Restraint from the president? I guess you wrote this before he went to Mississippi.
2
Breaking News:
"Two former law school classmates of Brett Kavanaugh’s who previously vouched for him wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday to say they are withdrawing their support for him because of “the nature” of his recent testimony.
“Under the current circumstances, we fear that partisanship has injected itself into Judge Kavanaugh’s candidacy,” Michael J. Proctor and Mark Osler say in a letter to Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the committee’s chairman and ranking member, respectively. “That, and the lack of judicial temperament displayed on September 27 hearing, cause us to withdraw our support.”
His support is evaporating; even his friends and fellow Yalies do not want the man they now see as a Supreme Court Justice.
6
Ross, the good Catholic, defending Kavanaugh, the good Catholic, carries no weight. Has he checked the trouble the Roman Catholic Church is in for decades of sexual abuse, lying, cover-ups, and payoffs.? Seems like Kavanaugh is a chip off the old Catholic school block.
4
Kavanaugh and Trump are brothers under the skin and the apotheosis of the white, privileged male in this country after whom the other white males, who have no money or position, lust. Unfortunately, neither of these guys will do much to give Joe Average a hand up because he is in the wrong class. For Republicans the only truly elite and entitled class is the wealthy and they invest mightily in the Party to make sure it pays them back. Nothing can redeem the Republican Party if they give Kavanaugh a pass because he is as unfit for the Court as Trump is for the Presidency.
6
"I am just a little skeptical of how his critics, in a culture where almost everyone (myself included) drank a lot in college, are assessing Kavanaugh’s attempts to deny — again, in a prove-a-negative-situation — that his drinking made him a potential blackout rapist." I am so sad to hear new levels of vitriol voiced by fellow Americans for whom this sort of caustic viciousness doesn't fit well. Where is this coming from? Guilty until proven innocent? Men, shut up? Women never lie? Perhaps some people will get the chance to see "To Kill a Mockingbird" when it opens on Broadway. Our history in literature tells us to be cautious. Think of "Of Mice and Men." Trump who can normally be relied up to throw gasoline on a fire has shown himself to be both compassionate and principled. He has stood by Mr. K and remembered what is important: no man and his family should be destroyed over unsubstantiated charges. Lindsey Graham, too, has seen things in proper perspective. Trust but verify, as Ronald Reagan once said. The crowds foaming at the mouth, throwing acid, mailing poisons, and making death threats can not be our guide. All individuals must be protected. Mob rule is the end of democracy. Reread the Russians! Remember Solzhenitsyn.
4
I was against putting Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court before Ford's accusation because, after suggesting humiliating questions for Bill Clinton he says a sitting President cannot be subpoenaed or indicted. What about the constitutional requirement for 3 independent branches of government? He would put a sitting President above the law! Could that be why Trump chose Kavanaugh? I believe Ford, but without more evidence from 30 years ago, Kavanaugh cannot be convicted of sexual assault. But Ford did us a great service in coming forward: we got a demonstration of Kavanaugh's entitlement, anger, partisanship, and his taste for conspiracy theory. She did her civic duty. I thank her,
6
Neither of you made the connection to the central issue, which is not whether Kavanaugh drank beer but whether he attempted to rape Christine Blasey Ford. Alcohol is a bit player in this drama. I haven't heard anything about the impact on her life, and the unbearable thought (and associated pain) that goes with her realizing that while has suffered lifelong trauma her assailant has moved breezily along in life, unscathed and oblivious, ever the golden boy.
And what does "inability to prove a negative" mean? Every accused felon is faced with the need to "prove a negative." Drink is one of the circumstantial proofs that points to Kavanaugh's guilt. That's why lying about it is the best possible defense--lying, coupled with righteous anger. Happens every day in courts all over America. Though not usually to the judge, I guess.
2
"Let’s stop the litigating there "
What do you expect to happen when someone makes accusations from a political podium of criminal behavior ?
Bruni would rather we all believed Ford in what little she could remembers.
Maybe the title of "blackout drunk" belongs to another in this play the Democrats orchestrated?
There is a time and place for everything. This new strategy, the questioning of temperament, is disingenuous at best. Kavanaugh has never shown a problem with temperament sitting on the bench. Being attacked by an organized smear machine using information and methods designed not just to discredit him as a jurist, but to ruin his honor, his marriage, and his esteem in the eyes of his own daughters, is another context and situation entirely. Jesus whipped the money changers, showing that there is a time for righteous indignation. For the left to go scorched earth and attack Kavanaugh as a serial rapist should make us all question their temperament and wonder what they would do to the rest of us, if the need be. Instead, the Democrats have the unmitigated gall to use his natural and proportionate reaction to an unjust smear of their making against him. I suppose in a town with no shame, this is possible. Any possible avenue to keep that court seat blue, even though it shouldn't be political at all, is the end for which any means is justified. But millions of fathers and mothers look at his response to the attempted assassination of his standing in his own home, and see a man with a spine and a willingness to stand in the door between the wolves and innocent people he is willing to die to protect.
2
Just at a dinner party and the consensus is clearly, Brett did something bad, some form of assault, very much in the way men treated women in the 1980’s. Drunk, entitled frat boy forcing his way onto a friend, and he may not even remember it, This is a cross section of Republican Gorsuch supporters and Liberals, men and women. I think only the culture warriors are as crazed about this as the authors suggest. Women have rightly been upset by the presidency for a long time, and sadly the men shrug. This will soon pass and the culture warriors will continue to hate each other, feel indignant and threatened, but the country will not change because of it.
3
More breaking news ...
"More than 500 law professors from nearly 100 law schools around the nation have signed a letter to the U.S. Senate to say that the volatile temperament Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed on Thursday as he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee disqualifies him from sitting on the nation’s highest court.
“We regret that we feel compelled to write to you to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on Thursday, September 27, 2018, the Honorable Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land,” the letter says. "
The letter is open for further signatures, too.
This letter is unprecedented -- never been anything like it before.
Kavanaugh cannot survive this ... he'll be forced to withdraw.
One consequence of any lawyer signing such a letter is that it creates the automatic presumption of prejudice if that lawyer represents a case before the SCOTUS. This could work two ways -- someone bringing a case to the court might avoid one of these lawyers, but it also creates an opportunity to demand that Kavanaugh recuse himself.
7
Kavanaugh would be confirmed by now if he had a) simply admitted to excessive drinking in HS and college; b) admitted that it is plausible that he blacked out and does not remember the alleged incident by Dr. Ford and c)sincerely apologized to Dr. Ford and the American people. Then he could have asked the senators to vote their conscience after carefully weighing his transgressions as an adolescent with his (to the republican eyes, anyways!) impeccable record of public service. Had he done that, I suspect all the Republican senators would have voted for him! The simplest and best strategy always is to speak the truth and hope for the best! Instead, he dissembled in very obvious ways.
9
What concerns me is the way he attempted to refute the charges - by claiming that his excellent academics, athletics and good relationships as an adult with women meant he couldn't possibly have been a mean or aggressive drunk who thought it would be funny to take off a girl's bathing suit.
To me Ross, it frankly speaks to a conservative rigidness of thinking - dividing things into good and evil, with no shades of gray, of refusing to concede that even basically "good" people can do things that have terrible consequences that they didn't necessarily intend but that nevertheless had ramifications.
Kavanaugh has NO right to be outraged, because he did drink too much on many occasions, and teenagers do stupid things when they are drunk. For him to state categorically that he NEVER had trouble remembering what he did, to pretend that he was being solicitous of Ms. Blasey Ford even as he was suggesting she was manipulated by Democrats and her story was made up, to claim he never even mingled in her social circles, to cite Mr. Judge as proof and then accuse Democrats of wanting to drag in a man with mental health issues - all this shows an arrogance and ruthless determination to prevail that I would never hope to have in a judge with such power over people's lives.
10
I'd call myself slightly right of center, and an independent voter. I frankly think that belonging to either party automatically makes you a bit tribal. I tend to subscribe to the notion that only people are people.
That aside, Neil Gorsuch, Antonin Scalia, etc. are perhaps a bit too right-leaning for me, but they are and were clearly expert and gifted in their chosen professions.
Brett Kavanaugh is brilliant. But that isn't the sole feature set for a Justice of the Supreme Court. One should at least deign to pretend to take in consideration of both sides and fairly work to a decision. Not the opposite - have a position and try to work the circumstances of the case towards it, if plausibly possible. When you spend years trying to take down a President (believe me, I'm no Bill or Hillary Clinton fan) in a manner that was clearly capricious, objectivity and fairness are not part of your doctrine.
And spewing with such anger about revenge for the Clintons truly exposes Kavanaugh for what he is - a highly intelligent, capable, political hack of a lawyer.
The constant deflections about obvious underage drinking, meanings of obvious concepts (i.e. "skis") of rather trivial things makes you really wonder what else of significance is being hidden when Dr. Ford, et al, begin to tell their experiences. From that perspective alone, if the likes of Kavanaugh were presented by a Democratic President to a Democratic Senate, the GOP would be rightfully outraged. I would be, too.
13
Most people matured after high school. Brett Kavanaugh did on the outside, but not the inside. He's a risky choice for the Supreme Court.
12
I had fun in college without puking every weekend (or ever, actually). I also maintained a good GPA and graduated with honors from a Public Ivy. This idea that college is all about drinking...maybe for rich kids.
18
Mr. Douthat's statement that the high court's jurisprudence has been a moral disaster for this country might have a remote chance at credibility if he had his own reproductive freedom or at risk in the Supreme Court's reproductive case law. As usual, he opines from some remote philosophical position and is usually offended by any deviation from what he perceives as the correct point of view. Gee, that reminds me of another angry white guy or two who are making headlines these days.
19
If Ross thinks that overturning R vs W is going to end abortion in the US, he is entering into new realms of the delusional. Back before RvW, the rich girls had no problems: they would be sent off to private clinics in foreign countries. The poor girls would go see Dr. Feelgood and his collection of semi-sterile coat-hangers. Many did not survive.
21
@David or, how lovely, the church nuns would send the babies to Catholic orphanages where we now know they were treated like slaves, starved, abused, and buried in mass graves by the nuns. Years and years of suffering and abuse and misery and loneliness and torture and pederasty..Nice Ross, that is your Catholic preference..Why is your religion not that of the devil?
10
If DJT and Mitch McConnell were true patriots who actually cared about our Constitution and our justice system they would withdraw Brett Kvanaugh’s nomination. Then they would nominate Merrick Garland, who would most likely sail through the confirmation process with near unanimous approval. DJT could bask in his own magnificent magnanimity; and McConnell could start scheming on the next vacancy. Sadly, both men care more about “winning” than about the country, so this never happen. Too bad, because it would go a long way toward healing the rancor and bitterness surrounding the confirmation process.
9
Seriously, Murkowski and Collins really want to vote for Kavanaugh because they don’t want a more conservative nominee? Who on earth could be more conservative, Kim Jong-un?
10
The truth is the FBI is not going to provide proof positive. At best it will show plausibility. Rachel Mitchell's statement proves nothing except it would be difficult to prosecute . What she didn't say is that its typical of many assaults and it doesn't necessarily mean the victim isn't telling the truth, nor does it mean the prosecutor doesn't believe the victim. Ask yourself if you remember every time you and your friends got together and what you did each time or if you were ever mean or teasing to someone? It would be remarkable if you could remember even if it didn't involve alcohol. The whole interaction between Ford, Kavanaugh and Judge probably lasted 5 if that long. Time stopped for Dr. Ford but not for the rest of the group who continued normal activities. The times you remember are most likely when something specific happened like Dr. Ford. It is a very simple truth. Unlike pretending one he will remain unbiased after threatening "What comes around goes around"?
2
If Kavanaugh goes down, I suggest this "grand bargain" to reduce the GOP and Democratic divide in the Senate: Kavanaugh's nomination is rescinded and Trump then nominates Merrick Garland for the "centrist" position vacated by Kennedy. Garland is much more centrist than most others Obama could have appointed, specifically to appeal to GOP senators, who approved him overwhelmingly for the federal bench. Nominating him would heal the stonewalling McConnell did for 10 months in not even considering his nomination by Obama, while putting another Trump nominee on the court and ridding GOP of Kavanaugh embarrassment (and unfit temperament for court). It would also help in restoring the previous balance on the court, as Garland was similar to Kennedy. Dems and Repubs could agree to reasonable policies going forward to prevent these blow-ups in the future.
9
Ross, forget the past. What the present shows us, quite clearly, is that modern institutional, elected Republicans hate Democrats, liberals, gays, etc. with a burning, white-hot passion.
They hate their political enemies even more, it seems, than they love their own daughters. It's utterly amazing to behold a tragedy of this scale, and very sobering.
BTW, do you still consider yourself a Republican?
8
Let's face it: Kavanaugh appears to be a sycophant with poor judgment. He had poor judgment in high school, he had poor judgment in college, he had poor judgment in his partisan attacks under Ken Starr, he had poor judgment in assuming that as a white privileged male a Supreme Court judgeship was his right, he had poor judgment by losing his temper with the people that were deciding to hire him. How many breaks is this sycophant going to get? I would certainly not hire him. Who out there would hire an aggressive, belligerent sycophant? Trump? Oh, yeah, I guess he would.
15
Ross and Frank. Together at last. You two just KNOW that something is happening. But you just don't know what it is. Do you, Mr. Jones?
3
At the United States Air Force Academy, the cadets receive instruction about the honor code. The honor code is quite elegant and to the point: "We will not lie, steal or cheat nor tolerate among us anyone who does." One vivid memory I have about this instruction concerned quibbling. If a cadet was asked a direct question and did not provide a direct, honest answer - playing with words or being evasive - shading the truth - it was considered a lie. A lie of this type was grounds for dismissal and the loss of your appointment. What I saw from Judge Kavanaugh when he was being questioned was quibbling. Were he subject to the honor code instilled in Air Force Academy cadets, he would lose his bench appointment and would in no way be considered for the Supreme Court. What messages are being sent by our elected officials to the young men and women at the service academies - our future officers and protectors of this nation? To me, the wrong messages!
14
Interesting conversation. But I don't think Brett Kavanaugh's hearings will be more than a blip on the radar screen that gets replaced by the next thing. It's just Roy Moore redux, where the media finds dirt on a candidate and creates a frenzy.
Sad to see, but it has been a feature of American politics since our founding. See, for example, Mark Twain in his essay "Running for Governor". And the dirt that was flung at Thomas Jefferson.
Many seem to have already moved on. Who would have thought ti would end like this? Not with a bang but a whimper? Or maybe the bang is still to come.
2
Kavanaugh, choose an honorable course and withdraw.
5
"Proving a negative."
Mr. Douthat keeps saying that as if it is a foregone conclusion that he is innocent of the charge. Maybe Mr. Douthat so wants to impose his moral standards on the rest of the country that for him it is a foregone conclusion. But what if he is instead in the position of "disproving a positive." I cannot know. A lie detector might help. But wouldn't it be far easier to nominate someone who does not put us in the position of having to choose what or whom to believe?
Stephens had a column last week that lamented the loss of the presumption of innocence, that we are all in a world of hurt if a mere accusation implies a defacto guilt — as if we were criminally trying Kavanaugh. But I disagree with him: this is an interview and I don't think being "beyond reproach" is an unrealistic standard for someone who will hold one of the nine highest lifetime seats in the land. There are such people out there. One of them was once nominated.
3
It's not just that the Dems don't want a far right justice, like some sort of points in a game. Our lives and our grandchildren's lives are not a game.
Through manipulations of our voting rights, gerrymandering, questionable decisions like Bushv Gore, Citizens Unites, etc, we who vote Dem are stuck with rule by an ultra conservative GOP and their justices like Kav. They will be interpreting our laws to further favor the ultra-rich and ultra-conservatives at the expense of the rest of us for a generation to come (not to mention threatening our ability to combat and adjust to increasingly challenging climate change). All this despite that a majority of our population do NOT support these types of pro-corporate, anti-people policies. They grabbed the power corruptly and are screwing us, making us into serfs, because they are greedy and corrupt. That's why we are mad as hell.
The GOP should really consider the ultimate consequences in our country of shoving their minority values down the majority's throat, while the rich give themselves more tax cuts! I can well imagine another civil war in the next generation because they are so greedy they can't be reasonable.
7
More like what have radical and foolish Dems have done to all of us and to themselves. One who lied about his military service, one who actually abused and fondled a female, and whoever leaked the identity of the accuser. They should pay a massive price, but with their foolish base they won't.
1
Ross- how does being pro-life justify abandoning the basis for the third branch of America's constitutional democracy, i.e. an independent judiciary, or in your words, "the idea that there exists some ideal impartial nonpartisan style of jurisprudence that we can all rally around or even patriotically respect"? Surely we can disagree about specific high court decisions without discarding the entire foundation of the courts in being fair arbiters of our most challenging legal conflicts. Putting an unabashed partisan the likes of which we have never seen before Kavanaugh on the court reduces the SCOTUS to nothing more than a mini-congress.
More troublesome to me is why you seem so unconcerned about overt perjury during a confirmation hearing. What precedent does this set if any candidate can simply lie their way around inconvenient questions?
5
This duet is so terribly self-conscious on the parts of both these men. Douthat seems to be dancing a two-step to keep copacetic with his partner. It is all very inauthentic and it could only happen at the New York Times where news is superfluous to politics.
It wasn't just Senator Klobuchar Kavanaugh dissed. He was extraordinarily rude to Senator Feinstein as well.
Both instances show shocking disregard for the women of this country, women who outrank him and how have been in service to this country for decades.
He is unfit for the position as a judge on the Supreme Court. Period.
12
This notion that something bad, a smear or whatever, has been done TO Kavanaugh is a right wing talking point that must be challenged head on.
The Truth has been done to Kavanaugh. If the truth is a smear, your perspective is deranged.
11
Ross, please. Spare me the sympathy for privileged white males (of which I am one). “Life destroying” accusations? How that work out for Trump? Is his life destroyed? Which senator let us know that Kavanaugh was “attractive,” as if that had anything to do with the matter before us. Ralphing from spicy food? The man lied and equivocated, offering the “weak stomach” argument as evidence that this had nothing to do with beer (which, I hear, he likes). If I came across a similar calendar from your youth would you really try to sell Ralphing at beach week as a reaction to spicy meatballs? Your friends would openly laugh at you.
Kavanaugh is temperamentally unfit, as he clearly demonstrated. But I am disappointed in you. You are as hypocritical as the evangelicals who turn more than there cheek, shading their eyes to venality because you can get an activist judge who champions the one topic that matters most to you. Shame on you. I expect more.
11
Thanks, as always, Ross and Frank, for this excellent section--
Can't we, Ross, all agree as to what a lie is, especially in the context of the confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court justice who must demonstrate steady and impeccable probity and veracity?
A lie is when somebody says something that they know to be untrue.
Didn't, for instance, Mr. Kavanaugh tell us a lie about the humiliating and degrading phrase "Renate Alumnius" in their yearbook? Surely he knew he was telling an untruth.
"Self-interested." "Shading the truth." Putting the best possible face on something." Those, Ross, are euphemisms. They aren't good thinking and they aren't good writing.
Juries in criminal trials are often instructed, "Falsus in omnibus." If anything a witness says is demonstrably untrue, the jury may discount everything that the witness says.
All the same, the standard for criminal exoneration is the lowest possible standard.
By contrast, the standards for a Supreme Court justice--one of the most powerful and prestigious jobs in America--must be extraordinarily high.
The merest likelihood of a question mark must permanently disqualify a nominee. The smallest shadow of the appearance of impropriety must permanently disqualify a nominee.
17
The stupidity envolved is enormous, but I'm not talking about Trump at all. What does he have to do with any of this anyway?
Why can something to big as a SCOTUS confirmation go through with a simple majority, but other stupid legislation requires 60 votes? It is toally backwards! A SCOTUS confirmation should require 60 votes, and other stupid legislation should require a simple majority.
"In Russia, everything is backwards... I love America..."
Turn it on its head: "In America, everything is backwards... I love ????"
There's no beacon on the hill. It's gone. Goodby, America! It was a nice idea.
2
No, Ross everyone did not drink themselves into oblivion in college. I didn't; my husband didn't; the people we mostly hung out with didn't. We all drank and some of us may have gotten a little tipsy occasionally but we were not junior grade alcoholics. We were not prudes; all of us had relationships that evolved into sexual relationships based most often on, if not everlasting love, then deep connections.
Here's what none of us were: fraternity and sorority members. I never set foot in a frat house after first semester freshman year. Not only were the men and their "little sisters" racist and anti Semitic (except for the Jewish frats; they were just racist) the drinking and pawing at women were just not activities that I thought were the least bit interesting. The final curtain for me was hearing a member of the most prestigious fraternity talk about the night that they gang raped a woman. It was called "pulling train" and when the women he was talking too looked stricken at the thought, he reassured us that it wouldn't have happened to "nice" women like us. This was supposed to make us feel better.
Don't normalize Kavanaugh's high school, college, and law school behavior. Kavanaugh showed himself to most likely still be a drunk and even that he is an angry with no moral compass other than blind ambition. If you think the only qualification that counts is being anti abortion, your morals need a little touch up too.
20
Should the judge, who cannot remember his drunken escapades (I remember many of mine, sadly, and I am much older that Kavanaugh) be confirmed it will only affirm that our courts are tailored not through the Constitution and laws, but by politics and only those who share the same politics can expect to be appointed.
This will lead many to view any rulings from the court as suspect and politically motivated, kinda like Maduro's antics in another banana republic.
6
I don't see this getting a lot better; there's already a backlash, and the GOP response to Kavanaugh's being called upon to account for his youthful behavior is a good example of it. Their attitude is "how dare a woman bring a good man down."
What they don't want to accept is, he brought himself down with his own behavior. So they are dismissing her allegations--and dismissing her, as a flake.
The worst thing is, it might work.
10
I wrote already that, in my opinion, beer-drinking (instead of wine) Kavanaugh is not a gentleman, which is a sufficient and necessary condition for his dismissal or impeachment.
But, to be fair, what have the media done to Kavanaugh? They have awakened his latent aggressive instincts that were probably dormant until the feathers hit the fan. Better than to have a wolf in sheep's fur on the Supreme Court.
4
" about Brett Kavanaugh’s temper, truthfulness and, at this point, epic sense of partisan grievance? He lies, Ross. We now know that. Never lost a memory to too much alcohol? Renate Alumnius?
He asks a question and offers it as truth that "he lies"?
Perhaps he does not actually know that--perhaps he just needs his narrative to be true.Wishes are not proof. For shame.
