll the documents that they wanted to see when Kavanaugh worked for Bush
3. The anonymous letter at the time from Blasy Ford could have been revealed to GOP committeee members and with the threat of filibuster, it could have forced Teump”s hand to pick another nominee.
4. And laatly , if we found ourselves exactly where we were two weeks ago, the GOP would have had no choice but to start an FBI investigation due to the threat of a filibuster.
The filibuster when used properly is an incredibly valuable to our democratic process.
Yes, bro, the hearings should because Kavanaugh revealed himself to be utterly without judicial temperament. He lives in a world where conspire theories lead to lifelong grudges that have made him bitter and angry.
1
"I watched him — meticulous, wounded, furious (wouldn’t you be, too, if you were innocent of such an accusation?)"
Not necessarily. I have interviewed many people who were outraged and defiant even as they were being disciplined for proven misdeeds. It was usually the ones who were ultimately proven innocent who presented as calm and restrained. And straightforward.
I believe that the rage we are seeing is not the end of democracy as we know it but the beginning of the end of the coordinated takeover of the United States by zealots and con artists.
The rage that will also hopefully impede the sale of our government to dark interests and profiteers in mid-transaction.
If, Mr. Stephens, you widen your view to take in the true scale of the struggle currently underway, you may understand that this Supreme Court charade is only a small part of the larger truth.
The truth that the republican party, as it is currently constituted, is the greatest threat to our democracy in generations.
3