2
Ross and Frank - thanks again for setting the example for all of us of what civilized discussions between two people with different perspectives on political issues can look like. Now for the Machiavellian prediction you both missed. Collins, Murkowski, and Flake will vote to confirm Kavanaugh and he will become a justice on the Supreme Court. They have a conservative world view and this will please them. They also know, however, that voting to confirm Kavanaugh will so enrage the left that both the House and Senate will flip, the New Democrat majority House will impeach Trump, and the new Dem Senate majority will convict Trump, which will also please Collins, Murkowski, and Flake. This is the ultimate win/win for these 3 - get a conservative justice and get rid of Trump
3
The starting fights in bars as a college student will help him with The Base, though.
4
This insight into conversation of two NYT reporters is interesting in one way, it provides a clear picture of the deep biases of the writers. I'll focus on this: "The thing about being pro-life is that I’ve lived my entire adult life believing that the high court’s jurisprudence has been a moral disaster for American life, which tends to breed a certain … detachment from the idea that there exists some ideal impartial nonpartisan style of jurisprudence that we can all rally around or even patriotically respect." What follows includes the unchallenged views that Ms. Ford's therapist notes would be of some value if disclosed. A Federal restriction on the rights of all women and their partners from making their own decisions on all medical procedures including pregnancy and conception is the most profoundly un-American anti-Freedom idea that appears here yet again. Implementing such a taking away of freedom and liberty is abhorant to democracy, whether done through judicial act or vote. The obsession and constant harping that Roe V Wade caused a moral disaster is a false belief and not sound thinking, it's flawed and invalid. This then, is the resulting morass of morality, politics, WE versus them, human rights and who is to be considered human we have come to? And a claim that the confidential notes of a witness' therapist should be made available to anyone appalling and outrageous. Why does this belief-based propaganda continue unchecked?
5
Frank, you hit the nail on the head DARVO!
Ross, thanks for talking across the divide. I'd love to see you avoid generalizing too far from your own experience. I was at Yale in the early 1980's and while there were plenty of people who drank a lot, there were plenty of us who didn't drink much.
5
In the federal judicial hierarchy, the Supreme Court Justices are at the top, with Courts of Appeal Judges below them, then District Court Judges, and then Magistrate Judges. Here in Utah, a notice just went out announcing a vacancy for a position as a Magistrate Judge. Among the Qualification Requirements are these: "be of good moral character; be emotionally stable and mature; be committed to equal justice under the law; be in good health; be patient and courteous;". Regardless of what happened 30+ years ago, it is not too much to ask of our Supreme Court Justices what we ask of Magistrate Judges. Emotional stability, a clear commitment to equal justice under the law, patience, courtesy -- these are all qualities very dramatically NOT shown by Judge Kavanaugh. For at least that reason, he should not be confirmed, whatever the FBI investigation reveals about past events.
10
Trump has been restrained? Maybe you two need to read... the news. He's still been holding his aspiring dictator styled rallies, blaming Democrats for persecuting this poor man and saying they will hurt people to get what they want.
The Kavanaugh situation did not do this to us, decades of Republican manipulation of their voters have gotten us here and it was in full display before the Kavanaugh nomination was ever mentioned.
Note when Bruni brings up Kavanaugh's lies and asks if this is a problem in a SCOTUS nominee. Ross then evades and talks about being pro-life and how he'd like another pro-life judge appointed to the court instead of Kavanaugh. He doesn't answer the question about lies, then he brings up wanting a known pro-life judge on the SCOTUS.
We all need to learn how to respond to lies and evasion. When a question is asked, and they evade, insist that they answer them. We need to point out when they do it, and not move on until the question is answered. And when they lie, we need to call them on the lie and acknowledge it.
We are seeing greater numbers of Democrats that have been nominated in primaries because they are more likely to take a stand and show strength, conviction. Democrats would be foolish not to take heed that the people want representatives who take a stand for the values of the people and are not going to turn out for candidates who ride the fence. Stand for truth and justice, not what you hope will get you re-elected.
9
“Base”? Are those the factions George Washington warned about in his “Farewell Address”? That must be why almost no Republicans attend the annual reading of the “Farewell Address”?
The Democrats are really no better in attendance. They too have their base, but it seems like it has a larger variety of opinions than the Republican base.
3
Ross Douthat missed a critical issue: BK’s behavior at the hearing, that of a sniveling partisan, is of great concern. Can we expect fairness from BK? I think not. In addition, had a female behaved the way BK behaved, she would have been booted out of the hearing room before the hearing was scheduled to end. The reason, inappropriate behavior. I rest my case. BK should not be confirmed. Doing so will turn SCOTUS into a sham.
6
Having a 4-4 SCOTUS until 2020 is very appealing! At least there would be a chance of getting a Democrat (or moderate Republican) president.
3
Kavanaugh's employment history makes his partisanship abundantly clear. He will behave no differently as a Supreme Court justice.
7
Among the many lies flying through the whole Kavanaugh disaster, among the most flagrant is the McConnell/Graham claim that the Democrats are trying to "steal" the seat and that there is no time for the Republicans to nominate and confirm another justice if Kavanaugh is withdrawn or defeated.
Apparently Ross grudgingly buys into the "lame duck is too dicey" ... it's the usual Trump bald-faced lying, and you betcha the Republicans will get somebody through if it comes to that.
The WaPo has a good article on these issues
https://tinyurl.com/yd3ppbkq
Lindsay Graham's ranting accusations make no sense at all, because no Democrat believes they can stop the Republicans from getting some nominee of theirs confirmed to this vacancy.
What is true though is that if they can stop Kavanaugh, it won't be the nominee Trump really wants.
Trump doesn't want Kavanaugh because he is conservative, or because he is the strongest pro-life candidate. On both those fronts, all informed observers (including Republicans) think Amy Barrett is stronger for the Republicans.
When they say "If Kavanaugh isn't confirmed, you'll get somebody more conservative" ... they mean Barrett.
Trump wants Kavanaugh because he has the most extreme views of presidential prerogatives and immunities.
And my point to the Republicans is "OK, nominate her and confirm her -- if you can do that, so be it."
5
Ross said: "I also suspect Kavanaugh shaded the truth in a couple of his yearbook answers, but when I read lists of his supposed litany of lies I mostly just see someone being his own defense attorney — e.g., saying that Ford’s witnesses “refuted” her is not a lie but a self-interested interpretation; putting the best possible face on your drinking is not the same as denying that you drank too much sometimes; changing the subject from alcohol to your own academic success is just a clumsy attempt to be your own character witness." Really? You can gloss over his blatant lies with "shaded the truth" and "self-interested interpretation"? Glide right by those lies with a call for a definitive corroboration one way or the other? Kavanaugh showed us who he is in that televised temper tantrum. And who he is is not someone I want on the highest court in the land. Partisanship, conspiracy theories and lies. Thinly veiled threats of retaliation. Not my idea of a jurist. He does not even deserve to be on Traffic Court.
13
Two men discussing the ways in which Kavanaugh's nomination has affected THEM. I gagged on my coffee. You really have no empathy for women at all.
4
Kavanaugh will be confirmed and then we can all throw ice in celebration.......if we dare.
2
The title of the article might more appropriately be "What has Dianne Feinstein done to us?" She should be censured for what she did.
As for Kavanaugh's comportment before the judiciary committee, one can only pray he exhibits as much zeal and tenacity in upholding and defending the constitution against the plaque of progressivism as he did defending himself before such flimsy accusations.
What Harry Reid sowed in 2013, Mitch McConnell reaped in 2017. I pray he can do it again, for the sake of the country.
2
A better question is what has Feinstein done to our country. She had this letter for months before the confirmation hearings. She had it when she interviewed Kavanaugh. She could have brought it to the committee earlier and there would be plenty of time to investigate. Not a peep. Instead, leaks. You can’t investigate leaks. Then when the conformation committee finishes its work and are ready to vote, she drops this on the nation. Kavanaugh had a right to be angry. Whether it happened or not, it has damaged his reputation and brought threats against his family. What do you think he should do? Sit there a meekly ask, “Did she really say that?” “Thank you so much for calling me evil. It really helps when someone with your purity feels they cans speak openly to me about my faults,” But at least today the Democrats must not be so confident thinking about the FBI report. They are going after his high school yearbook, his teenage drinking, any little twig they may point to and say it really is a gigantic oak.
2
Douthat is so anti-woman and anti-choice that he has no objectivity. He cannot even bring himself to say that Kavanaugh lied, when the lies were obvious. For example, Kavanaugh a number of times said that at least three witnesses refuted, under felony penalties of perjury, Dr. Ford's version of events. That was patently not true. The woman, Leland, did not file an affidavit under oath, her attorney sent and signed an unsworn letter. The other witnesses did not refute the events or say they did not happen, they simply said they did not recall them. Kavanaugh also clearly lied about his drinking history.
Why does the New York Times give voice and free space to a man who wants women to die, as they do, from illegal back-alley abortions? Why is the NYT serving as a shill for the patriarchal misogynistic Roman Catholic Church that funds the international antiwoman, anti-choice campaign? The World Health Organization reports that at least 70,000 women die every year from illegal unsafe abortions. Douthat would happily increase maternal deaths in the USA. A big reason Roe v. Wade was decided as it was is that many physicians testified about the horror of seeing young women die from sepsis, hemorrhage and other complications resulting from unsafe illegal abortions.
And by the way, legal abortion is safe, much safer than childbirth. Fewer than 1 in 100,000 women die of legal abortion, while in the USA 26 of 100,000 women die in childbirth or of childbirth complications.
9
They mirror each other. Trump, Kavanaugh. That's why Trump is enamored. And Kavanaugh will surely be confirmed by the end of week. It's already written into the minds of the Senate Judiciary Committee, no matter what the FBI findings.
And what really can the FBI find in a week. Picture 1000 agents scrambling around, rummaging through stacks oif papers while guzzling Red Bull.
They only interrogate??? I mean why can't they confiscate cell phones and get search warrants for computers to see where Dr. Ford & Kavanaugh have searched, eailed friends, determing wjhere Kavanaugh purchased the calendar from 1982 last week. Hey Dad, wadday doing in the den? What are you filling in there?
Just to review: Four people were arrested today for involvement in Charlottesvile "Both Sides" violent march/protest over a year ago. FBI has one week to determine life competency of Supreme Court nominee. Makes sense in latest installment of Seinfeld Bizarro World episode.
It is a very sad nightmare in which our nation faces on a daily basis. And the follow up, it is still called the United States of America or has he changed it to Trumptin...
3
Ross says: "I would definitely prefer, and have said so repeatedly, a figure like Amy Coney Barrett as the potential fifth vote to overturn Roe v. Wade rather than a man accused of sexual assault."
Well,I suppose that does make it LOOK better....
But, I am not a Catholic, nor a Christian. Why should Ross', and his court appointee's, religious views determine what is or is not the law of the land. Roe v. Wade is the law and there is no reason for anyone to vote to overturn it. If it is just a matter of religion, then go practice your religion your own way and leave the law alone. The majority of Americans are happy with Roe v. Wade, and a minority wants to inflict their religious views on the rest of us.
So, in that context what does it matter what the agent of religious determinism looks like, sounds like, screams and sobs like? Its all the start of a theocracy and makes Douthat no different from the zealots of ISIL. So, yes, you can be civil but in the end you want to inflict religious rather than legal views on us.
11
I am Catholic and I am scared that there ARE five Catholics, and if Kavanaugh is confirmed, God forbid, six Catholics on the Court. Not only abortion, but same-sex marriage, prayer in school, reproductive rights, school vouchers are issues directly related to Kavanaugh’s faith. He has already demonstrated in many important situations his inability to be impartial. He is a political animal unable to divorce himself from his partisan skin. This is a man who is guided by the rules of the clubs he belongs to and his church is one more club that affords him more privileges. Joining the Court would be the ultimate exclusive Catholic club.
2
I do not understand the persistent claim that Brett Kavanaugh has a right to be angry. I do not understand why men keep insisting that anger is the "normal" response of a man who believes he is unjustly accused.
I can imagine a variety of emotional responses a man might have that do not include bitter, venomous anger.
I can imagine a potential Supreme Court nominee who is certain of his innocence expressing sadness - sadness for a traumatized woman who so strongly believed in her civic duty that she was willing to expose herself to the blood sport of the televised Senate hearing.
I can imagine a potential Supreme Court nominee who is certain of his innocence expressing confusion - as in feeling completely bewildered as to how or why such charges could be leveled at him.
I can imagine a whole range of emotional responses from an innocent Supreme Court nominee.
But not contempt and anger. That is the response of an arrogant, entitled - and guilty - person.
7
This story has to implications for the Colorado governor's race, where Republican candidate Walker Stapleton had a DUI and nearly killed two women in a drunken rage in 1999 in an incident in San Francisco.
In spite of the felonies he committed in California, he returned to Colorado as the darling hero of Conservatives, and the KKK.
Walker Stapleton:
Alcoholic - check.
Violent toward women - check.
Irresponsible felon - check.
Favorite with Conservatives - check.
Klu Klux Klan connections - check.
Arrest record: 1859334, filed June 24th, 1999, Alan Clarkson, clerk.
Now a separate part of the story is Denver Post's order to do no reporting regarding this part of Walker Stapleton's background.
But at the end of the day, Walker Stapleton makes Kavanaugh seem like a choir boy.
2
@UTBG ... with respect to the Denver Post.
They reported it in 2010
https://www.denverpost.com/2010/11/22/treasurer-elect-releases-drunken-d...
But so far as I can find, haven't brought it up this election cycle.
He's got plenty of other problems though...
I could be way off here, but you know what I'm thinkin', Brett Kavanaugh could have avoided this circus had he paid closer attention to recent history in invoking a page out of apricot toddlers playbook, where when approached with evidence of vast impropriety, one only has to reply, "ahh, that was just locker talk…". I mean look where it got him.
3
"What has Brett Kavanaugh done to us?" Well, he's attempted to rape at least some of us, and thrown ice at another one of us for having the bad luck to resemble the singer from UB40. He's definitely yelled at a whole bunch of us, and lied under oath to at least as many. He's misled the more impressionable among us about the difference between a drinking game and a sex act. He's made Renate hopping mad, for good reason. He may have even single-handedly made beer uncool.
So basically, just your average Supreme Court confirmation process. Why did you ask?
7
Ross, you are an arrogant Pharisee.
Your holier-than-thou claim that in the Roe v. Wade era "the high court's jurisprudence has been a moral disaster for American life" is an infuriating claim to the moral high ground that half the country cannot stomach.
Just limiting the discussion to abortion and women's reproduction, your pinched morality gives no consideration to the moral and ethical issues of taking personal liberty and agency from women. And let's be honest -- it's really about taking that liberty and agency from POOR women. People of means -- like Republican Congressmen -- will still be able to obtain abortions (for their mistresses). Then the same conservatives blocking access to abortions also block access to birth control and health care.
And since when was the Supreme Court such a paragon of virtue? Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Minor v. Happersett, Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, Shelby County v. Holder.
But I guess it's all about abortion. Sorry Ross, I forgot -- for a certain class of privileged white men, life begins at conception and ends at birth.*
*Privileged white men excepted
18
Note that in the Times coverage the words "attempted rape" are now being used. "Dr. Blasey ... testified ... that Judge Kavanaugh tried unsuccessfully to rape her" (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/politics/kavanaugh-fbi-background-.... I don't think that that accurately reports her testimony.
Ross, if Christine Blasey Ford had been as full of rage, bile, arrogance, sneering sarcasm, shocking disrespect, blubbering self-pity, and entitled outrage as Bart O'Kavenaugh (although she was, judging from her horrific experience, much more entitled to feel that way than the judge), you and rest of the Republicans would not excuse HER as being "just a human being in extremis"; you would have called her an angry, man-hating, hysterical loon. Kav's juvenile rejoinders to Klobuchar and Whitehouse? I felt like I was on a middle school playground! "I know you are, but what am I!?" "Takes one to know one, dweeb." And your sophistry about Kavanaugh's obvious lies...it's beneath you, Ross.
8
Ham and egging your biased views are neither funny nor believable
I’ve been a Times reader since college in the 70’s. I used to just snicker, but now I laugh out loud
The comments support your view by about 95%, but they don’t recognize their own echo chamber persist. How can two guys who are believed to be so intelligent just play to that I objective crowd? You need to get out more
Frank says this latest chapter of the Trump presidency...has brought the schisms of contemporary politics into the boldest, sharpest, scariest relief imaginable. Ross agrees.
I disagree. Brett Kavanaugh's professional credentials are the very embodiment of what the "never Trump", traditionalist, Republican establishment has long wanted to see on the Supreme Court. It is hard to believe that he would not have been on the very short list of each of his opponents in the Republican primary. Unlike Ross's preference, he is not the mirror image of Ginsburg or Sotomayor; he more closely resembles Kagan and Breyer, somewhat to the right of center while they are somewhat to the left of center.
This is what I can't understand about pro-lifers: "I’ve lived my entire adult life believing that the high court’s jurisprudence has been a moral disaster for American life, which tends to breed a certain … detachment from the idea that there exists some ideal impartial nonpartisan style of jurisprudence that we can all rally around or even patriotically respect."
But that is EXACTLY why we have separation of church and state. Because we have in the past all rallied around and patriotically respected an impartial, nonpartisan judiciary and functioning government, with rule of law, checks and balances, and an impartial high court.
Your personal belief that abortion is wrong should not override my right to safely, medically terminate an early-stage, nonviable unwanted pregnancy.
Your personal religion should not override science or seep into the public sphere, which is a space for people of ALL faiths and beliefs, including non-believers.
Your personal desire to shape the world in your image should not override my rights as a human being.
If you don't like abortion, don't have one.
If you don't want women making their own own reproductive choices, then you must feel it's okay for women to also make decisions about your reproduction, Eg: make Viagra a non-insured health item, or force you to have a vasectomy if your wife doesn't want kids.
If you don't like that not all people believe in your world view, then go off into the wild where no other humans live.
4
Why doesn't it bother the news media that every person she said could corroborate her story has been unable to, including her best friend? I realize something scary and wrong happened to her, but she can't say where the house was, or how she got there and got home. There is just so much missing information for the damage this has done to a person.
What scares me more than anything is the quick justice being done here by the media as well as the law schools at Yale and Harvard. Our best legal minds are clapped shut before all the information has been gathered.
1
"... in the polls I’ve seen there’s a lot of uncertainty about the allegations."
And yet the cultural elite know for sure. Is this yet another case where they have demonstrated that they are much smarter than average folks? What a shame that those folks will still be allowed to vote in November (as they did in 2016).
1
Dear Ross,
Do you think that war and gun
violence tear at the moral fabric of
our nation? Do you think that the
lack of access to affordable health
care tears at the moral fabric of our country? Do you think that placing immigrant children in camps,separating them from their parents, tears at the moral fabric of our nation? Do you think that
gross income inequality tears at
the moral fabric of our society?
Do you think that 40 million people
living below the poverty line tears
at the moral fabric of our country?
Do you think that environmental
degradation tears at the moral
fabric of our nation? Do you think
homelessness and hopelessness
tear at the moral fabric of our
society? Do you think our antiquated prison system tears
at the moral fabric of our nation?
Do you think that corruption, ignorance, and sloth at the highest
level of government tears at the moral fabric of our country?
Well I do and I’m a staunch
Christian woman who thinks that
women and men, and girls and boys, have a right to access
the full range of reproductive health care services everywhere in this nation.
4
There is more investigating going on than just the FBI's quick official work hampered by a shot-clock that is winding down. When the buzzer sounds ("Time's up!"), that investigation will come to an end with or without definitive answers to the original question about the assault in 1982, most probably without.
But does anyone think this will remain a mystery forever? Who thinks the story gets erased? That seems to be the reason for Kavanaugh's outrage and it's a good one if he is innocent.
What we have before us are the small lies, the bigger lies, the explicit lust for political pay-back, the temperament that was revealed for all to see (whether with intent or out of control, either is unacceptable), and evident disrespect for our institutions.
If elevated to the Supreme Court, all of that is a given. And someday there will also be verifiable evidence of what happened to Christine Blasey in the summer of 1982 AND who did it. If it turns out to be Brett Kavanaugh - perhaps Justice Kavanaugh - who among us can confidently say today that they will be surprised?
Brett Kavanaugh is not alone in losing his mind. A significant part of the country seems willing to gamble with the Supreme Court of the United States. There is madness in the land.
2
Ross, it is time to move your focus from the he said/she said facts that may never be proven, as is often the case in rape, to the larger questions of Kavanaugh's character, veracity and belligerent behavior toward many of the senators who questioned him in last week's hearing.
Yes, he could be the vote that would overturn Roe v. Wade (which scares me) but more importantly he does not have the temperament to be a good judge, let alone a good justice.
In addition there is some reason to believe he has a current drinking problem. Do you really want a current drunk on the Supreme Court? Or even someone who demonstrates the attitude often seen in former drinkers who are called "dry drunks?"
Personally, I don't. I think there are better choices out there. Merrick Garland strikes me as one of those.
2
The old saw, "sober as a judge," is gonna have to be retired if Kavanaugh gets the confirmation.
4
Thank you Mr. Bruni and Mr. Douthat for writing a simple idea that I had not thought of, which is, there is a more conservative potential Supreme Court Judge out there in the vast wilderness of judges and non judges. Justice Harry Blackmun was never a judge prior to being a Supreme Court Justice.
President Trump nominated the CEO of AccuWeather, whose goal is to provide weather information at a cost to the public, Barry Lee Myers.
If Kavanaugh does not win the Senate's approval, President Trump might nominate someone outside of the Judge's realm, but hopefully with a legal degree.
Another Point. on Trump's level headedness in the instant case involving Kavanaugh. He obtained great popularity by railing at the lack of lawlessness leading to the rape of a young woman.
Way back in the 1980s a young woman, who worked in finance in Manhattan, was attacked and raped in Central Park while jogging. His public outrage did castigate of the race of the suspects to that sexual assault - rape and beating with a rock to the victim's head.
I have to say, having been quite alive in the 1980s whereas perhaps the writers were young or not yet born, President Trump is being true to his self when supporting an investigation of many allegations of sexual assault against Judge Kavanaugh.
According to Ross, Roe v. Wade makes the high court's jurisprudence a moral disaster for American. So he will excuse and overlook anything in a candidate that could reverse this. He looks at Kavanagh's rage and finds it excusable. It is understandable that he would be upset if the accusation is false. However, one can be upset without going into conspiracy land and vowing revenge. That is not acceptable at any job interview I've ever heard of. Also, he describes Kavanagh's answers about his yearbook and drinking as "self interested intepretation." Come on, Ross, at least be honest. He lied. If you think they are small lies and didn't matter then say so. But don't sit there and say he wasn't lying. Or ignore his partisan behavior with Lewinsky or his willingness to chase the Vince Foster craziness. For all your politeness, there is a lot about this candidate that you are whitewashing. If his behavior isn't a problem for you, that's fine, we can disagree and be polite about it, but at least be honest about what his behavior is.
1
I have seen Kavanaugh’s rage in the face of abusers who are perfectly capable of a calm demeanor until they meet a challenge to an overpowering yet fragile ego. Nobody would expect the judge to be happy with the process, but the questions raised were legitimate and he could show a more judicious temperament, knowing his credibility and job were at stake. I don’t accept his claim that the inquiry is destroying his life or his family. Are both so vulnerable? He has many young female supporters who contradict allegations of sexist abuse. Man up.
3
I have nurtured, raised, am proud of and celebrate four wonderful daughters. Had I a son and I am about to have my first grandson, I would have and will give them similar advice to that provided my daughters whom I always encouraged simply to try to always be the person they would later be proud of.
Trumps concern for young men in the #MeToo era is unjustified if young men simply follow that suggestion. The assumption that every young man will misbehave and later be justly singled out for such behavior or indeed be even unjustly accused is simply not consistent with the fact that most young men and women, in the main, behave well, respect others, and conduct themselves accordingly. Likewise there is no evidence, despite Trump's statements to the contrary that an overwhelming number or even many men are unjustly accused of sexual or physical assault.
Are sexual assault and partner violence a significant problem? Yes, absolutely. And yes also in distressingly high incidence. But the vast majority of those are not false claims. They are terrifyingly real.
1
I want to see some corroboration that Kavanaugh was not assaultive also, but that is unlikely to be unearthed in a constricted FBI investigation. By protecting K too much, his GOP friends are ensuring that he will live with scandal far far longer.
You can't get at the truth by fixing a situation such that you get only an "alternative truth" or a question mark. Kavanaugh is wearing a scarlet R, and no one on either side is helping him by covering up and rushing to "judge-ment."
1
He has done nothing
This is warfare :
All you need to see is the “believe her” movement and realize what has been done: an emotional wreckage upon millennials and much of the left such that supposedly rational people spout caveman ideology of believing someone/something without proof.
It’s scary.
It goes hand in hand with the anti-speech values of the young left today and the belief that the physical characteristics of someone (race, gender, sunglasses?who knows) should decide whether a point is valid.
These enlightenment values have kept us from becoming mob-rule cavemen.
Apparently this has been lost on the left such that we now are run by emotional impulses - eve at places like Yale law and Harvard law where apparently students schooled in due process actually ( can’t believe in saying this ), actually, believe that “believe her” is an apt oath stance at any time .
3
If Judge Kavanaugh wants to clear this up, why doesn't he take a lie detector test? Or why didn't he ask for an FBI investigation?
My take on his performance at the hearing? Just another lawyer "pounding the table."
2
One can well understand a billionaire’s urgent need to buy the deciding vote in the Supreme Court, ehen his wealth is found to come from arguably illegal transactions.
2
The title of this article should be 'What Has Mitch McConnell Done to Us?".....he stole Merrick Garland's seat, and in the process ratcheted up partisan warfare in America, to the point where he may have broken America. That is the real issue here.
We are not going to "get over it" has Republicans seem to keep thinking we should. If they want to give Brett Kavanaugh's seat to Merrick then we can get over it.
2
When Mitch McConnell implemented the scheme to deny President Obama a Supreme Court selection he opened the door to highly partisan activities becoming part and parcel of the SCOTUS selection process. It amused me to listen to Kavanaugh's and Graham's foul rants when they had done far worse to Bill Clinton for behavior that was not nearly as bad. At least Clinton did not force Monica Lewinsky to do whatever it was they actually did.
Kavanaugh's behavior at last week's hearing is evidence enough that he lacks anything resembling a proper temperament to be a federal judge at any level. He should be removed from the Appellate Court. Maybe Donald Trump, clearly Kavanaugh's role model, will give him a job since he lacks the temperament to get one on his own. Anyone who lies, yells, and whines to the hiring committee in order to advance his career deserves neither advancement nor respect.
4
I believe what went on last week at the nomination hearings will push many people who were on the fence to possibly vote Dem. Have decided to go Republican. Between Feinstein's playing dumb about the release of Dr. Ford's letter to Corey Booker's "complicit to Evil" statement, Americans feel the Dems. went way over the top on their 'Search and Destroy " mission. So we will see in a month. The midterms were probably going to be a Blue wave I don't see it any more.
1
We need to know if Kavanaugh attempted to tamper with potential witnesses in the Ramirez portion of the investigation by contacting them prior to the release of the New Yorker article detailing the allegations by Debbie Ramirez. Classmates of both have texts indicating he contacted them to get them to refute her. Kavanaugh had stated under oath that he did not know of these allegations until the article was published. Since these contacts occurred prior to the publication of the article, we now also need to find out if he perjured himself with that statement.
3
The conversation skated over the issue of Kavanaugh's blatant partisan attacks. That alone disqualifies Kavanaugh from a lifetime appointment to the Court. All else is moot.
1
The issue with getting Kavanaugh seated is much more immediate and specific than you seem to realize. There's a case on SCOTUS' docket this year, <i>Gamble v. United States,</i> that looks like it may be scheduled for argument early this term.
<i>Gamble</i> is an attempt to eliminate states' rights to prosecute someone for crimes already prosecuted under federal law due to double-jeopardy. This would give the federal government and the imperial presidency way too much power and control accountability for crimes specifically like the ones he and his children may face in New York for money-laundering etc.
It could also be argued that someone who received a preemptive federal pardon and never stood trial for anything, would be protected from state prosecution by double-jeopardy because the person who accepts a pardon has to admit guilt. Trump could pardon his entire administration, his children, even himself and walk away with complete impunity <i>and</i> immunity from prosecution elsewhere.
If Kavanaugh is seated before the case is argued, there's a solid chance he and the other four Federalist justices would overturn the 11th Circuit ruling in <i>Gamble</i>, thus providing Trump with a shield from criminal prosecution. If he's not seated before the case is argued, the 11th Circuit decision may be upheld by the 4-4 vote of an equally divided court.
There is potential for <i>Gamble v. United States</i> to yield an even worse outcome than <i>Citizen's United.</i>
4
I am afraid the turnout for the midterms and all future elections will be depressed because more Americans will have become psychologically depressed or more cynical about their government and its politics after this episode. I am on the verge of that myself.
2
The question is not "What Has Brett Kavanaugh Done to Us?"
Rather, it could be phrased: "What have the Democrats' scorched-earth actions done to the honor of the Senate, the belief in our processes of government, and the understanding with which we treat women in our society?"
Senate Democrats cared not a whit for Christine Blasey Ford, beyond seeing her as a malleable person who could be trained as they kept her allegation under wraps for two months. They used her allegation not to make a case for justice for her, but to try to 'blow up' a Senate confirmation process.
Their actions should be seen as callous, unfeeling (for the accusers as well as the accused), and devoid of any attention toward an accused's rights or the privacy concerns of the accusers.
Women should consider themselves much more empowered than the view Democrats presented here. A woman who is subject to improper sexual advances or treatment has the ability and the power to act for herself.
And a woman has a personal responsibility to act in her own best interests. Attending parties where alcohol and drugs will probably be present needs to be viewed as risky behavior. Attending alone is riskier. Leaving another woman alone at a party is inconsiderate (at best).
We can learn from what has transpired here. Blaming Judge Kavanaugh for this debacle, though, demonstrates only a lack of personal judgment and integrity on our part.
1
What has Brett Kavanaugh done to us? Brett Kavanaugh has managed to further divide this country by pitting men against women. The battle lines are permanently drawn so there can never be a truce in the war between the sexes. Brett Kavanaugh, like Clarence Thomas before him, has played the victim brilliantly.
1
The problem with Ross’s argument is that K took an oath to speak the “whole” truth. Shading is not whole. What are the chances he would accept that kind of testimony in his court?
Would Conservatives accept a judge who spoke that way about right-wingers?
3
To me this whole Kavanaugh spectacle serves only to distract the public’s attention while Trump & Co. rob the Government of the United States. What are they getting away with now? What profits are they pulling out of every American’s pockets, while we knead our hands, transfixed by Kavanaugh’s 15 minutes of infamy?
Mr. Bruni,
Your line "Love means never having to say you denuclearized" regarding Trump's lovefest with Kim Jong-un is the funniest thing I've read all week! It is however only Tuesday. Smile.
Mr. Douthat,
Per a very recent NBC/WSJ poll, 71% of Americans support Roe v. Wade, including 52% of Republicans! Of course, no one likes abortion, but can't we just get over this and put money into education, family planning, etc...to avoid the need to have an abortion in the first place. Am sure the number of abortions would dive, they have been declining for years. Why divide the nation when 71% (and climbing) support Roe v. Wade.
1
Trump has boffed us again: Kavanaugh has done nothing, he is just the instrument Trump used this time. BK has been used for the purpose before. For goodness' sake, BK is a judge at the next-highest level. There was outrage about his accession to the Circuit, but ultimately it was bootless and toothless, just like Democrats have been since Bill Clinton's tenure. And where was the outrage about BK's supposed sex and drinking peccadilloes after 2006 til now? Today Kavanaugh, tomorrow, 2022..... There will be others. Dust off your hats. I'm going to ralph.
1
Why is it that every step Trump makes causes chaos?
2
It’s my belief that Trump had known about Kelly Anne Conway’s encounter with sexual assault for some time before she talked to Jake Tapper on CNN. I think Trump respects Kelly Anne and he can’t paint Dr Blasey as a liar without demeaning Kelly Anne’s claim as well. I’m also cynical enough (sad to say) about DJT and the GOP that I wouldn’t put it past them to use Kelly Anne to their own advantage—hence, “don’t make this a meeting of the #MeToo movement.”
1
My take away from this "dialogue?" Ross Douthat sees everything through anti-abortion glasses, and he wants to impose his prejudice on everyone else. He wants Kavanaugh confirmed to overturn Roe. So he subtly and not so subtly defends Kavanaugh and carries the Republican water by suggesting that Blasey Ford is, well, not nutty and slutty, but just a little confused. And as to Kavanaugh's lies, well, he only "shaded the truth" with a "self interested interpretation." After all that is only being "your own defense attorney."
Please, I for one don't want a Supreme Court Justice who shades the truth and delivers decisions based on self interested interpretation of the law. Shame on you, Ross.
5
What has Kavanaugh "done to us"? I think the question should be "What has the Democratic party done to us?"! This confirmation circus is one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen since the McCarthy hearings - perhaps even worse.
3
Kavanaugh has done to us just what we should have expected because Trump was elected president. (yes I know this didn't happen with Gorsuch but weren't we lucky. And the same prep school. )
I think you should write about something else. This has all become tediously nauseating. I'm not referring to either of you but Kavanaugh. It's a waste of your talents.
1
Typically when I get to the part of the job interview where I'm sobbing about how much I like to drink beer, there isn't a callback for another chat.
7
IF we survive Trump, I promise to never withhold my vote again. I have learned that it can always be worse. This guy is the biggest threat to America, in my lifetime.
1
@Joe Smith -- well, for the record I just withheld my vote for the Democratic nomination for governor of New York. I could not bring myself to vote for Cuomo after he shut down the Moreland commission and the recent Percoco trial; I could not vote for a celebrity twit who has never held any office, elected or otherwise.
The stakes in this case are far lower than the 2016 presidential election.
Really, Ross...SHADING the truth? Kavanaugh lied about what sexual terms meant in his yearbook, including boofing, which is sexual assault...not just about his drinking. It is also apparent that he lied in previous testimony before congress as well. He is accused of years of behavior which go far beyond youthful indiscretions and tread on felony material.
A candidate for a lifetime position on the highest court in the land does not need to be perfect (unless they are a woman). But they do need to be honest and regretful about the mistakes they made and what they have learned from them. Americans love giving people second chances, but Judge Kavanaugh made that impossible after his performance at the hearing. He demonstrated a partisan, dishonest streak with the entire country watching, and infuriated the millions of women and men who have been sexually assaulted.
And please, shining a light on what he actually did as a young man is not ruining his life, although it may be derailing his aspirations. You know whose life was ruined? Fred Guttenberg, who lost his daughter in the Parkland shooting. You know, the man whose hand Kavanaugh refused to shake.
2
@Admissions Pro -- boofing is not sexual assault if the "boofee" consents.
The extent to which this Kavanaugh nomination to the Supreme Court is being controlled is ridiculous. Essentially, we citizens are given nothing but a series of false choices and being treated like 3 year olds.
1. Do we reject Kavanaugh on the basis of his teenage behavior 36 years ago, or do we reject Kanaugh because he demonstrates, like Trump, he appears to be a partisan, clueless, chest-thumping, spoiled, self-centered, lying hothead when he tried to defend himself against Blasey Ford by playing a very aggressive game of changing the subject by accusing the Democrats and the best defense against the sexual misconduct charges is being aggressively offensive?
Clearly both these negatives should preclude Kavanaugh from any judgeship, and certainly as a Supreme Court Judge.
But King Trump and his ignoble GOP courtiers will have their way by putting the biased, GOP operative Kavanaugh in that empty Supreme Court chair, and the Democrats must do as they say.
And this way--no matter how soon Trump is kicked out of office and hopefully replaced by an experienced, intelligent president, who is fair-minded and has a conscience--the privileged, aggrieved, vindictive hothead Judge Kavanaugh can keep doing unto us and our former democracy, as he has done to Blasey Ford and who knows how many others to get where he believes he is entitled to go.
1
He hasn’t done anything to us: this whole fiasco has simply revealed what’s been brewing on both sides the whole time just waiting for a spark. And Senator Feinstein lit the fuse with that 6 week delay.
2
@Meg I agree; however what good would knowing whom to blame do? These are brazen, partisan times. The bullies have control and no one has the temerity to stand up to them. Speaking of standing up: why doesn't the press corps just turn their collective backs on 46-minus-1 when he holds one of his public rants [aka "press conference"]? Let him go elsewhere for an audience.
1
"'The act of a madman or a drunkard, old bean,' he said, 'or of a man labouring under violent excitement seems less free and more inevitable to the one who knows the mental condition of the man who performed the action, and more free and less inevitable to the one who does not know it.'" -- Malcom Lowry, "Under the Volcano"
All I can do is repeat what I said before. If something happened between Kavanaugh and Ford at a party where there were drunk guys and one sober girl, who was there for God-knows-what reason, then we have to grasp exactly what it was and what it was not. Let's assume that Kavanaugh got on top of her while drunk. How long did this last? This is an act of sexual aggression by a walleyed teenager, and it need(ed)s to be punished, but it is not rape, let alone gang rape. And it does not define a man. If you say that you know Kavanaugh would have raped her barring Mark Judge's "intervention," you are lying, because that is not evident.
Scattered, opaque, inconsistent, illogical or impossible accusations by a handful of people are not enough, and should never be enough, to sabotage someone's life. And even one midsummer night's 60-second sexual aggression when one was 17 years old (and who knows what interactions between Kavanaugh and Ford may have preceded this) isn't enough to define a man or a woman. ... The way this has been handled by Democrats makes it seem less like their concern is sexual assault and more like their concern is political.
"There are a dozen or more details from Thursday and beforehand that show his willingness to massage the facts however necessary to get this court seat that he wants too badly"
I think that there is a reason for Kavanaugh's performance which gets missed. Not only is this man shooting for a seat on the Supreme Court but he is essentially fighting for what everyone believes him to be. He has spent decades being the Christian father, the conservative choir boy, and he now risks becoming the drunken sexual predator. This, for him, isn't just about a job opportunity, it is about maintaining the persona he has constructed over a very long time.
Is not about Brett!!! It’s about MITCH!!! And the think-tanks that sponsor him. And I’m being polite when I say “think,” it's more like “plotting” or “scheming.” Their product is … "what can we do today to keep progressive ideas from capturing a greater share of the electorate.” They bring cases to courts, they dilute the vote, they create false narratives to make honest citizens vote against their own self interests. They scare, embattle and false equivocate. They are the true enemy of the people, propped up by the Electoral College and "Citizens United,” (which is really a few wealthy corporate entities.) Where is the cavalier REPORTER to go under cover with an A/V rig to expose these clowns? Where is the big money to after Mitchell Addison McConnell? Will the gentleman from the TAKER state of Kentucky be kindly escorted to the door?
2
What has Brett Kavanaugh done to himself? Is this not a grown man who makes his own choices, his own decisions, and always has. Or perhaps he never really grew up and is blaming everyone and everything for all his choices so he can play little boy hurt.
He appears as a two year old toddler, angry because he is not getting his way and throwing a temper tantrum
Until he grows up and mans up he is not fit to sit on the SC.
He did all this to himself and no one is out to "get him." He does not need any help in that department as he does such a good job by himself.
3
The expression “sober as a judge” used to mean something. Another idiom, “drunk as a lord” comes to mind.
2
“Refute” has a specific definition that any federal judge should know. The only person to refute Dr. Blasey’s allegations is Kavanaugh himself. No other person has refuted her testimony. Douthat may somehow be unclear on the meaning of that word, but Kavanaugh most certainly is not. Supreme Court justices must choose their words with much greater care than this.
2
Look, I understand the calculation of the Dems: it worked against Roy Moore, it will work against the Republicans in general.
But even this tactic (which, contrary to the feminist narrative, is as old as the Ancient world) has its limits. Trump can hold on and simply nominate another person (which could even be a woman) to the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh is disposable in the grand scheme of things. As the economy continues to worsen, this post-modern agenda will appear more ridicule as time progresses; it is only class that determines real struggle in a real society, not gender or race.
The American districtal system is specially designed to be perpetually bipartidary. To dream of a single party system in the USA is pure nonsense: the Dems depend on the Repubs, and vice versa.
1
October 2, 2018
B. Kavanaugh does not speak for my generation when coming of age -
I was taught to live by common sense and not get into the youth parties and especially when adding in the involvement with strange girls and guy - since it was my learning that I have to know who strangers in age group were and where they are coming from.
So Judge Kavanaugh is a reminder that when at any age know that excesses of romance aggression - drinking excessively - and the wise cracking street talk is just all a formula for paganism and acting without the guidelines of ' common families values ' or just playing with fire and wantonness that is just - wrong unacceptable - and not ever going to happen. Thanks to the hearing the lessons to live by are - to be nice and a lady and gentlemen and never trust strangers even with some areas of commonality like school or neighbors community.
Finally, where the country witnessed was the drunkenness of retrospection and no way is that worthy of formal Congressional hearings and once on that kind of pagan track we are best to shut the cameras and just release transcripts - able to ignore the buffoonery and sad wasting of youthful indiscretions to appreciate self respect and greater teachings expected from age seven to one hundred and seven.
1
As far as I am concerned, the real issue is Kavanaugh's temperament. His response to questions were both evasive and disrespectful, and his testimony revealed far more rancor and anger than we need in the Supreme Court. We can do far better than this!
4
Ross said: “The thing about being pro-life is that I’ve lived my entire adult life believing that the high court’s jurisprudence has been a moral disaster for American life,...”
That is the point. Some conservatives can’t accept the thought that Society as a whole can choose not to live according to their moral standards.
Thence, more power for them is needed. And that is more important than maintaining a democracy.
7
Revolting admission of Ross's feeling that he has the right to tell women what to do with their own bodies. You realize that denying the right to an abortion will only result in more abortions that are far more dangerous to women. Why don't you focus your self righteousness on providing contraception to the overburdened world?
8
If Mitch McConnell wants to use the standard of reasonable doubt to defend Kavanaugh then he should be willing to use the standard of investigation that comes with a reasonable doubt case.
He can't have it both ways.
6
Interesting that the conversation is framed as "What Has Brett Kavanaugh Done to Us?"The conversations of Bruni and Douthat, andthe many comments might have been very different if the conversation were framed as "What Have Diane Feinstein and the Democrats Done to Us?" The conversation assumed the behavior of Democrats and of Senator Feinstein represented the norm and it was only Kavanaugh 's behavior that was outside the norm. The extreme partisanship and use of any means or anyone to defeat the nomination bodes ill for our country. They have turned what was once "the world's greatest deliberative body" into a theater of the farcical.
And what about Mitch McConnel denying Merrick Garland a hearing?
2
There was a sentence from Ross that I just can't get out of my head. His response begins "The thing about being pro-life..."
Here's the thing that bothers me. His view is callus in a way that argues overturning abortion rights justifies all other evils. Sexual assault is irrelevant because the court will do more good by protecting prenatal life than protecting the rights of life when born. This extends beyond women's rights. We're talking about workers rights, immigration rights, civil rights, privacy rights, voting rights, and on and on. There is no evil too great to outweigh pro-life absolutism regarding fetal rights. In extremis.
I would argue the view is a suspension of morality at the hands of a single moral argument. Think about it. Taken in the extreme, Ross is effectively arguing something like eugenics, positive or negative, could easily be legitimized if only we make the decision after the child is born. The birth is the most essential aspect. That's a pretty horrific position when viewed under a magnifying glass. In essence: the pursuit of life takes precedence over a human's right to liberty and happiness. Life at the expense of life sounds like a Faustian bargain.
21
@Andy You're assuming that Ford's testimony is correct and have true. You obviously believe her. I believe her. But nowhere in this article do I see that Douthat believes her.
1
The number one byproduct to this nominee (and the previous one) is that the electorate (especially Progressives) are never going to republicans pick another justice ever again.
Aye, I do mean that republicans are never going to have power ever again. There is 100,000,000 that always sits on the sidelines, and when republicans win, they always do ONLY by the electoral college by slim margins. That will not happen ever again.
Demographics are certainly taking over with women and minorities flexing their electoral muscles. No longer is a ''red'' state or district comfortably one any longer. They are ALL changing to blue, or at least purple. That is electoral doom for republicans. The blue wave is going to be constant going forward.
Partisan is only when one side does not want to include the other in their ideas and plans. When Democrats are securely in power, they will govern for all of the country, and not just a select few.
I would say that is bipartisan.
6
@FunkyIrishman I wish I could be as sanguine as you are, but the only certainty we have about the future is that it won't be like what think it will be. I could just as easily see minorities and even, to some extent, trending red and blue.
Yes, a civil and mostly substantive discussion and agree-to-disagree. But then what? In my own life, I see no point in having even civil discussions with any Republican who voted for Donald Trump. The only thing we little folk out here in Trumpistan can do about any of this is cast a vote and pray that it gets recorded as we cast it and properly counted and reported. Most of the time, we only have a choice of two candidates (R) or (D) and in some races, not even that. So after we put ourselves through this uncomfortable conversation with a Trump supporter who values we despise, we trundle off to the voting booth and hope we might get rid of one of his waterboys. I'll pass on the "civil conversation and just watch another episode of my favorite TV comedy and try to forget such people exist in America, if it's OK with Mssrs. Bruni and Douthat. You guys get paid well to have those conversations. I don't.
7
What has Judge Kavanaugh done to us? The better story would have been “What have we done to ourselves?”
9
The better question, what have we done to Judge Kavanaugh? It's a disgrace how the Democrats have handled this mess.
5
@J Holt
2 words, Merrick Garland
1
I can easily find conservative judges with qualifications equal to or above Kavanaugh's who are sober, polite, scandal-free and respected by people who are vastly different from them. Several are friends whom I enjoy. My being a Democrat who voted for Hilary doesn't affect our relationship one bit. Occasionally, we sip a little Jack Daniel's.
11
That anyone...anyone of any religion...would flush the respectability of the Supreme court down the toilet to ram their pro-life agenda down an entire nation's throat is completely incomprehensible to me.
23
What will happen if the FBI investigation does not return an indictment on Kavanaugh that this paper and the mob are howling for? Will people accept a result that is not what they wanted? Will they start screaming "cover up", and demand "their" results? "We know he's bad, we want you to prove that!"
I suspect that the FBI will find Kavanaugh to be neither a Saint nor a Devil, but flawed and very human. Are we then willing to let our leaders do their job and make a judgement? Is such a thing even possible in this frothing at the mouth atmosphere?
3
Judge Kavanaugh allegedly threw ice at someone in a bar during his college years. Talk about Dems desperate for material.
5
Since we are in October is this a proper excuse?
In heaven there is no beer.
That's why we drink it here (Right Here!)
and when we're gone from here,
our friends will be drinking all the beer!
Via:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Heaven_There_Is_No_Beer
Up front I'll state: I believe Ms. Ford. I drank a lot in high school (among other things), but I didn't assault girls. Is he better now? Will it affect how he interprets legislation? Who knows? The biggest take-home I've gotten from all of this is that the Republican electorate seems to be operating within a moral framework I can't identify with: "keep yer hands off our AR-15s, but you can't use an IUD" or, "you can mash on kids if your party affiliation starts with an "R" (Roy Moore). I just can't figure this one out.
14
@Andrew Are Republicans the only ones who drink or "mash on kids"? And K was a kid at the time, too, wasn't he? Are Republican college kids the only drinkers? Are spring breakers all Republican kids? Are the millions of Americans who made Vegas a booming success all Republicans? Were the Kennedys monastic saints? What about Bill Clinton? Gary Hart? Elliot Spitzer? The Democrats' hypocrisy is breathtaking.
@Andrew Are Republicans the only ones who drink or "mash on kids"? And K was a kid at the time, too, wasn't he? Are Republican college kids the only drinkers? Are spring breakers all Republican kids? Are the millions of Americans who made Vegas a booming success all Republicans? Were the Kennedys monastic saints? What about Bill Clinton? Gary Hart? Elliot Spitzer? The Democrats' hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Kavanaugh has committed perjury, witness tampering, and is disrespectful and contemptuous of elected Senators. He turns into a whiny crying blowhard if challenged. What an insult to the memory of Judge Thomas Scalia!
13
@Janderson Interesting Freudian slip--Judge Thomas Scalia. Peas in a pod?
1
Except that the second Scalia vote, on any critical topic, remains. Thomas has done his time, and he couldn't have delivered to his constituency more then he had with Scalia's guidance. For the sake of justice and honor, he should resign. Anthony Kennedy, with whom I often disagreed, saw the humanity in the law. Laws affect real people with issues and problems they do their best to resolve. The anger, yelling and outright disrespect shown by Kavanagh under oath prove he is unworthy of elevation but appeared to be the blustering angry white man's last defense when confronted with uncomfortable facts by authority. Ask a police officer or judge. Review his refusal to answer questions that if answered would really show who he is and what he believes about the law and the Constitution, his response to questions from Senators Harris, Durbin, Feinstein to start. His anger is what's driving him, just as it did when attacking Clinton, which he is still obsessed with.
1
Two words: McConnell, Trump. Kavenaugh is a symptom.
9
Be sure to let me know when Trump doesn't go to Nuremberg - West Virginia when he's increasing his lies and corruption.
2
If the Republicans, with their dark money and their polluting, drug dealing whites-only, men-run-things friends were to start the country of their dreams from scratch, what do you think it would be like? Would you like to live there?
7
Shorter Ross Douthat:
As long as there's no evidence that he tried to rape Christine Ford, I don't care if he lied, I don't care if he regularly passed out drunk, I don't care if he warned Democrats & Liberals he was plotting his revenge, I don't care if he treated a Senator like a pole-dancer, I don't care, I don't care, I don't care. He's my kinda (anti-abortion) guy!
7
It is instructive to compare the optimal paraphrased testimony with the actual paraphrased testimony:
Kavanaugh Optimal:
I am a man of my times and while I was a bit of a party hound and a CAD, I do not recall anytime I remotely behaved in the manner described by Dr. Ford. The charge is serious and disturbing, but that is not the man I am, as shown by all records and testimonials in the Committee's files. I pray for the continued recovery of Dr. Ford from her trauma, but had nothing to do with it and cannot offer anything helpful due to the passage of time. I am ignorant of all the baseless charges. I throw myself and my confirmation at your mercy.
Kavanaugh sub-Prime:
I like beer - we all liked beer, even when not legal to purchase. These calendars (sniff) are evidence of positively nothing. My Yearbook is embarrassingly revealing, so let me highlight that by dissembling over the definitions. You want to know who was in the room? Ask Mark Judge; I dare you! The Democrats are impugning my character, so let me support their position and chastise them for questioning my character as the character they claim I have. I am hurt by the lack of deference to the prior six woefully inadequate FBI background checks. This is a Political hatchet job, so let me do some chopping too. All the other charges and rumors are complete fabrications so let me list them all so you get it right. My wife didn't meet me until 2000, so she is my best reference. GO BROS!
***
It's all in the delivery!
7
But “shaded the truth,” “self-interested interpretation” — I think that we...make excuses and grant forgiveness when we want to...”
Well, that doesn’t make a lie any less a lie, and I would think those qualities are completely out of line with what we expect in a Supreme Court Justice.
I am, as has been said quite a bit lately, 100% convinced that Dr. Ford is telling the truth. But, as horrific as that incident was, the point is that it’s not really relevant any more. What Kavanaugh did, or didn’t do, three decades ago has made him the man who threw a nasty temper tantrum in front of the entire country on Thursday, and that man doesn’t belong on the Supreme Court.
7
I really feel for Brett. Because of his behavior he will no longer be permitted to coach. Harvard will not be allowing him to teach next semester. On the other hand, 100% of GOP senators still feel that he'd be an excellent choice for the Supreme Court so all is not lost.
9
What stands out for me in this conversation is the ideological intransigence of Mr. Douthat. Mr. Douthat calls the Supreme Court a "moral disaster" because it has ruled in favor of a privacy protection for abortion. He cannot "patriotically respect" a court that would rule in this way, and claims the court has never been "nonpartisan" because of this legal judgment.
This is the problem in a nutshell. The religious right believes that the Constitution, written at a time when abortion was not a thing, somehow allows, even dictates, an affirmation of their attempts to legislate their morality (dating from the late 1800s) upon others who disagree. The Court's rulings, which apply legal and rational precedents to conclude that Constitutional safeguards prohibit legislatures from acting to legislate a religious dictum, are seen by the religious right as some kind of political shenanigan. They are not, they are rational legal conclusions, and they are furthermore supported by the sentiments of the majority, who do not wish to be dictated to by the likes of Mr. Douthat.
10
For heaven and the future's sake, Ross!
The lies are not just about this issue. You very carefully avoided his lies about his service to torture in the Bush administration, and his other lies about stealing insider Democratic information, and his promotion of presidential power. Then there's the voter suppression cloaked in righteous voting rights attacks.
And pro life? Why is it that fetuses are more important than living babies and their families, particularly their mothers. Somehow there's an immaculate conception idea here, that babies once born are not worthy of support and health care, and their families can go hang. And god forbid if they're not privileged or racially "pure". Have you seem what's being done to immigrant children lately? Are you aware that black kids are being put in various forms of detention for acting out, to prevent them from ever being able to get a decent education, a decent job, or vote?
One wonders if you have children, Ross, since you seem to regard fetuses as worth lieing and cheating for, but born babies and their support system not so much. A fetus is not more alive than a baby.
13
Here's more about children, fetus worshippers:
"The Ongoing, Avoidable Horror of the Trump Administration’s Texas Tent Camp for Migrant Kids"
"The detention camp for migrant kids in Tornillo, Texas, ... Set up as a temporary “emergency influx shelter” ... [In June] when the government was running out of places to put the kids it was tearing from parents at the border,... originally scheduled to close on July 13th. But the government kept pushing back the deadline."
"the facility’s capacity was also recently increased, so that it could accommodate up to 3800 kids .... “as needed” has been ... about the Administration’s own decisions and goals."
"now more than 13,0000 migrant kids in government facilities ... twice as long as a year ago. .... large numbers of kids crossed the borders by themselves in the last years of the Obama Administration. ... “emergency influx shelters,” with the idea to dismantle them as soon as demand waned. The goal was to place the kids with relatives or other sponsors around the country. ... doesn’t offer any systemized schooling to the kids there."
"“They’re treating these kids like criminals,” .... “federal authorities announced that potential sponsors and other adult members of their households would have to submit fingerprints .... [ICE] arresting dozens of people who came forward to be sponsors."
https://www.newyorker.com/news/current/the-ongoing-avoidable-horror-of-t...
8
My greatest hope and fear in all of this, is that Ms Ford is not lying and that there has been no collusion between the democrats and her.
I do not believe there has been, but nothing could be more damaging to the democrats, Ms Ford, and the future of our two party system than if there has been.
1
"Murkowski and Collins really want to vote for Kavanaugh because they don’t want a more conservative nominee."
That sounds like an extreme case of punditese. Tell me, what's more conservative than Kavanaugh's positions on the anti-abortion and anti-labor spectrum, which are about as far right as you can get?
8
@mancuroc not to mention his belief presidents should not be held accountable, cannot be indicted.
@mancuroc -- I think there may be some truth to that ... among Republicans -- these ladies in particular. The threat of nominating Amy Barrett would put them in a very bad spot ... and that was one of the ways Trump and McConnell tried to grease the confirmation of the man they wanted: Trump's protector on the court.
The standard should be simple: if an individual senator has reasonable doubt about the character and fitness of the nominee to serve as a Supreme Court justice, she or he should vote no.
8
Douthat should be aware that overturning Roe vs. Wade would almost certainly result in more, not fewer, abortions, and dangerous ones at that. I don't understand Republicans--if they would come up with a national system that allows pregnant women and their children to have necessary medical treatment, I might take them seriously when they talk "pro-life," but the fact is that in this country, we have a terrible record of fatalities in pregnancy and childbirth, especially among minority women. And one major reason is the cost. Fetuses are cheap for men, expensive for women. Health insurance? Don't raise taxes!
And let's face it, Kavanaugh is a liar and an ideological conservative who would only pollute the SCOTUS bench, and his "whole life" isn't being ruined. A lot of people don't get to be Supreme Court justices, and they survive somehow.
26
@carrobin Indeed. Remember coathanger abortions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-induced_abortion
4
It's all very well to blame, but the fact is that once Kavanaugh is confirmed, the Supreme Court will be (so far as Kavanaugh's supporters are concerned) the goose that laid the golden eggs. And with good reason: A judge who sounds off, under oath, not in the manner not of a judge but of the rawest sort of stump candidate, as Kavanaough did, cannot truly be "elevated" to the Supreme Court. The Court will, by force of moral gravity, be forced to descend to him, and to stay there--for every 5-4 decision in which he joins will never be seen as the product of judicial process, however imperfect, but as a strike, and a vengeful one at that, on behalf of a political party. The glove will always seem loaded, and therefore the knockout punch will never be respected. The golden egg of law--imperfect now though it is, but still golden in that it is respected, or if not respected, at least accepted---will seem to become a rotten egg, one much less worth slicing into coin, or anything else useful. And this will be so for all on both sides of the aisle. Once this feeling generally takes hold, that the Supreme Court is not to be respected, nor its decisions even taken as legitimate, the Court's decisions will not be the law of the land except in theory.
8
The argument that Brett Kavanaugh’s recent over-the-top performance in front of the Judiciary Committee was simply genuine frustration over being put in an impossible situation of having to prove a negative about the accusations of sexual assault simply does not make sense.
Kavanaugh’s opening remarks and his attacks on the questions by the ranking members of the Committee were heavily scripted to conform to the fiery call to arms which Donald Trump demanded and which most of the Republicans defending Kavanaugh wanted. The script was written, presumably, by Don McGahn and staff.
The problem was that Brett Kavanaugh, a natural bully, went way too far.
So, the refusal by Democratic senators to accept his academic and judicial resume in lieu of the truth – as everyone in Kavanaugh’s upbringing had accepted – produced rage and tears.
The public recoiled at Kavanaugh. Anyone who does not realize that Kavanaugh’s performance was a poorly executed theatrical production, misses the obvious reality of the situation.
16
"He would be saying to the country that he cared more about undiluted partisanship and pouting and gamesmanship than about his responsibilities and the proper functioning of the branches of government."
Have we not already learned that, indeed, this IS all he cares about?
4
Kavanaugh’s strategy from the outset - his categorical denial- is the unfortunate thing that led him into his current situation. He boxed himself in. He of all people should know his history to provide some wiggle room. Had he come out and said in humility that he couldn’t recall any such event in the past and admitted to having had too much to drink at one time or another, people would be more forgiving of an adolescent transgression.
Instead, his categorical denial forced him to paint himself as a choir boy, dissemble/ whitewash / disdainfully sandbagged , and refused to answer questions during the hearings. His anger may be understandable but the rest of his demeanor is not. These all add up in the end.
10
I had opposed Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to SCOTUS on ideological grounds but accepted his confirmation as inevitable.
Then came the events of the last two weeks, culminating in his angry, partisan rant. I could still accept his confirmation had he been honest about drinking to excess in high school and college, explained that having daughters helped him understand how dangerous his behavior was, and stated he was sorry if he had ever done ANYTHING to frighten, harass or hurt anyone--but that he honestly didn't remember doing any such thing.
But that's not what Kavanaugh did. He denied drinking to excess, didn't answer legitimate questions, sarcastically hurled questions back at Democrats (since no Republicans asked meaningful questions), and behaved as if any questions about his behavior as a student were negated by his steller academic record.
That Kavanaugh is smart and capable is beyond dispute.
That he is also a partisan bully is now equally beyond dispute.
If the GOP confirms Kavanaugh, they are putting a second bully prone to confrontational outburst aimed at anyone who questions his behavior or the ethics of his past work, who essentially swore a loyalty oath to Trump during his awful rant, into a position of extreme power. For the rest of his life.
Mr. Douthat, THAT undermines the court's moral legitimacy far more than its affirmation of women's right to make reproductive choices in private, with no government intervention.
27
@Katz You pretty much nailed my position down. I tended to believe Dr. Ford but prior to Kavanuagh's testimony and even anything after to date there wasn't really anything to corroborate her story. But what he said and how he said it, let's just say that wasn't his best performance.
3
For a counterexample, this: "
Trump leaves Rose Garden listeners punch-drunk … even without alcohol: The president was ostensibly promoting a new trade deal but for 90 minutes he came across as a madcap carnival barker"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/01/trump-nafta-usmca-speech...
"Having witnessed Kavanaugh’s furious tirade to the Senate judiciary committee and Senator Lindsey Graham’s no-holds-barred diatribe, Trump is perhaps anxious to keep his crown as the white man’s ranter-in-chief."
7
"this is going to be an open wound for years to come"
I disagree, the patient is dead, wounds are not a factor.
Seriously, how much worse do you think this could get?
After the Merrick Garland nomination, is there anything that anybody could do to worsen the "body politics"?
There is no discourse anymore. This is brute force politics. If you can get away with it, "just do it".
6
@El Lucho Merrick Garland wasn’t the first Supreme Court nominee not to get a confirmation hearing.
@John -- true, but all the others who never got a hearing were prior to the civil war
"...saying that Ford’s witnesses “refuted” her is not a lie but a self-interested interpretation".
So, I DON'T want a Supreme Court Justice that addresses the law with self-interested interpretations. We saw an example of that when Kavanaugh tried to de facto anti-abortion an immigrant teenage girl, throwing up all kinds of hand waving obstacles in the hopes that she'd end up past the period for a legal abortion, before his ruling was overturned on appeal.
The partisan divide makes us overlook non-partisan issues, or make essentially non-partisan issues seem partisan. It is valid for a judge to be liberal, conservative, or any philosophical ideology, and make decisions from that basis integrated with knowledge of the law. No law is written such that there will never need to be some interpretation of the law's "spirit", because no one can possibly write a law that defines all possible circumstances in which that law might need to apply. It is not valid for a judge to be Democrat, Republican, or any political party, and make decisions from that basis, since it is obvious that any political party can change or even ignore its own platform for mere expediency to remain in power. Courts owing allegiance to parties, or rulers, are courts in a land where democracy and rule of law are a farce.
7
What have we learned so far. Not much, as far as criminal trials go. But this is not a criminal trial. It was never meant to be. Those involved are well aware that the rules of the U.S. Senate are not now, nor have they ever been, fashioned in such manner. So, following those rules, an inquiry was made. Observers have since last week gone back to treating this as a court proceeding. Well, it is not that either.
What is unsettling is that the Senate's hired lawyer, a prosecutor, who comes from one of the most professional offices in the U.S. A., the Maricopa County, Arizona office, likened Dr. Ford to a witness for the prosecution. If Dr. Ford were a witness for the prosecution, she would have undergone a rigid protocol assigned for victims of sexual assault. This was not done. It was way too late. The "prosecution" wholly failed to account for this misstep.
In a real sexual assault case, she would have spent hours with the prosecuting attorney to get her story straight, factual, and believable. This story was definitely believable. It was just straight and truthful, as anyone who has heard this story elsewhere would acknowledge. But there was no attempt to "fill in blanks" as would normally be the case.
If anything I say here might be seen to reflect badly on Ms. Rachel Mitchell, I am truly sorry. The facts were as they are. I only suggest she might not have made it seem that the story needed more. I mean 35 years is 35 years. And no woodshedding of the witness?
@Robert If she wants a criminal investigation all she has to do is ask. The Montgomery County Police Department is ready to investigate as soon as she files a criminal complaint. She has chosen not to. If you make your allegations in a political setting then expect a political atmosphere. If you want justice, go to the police.
What has been lost in this debate is the fact that so many of Kavanagh's files and court decisions were not made available for review. Surely this is not a candidate who welcomes transparency.
18
After writing my post below I am reminded of that nightmare I had after Trump was elected.
In the dream, I was panic stricken and desperately going to closets and cupboards to pack things in order to leave a creepy scary dark house.
Then Trump loomed up out of the darkness and said "What do you think you are doing?"
"I am just getting my stuff in order to leave" I said.
"You have nothing" Trump said. "It all belongs to me."
7
The various commenters asking "Would you like to be judged by what you did in high school?" make me wonder what the heck it was they did in high school.
19
@SarahB Obama used cocaine and Marijuana in High School. That didn’t derail his Presidential bid. Many of our most prominent politicians used alcohol or drugs during their youth.
1
They didn’t lie about it! President Obama wrote a book!
1
anyone who regards "conservatism" as anything other than what it really is -- FASCISM -- clearly hasn't been paying attention over the past 58 years, ever since Goldwater and his ghostwriters penned that unconscionable fascist manifesto. the countless hypocrites and charlatans it has spawned; the institutions it has targeted and gutted; the social upheaval it has rendered; the tilting and overturning of the economic scales to the few via the robbing of public funds; the attempted thwarting, silencing and subverting of the fourth estate, and the depressing downturn in the quality and tone of public discourse, are some of its key lowlights -- and all by design. conservatism is not a legitimate counter or flip-side to liberalism. there can be no common ground between the two. Liberalism seeks to include, to foster and to grow into a whole greater than the sum of its parts, e.g., like a healthy America; while conservatism intends to smash, to destroy, to isolate and to cancel out anything other than its cancerous self. to many, that evidence has long been on full display. the fact that others still don't, or are just now beginning to, see the results of its destructive force now that it's 2/3 the way down the line on its path, is regrettable.
9
@Don F. You clearly don’t know what fascism is. I strongly recommend a great book by Roger Griffin, an internationally recognized authority, who shows that fascism is a utopian ideology trying to create a new healthy society inhabited by strong, pure and united men and women, a social whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. Whatever you think of this program (I am not in favor, personally), it is hardly conservative. And an occasional full stop in your writing would also be very welcome.
@Mor If you are looking for relevant reading, try "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by a journalist eye-witness. Well worth the 1200+ pages. Facism is not an ideology, as Griffin and others would have it, it was a political philosophy composed of several strands of evil practices that align with the trends of U.S. Conservatives, who - don't forget - generated the "America First" movement in the 30s to oppose American intervention against Hitler.
1
How can this topic even be discussed without the inclusion of an American woman?
4
Ross, you are "pro-life" in regard to the issue of abortion.
Does that pro-life attitude extend to a belief that the sacredness of life dictates that war should be waged only as a last resort?
I can take an educated guess, based on the views of other conservatives, that this is most assuredly NOT the case.
8
The Democrats are a vicious lying amoral group that hungers for power. They are out to destroy the republic as it was meant to be.
3
@abc "as it was meant to be"? You mean with slavery and female disenfranchisement among other goodies? They did at least have the wisdom to provide for amendment, something conservatives who "stand athwart history shouting stop" would like to forget.
1
@abc
You meant to type “Republicans” instead of “Democrats”, didn’t you?
1
Interesting how Bruni pivots and bails on Douthat's most salient point.
Having two MALE columnists “debate” defies logic when speaking about my woman’s rights.
Both thought that Trump “contained” himself.
WHAT? I guess that Trump dissing two women reporters about their being able to compose a logical thought while the white men behind him sniggered never appeared on your radar.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-insult-reporter-cecili...
Ross loves sports. Why don’t you both just talk about the baseball playoffs from now on?
Yes THAT was a diss.
8
Ross, How about this... Instead of focusing on R v. W -- and hiding your head in the sand towards aggregating aggrieved ideologues and pushing forward vile Supreme Court candidates -- perhaps look into creating laws, and supporting candidates that are for limiting a man's right and/or ability to procreate. Start focusing on yourself and what your gender -- personally and collectively -- can do to lower the abortion rate. Focus on the sperm -- and just perhaps all your prayers will really and truly be answered! "The thing about being pro-life"... is there are far more solutions than focusing on what women should or should not do.
10
Gentlemen, the answer is no, your duo column, your colloquy, doesn't work. Return to behind your respective baseboards.
"I am just a little skeptical of how his critics, in a culture where almost everyone (myself included) drank a lot in college, are assessing Kavanaugh’s attempts to deny — again, in a prove-a-negative-situation — that his drinking made him a potential blackout rapist."
Douthat, your ignorance on this point is willful: Kavanaugh is not being challenged because he drank to excess in college but because is CURRENTLY lying about his PAST behavior. Doing so, calls into question his general veracity, that is, his character.
15
Ross just wants a pro-life judge on the SCOTUS, everything else about them be damned.
talk about a single issue voter! it baffles my mind how the republicans couldnt find someone who checks all their boxes and isnt a probable rapist.
9
Bruni and Douthat -- Gentlemen! We won't know what Brett Kavanaugh has done to us until after the Mid-Terms and the 2020 Election, and after his confirmation may be "plowed" through the Senate Judiciary Committee THIS week (h/t Yertle McConnell). Tribal and partisan warfare has fractured institutional trust during this agonizing period after Donald Trump's election and before he may run again in 6 years. The president has insisted in his hour and a half pressers at the White House -- with GOP members wilting in the sun while he declaims about his "love affair" with Kim Jong-un and his vituperation against female reporters from "Fake News" -- that he's for Kavanaugh. Some of us are still hoping that Judge Brett Kavanaugh will not be jammed onto the Supreme Court after last week's Senate circus. If he is, as looks bloody likely now, there will be hell beyond our imagining to pay.
1
I disagree with Ross that there's any chance of a direct witness corroboration unless Mark Judge remembers and decides to be honest about it. I think Dr. Ford is correct that the people who were in the living room while this was going on would have had no idea what was happening on the second floor (and if they did, they damn well should have intervened).
I find the circumstantial evidence damning. And Kavanaugh's performance shows that even if he didn't try to rape Blasey Ford--and I think he did--he is unfit not only for the high court, but for the Appeals Court.
9
Every day I am forced to confront what the old, tired phrase, "normalizing X" means. In DJT's America the word it always modifies is "depravity."
I'm sorry. We've had to listen to a lot of rot over the past four years (all two horrendous years of the campaign plus the ongoing horror). But this notion that everyone drinks to excess and that we now have to shame all of America (ALL of us, mind you) into admitting that if our pasts were combed through, we too would be in Brett Kavanaugh's shoes has to be the most noisome, absurd, insulting crap yet.
And if there are GOP sycophants out there who really feel the need to throw themselves under the bus to defend a man who presented himself as indefensible, have at it. But know this...the majority of us did NOT drink to excess, assault other people, and start barroom fights that sent other patrons to the ER with bloody ears. And we're not running for the most influential office in the land.
This depraved GOP and its sick, misogynistic values aren't ours. If this man is elected to the Supreme Court, it-- like the WH and Congress-- will no longer have any moral authority. At that point a thinking citizen might conclude that this nation is no longer functioning properly and either leave or rebel. Frankly, the causes of the American Revolution pale next to what we have to put with in this GOP-led sham of a democracy.
12
Research shows that more than 80 percent of college students drink alcohol, and almost half report binge drinking in the past 2 weeks. Virtually all college students experience the effects of college drinking—whether they drink or not.Apr 9, 2013 - Washington Post
Given that 80% of College students drink alcohol and nearly half of those students have experienced 'binge drinking', you have to wonder why so many writers 'insist' that college drinking is not so widespread.
Mr. Kavanaugh may be fairly typical in regards to his college drinking. The data and my own experience at Michigan and Berkeley is fairly clear - college student drink and some of them drink a great deal.
While I may not be comfortable with his attitude towards women and his 'poor memory'; I cannot fault him for being a fairly typical college student when it comes to drinking. The data does not lie.
3
But he does lie, frequently.
3
About Mitchell's statement: https://bit.ly/2y8yWpj
The problem isn't that Kavanaugh struggled to prove the negative that he wasn't a blackout rapist. The problem is that in trying to make his case he very definitely lied about the extent of his drinking in college and H.S. That doesn't come close to demonstrating that he is or well might be a blackout rapist. It does fairly conclusively prove that he lied under oath. That in itself, according to Senator Flake is disqualifying.
7
The Test
Who is Mr. Kavanaugh?
Is he the man whom we all saw?
Or is someone else, indeed
A monster moved by lust and greed?
Or perhaps a choir boy, a punk, or just a jock
The predator next door hid beneath a rock?
Too many factors
Too many actors
Will the next nominee be less of a mess?
If he is not human, he might pass the test
So, some are more equal than others?
I think he should be confirmed. It would be fitting and honest if the vote of someone who probably committed a sexual assault took away the right to an abortion for minors who have been sexually assaulted.
1
Christian cultist Amy Barrett does not belong on the Supreme Court of a united stares that constitutionally requires separation of church and state. Doutart ignores Bruni’s Comment about Kavanaugh’s outspoken bias against unnamed “leftists” proving “outside funding” ( no mention of the expensive tv ads promoting K’s candidacy), Clinton loyalists, Dems on the committee ( I’m proud of my senator, Durbin) and “the media.” All that should disqualify him, regardless of the sexual assault accusations. But so should lying to Congress about his Bush-era activities, and the matter of Sen. Leahy’s emails. Stop Kavanaugh. Save the court.
7
the last couple of paragraphs are the only important part of this exchange and i am not sure ross or frank get it...... the chaos IS by design. ALL OF IT. the goal is an authoritarian trump. he fancies himself america's putin or maybe he fancies himself out putining putin. after all he has a very big brain.
we are in real trouble. so much of the trump ethos has been normalized we are now living mostly in his world.
2
Interesting that the Catholic bros did not discuss how badly this made the joke of the pro-life movement look, and how the shock of the papist rapists are exploding throughout the debased and increasingly reviled church. Kavanaugh and the hypocrite anger Senators invoking god in a secular hearing was an offense to many Americans who like their separation of church and state and want to keep it that way, and these tawdry religious men didn't even come out of their denial boxes to discuss that or the way Kavanaugh pimped his own daughter's private prayers for the other side. Guessing she is not rooting for the impurist jurist.
9
“Shaded the truth” - nice way to describe lying, Ross.
You, like the evangelicals, are looking at everything through Roe-colored glasses.
9
Ross has some big blind spots showing!
"I would really, really like one directly corroborating witness — just one — to events that all seem like they could very well have corroborating witnesses"
Dude! Listen to yourself!
"When I go about committing a crime, I make sure there are plenty of corroborating witnesses!"
Even a highSchool drunk jock knows to hide your crimes.
And another thing: Since when do we expect an alcoholic to be honest about the effect his drinking had on his judgement?
Brett needs an intervention - not Republican apologists.
Talk about that slipper slope they always -claim- to be concerned.
Frank, Ross has a lot hypocrisy dripping - he can't see it - can you wipe that up for him?
Thanks!
7
Color me unicorn purple, but I would not be at all surprised if Kavanaugh gets the heave-ho. I kind of expect it.
Trump, albeit uncharacteristically quiet, seems to be playing both sides of the table, assessing the odds for best return on the accolades from his investors - a.k.a. his base.
Should the winds blow unfavorably from the judge, as a result of new allegations and/or the FBI investigation, he will claim kudos for the nomination, blame democrats for the loss, and wrap both himself and Kavanaugh in the robe of victimhood.
He will then nominate Barrett - a sop to women, evangelicals and the pro-life extremists - who is far right enough as to have no qualms about a get-out-of-jail-free ruling for him, should Mueller's report require one.
And as usual, he will declare it a win all around. Besides, Kavanaugh is one of those "eliites" he and his base despise. So, all will be forgiven.
3
@Deb
Trump went to the NY military school and then ivy college equivalent of Georgetown Prep and Yale.
@Margot -- from the wikiP
"Trump grew up in Jamaica, Queens, and attended the Kew-Forest School from kindergarten through seventh grade. At age 13, he was enrolled in the New York Military Academy, a private boarding school, after his parents discovered that he had made frequent trips into Manhattan without their permission.[20][21]
In 1964, Trump enrolled at Fordham University.[17][22] After two years, he transferred to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.[22][23] He graduated in May 1968 with a Bachelor of Science degree in economics.[22][25][26]"
He finished high-school at the Military Academy. Fordham is a university. Other sources say he transferred to Wharton because it had a real-estate track in B-school, how this jibes with the degree in Econ I don't know.
Other sources, including some I have talked to personally (Kew Gardens shares the Kew-Forrest school with adjacent Forrest Hills) say that he was sent to the military school for offenses much more serious than "frequent trips into Manhattan" ... having to do with why he was making those trips.
I will not get into the "then ivy college equivalent of ... Yale."
a lie is a lie - no matter what explanation for the reason - “I also suspect Kavanaugh shaded the truth in a couple of his yearbook answers,; putting the best possible face on your drinking is not the same as denying that you drank too much sometimes;”
Since when do we want someone the Supreme Court who shades the truth - not to mention his horrible rant at Democrats - liberals....anyone else he could smear....
2
What apologist should for Kavanaugh fail to see is his obvious arrogance. An arrogance of a typical entitled white male, who has lied his way through his life and gotten away with loathsome behavior! No American company (except maybe Fox News) would hire Kavanaugh as CEO or “C” anything! WHY would We, the People want him installed on our Highest Court?!
Ross, you are on the wrong side of history.
3
The divide has been caused by Liberal activists.
There is a long history.
Lansky !
The Kavanaugh fiasco was caused 100% by Feinstien. It was a calculated move to maximize political gain.
Every day there is a new twist to keep the confirmation process on the front page.
Divide - Liberals think it is ok to storm a politician in public (Cruz in a restaurant).!!
Anarchy is ok with Liberals.
They want to change the constitution for their benefit. The have legal minds to craft arguments. (No electoral college; change the US senate to weight big states....
The partisan warfare can be blamed on Liberals.
3
Funny that Ross thinks it is okay to lie about your drinking or shaming of a woman or sexual innuendos for a Supreme Court Justice because he drank in college. I am curious if he thinks the standard for gaining a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, possibly the most powerful position of them all, is the same as being a op-ed writer for the New York Times? The disaster is that Kavanaugh's adult life has been spent attacking liberals and their is a paper trail. In this time, he claimed a lie of the president about consensual sexual relations was a crime worthy of impeachment, but now believes his lies about blackout drinking, sexual inuendos and belligerent and aggressive behavior is not a big deal. How do those two thoughts co-exist? Especially, for a man who relies on precise words to make judgements? Then, we find out that Kavanaugh wrote an opinion on the appellate court in favor of the use of lie detector tests for government background checks of potential employees, but refusing to take one. Too many lies for a person who is supposed to be able to apply the lie equally without prejudice.
7
Wow, this was great. Reading two white privileged men write about another white privileged man's bad behavior. Because it was bad behavior, what Kavanaugh did at the hearing was indefensible. Perhaps Ross needs to go back and watch the exchanges between Sheldon Whitehouse and Kavanaugh and Amy Klobuchar and Kavanaugh. He's interviewing for job in these exhanges. He's interviewing for a job. Just wondering Ross, is this how you would have your kids conduct themselves? I assume you must have many kids as you are so anti-abortion and anti-contraception.
12
I forgot, did Neil Gorsuch have these problems?
123
@muslit
No, nor would...wait for it...Merrick Garland.
Gorsuch was as elusive as almost all SCOTUS nominees. The difference between Kavanaugh and Gorsuch is that Gorsuch didn’t lie.
And nor did Merrick Garland.
This could have been an unplanned but ultimately reassuring test of Judge Kavanaugh. He could have used the politician's standard excuse "I can't recall" and asked the committee and country to judge his behavior as an adult, which appears to be exemplary.
Or, he could have proclaimed his innocence, yet stayed above the fray, suggesting his character was of a higher order, not someone who lashes out, looks for conspiracies, seeks revenge.
Instead, he pulled a Trump.
2
The IMPERATIVE Question is NOT: What has Brett Kavanaugh done to US? The IMPERATIVE Question ALL Americans need to be evaluating is: What has DONALD TRUMP (and that includes the influence, manipulating intrusion & cyberific tactics of Vladimir Putin) done to US and the U.S.? Brett Kavanaugh is just one piece of this train wreck. Roe Vs. Wade has little to do with Trump's loyalty and insistence on defending Kavanaugh. The Federalist Itemized List of Supreme Court Appointee Options included several options. All of the potential candidates on this list could be counted upon to loyally vote down Roe Vs. Wade. What Kavanaugh brought along with his package was the determination to insure that a sitting President couldn't be prosecuted. Donald Trump's (and Putin's) loyalty to Kavanaugh has everything to do with his fear of the outcome of the Mueller Investigation. I hope and pray that Americans of all political parties wake up and realize that although Mr. Trump views his Presidency as a game... it is not. We all must go to the polls and vote to stop the train wreck which seems never ending. We must do so not for ourselves but for coming generations of Americans who believe in democracy and believe that it is more than a game.
1
If Kavanaugh is guilty of all the bad behaviour he is accused of
how did he ever become a Federal Judge ?
Where were all these witnesses when his case was before the
Senate for his Appeals Court nomination ?
Why did Feinestein not release the letter sooner and/or
confront Kavanaugh with it in their private/closed meetings ?
If this is not payback for the Clintons and the Democrats not
getting a seat on the Court during Obama's last year - then what
is it - it is certainly not the moral superiority of the Democrats -
for they did not pursue the far more obviously guilty Clinton(s)
than they have Kavanaugh.
As for how Kavanaugh responded, what would you do, if indeed
you are innocent, of having had one after false allegation thrown
at you by people who have no intention of ever voting you onto
the Court.
Personally, a pox on both their houses.
Can we get a Third Party that actually cares about the
majority of Americans ?
2
@John Brown
Feinstein received and released Dr. Ford's letter in July, once she obtained permission by Dr. Ford to go public.
1
"He correctly described the Maryland and D.C. drinking laws in his prepared remarks and just glossed the issue later."
Not for Maryland Ross. So he lied. On NPR yesterday Ailsa Chang spoke with Jon Greenberg from Politfact about the Maryland drinking age at the time. Here's an excerpt:
"KAVANAUGH: The drinking age was 18 in Maryland for most of my time in high school. And it was 18 in D.C. for all my time in high school."
CHANG: All right, Jon, did Kavanaugh get the law right? Was 18 the drinking age at the time in both places?
GREENBERG: Brett Kavanaugh got it wrong for Maryland. In Maryland, the drinking age in the summer of 1982 went from 18 to 21. So at the time, it would be very likely that Brett Kavanaugh, being someone who was less than 21, was not drinking legally at least for half of the summer.
Full article here: https://www.npr.org/2018/10/01/653430540/fact-check-supreme-court-nomine...
1
Ross: I also suspect Kavanaugh shaded the truth in a couple of his yearbook answers.
Oh, like when he said Devil's Triangle is a drinking game? Knowing what that really means I would find it one of the weirdest drinking games yet.
3
So, Ross, the decision allowing women to make their own decisions about abortion made you lose faith in American jurisprudence--so much so that your only consideration is appointing justices who will fix this, no matter their character?
If abortion was illegal, what do you think would happen?
Morality would be restored in America and its effects would rain down everywhere--less crime, child abuse, addiction and divorce, jails would empty and more people would attend Mass? NO!
What would happen is more desperate poor women will die, rich women including conservative Republicans will travel to address crisis pregnancies. You can't impose your morality.
To reduce abortion, offer easy-to-access contraceptives and plenty of sex education to youth. But, uh-oh, you think these things are immoral, too. Here is the impasse that has led to decades of cultural wars over abortion and SCOTUS.
13
The entire fiasco is a culmination of the Newt Gingrich philosophy of obstinanse despite what is in the best interest of the country.
Don McGahn deliberately withheld information from the committee that would have disqualified the Kavanaugh nominatation initially. Maybe his ulterior motive by expanding Presidential powers and a sitting President not being subject to indictment would also clear the way for him to be exonerated or protect himself from nefarious activities in which he was involved.
Kavanaugh refusal to answer questions were due to, " Hyperboles". Two questions that are hyperboles he would be forced to answer: Would you tolerate someone in your courtroom screaming, crying, interupting, accusing you of by partisanship? Suppose a person you were interviewing for a clerkship screamed, sneered, whimpered, interrupted and accused you of partisanship, would you reject their application for the prestigious position?
On more practical matters should an applicant for the positions of cleaning, waxing the floors of Congress, Supreme Court or cleaning toilets in those sacred buildings acted like Kavanaugh did Thursday afternoon they would be put on the FBI watch list in order to protect government officials from potential harm.
The citizens of this country deserve to be protected from the potential harm his demeanor exhibited. There is no excuse for his behavior, he had the sympathy of millions from a high school accusation. Sympathy has turned to distain.
2
What has Kavanaugh done to us?
Basically he and Trump and Mitch McConnell are standing in line at the bedroom door of a disabled America waiting their turn to assault what remains of our Democracy...
They are the ultimate Dark Triad thriving in a Perfect Storm, and we are just trying to survive.
6
What Mr. Douthat ignores, and what Mr. Bruni should have responded with, is that it's not just high school drinking age and college drinking that Mr. Kavanaugh has told untruths about. He has also lied about his work in the Bush White House and misstated his rulings (saying, for example, that he ruled many times in favor of environmental litigants, when in fact they were procedural rulings only—he voted against them on the substantive claims).
And the fact of the matter is, that regardless of whether he is being incorrectly accused now, his attitude, partisan response, and downright rudeness in dealing with them, ought to give anyone, including even Mr. Douthat, pause regarding his suitability for the Supreme Court, let alone ANY court, in the U.S. A judge needs to be much more even-tempered than Mr. Kavanaugh showed himself to be, especially when dealing with difficult circumstances. He failed that test miserably.
5
Perhaps the worst of this is the "Judge's" inability to admit wrong doing in regard to anything - anything! In college, in the Army, in my adult life, I've done plenty of embarrassing things some I'm sure would disqualify me for any public office today BUT a willingness to admit wrong doing is the first step to forgiveness or even a willingness by others to overlook one's shortcomings. That's what bothers me a lot - there's no remorse for anything!
When Kavanaugh screamed and yelled; when he rudely attacked Senator Klobuchar; when he refused to answer several direct questions and was incredibly evasive - that was how he lost my vote.
He does not have the temperament to be a judge. He should resign from the Appeals Court and go home to Maryland and teach at Georgetown Prep.
10
No one's perfect but my God Kavanaugh has so much ugly baggage from years ago and and a week ago that he should be immediately disqualified. Forget the politics of who the next nominee would be and find someone with a couple ounces of character - maybe Merrick Garland. Kavanaugh is bad news all the way around but will probably get the nomination anyway. The real story is how badly America has slid in the quality and objectives of its leadership (Trump, McConnell, Ryan, Graham, Hatch etc.) That's OK, payback starts Nov. 6.
3
The hyper-partisan tit for tat truly has no end. The Democrats' revenge for the GOP's delaying the Garland nomination was waiting until the last possible moment to bring up potentially damaging information, which could have easily come to light months earlier, for example.
In any case, it occurs to me that if the Democrats take the Senate this fall, there is one more thing that could push us further into total partisan chaos and almost complete distrust of institutions and the Supreme Court. Justice Ginsburg can retire once the new Senate is sworn in, and the Democrats can submit to Trump a short list of extremely far left liberals and block any other nomination until the president gives in (which he wouldn't).
Sometimes I feel I'm the only one who sees how insane this all is, that there is plenty of blame to go around for how we got here, and that while sexual assault is a disgusting and heinous crime I still have no idea if Kavanaugh did what he's accused of and that has nothing to do with my politics (generally, left of center if one must know) but has everything to do with the very few facts that have actually been made public.
3
Ross says we live in “a culture where almost everyone drank a lot in college.” No, Ross, you and your friends drank a lot in college, but many of us didn’t. My friends and I weren’t part of the fraternity/sorority crowd. We played folk music instead of going to drunken parties. Research cited by the National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse found: “According to
a national survey, almost 60 percent of college students ages 18–22 drank alcohol in the past month, and almost 2 out of 3 of them engaged in binge drinking during that same timeframe.” In other words, about 40% were heavy drinkers. Yes, that’s a lot of drinking, but it isn’t “almost everyone.”
https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/CollegeFactSheet/Collegefactshee...
3
To be able to live a free and full life means that you cannot live in fear of your body and health being attacked from without and/or from within. Being in control of your own body is a necessary condition for any human freedom.
This is a freedom white heterosexual men have reserved for themselves because they have never considered the different conditions which apply to everyone else.
They are thinking about the possible consequences to men falsely accused but not about the daily terror women, and some men too, face and will face if they don't help to put a stop to it.
Nobody wants people to be falsely accused or penalized for something he did not do. Putting a man,whose ability to tell the truth is already questionable, on the Supreme Court without a thorough investigation of the charges and very strong evidence that he would not have behaved this way, gives open license to sexual predators.
It is an ideology of terror against women to tell us that men will get away with it if they just deny it loudly and have like-minded people in the justice system. Especially if, as the GOP does, they insist that any resulting pregnancy is just something the woman has to suffer. Women are being encouraged to fear even leaving our homes
The central point women are demanding legislators to be making is that you never treat anyone else as a thing for your, or anything else's use, Not sexually, not for their bodily organs and not for your reproductive needs
5
Mr. Trump just said that this is a 'scary time' for young men in America. And girls and women? They're doing 'great'.
Jaw-dropping.
7
"Ross: I am just a little skeptical of how his critics, in a culture where almost everyone (myself included) drank a lot in college..."
Ross does it. Trump does it. Kavanaugh does it. Most people do it: Assume everyone is like them, since they see the world from the point of those they hang out with. Whether fellow liars, cons, thieves, swearers, drinkers, etc.
It may seem like "almost everyone" drinks a lot but even at my relatively small schools (HS and college), while plentiful, the partiers and heavy drinkers were the exception, not the rule. You knew who they were. Even at the largest events where people were drinking it was only small portion of those in attendance.
1
What a sham. Not one thought on the commitment to slander and smear at any costs by the lock step democrats.
Holding Ford's letter secret till the 11th hour.
Trying make an anonymous accusation grounds for disqualification.
Setting up a tilted playing field for the Ford interview so that any challenging question to Ford would be toxic. Why have we not her drinking and partying, her year book? Why have the witnesses she cited all contradicted her?
Bringing forward additional accusations that were increasingly outrageous and equally uncorroborated. How can anyone believe that a knee walking drunk (Ramirez) who had to ask friends for help to "remember" was able to clearly see and remember Kavanaugh's privates or any of the conflicted statements from Avanati's client who's now walking back her accusations?
Calling him unconvincing when he defended himself with calm demeanor, the unhinged when he fought back with emotion.
Changing tactics to focus on high school and college drinking, painting him as a blackout drunk then trying to cast doubt on his veracity of degree of consumption and behavior.
What has Brett Kavanaugh done to us? He has shown to what degree a dishonest and immoral political party will go to destroy anyone who gets in its path to power. He has shown us that democrat party governance is banana republic governance.
He has shown us that Senator Graham was correct. God help us if democrats get back in power.
@GeorgeB Purdell
The falsely imposed 11th hour. An artificial time crunch. Your argument is...bogus.
I guess the "beauty" of most rape and sexual assault charges is that they happen in isolation, making that desired corroborating witness all but impossible to produce. Some among us argue that Kavanaugh shouldn't have to prove a negative, but that's pretty much what we seem to be expecting from the accusers. We just won't admit as much.
4
"What Has Brett Kavanaugh Done to Us?"
Wrong question for me, and probably a few million other voters.
Instead, what have we done to Justice Kavanaugh and the judicial nomination process?
Self-inflicted wounds long before the arrival of Justice Kavanaugh.
Let's see, are there greater hypocrites among the Dem Judiciary Committee than "I served in Vietnam" Sen. Blumenthal from Connecticut," or Sen. Klobluchar, who has yet to call for an FBI or State investigation of Keith Ellison, the DNC vice-chair from Minnesota who beat up his ex-girlfriend and which has the benefit of bona fide injuries with contemporaneous accounts? Or how about Pat Leahy; was he really drunk on the Senate floor in 2010? Or Cory "I groped a woman at a bar and ask for forgiveness" Booker? (was he forgiven? How do you do that, and who dispenses the forgiveness?). How about ex-DA Kamala Harris, whose office was found by a court to have obstructed the facts of missing or faulty of lab results pending several prosecutions without any response when advised of the problem? The list goes on and on.
It sure is fun to watch the Dems in action.
The Dems on the Committee know that the louder they scream to please the base, the less the base will them accountable for their own scandals and peccadilloes.
Where have we heard that critique before?
Oh yeah, daily in the pages of the NYT regarding Trump and his base.
2
Liberals should hope for Kavannaugh's nomination to the Supreme
Court to be a success. This will mobilize voters to elect anti Trump candidates to the House and Senate. The new congress can then vote to impeach Kavanaugh and await another candidate who has not indicated bias for presidential privilege and has a history of repeatedly lying regarding his past on the Starr investigation.
If Kavanaugh's nomination fails, right wing voters will flock to the polls to keep Trump apologists in office plus another ultra conservative will be placed on the court. Liberals will be left with the same congress and an intractable court.
Let's hope Kavanaugh is confirmed!
The trump playbook. Dodge, deflect and question your questioners. Don't answer questions and play the victim. Yes, Kavanaugh has been taught well by the Donald.
1
If Kavanaugh had taken and passed a lie detector test, the Republicans would be shouting it from the rooftops. They didn't, so he didn't. Next nominee, please!
4
What has Brett Kavanaugh done to us? Put us deeper down the hole being dug by Vladimir Putin and other enemies of Western democracy. As evidenced by posts such as that from sandy in Chicago, we are expending the greatest portion of our mental energy on wishing—demanding, really—the worst of bad karma for our fellow Americans. The Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev once said something like, "When the Soviet Union destroys the United States, it will be with a weapon sold to us by an American capitalist." Not far wrong, unless we find a way to become a whole society again.
1
Mr Douthat,
You say " I would definitely prefer, and have said so repeatedly, a figure like Amy Coney Barrett as the potential fifth vote to overturn Roe v. Wade ." Why does it matter to you who votes to overturn Roe? Do you believe the vote of another Catholic justice, one who hasn't been accused of sexual assault, would somehow make the decision more honorable or valid?
I would also like to read a succinct summary of WHY you believe Roe should be overturned. Do your reasons extend beyond your Catholic beliefs? If not, why do you think that YOUR religious and moral beliefs should be incorporated into the law of the land, and imposed on everyone else in this country?
Thank you.
6
Dear Ross, “Pro-life”?? Spare me. If you’re pro-life and want fewer abortions you’d support universal access to affordable contraception and better education for lower-
income girls, and better sex education for all young people. If you want to save innocent lives you’d advocate for funding research by the CDC and NIH on gun violence. And more support for child and adolescent mental health services. And suicide prevention. And taxes on sugary drinks. And an end to subsidies for high-fructose corn syrup at a time of epidemic obesity and diabetes.
No, outlawing abortion, guns in schools, restricted voting rights, more air pollution, and busting labor unions are far more important to you than preserving social capital, healing our nation’s painful divisions and maintaining the checks and balances of our Constitution.
Ross, I’m a conservative. You and yours are right-wing zealots. Man up and own it.
12
Is this the only anti-abortion white male available? There are probably tons of them who don't rage against an entire political party on international TV. Why is the GOP holding them back in favor of someone who lacks basic decency and an ability to check his entitlement and rage?
6
I think the reason Trump seems a bit detached from the Kavanaugh turmoil is that he's following the prime directive in Trump World: Donald never ever takes the blame for anything. So he says let the Senate decide, let the FBI investigate. He has proposed a judge who is clearly arrogant, entitled, easily angered, and openly partisan. His insulting attitude toward Senators is disqualifying in itself. He did not display judicial temperament as defined by the ABA. There was nothing in his hearings to suggest he would be fair and reasonable in his judgments. He feels entitled to a seat on the Court, which to me is disqualifying also.
2
Yes, thanks Ross for twisting yourself into a pretzel to defend Kavanaugh's lying as
"...shaded the truth in a couple of his yearbook answers, but when I read lists of his supposed litany of lies I mostly just see someone being his own defense attorney..."
Shaded the truth? Not much of a stickler for the truth, are we, Mr Douthat? NO. Kavanaugh lied about his yearbook because it revealed his attitudes about sex and women. It went right to the accusations made by Dr.Ford about what type of person Kavanaugh was. And that's why he lied...to cover himself.
Speaking of covering oneself, we also have Ross admitting
"in a culture where almost everyone (myself included) drank a lot in college"
So, here Ross admits his prejudice about covering for a "bro" who drank a lot in college. Well, isn't that special. I did not drink a lot in college and neither did my friends. But it sounds like Ross is suggesting that for every man who did drink a lot in college, Kavanaugh deserves some slack. Drunken students do stupid things...and naturally attempt to cover up afterwards. Nothing to see here, right Ross?
Ross is anti-abortion and admits he wants a anti-abortion justice to overturn Roe. He doesn't care if the new justice is partisan or not, impartial or not. He at least is honest about what he wants. And if you disagree with what Ross wants, then you had better remember to
VOTE OUT ALL REPUBLICANS
4
It's not what BK did to us, it's the level to which the left is willing to stoop to ensure that actual judges -- you know, folks who can actually read, follow the law, and might not be able to find the word "abortion" in the constitution -- aren't confirmed. Leftists have drawn the line in the sand at Roe: despite the fact that there is simply no intellectually honest way to defend the decision, it MUST be supported, because no constitution is worth having if it doesn't include the right to off one's offspring. And since the left can't win elections to enact their policy outside of blue enclaves, it insists that black robed politicians impose those policies.
In short, the left is willing to go to the barricades to ensure that the judiciary is NEVER actually populated with judges.
We could all get along easily enough with one simple rule: if you can get your policy through congress, and the Constitution doesn't expressly forbid it (e.g. trying to ban guns or limit speech), you win. If you can't, you lose. You DON'T populate the courts with politicians to effect that which you can't get at the polls.
So, conservatives need to admit that a court can't order school choice or proscribe progressive taxation, and leftists need to admit that the Constitution simply doesn't address sex. At all.
The Bruni-Doughat article ends with an incorrect statement:that the Kavanaugh nomination is one of many divisive features brought on by the Trump presidency. Those who react in knee-jerk fashion to Trump moves, most of which have been excellent, have created the divisiveness.
Forget his twitter talk; look at his achievements.
Ordinarily, for example, a judge of Kavanaugh's exceptional judicial competence would sail through the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I agree with Sandy from Chicago below.
Where is the shame?
« Yeah, an underappreciated dynamic in all this is that Murkowski and Collins really want to vote for Kavanaugh because they don’t want a more conservative nominee ».
And not only will the person be more conservative, they will also be more nuts.
Be careful what you want, Kavanaugh getting a thumbs down, because you might just get it.
1
What the democrats have done is to ensure they don't take the senate in November.
Let us get clear on one oft Kavanaugh-massaged point about Kavanaugh's truthfulness?
When you are an underage drinker, you KNOW you are an underage drinker. Kavanaugh and Douthat say the legal drinking age at the time in question means that Kavanaugh was legally drinking beer in Maryland in 1982.
He was not. Period.
Knowledge of the legal drinking age is, I can assure you, very well known on collage campuses (and in the barracks of military ranks, too, for that matter). This is most especially true when the legal age is about to move from 18 to 21 as it did, in Maryland. On July 1 actually, the date of the (should become infamous) entry in Kavanaugh's calendar/diary where 3 of the alleged witness were to meet for some "skis:" Brett, Judge and P.J. Maybe a little blackout level beer drinking to celebrate breaking the new law?
Does anyone -- CAN anyone -- believe that any of these high-performing Georgetown high-school-aged students could NOT have known that they were in violation of the new, higher, beyond-their-ages drinking law,a law that made their drinking illegal as of that very day, July 1, 1982?
Kavanaugh and his weight lifting jock buddies knew that they were braking the new law, as millions of under age kids have always do. So, no big deal, right?
But to this very day, and on live on TV last Thursday, Kavanaugh lied about it. Today, Douthat repeated the lie. Douthat and NYT editors owe readers a correction and apology.
6
In response to a charge of sexual assault that most betting people would say is true, Kavanaugh (1) lied about his drinking and yearbook, and (2) displayed political animus towards liberals. Together, these make him manifestly unqualified.
3
"..an open wound for years to come"
Decades, even potentially a century, is more like it. Conservatism has no honor any longer and it's determination to exercise power no matter who gets hurt was cemented by Lindsey Graham's unconscionable rant that was picked by most of the Republicans in a heartbeat.
Disgusting, and exactly the kind of attitude that leads to civil war.
You folks broke it Ross, now you own it. And your ideology will pay.
2
What has Sen. Feinstein done to Dr. Ford by leaking her identity?
What have her attorneys done to Dr. Ford by refusing to permit her to testify in confidence in California, and not even telling her that was offered?
Everyone on Dr. Ford's team betrayed her.
Whether or not Judge Kavenaugh behaved badly as a young man he has behaved badly as a middle aged man. His display of temper and emotion during the recent phase of the hearing show a person ill equipped to sit on our Supreme Court. His behavior and that of his partisans was unacceptable.
249
@patricia taylor: I thought you made good points here. I don't have a problem with anyone being emotional. However, I do have a big problem when that person shows poor judgement in the content and the expression of that emotion.
1
@patricia taylor But when the same behavior is Center, not Supreme, Court it is brave.
@patricia taylor
Did you read Lawrence Tribe's article ?
HE should be nominated and confirmed too.
1
Mr. Douthat describes Supreme Court jurisprudence as a "moral disaster for American life", and prefers that Roe v Wade be overturned. The majority of Americans support Roe, and this summer it reached the highest level of support in history. What we consider a disaster is the efforts of the Republicans to deny even the current meager governmental support to the poor and hungry that have to live with the high morals of men like Mr. Douthat.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/nbc-wsj-poll-support-roe-v-w...
I have two words for republicans who think that past transgressions should stay in the past and that recent character vouched by many is more important..
DENNIS. HASTERT
187
@Matt586
Can you name the Democrats who committed these assaults or, in one case, left a woman for dead, and then were elected and re-elected by Democrats? Here goes: Mary Jo Kopechne? The two slices of bread that made a waitress sandwich? Juanita Braoddrick? Kathleen Willey? Paula Jones? Karen Monagan? Leslie Millwee?
@Matt586 -- yeah ... but he abused boys. Trump supporters are all for the right to abuse women.
@Matt586
I have two words for democrats who think that uncorroborated and contradictory accusations are the equivalent of proven past transgressions:
Get real.
1
His "devil's triangle" answer was a clear lie, and it was a prepared lie. You don't have to be a genius to see through that one.
I'm bothered by the argument that his emotions were understandable. For while that may be true, his behavior was inexcusable. He yelled at, interrupted, and lied to people we have elected to represent us. When he interrupted Dianne Feinstein, he interrupted a government official in her official role of representing nearly 40 million people. Who does he think he is?
Moreover, the job he's applying for is to be a judge--at the highest level. We should expect more from him than behavior we would object to in a four year old.
And, the most egregious part of his testimony, from the standpoint of becoming a Supreme Court Justice, was the bias he expressed. He's not willing to say whether he would support restrictions on abortion, but he is willing to say that Democrats that appear before him are probably guilty?
4
Brett Kavanaugh has done nothing to do us. Mitch McConnell, on the other hand, has successfully undermined the credibility of the Senate and now the Supreme Court.
1
Douthat’s belief that, “The thing about being pro-life is that I’ve lived my entire adult life believing that the high court’s jurisprudence has been a moral disaster for American life,” is telling. So much of moral thinking tends toward drawing these bright lines between right and wrong, but the reality of moral life as lived is that the lines are so often not as bright as we would wish.
Certainly we all hope for the kind of clarity Douthat yearns for, but life is just so much messier than that. We are so frequently plagued by choices that seem simultaneously somewhat good and somewhat bad rather than clearly one or the other. Frequently we find people of good will who are on both sides of an issue, while those who cleanly define themselves on only one side seem, at least partly, a little deranged in in their certitude.
Often this is because certainty disregards the complexities of human beings in all their messiness. To deny this reality consigns us to a belief system where people become, to an extent, simply automatons. Messiness, it seems, is a feature, not a flaw for humans. It’s what makes us interesting.
This is not to say that right and wrong is immaterial, just that it isn’t so simple as mouthing platitudes.
1
"Trump seems at times to be unable to master himself, but then there will come periods where suddenly he demonstrates that he can, in the right circumstances, hold back".
It could be that these uncharacteristic periods of restraint are when Trump's staff are able to hide his phone for a few days.
Douthat's presumption that Kavanaugh will outlaw abortion is telling. Why would he say that, since the candidate has said he hasn't considered it?
Is Douthat assuming there is some malfunction in the law now in place, and that there is a legal basis for overturning it, that has evaded the rest of us?
In other words he's delighted with a candidate who lied to the Senate about his views and positions, and whom he presumes will change the law, whether there is basis for it or not.
This is what disqualifies both him and Kavanaugh.
1
Let's pause and wonder whether we'd be embroiled in the Kavanaugh schism as it exists today if, when President Obama chose a moderate, considerate Merrick Garland rather than a partisan, liberal firebrand as his nominee for this same position in an effort to unite an increasingly fractured country and its body politic, Mitch McConnell similarly would have chosen the high road and invoked the qualities of a great leader rather than those of a craven, partisan dictator, and performed his prescribed duty.
A badly needed course correction of our increasing tendency to politicize our highest court would have been set, and today we might be watching a relatively civil, balanced confirmation of a moderate, even if left or right leaning, candidate rather than the savage partisan brutalization of a highly polarizing candidate that we are witnessing today.
13
@Peter G Brabeck: calling Merrick Garland a moderate is a misstatement, and stating that Mitch McConnell would have gone with a more moderate appointment is bizarre, especially as Senator McConnell supports the appointment of Judge Kavanaugh.
Our Supreme Court has always been partisan which is why there is a Presidential appointment and a confirmation by the Senate, checks and balances. Regardless of the appointee, the Democrats would have done the same, just like the Republicans blocked Obama's appointment.
Freedom of religion requires the separation of church and state. Roe v Wade in the view of religious conservatives makes them complicit when people decide to have abortions contrary to their religious beliefs. They cannot in good conscience tolerate other people committing mortal sins without believing that they are letting people lose their souls. They understand that tolerating beliefs that contradict their own is Godless behavior, which only religious agnostics could possibly tolerate in good conscience. The state must not allow religious people to force everyone to live according to their beliefs but to make this real, religious people must be able to set aside their most sincere convictions to allow others to risk damnation by not following their true system of beliefs. That is never going to be easy. The belief in most religions begins in early childhood and remains part of how people perceive things from then on.
3
In other words, children are brainwashed and indoctrinated into a belief system of values that are rigid, narrow and authoritarian. They believe freedom of religion means "their" freedom to impose their religion on society at large. They can't understand that freedom of religion is, in fact, freedom FROM religion. They value our freedoms except when it doesn't fit their world view, namely Separation of Church and State.
@Casual Observer: This nation is based not on religious precepts but solely on the Constitution of the United States of America--which is a moral document as well as a legal one.
It is precisely because Americans are free to live with or without a religion that freedom is the cornerstone of this country--freedom set out in the terms of the Constitution.
1
Should Kavanaugh's nomination fail, there is one thing Republican's could do to attempt to ameliorate the rancor in congress and the US: restore the filibuster for court nomination. It would result in Trump being forced to nominate someone more moderate and would put some pressure on Democrats vote for the next nominee. Should the Senate revert to Democratic control after the mid-term elections, there would be pressure on them to leave the filibuster in place given it will have been Republicans who restored it.
5
This is an interesting and novel thought about the GOP restoring the filibuster. My first reaction was “Yeah, when pigs fly.” but I see your reasoning. Then again, even if the GOP restored the filibuster the Dems could just as easily take it away. And that’s only if they take control of the Senate which seems like long odds.
Bruni and Douthat seem to imply that Mr. Trump's and the Republicans' agenda points to keeping Kavanaugh at all costs because a more conservative nominee for the Supreme Court would be a bad political gamble.
My question is how does one know how conservative Judge Kavanaugh is? His earlier (pre-Dr. Blasey) Senate Judicial Committee interview revealed a candidate for the Justice position who was evasive as to his stance on much of anything.
Lacking documentation in support of his legal philosophy from the past 20 years also left one wondering where he stands on a host of vital issues. Yes, we know a bit about his view that the earlier Supreme Court decision on Roe v Wade can be seen as "established" law--but, would he find reason to break precedent and overturn that crucial decision? We don't know the answser to that question based on what was his public testimony to the committee. Same with presidential legal position and immunity from prosecution. We are left with vagueness.
How does the Senate Judicial Committee gauge whether or not this nominee is more or less conservative than any other person might be? What do they know that we evidently do not?
Question after question on this candidate, and the entire process of this particular nomination. Where's the transparency on both sides of the committee--Republican and Democrat? We need it now!
1
Remorse and contrition can be powerful. George Wallace changed his life and made amends for his earlier days. That is what was being looked for with Kavanaugh that we didn't see.
9
I woul like to express my regrets and sincere apology for what I am accused that happened more than 30 years ago. It is true that sometimes we used to drink yoo much and due to this fact I have no recollection os such a reproachable event.
I can only say to Dr. Ford and the American people that I am very sorry if it was true, and hope the my professional record of the last 30 years could better influence a possitive nomination.
In case not, I assume total responsibility and accept whatever decision you may take regarding such an important supreme court post.
Could've been this way but no, his present behavior showed the "real" personality, a personality that without considering what happened 37 years ago shows how disastrous a nomination like this means to a wounded nation.
12
I can't help thinking that if Kavanaugh had simply said something like, "I did drink too much in high school sometimes, and while I don't remember the incident Dr. Ford describes, I cannot guarantee it did not happen. I am terribly sorry for any harm I may have caused. I just want everyone to know that, like all of us, I have grown considerably since high school and college and am no longer that person." I can't help thinking if he had said something that indicates some humility -- even just a little -- he would be on the Court today.
8
Thank god he didn't! Because a crafted statement like that made by a man like kavanaugh would only have been a falsity, a manipulation (a mask). I'd rather see anti-social people with their masks off so we know what we're dealing with.
This whole process, combined with the criminal theft of the seat to which amer Merrick Garland was nominated, demonstrates a clear need for a constitutional amendment to fix the Supreme Court nomination process and cap the terms of justices. I have seen a proposal for 18-year terms spaced 2 years apart that seems like a good starting point for discussion.
7
One line explains all, "The thing about being pro-life is that I’ve lived my entire adult life believing that the high court’s jurisprudence has been a moral disaster for American life, which tends to breed a certain … detachment from the idea that there exists some ideal impartial nonpartisan style of jurisprudence that we can all rally around or even patriotically respect." In other words, the ends justify the means. I don't like that women have the right to an abortion, so I'll accept anyone on the court who will overturn it. Mr. Douthat, if you are really pro-life, then why not advocate for broadly available, affordable birth control and allow our courts to be impartial jurists, rather than political operatives to get what you want?
10
Ross, me thinks thou protest too much. You are making excuses or finding plausibility in not one area but gobs of them. It would be one thing if it were just his drinking, but now you're looking for a way for him to not be lying about his yearbook, about Blasey Ford, Ramirez, his temper, his partisan attack on Clinton. If Clinton can go down for lying about Monica, why shouldn't Kav go down for lying about any number of things. You can't have it all ways. His life is not ruined bc he made a mess of this- and yes, he is responsible for his actions- not the media or anyone else. 9 months from now he will have his own show on Fox.
1
Even though Jeff Flake is contending that there is no value in working across the aisle in congress anymore, you two, along with Gail Collins and Bret Stephens, prove that there is still room for healthy dialog between thinking conservatives and liberals.
What seems to have been lost in this current wave of partisanship is that both liberalism and conservatism are necessary components of a healthy growing society. We need liberalism to push the boudaries to keep society vibrant and growing, and we need conservatism to preserve the things that society achieves. They work hand in hand. And, instead of each side seeking the destruction of the other, they need to step back and take the time to value what the other brings to the table.
175
@John
As a former republican (last voted for Reagan - older, wiser now I think), I believe in fiscal prudence, respect for our laws and the importance of morals as defined by most of us as common decency, honest and respect for one another.
But try as I might, this democrat - or liberal as you prefer - can't for the life of me think of a single value I hold, that republicans wouldn't stomp flat should it take physical form and they be presented with an opportunity.
As evidenced by the fact they've already done that with their own.
@Deb
I do hear what you're saying, and I think that the underlying problem is in the difference between liberals and democrats, and conservatives and republicans. In both cases, they are not necessarily the same things.
@Alan
My personal opinion is that the underlying issue for the polarization is fear... fear that in giving way to "the other side" somehow causes one to lose something. For a while, the newspapers were full of the phrase "zero-sum game", and although it became overused, I think it hit the mark. The reality is that everyone gains through the cooperation that both sides should be engaged in.
Ross,
Let me just ask you about your staunch pro-life stance, and how you very much want Roe v. Wade overturned, (pro-choice).
Just how many unwanted babies or children have you adopted or fostered? Have you lobbied for increased support for women and children? Or what have you done to put attention to the very broken foster care system, where kids are abused and passed around their whole lives, because of failure of the government to fix it. Didn't think so. Alot these kids feed into a big money maker, the prisons, which you as a conservative don't care about either.
Pro-Lifers are total hypocrites because they try to polarize people into non-sensical choices and condemn women to a second class citizenship without control over their reproductive lives.
Without legal abortion, women with money have always had access to abortions and that won't change if you overturn Roe v. Wade.
17
What Kavanaugh has done is publicly shown the hypocrisy of the extremist "Guilty if accused" mindset and alienated further the working class Democrats. How does a man vote for someone who believes that all accusations against a man are inherently true and automatically disqualifying.
1
Exposing alcoholism, and its denial. 65% of all os us meet the DSM criteria for a major mental health disorder or substance abuse sometime in our lifetime. A lot of individuals, and a lot of families, are looking in the mirror. A petty partisan political hack is Kavanaugh, ready to be totally in the far right's pocket, and deal out justice with a pre-determined outcome.
1
One element that is lacking in the discussion is the larger point of limiting or eliminating constitutional rights. It is not just abortion we are talking about, but undemocratic discrimination of individuals because someone makes up a religious reason to not serve others not like themselves or reversing the common sense Founding ideal of separation of church and state.
A vision of a government and society functioning under restrictions and eliminations of rights is not a democracy; it is an authoritarian theocracy. Get it?
One can certainly understand all rights and freedoms have limitations and responsibilities, like it being wrong to yell “Fire” in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire is a limitation of Free Speech, and religious moral zealots must realize there are limitations to religious freedoms, like minding your own business and staying out of other peoples’ reproductive decisions and their bedrooms.
Being willing to ignore apparent lousy judicial temperament, possible alcoholism, mean, angry, partisan whackadoodle conspiracy theories for an anti-democratic agenda and maintaining political power to abuse is something to vote against in the mid-terms and in 2020.
2
At least we now know the lens through Ross' eyes. No matter the morality of the candidate, as long as he's going to overturn Roe, then Ross is all in.
Mr. Douthat may lament the bitter conflict going on in this country, but as long as it goes his way, he doesn't seem to care. For a seemingly religious man, that doesn't compute.
Mr. Bruni doesn't seem to want to roil the waters.
6
I don't think Republicans are willing to let go of Kavanaugh for anything other than massive media pressure following a smoking gun.
It doesn't matter that he clearly comes over as intellectually inferior to all other Supreme Court Judges, that he lied about his alcohol abuse (several witnesses, incident cited in Police report, ...), that he overtly admits being partisan, that he lost control of his temper and disrespected senior members of another government branch, etc.
Moreover, McConnell could always get someone else confirmed on the Court before January (like Amy Coney Barrett), if needed with a lame duck Senate. I can only conclude this has now only become about a middle finger to the Democrats. That's a sad state of affairs.
2
Kavanaugh had a mediocre college and law school record. Compare his to any of the sitting justices: no phi beta kappa, no law review, no top of his class. It's consistent with spending lots of time at the frat house drinking.
1
How can you go with the headline "What has Brett Kavanaugh done to us?" HE did this? Couldn't one equally write "What has Christine Ford done to us?" I'm not taking sides here, but it seems that this headline is overly strident. In as much as you can say Kavanaugh initiated this, one could plausibly say Ford did. The situation were in is a result of how how leadership on both sides in Washington chose to handle this. Put yourself in the position of Kavanaugh reading this. Would this be fair?
1
I wonder why Ross thinks the Roe v Wade decision has resulted in moral disaster in the USA. Does he know that the legislature in Italy passed a law that legalized abortion in the early 1980s as I recall and that a referendum to the Italian voters affirmed the law about two years later by a large margin. Has this created a moral disaster in Italy? If so, what is that disaster? If not, what is the difference between what happened in Italy and what happened in the USA? And just what is the disaster which Roe v Wade produced in the USA?
4
Kavanaugh seems wholly unfit to be a supreme court judge. Beyond the sexual harassment stuff, he has lied under oath, he was prepped by the WH for this hearing, which is collusion of some sort, and probably obstruction if you go by the intent of the action.
Then he goes wack-a-doodle and yells and screams (the new GOP values in action) about the Clintons and some kind of left-wing conspiracy. This is NOT an objective man. If a nominee from the other side of the aisle started blathering about Alex Jones-style right wing conspiracies, they'd be out of there so fast you'd think a black helicopter kidnapped them.
CONGRESS WAKE UP AND DO YOUR JOB FOR THE COUNTRY! Not for your party.
12
A brawling, ill-tempered, rabidly partisan, disrespectful, frat-boy beer guzzler does not belong anywhere near the Supreme Court. All I can think of is 'how would I feel if this person was hearing my case?' Hopeless and despondent comes to mind. Even Trump, the advocate of Teetotalism must have reservations.
4
Mr. Douthat:
Did Bill Clinton commit perjury? Or just shade the truth about Lewinsky in an in extremis situation, acting "as his own defense attorney?"
Kavanaugh wrote the report that impeached Clinton for roughly the same "truth shading" that we saw last week.
6
I had opposed Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to SCOTUS on ideological grounds but knew he would be confirmed.
Then the events of the last two weeks happened, culminating in Kavanaugh's angry, partisan rant on Thursday. I would probably still be reconciled to Kavanaugh's confirmation had he been honest about drinking to excess in high school and college, that now that he had daughts he understood how dangerous his behavior, and that he was truly sorry if he had done ANYTHING under the influence to frighten, harass or hurt anyone--but that he honestly didn't remember doing any such thing.
But that's not what Kavanaugh did. He denied drinking to excess, refused to answer questions or hurled them back at Democrats (no Republicans asked meaningful questions) and suggested that any questions about his past behavior were negated by his steller academic record and hard work.
That Kavanaugh is smart and capable is beyond dispute.
That he is also a partisan bully is also beyond dispute.
If the GOP confirms Kavanaugh--and he will be a judge confirmed by a single party--they are putting a second bully prone to rants and confrontational rudeness toward anyone with temerity to quesiton his behavior or the ethics of his past work, who essentially swore a loyalty oath to President Trump during his awful rant, into a position of extreme power for the rest of his life.
That's shameful, and I hope there are serious consequences for it at the polls.
8
Done to us ? This despicable last minute drive by character assassination has ripped us alert. Driven us to turmoil. The Senator who sat on this accusation for months until the last minute is to blame. Shame on her. Ethical breach. Awful. The judge’s high school days are not relevant. What matters is his balanced and thought record upholding the law.
4
You can’t make a blanket statement that high school behavior is not relevant. How about murder or death or disabling injury by drunk driving? We are talking about a lifetime appointment to the SC here, not a job at McDonalds. I’m sure you would feel quite differently if your wife or daughter was assaulted or raped by a high school teenager now an adult trying to be a SC Justice. If the allegations can’t be proven then so be it, but they should be investigated.
@Joe Yoh: I disagree with you on who is to blame for this. Why is it "the last minute"? What's the rush? There was no rush at all when Merrick Garland was nominated. Shame on Trump and the Republicans. It does matter to me what he did in high school, and even more that he lies about it. He is clearly too partisan to be an impartial judge.
1
Ross, you are not "pro life", you are anti-choice, a difference in more than semantics. Being anti-abortion does not make one pro-life, nor does being pro-choice make one pro-abortion. The media should not allow people to mislabel themselves in such a way.
7
I think Democrats in Congress need to return the favor shown them by Republicans over the months since January 2017 by screaming "You lie!" and maybe throwing some shoes. In my mind, ramming Kavanaugh through is a win-win. If he is confirmed this week, Democrats will vote in droves next month, flipping both the Senate and the House. And the lawsuits against him will proceed (as he is the first potential Supreme Court Justice to lie repeatedly under oath), and he will end up in jail. Because no one is above the law. Justice will be served. Would you like fries with that?
P.S. Did you notice how quiet Ted Cruz was during the Kavanaugh job interview, as a former incendiary member of the Senate Judiciary Committee?
2
Ross, as moral arbiter of Roe V Wade, elides the question of Kavanaugh's demonstrated partisanship ala his time as a Republican political operative - he obviously is a one issue partisan. Ross remains holier-than-thou.
5
About the drinking age: what/where are the prepared remarks of Judge Kavanaugh's that Ross D. says contain an accurate recitation of the drinking laws in Md. and D.C. at the time? I see no mention of the topic in the 2 pages of prepared testimony that are linked everywhere. (But whatever the judge might have said in writing, I submit that it is no "misinterpretation" to find what he said about it orally in Thursday's hearing to have been misleading, and intentionally so.)
ROSS: "I suspect Kavanaugh shaded the truth in a couple of his yearbook answers..."
What???? There are shades of truth? Whatever happened to plain old truth?
3
When did Bruni called Kavanaugh a sociopath? I didn't see that.
There are a lot of people in this country who are not sociopaths who I also would not like to see on the Supreme Court because they have the wrong temperament, because they are too partisan. Kavanaugh showed himself to be that.
4
Is it too much to expect someone applying for a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land to maintain calm and dignity. If he's 100% positive that Dr. Blasey is wrong, lying, or honestly mistaken, then calmly tell the Judiciary committee; Dr. Blasey seems genuinely honest and sincere. So, in the interest of thoroughness, please pause the vote and allow the F.B.I. 'ample' time to investigate the charge. Again, he could calmly tell the committee that he did indeed indulge in alcohol and probably got objectively slopping drunk. As a democrat I don't hold it against him if gets smashed everyday, but I'm certain my standards are far lower than many Americans when considering a Supreme Court judge.
5
Did he say he never blacked out from beer? Did that guy in the bar say he threw ice cubes from his empty drink glass?
So... Brett likes more than beer.
5
Ross--is there no better person for a lifetime job determining American law?
2
The spectacle of Kavanaugh’s wife sitting stoically beside him in the FOX news interview was like a picture worth a thousand words. Why was she there? She didn’t really say anything, not even when directly asked a question. Obviously she was a prop who might just as well had a sign pasted on her forehead “I’m the pathetic victim of an unfair process". Frankly this image doesn’t speak well of her nor does it really help Kavanaugh’s case. Being a meek submissive wife who keeps her mouth shut isn’t exactly conveying the message that he is a man who respects women in this day and age, particularly as a justice of the supreme court. I came away from this travesty of responsible media reporting with the distinct feeling that if this woman had even a smidgen of self respect, she'd walk
3
"But “shaded the truth,” “self-interested interpretation” — I think that we, meaning you and me and lawmakers and Americans, make excuses and grant forgiveness when we want to, in accordance with a tribalism too intense right now."
Yes, he probably could have answered his questions about drinking better, but all of our justices shade their answers now when being interviewed because too many people will imply or infer too much of anything from any kind of specific answer. Did he ever black out? If he admitted this then to many he would be practically admitting guilt, because Ford said she could remember and he likely didn't remember!!
Still, admission or revelations of drunken nights do not automatically make him an abuser. Yearbook entries do not make him an abuser. I wish he had said this. As so many people (but not enough readers and the Editorial board of the NYT, who seem to have lost their collective minds to partisan attack), he's innocent until proven guilty. It's not about his face or her face, his emotion or her composure, his yearbook, her inaccuracies
But meanwhile this entire process has damaged us and our institutions. No "side" can claim the high ground--each is as tawdry, malicious and accusatory as the other.
Bart O Kavanaugh himself hasnt done anything to us or brought about this current explain of anger fear and resentment. It's anti abortion zealots like Ross douthat , who as evidenced by his comments in this article, will give a liar, with a very credible allegation of sexual adult levied against him a pass in order to see Roe overturned and the creation of a state that would have religious beliefs of one Creed strangle our freedoms . And corrupt greedy Republicans , many of whom , although they profess to care about abortion issue , are only using it rile the base, so they can pass more laws that continue to funnel the wealth of this country to the already wealthy. It is this zealotry, greed and corruption that has led to the decline in the moral health of this country, not the laws recognition of women's autonomy over they're bodies, which includes the provision of safe affordable abortions.
5
This is not partisan warfare. This is the Republican Party sticking it to America, North and South and every where in between on the Continents, as hard as it can. Industrial Imperialism at its worst, and installing a corporate crony, a couple of times, on the Supreme Court only makes it worse.
People need to wake up and smell the garbage.
4
The dude is a nasty mean person. His testimony didnt display a single redeeming personal attribute. There were a 100 ways he could have been gracious and firm in his denials. Instead, he was partisan, petty and small minded in every way.
This is the best we can do for our supreme court??
10
This is a worrying new inflection point in the culture war we all know has been fragmenting America into smaller and smaller pieces. On the one side we have Republicans, the right - whatever you want to call them - who reject any criticism of Trump as a conspiracy or "fake news", and call their opponents "loony lefties". On the other, we have Democrats, liberals, identitarians, "the left" - again, whatever you want to call them - who shout "fascist", "racist", "privileged", or "sexist" at anyone who has a view that differs from theirs.
The result is a pre-political shouting match, at the center of which are not policies or positions on important issues, but a battle of personas and personalities in the race for the moral High ground.
This culture war is becoming increasingly rancorous and detached from even a hint of substantive discussion. It is creating a public square where there is none of the engaged, extensive, in-depth debate that is crucial to allowing us to humanize our opponents even if we never agree with them.
1
If you read this carefully you will see that Ross answer to Bruni's observation is just a convoluted way to say that he doesn't care. Ross cares about subjecting Ms Ford's character to searching scrutiny. He cares about calling Bill Clinton based on evidence he never divulges. But when asked about the sordid Renate comment and what that says about Kavanaugh's credibility he simply avoids the question. It would inspire more respect if Douthat were to just say that he will accept lies and even assault if it would allow him to use his religion to establish control over women's bodies. That is what you get on 4 chan, and frankly, that is no worse then what Douthat has become.
5
Forget this stuff. Let’s hear about Ross’ two bar fights that he tweeted about.
Only in DJT's America would we see the outing of one man's bad behavior unleash a rush for the podium as obedient GOP drones fall all over themselves to declare that they too were drunken louts in high school and college, and all to make an unqualified candidate look qualified.
And with nary a thought to what it says... about them.I think there's a name for this. Oh, right. The dumbing down of America.
5
This is all about partisan Left-Right politics and which side are you on. Sexual misconduct and drinking alcohol in High school are just the side show talking points.
1
Dear Frank and Ross: The only thing Republicans care about is maintaining their 5-4 conservative stranglehold on the Supreme Court into the 22nd century. There may never be another moderate/liberal Supreme Court in our lifetime again.
1
It is simply not true, as this column asserts, that "everyone" drinks a lot in college. My university (Rensselaer) had a lot of fraternities. In some there was heavy drinking, in others, much less. And many of us were not in fraternities at all--I was one such, and most of the people I knew well, in or out of fraternities, drank modestly or not at all.
3
I've become convinced that the best path forward--over the long term--for a secular, enlightened society is for Kavanaugh to be confirmed. Roe v. Wade will of course be overturned, as a male / Catholic court proceeds to strip women of their reproductive freedoms in line with Papal doctrine. The resulting reality check for American women (and their husbands, fathers, and brothers) will take its inevitable effect. At that point, the issue will be dealt with legislatively, or even Constitutionally, as it should be, and perhaps we will learn our lesson and impose term limits on Justices of, say, ten years.
1
I'm not so sure that what we want is that "healing" process. Look at it this way. Here we have a significant portion of country which buys into the concept of a "deep state" and that the free press is an "enemy of the people". Which views a system of decent public health care as a "bad" thing. Which is capable of believing that the phrase "well-regulated militia" actually means "pretty much everybody" And which is willing -- forgive my bluntness -- to use the coercive power of government against a women (or her health care provider) so as to compel her to bring a fetus to term.
Now these Ideas, you must admit, horrify another significant portion of the country. Obviously, I am part of that portion, albeit I freely admit that my own ideals would, no doubt, horrify others. So, under those circumstances, is healing possible, or even desirable? Perhaps it's just time to admit that the gulf is too wide, and that these two nations should just go their separate ways. Might not that be best for everybody?
2
I appreciate this honest conversation, which leaves me asking, "Which path is better for America, a Supreme Court that represents our better angels, or a Justice that would hold the President above the law?"
Why can't the simplest explanation be the right path in politics?
5
I just want to say how much I love this series of conversations between the two of you. I often - but don't always - agree with either of you individually. But that notwithstanding, this series reminds me of a time when those of us with very different perspectives on what makes sense for our government, policy and politics could engage in civil conversation. A time when we could actually learn from one another without fearing that understanding and appreciating a different point of view might somehow diminish our own convictions. I'll even go so far as to say that it gives me hope that this kind of discourse and engagement might be possible for more of us in the future.
I think you should re-title this column What Has Mitch McConnell Done To Us? Aside from all else, it is clear that none of this means anything to him; it will still be about plowing the nominee through no matter what the FBI finds, what is true, what is wise.
I'm left, and I understand that Harry Reid was, ahem, "muscular" in his politicking, but Mitch McConnell is truly breathtaking.
Time for term-limits on the Supreme Court.
5
One of the problems here is the fact that the GOP governs as though it has an overwhelming majority in the Senate. Its majority is tiny, and exceedingly fragile. Yet Trump and McConnell don't seem to realize this. If Trump had the sense to pick a nominee who was acceptable to at least a few Dems, they would have had their confirmation already. Even Neil Gorsuch had 3 Democratic votes, in spite of what happened to Garland.
5
Mr. Bruni complains about Judge Kavanaugh's "willingness to massage the facts however necessary", but, isn't that what we all do during a job interview, as Senator Feinstein defined the hearings? Although an interview for a regular job typically doesn't involve swearing an oath, it is typical for applicants to put a positive slant on their potential, while minimizing career slip-ups and personal negatives. For example, I had a serious health problem several years ago, overcame it, and am in good condition now. My current condition is what I've emphasized to interviewers, without volunteering anything else. That's not a lie, if not all the facts. Is that wrong? I don't think we should be surprised to see this same behavior coming from somebody testifying on their own behalf.
2
No. It isn’t what we all do in a job interview. Some of us tell the truth.
It is a violation of labor law for your interviewer to ask you about your health (though it is your prerogative to decide to reveal information and it may be relevant if your require accommodations to ensure a safe and healthy workplace). So your analogy falls flat.
And, if one accepts your logic, where is the line between “little white lies” and gross misrepresentation?
As Donald Trump has proven, there is a real difference between ideology and partisanship. Brett Kavanaugh is an extreme example of someone who has the two confused. As with a president, a jurist and especially a justice should demonstrate non-partisan objectivity whatever their personal ideological beliefs. They are representing all of us, not just those with whom they identify politically. Trump's White House is already the most divisive in our history. Replacing the only real swing vote on the court with such a highly partisan justice will result in more division.
5
According to Ross: “The thing about being pro-life is that I’ve lived my entire adult life believing that the high court’s jurisprudence has been a moral disaster for American life”
Ross believes his view of abortion stems from on-high, and accordingly the State should support his view above all others. The Supreme Court and the Constitution hold the opposing view that the State governs matters of State, not religious conviction. That view was put into the Constitution because religious intolerance was well known to the Founders, and they did not want the State to enforce some views over others, engendering persecution of those with disfavored views.
Many Kavanaugh supporters, and Ross too, think the State should, in fact, support their views about abortion above alternative views, and believe Kavanaugh does too. That contradicts the separation of Church from State, and labels the supporters of Kavanaugh as aiming through Kavanaugh to subvert the Constitution.
20
Kudos to both of you, Frank and Ross. That was a thoughtful and civil exchange. We need more examples of the same. Keep up the good work! You are modeling a behavior millions of your fellow Americans need to learn (re-learn?).
2
..."I’ve lived my entire adult life believing that the high court’s jurisprudence has been a moral disaster for American life..."
So, what Mr Douthat is saying is that we should overlook concepts like integrity, honesty and respect for others - for the moral well-being of our nation.
14
Prior to the hearing, Kavanaugh went full Trump (attack, attack, attack) and this tactic was for an audience of one. But Kavanaugh isn’t Trump. He cried while attacking. It seems probable Trump watched with distaste, if not revulsion. Perhaps that is why Trump seemed to offer opening that Kavanaugh might not be his man. He’s not “man enough.” That would be pure Trump, no?
6
"The thing about being pro-life is that I’ve lived my entire adult life believing that the high court’s jurisprudence has been a moral disaster for American life, which tends to breed a certain … detachment from the idea that there exists some ideal impartial nonpartisan style of jurisprudence that we can all rally around or even patriotically respect."
This is a key insight into the rationale behind Republicans' choices for president, Supreme Court Justice, etc. They are so moral that they are no longer concerned about morality. They elevate a man who has admitted to sexually assaulting women because he promises to vote eliminate a woman's right to choose. They promote someone for the Supreme Court who is at best a bitter partisan and at worst a sexual assaulter because he promises to take away a woman's right to choose.
Funny how all this lines up: "grab 'em" Donald Trump, petulant Brett Kavanaugh, and millions of "moral" Americans whose only goal is to take away the rights of all the women in this country. The only consistent theme here is controlling women's bodies.
34
The importance of Kavanaugh's appointment was so important that the Republicans could not back down and say - for the good of the country and this man's family, let's just let it go and pick someone else because this is gonna be a she said/he said and tear up the country. As soon as there was knowledge of "the letter" - enough. Go with another candidate. But no. Trump can't back down. Think of how much agony would have been avoided if Trump had said enough. But no. Discretion is the better part of valor and here the lack of discretion is what disturbs me. If there is even a scintilla of evidence early on against a Supreme Court Nominee - please just say no. I see this as a play by Trump to prove his power by putting Kavanaugh on the hot seat. Trump is testing his power over Congress. Trump could have withdrawn Kavanaugh because there was no doubt this would be painful all around. Trump can stand there and talk about the damage to Kavanaugh's beautiful wife and daughters, but he would never admit that he could have stopped it. So the blame game starts with Trump whose strategy is to stir things through a lack of discretion. Trump may not drink, but he is a chaos addict.
9
Trump, the GOP, and Kavanaugh have destroyed the credibility of all three branches of government with a lot of Americans. Trump's base loves it. Everything has been politicized or purchased through Citizen's United. The transformation of our country from a democratic republic to an oligarchic quasi-autocracy is complete. For Putin and Xi, it's mission accomplished.
2
This misses the point. Kavanaugh displayed last week a temperament il suited to SCOTUS. He demonstrated a boys of privilege ethos that should not be represented to our country or the world on the Court.
7
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Ross and many people would prefer there to be a law that REQUIRES a woman to donate the use of her uterus and blood supply to a fetus.
No court has ever forced a man to donate body parts or blood to another person, even to save the life of his own living child. Never happened. Never will.
What is it about women's bodies (only women, not men) that the GOP just can't help itself and wants to control, control, control?
13
I still don't understand why asking for evidence in a serious accusation is a sign of corruption, white male privilege, and all that.
All this attack coming from the same people were were happy to mock Donald Trump's claim of the largest audience ever at an inauguration precisely because there were witnesses and evidence (pictures and videos).
Shouldn't we be focusing on what is fact and what is not? What's happening?
5
Please, please, gentlemen and anyone tempted to say "By Trump standards, the president has been restrained", and/or "there will come periods where suddenly he demonstrates that he can, in the right circumstances, hold back". THIS MAN HAS NOT HELD BACK! Ever.
I am horrified by the misogyny exhibited by our presidency which has invaded every arm of the GOP and is being transmitted to our youth in return. For this reason, we should not ever give him or them even half credit for deplorable comments against women which they and he slips in at every opportunity-
Nevermind that Trump misses putting it on Twitter for a day; he finds a way to use this childish unbecoming behavior publicly in some other callous way as when he did with the ABC reporter Cecelia Vega yesterday when he snuck in the snide comment "That’s okay. I know you’re not thinking, you never do," after he misheard her reply of “I’m not, thank you, Mr. President," to his initial (nasty comment) “she’s shocked that I picked her. Like in a state of shock.” Then the White House "whitewashes" the insult adding further injury because we hear him on tape.
Women, men, the press, any person of any decency who values and understands the meaning of gaslighting (and sorry but this candidate Kavanaugh has shown his stripes and is not in the category of decency after his 'childish show' on Friday) should not be giving Mr. Trump a single iota of latitude. Please, do, consider why this request is so important and just stop it.
17
Another Trump clone. What could be bad about that. I'll tell you what, Trump will soon be gone but his boy Brett will probably live a long and prosperous life interpreting our Constitution in new and exciting ways.
8
I normally think of Ross D as a whip-smart guy who I disagree with all the time. But on this one, he's succumbed to one of today's fundamental brainless tenets: "If he's on our side, whatever he does is okay."
9
This strikes me as the lesser cousins of Gail Collins and Brett Stephens; political colloquy with little to no humor. Granted, this is not a humorous subject. Ross is rabidly anti-choice (quelle surprize!); Frank is politely disapproving of all things Trump.
Judge Kavanaugh is unfit for a seat on the Court and, quite possibly, at risk to keep his seat on the Appeals Court. To clearly address the substance of this nomination requires more than a statement of known positions. There can be no partisan position if we are truly interested in judicial temperament and judgement. Disregarding Dr. Blasey Ford’s allegations and solely looking at the actual hearings show Judge Kavanaugh lacks both. His attempts to simply obstruct direct honest answers to questions from the Democratic members of the committee are all we need to see. His continuing intemperate behavior in general and open aggression to Senator Klobuchar in particular is unforgivable, his apology notwithstanding.
Well then, this is how the republic ends, not with a bang, but a whimper?
5
@Frank Bruni and @Ross Douthat, I have a lot of Catholic friends and they would be appalled at the behavior of Kavanaugh's from his school days to his tour de force, made for Trump performance on Thursday.
Ross, is there any absolution in the Church for continuous lying, suspected Boofing, Devil's Triangle, (yes, sadly we all learned what these terms mean,) alleged sexual assault and starting bar fights, leave alone excessive drinking to the point of falling "asleep?" We have glossed over his Lewinsky questions and his various activities in the Bush White House, some of which may have been illegal.
Maybe just one Supreme Court vote to invalidate Roe V Wade would do it? If the Church won't do give him absolution maybe he should convert to one of the grab bag of Trump Evangelical "churchs." They will be ecstatic to have him as their standard bearer, it seems they forgive any transgression.
8
Not only does Trump in fact, as you suggest as only a possibility, care "more about undiluted partisanship and pouting and gamesmanship than about his responsibilities and the proper functioning of the branches of government," so does every other Republican in the House and Senate. The Kavanaugh confirmation hearings do two things - First, they demonstrate, in the pursuit of power and permanent control of government, that Republicans will do anything and everything to achieve it, including appointing a hyper partisan to the Supreme Court. Then, blocking Democrats access to 90% of Kavanaugh's government service records, refusing to hear witnesses, refusing to authorize FBI investigations, limiting FBI investigations as to number of witnesses and time, rushed scheduling of votes, etc. The Republicans are intent on and will confirm Kavanaugh, guaranteeing none of their legislation will be overturned by the Supreme Court for the next 30 years. They do not care how bad it looks. What can anyone do about it? Once it is done, it cannot be undone. They will control the House, Senate, Courts and have a President who will sign anything they enact. And Second, the Kavanaugh hearings demonstrate how Republicans will govern the country, once having the same control over America's government and courts as they have over these hearings. Kavanaugh is the final nail in the Republican constructed coffin for America's democracy. If not this Kavanaugh the next one. They won't wait.
3
Ross is worried about open wounds? What about Clarence Thomas? What about Clinton's desecration of the Oval Office? What about the SCOTUS decision in 2000 that pre-empted the legal FL recount? What about the decision to go into Iraq? What about the Republican debt runup started by the Bush tax cuts? What about just about everything else that Trump has touched?
We have been bleeding from these open wounds for decades. We are already spiritually and morally anemic from the blood loss; one more cut will only marginally accelerate our decline.
8
Someone who is obviously lying under oath is certainly not qualified to be seated in the highest court - regardless what else that person might have been involved in. That Mr.Kavanaugh seems to believe that he is entitled to the position is stunning to me. I consider being a judge at the Supreme Court to be an honor that is only granted for the very best and not to the most privileged.
22
"Ross: The thing about being pro-life is that I’ve lived my entire adult life believing that the high court’s jurisprudence has been a moral disaster for American life, which tends to breed a certain … detachment from the idea that there exists some ideal impartial nonpartisan style of jurisprudence that we can all rally around or even patriotically respect. "
Mr Douthat, you could not be more wrong. You may hate the right of women to choose what to do with their bodies but the majority of citizens in America think that abortion is legal and right. One: 1 in 4 women in the United States will have an abortion by the age of 45.
Two: in Latin America and the Caribbean "During 2010–2014, an estimated 6.5 million induced abortions occurred each year in Latin America and the Caribbean—up from 4.4 million during 1990–1994.
The annual rate of abortion is estimated at 44 per 1,000 women of reproductive age (15–44), a slight increase from 40 per 1,000 in 1990–1994.
The regional abortion rate is roughly 48 per 1,000 for married women and 29 per 1,000 for unmarried women." From the Guttmacher Institute. Six countries in the region prohibit abortion under any circumstances, nevertheless a majority do. For info see: https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/abortion-latin-america-and-caribbean
From the Center For Reproductive Rights: Currently, more than 60% of the world’s population lives in countries where induced abortion is permitted. This fight against abortion will continue.
3
The hearings have done nothing to us. It has revealed the truth about the country hidden for 30+ years: privilege.
11
It's really frightening to me that someone makes political decisions solely on the basis of whether the candidate (for a legislative seat or for a judgeship or for any other office) will impose the religious beliefs of the decision maker on those who don't share them.
In a nutshell, that is why I can never bring myself to vote for Republicans, no matter how their economic policies conform to my family's self-interest. The drive to turn America into a theocracy, to impose Christian sharia on us all, is terrifying.
35
This is disturbing: “... an underappreciated dynamic in all this is that Murkowski and Collins really want to vote for Kavanaugh because they don’t want a more conservative nominee.”
More conservative would not be good. A woman who believes her religious beliefs outweigh her obligations to support the Constitution and “settled” law would also not be good.
For the life of me, however, I cannot understand how these two senators can support a judge who is on record as likely to undermine women’s rights, and who very publicly displayed his highly partisan politics.
Based on Lawrence Tribes’ editorial of 10/2/18, technically Kavanaugh would face having to recuse himself on numerous issues due to his publicly stated beliefs. Whether he would or not is suspect but it would leave a question in every opinion that he may support.
Surely there are conservatives whose world views don’t include destroying individual rights and subjugating citizens to corporate interests.
8
Actually, in high school I had a lot of friends and went to many large co-ed parties every weekend. I can not remember a single time that there was alcohol served. I had my first drink (other than sips of my parents', and communion wine) when I was 22. This is really not all that unusual. I am distressed to see the number of people who say being a binge drinker in high school and college is normal. No, it's not!
And yes, I would be OK with being judged on my character in high school and college. Of course I did some things that were silly, but NEVER ONCE did I do something destructive to a person or to property. I did not hit anyone, or throw drinks in anyone's face, or push myself on anyone physically. This is not that high a standard to meet! Enough already with the excuses!
25
@Karen Edwards I see you are from Lenoir City, TN. Thanks for your comment. What you are describing may be, generally speaking, another of the differences in 'normal' behaviors between large coastal cities (and large cities elsewhere) and the smaller towns of mid-America. We may be 'one country' on a map, but that's where it ends. My position is that there is no longer a 'we' in our country, as in 'We the People.'
2
@bill
Maybe we should assess the behavior of Ford and Kavanaugh in terms of parental failures. Where where the adults in the room? If drinking was illegal in Maryland under 18, where did the booze come from? Did some adult get it? Did parents turn a blind eye to all these parties going on in their homes when they weren't there? I don't think this is normal "coastal city behavior" but it is irresponsible parent behavior.
Sorry. Ex-Latin teacher coming out again.
But doesn't all this--
(1) --remind you of the disintegrating Roman republic?
(2) --scare you?
The clash between UPPER CRUST people (optimates) and LOWER CRUST people (populares), always simmering away, had now become toxic.
The courts--totally politicized. Mob violence in the streets. Bitter partisan feeling in the Senate. Provincial administration--a national scandal. Corrupt and oppressive.
And then there was--Gaius Julius Caesar. The man the upper crust loved to hate. They DID hate him. They balked him at every turn. "If even the courts have to be corrupted--to thwart this abominable man," declared the ever-upright Cato--"then let them BE corrupted."
Sound familiar?
They hounded the man. Till he invaded Italy with his army. The upper crust guys fled. Civil war broke out. Those guys lost.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, was the end of the Roman republic. Permanently.
Mr. Gaius Julius Caesar--
--paved the way for the Emperors.
I say all this because--
--no one (it seems) read the writing on the wall. To wit:
This is a disintegrating nation. As the political game goes on--as my team scores a point--as your team scores a point--
--no one notices--
--that the playing field is disappearing. Swallowed up in a sink hole. Obliterated by an earthquake.
Till people look around and ask--
--"What happened? What on earth HAPPENED?"
Are we there yet? Frank? Ross?
Are we?
God forbid!
3
@Susan Fitzwater And it started with the Gracchi, then Marius, then Sulla, before Pompey and G. Julius came on the scene.
I agree with you 100% that we are reliving the descent from Roman Republic to Roman Empire. I am just not sure how the Johnson-Nixon-Carter-Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush map onto that sequence.
I AM sure that Trump is no Julius Caesar. More like a moronic Sulla, perhaps?
1
Ross Douthat says:
"The thing about being pro-life is that I’ve lived my entire adult life believing that the high court’s jurisprudence has been a moral disaster for American life, which tends to breed a certain … detachment from the idea that there exists some ideal impartial nonpartisan style of jurisprudence that we can all rally around or even patriotically respect."
That statement goes to the heart of the far right agenda and what the religious zealots will sacrifice to get to their demon, Roe v. Wade. If they succeed, their victory will be covered in the ashes of American law and democracy, bringing about a moral disaster for American life unlike anything seen in our lifetimes.
The damage has already begun. The moral compass of this nation is withering under the onslaughts of conservative Christian politicized zealotry, greed, a president running roughshod over American ideals of justice and democracy, flirting with dictators, corrupting our governmental institutions and electoral process, manipulating and undermining the free press, pandering to white supremacists, ripping children away from their parents and locking them in cages - all enabled and supported by the Republican - Trump - Party in Congress.
What Brett Kavanaugh has done is make naked the agenda of the far right to sacrifice our three branches of government, our democracy, even basic decency, to impose their idea of what it means to be "pro-life" on a country that is majority pro choice.
Resist!
18
Mitch McConnell and his ilk did this long before Kavanaugh.
8
This was a one-side conversation, with Bruni expressing concerns that many people share about Kavanaugh's fitness to be a Justice, and Douthat dismissing all that because he will vote to over-turn Roe. This is just the problem with the national debate over Kav, isn't it?
9
it is not necessary for Democrats to focus on suggesting, proving, or dredging up ugly incidents from Judge Kavanagh's past. his own presentation demonstates he is unsuited to sit on he Court and he is obviously his own worst enemy, despite passing the litmus test of the Federalist Society.
next!
9
Characteristics of an alcoholic: blaming others for what goes wrong; telling lies when it would be just as easy to tell the truth; exhibiting damaged higher brain functions (including memory loss); and lack of self-control over emotions. The alcoholic typically goes from zero (no reaction) to 10 (rage) very quickly, with not much in between.
Also, and even more scary: alcoholics often have “black-white thinking,” which has nothing to do with race: it’s seeing everything as either completely good or completely evil, with no shades of gray in between. My point of view is endorsed by God; yours is evil, and you don’t deserve to win.
You’ll see these characteristics in an active alcoholic and a “dry drunk”; that is, someone who no longer drinks but who hasn’t gotten rid of the alcoholic’s habits of mind. Do we really want someone like this on the Supreme Court?
27
@Constance Warner
NO, we don't
Why didn’t senate Judiciary Committee Democrat’s reveal the accusation by when they first found them and turn them over to the FBI so they could be included in Judge Kavanaugh’s original FBI investigation? Why isn’t this being commented on? Oh yah, I forgot only conservatives are mean spirited.
3
@Georege Stoll. It has been commented on repeatedly. You see what you want to see.
2
Brett Kavanaugh is the latest drop in Donald's bucket aimed at moving America from its constitutional and historically foundational roots in checks and balances. He's currently got the Senate, House, and multiple federal agencies rubber stamping his boldly divisive authoritarian strokes. Fundemental rights/rites related to health, voting and personal choice are under assault.
What has Brett Kavanaugh done to America? He's reminded us that in Trumpian times, all's not so much measured in truth and facts, but more a matter of weighing goals vs. fallout. If he's appointed despite blatantly foreboding truths, the Supreme Court will become the third of our three branches of government reduced to the level of endangered species. Through midterm elections, moral indifference will reign supreme in Washington D.C.
Vote!
Thomas started, and Gorsuch completed, the Reuplican's weaponization of SCOTUS. Cavanaugh is just one more firing of their political weapon.
3
There is something deeply shocking about Mr. Douthat's statement: "The thing about being pro-life is that I’ve lived my entire adult life believing that the high court’s jurisprudence has been a moral disaster for American life, which tends to breed a certain … detachment from the idea that there exists some ideal impartial nonpartisan style of jurisprudence that we can all rally around or even patriotically respect." Talk about a mind closed and locked to any other way of thinking, any regard for the life of a pregnant women, or any empathy for the plight of gays. But then again, that is the defining characteristic of a conservative: not just absence of empathy for others, but treating them as if they were "a moral disaster."
12
The question is not what has Brett Kavanaugh done to us, but what have WE done to Brett Kavanaugh. This would be a joke if it wasn't such a disgusting smear campaign. My only hope is that karma comes back to settle the score with each of you.
47
@sandy I'm sure you're dug in, Sandy, so I'm probably wasting my time bringing up Merrick Garland. He didn't even get a hearing. I wonder what the Republicans would have done to him in our current tribal-warfare times.
3
@sandy
Really? Brett Kavanaugh is a sharp legal mind but is still the same entitled, angry partisan he was 20 years ago (sans pimples). I get that he's angry at having been accused of something awful and I don't fault him for that but I was shocked at his presentation last Thursday. I was previously resigned to his confirmation (I don't agree with his politics) but accepting of it: perhaps he had matured since his early days on the Starr investigation and subsequent time in the GWB White House. I was evidently wrong about that and now believe that the best thing for the Court and the country would be if Kavanaugh withdrew and Trump put forward another nominee with a more even temperament and less partisan leanings.
*By the way, I'm not worried about karma settling the score: after his speech last week, I'm worried about Kavanaugh's desire to do score-settling.
5
@sandy I totally agree, Sandy. And Kavanaugh has done nothing to us - it is the disgraceful Senate that has caused this hugely bipartisan fight.
1
The core objection of cultural conservatives to Roe v Wade is whether people have any right to make the decision to have an abortion not whether abortions occur. Regardless of what the law says to them abortion is a mortal sin, a denial of God’s law by people who will lose God’s grace. They oppose the concept that liberty entitles anyone to defy God’s will as they have been informed by God’s sacred texts. They want Roe v Wade reversed because it allows people to choose to act without regard to God’s will with impunity. They want the state to serve their religion before the rights of individuals. To them choosing to sin is just doing wrong, it’s not within the scope of true liberty which to them is to follow God’s will not their own.
It’s the reward that we get for respecting freedom of conscience, the mentality which cannot tolerate the freedom of conscience that contradicts fervently held beliefs because doing so contradicts their own sincere beliefs.
3
It’s interesting how often God’s will seems to support the Right’s will.
The most striking line of this piece - "[we] make excuses and grant forgiveness when we want to, in accordance with a tribalism too intense right now." In other words, we only give the benefit of the doubt to people we like. That is what makes me sad about the current political situation and all of the others that came before, e.g., Clinton and her emails. The question is how do we rise above this tribalism and get to a place where we are all concerned for the good of all, not just our tribe?
@TLM Tribalism is deeply imbedded in the conservative mindset and has been strengthened by Donald’s rhetoric. We will have to wait for years to have tribalism weakened.
I can accept that a certain level of emotional outrage by Judge Kavanaugh was reasonable. He went far off the rails, however, when he began spouting conspiracy theories about the Clintons and liberals seeking revenge for the outcome of the 2016 election. Kavanaugh sounded like he was applying for Sean Hannity's job rather than Anthony Kennedy's job.
787
@Charles L.it sounded as if he’d been tutored by trump. But what trump, if he did tutor kavanaugh, didn’t realize, this wasn’t a rally. This was the United States senate. The republicans are under the impression if you shout people will listen. Compare the demeanor of Democrats of the committee with republicans. The decibel level is evidence enough.
5
@Charles L.
I heard something entirely different. Yes I heard him reference democrats wanting to get even for the Clintons. But the meaning wasn't not about some grand conspiracy. He was referencing the democrats anger that the great unwashed rejected her and with that denied them the opportunity to put two left wing judicial activists on the bench. Democrats are seething that republicans are playing by the same hard ball rules as democrats and their reaction has been an orchestrated smear.
Perfect post. He almost literally quoted Hannity.
Fighting through the extreme politicization of all this, several things stand out. Kavanagh had or has a drinking problem. He declared that Democrats and "leftists" are his enemy so if any Democrats or "leftists" argue in front of him they are toast, immediately. Trump is giving him perfunctory support as a gesture to his base but neither he nor McConnell want this toxic character in there to be dragged out in 2020. And I think somewhere along the line at least three Senators have been given the ok to take him out without repercussion from the Republican Establishment. That would settle it. No Kavanagh, his rejection used as fuel for the base, no penalty for those who vote against him.
5
Welcome to the Kavanaugh Confirmation Coup as the "conservatives" destroy yet another traditional institution. Everybody knows that this is about making a Republican Court and some think it's a really good idea. Sort of like disenfranchising all the Democrats so only Republicans can get elected.
Why are we still calling these immensely destructive radicals, "conservative?"
9
What has Brett Kavanaugh done to us? The real question is what has Donald Trump done to us? And it's just naive to think that a woman would be a better choice for Supreme Court Judge. A possible alternative being considered is right wing conservative Amy Coney Barrett.
1
Fascinating how so many people can spin this Kavanaugh thing to make it fit how they want the Court to be. "Oh, he has a right to be mad." "Oh, these aren't lies. They are just the clumsy utterances of someone trying to construct their own defense." "He doesn't have the temperament..." Ross's comment about R v W and the morality of America told me all I need to know. I am curious what he thinks will change about American "morality" if Roe is overturned? Why are pro-birth folks so resistant to strategies other than the Court for reducing the occasions of abortion? Their insistence on the Court has helped create this Kavanaugh debacle -- and current politics are surely a degradation of American "morality".
2
Ross - for most of us, anger about accusations that we may believe are untrue or unfair or not consistent with our memories would not result in repeated, demonstrable, laughable lies. No amount of offense at the accusations gives anyone the license to lie. Under oath. To the Senate Judiciary Committee members. That's a crime. Actually, many crimes. One count for each time he lied. Add to that his partisan screed, his downright disdainful, hubristic treatment of the Democratic senators who, despite the troubling nature of the allegations, and after delivery of said partisan screed, treated him with nothing but respect, and exercised a level of patience, tolerance and forbearance that he did not deserve. Character is destiny, as the ancient Greeks observed. The same ancient Greeks who learned that hubris is the downfall of many a civilization. This is not a partisan hit job. It's an objective assessment of this man's character, credibility, temperament, impartiality and overall fitness for this esteemed role. Separate and apart from the allegations. He has failed on every measure, and people like you need to assess the Dems concerns and criticisms objectively and fairly. Otherwise, you become the same kind of partisan political hacks from whom you try to distance yourselves on the pages of "the failing" New York Times.
13
Term limits might cure this pestilence. If we had term limits, politicians could actually vote their conscience again and we might have more people engaged in maintaining our democracy.
5
What is most shocking shocking is that Trump has never had alcohol! Which means this is how he behaves when he is sober! What would happen if he actually drank alcohol and got drunk? My guess is he wouldn't have made more sense regardless.
3
I am curious why there has been no questions regarding the legitimacy of Ford's polygraph test?
There were no baseline questions asked.
She provided a written statement and was asked two questions about the statement.
End of test.
I do not doubt she has been traumatized at some point. I do doubt the legitimacy of this test.
3
@Kerry I've never seen one article in all the buzz over the last few days about exactly this. No questions about the legitimacy of her claims. None. Does no one think that it's highly implausible that she doesn't remember who drove her home? How about the fact that she ran out (with whom) and left her best friend there with the boys. Don't you think her friend would question as to why she left her there alone?! Her omissions and lies were frankly stunning. Yet, we nail Kavanaugh to the cross for drinking and ALL the crazies are coming out of the woodwork to drive the nail just a little deeper.
1
Better Title "What have we done to Brett Kavanaugh?"
35
@greatnfi We made him sleep in the bed he made. He is not interviewing for my job or your job. None of this happened to Gorsuch. He got through easily with bipartisan support.
2
@greatnfi
Even better--"What has Bret Kavanaugh done to himself?"
3
@greatnfi Even better title " What has Dianne Feinstein Done to Us?" This all could have been handled better from the start, respecting Dr. Ford's conditions of anonymity, potentially sparing the country this debacle.
2
At least Ross Douthat gives the unalloyed truth about why trump cult members and Republican congressfolk want Kavanaugh on the SC: "The thing about being pro-life is that I’ve lived my entire adult life believing that the high court’s jurisprudence has been a moral disaster for American life"
Ah, how Ross and FOX news HAVE whined about activist judges! How they cried about The tragedy of Sotomayor, being Hispanic! Behold now, bald faced hypocritical liars. I wonder if trump has approached Putin about killing Ginsburg w/nerve agent? Then they'd have a total LOCK (giggle) on SC decisions! And their base would put on a sad face but approve whatever the Federalist Society replaces her with.
Look, if you insist that a Christian majority makes us a Christian nation, why can't you insist that a majority of Americans support Roe? Don't have an abortion or force someone else to have one and your civic duty is fulfilled.
Fighting for a cause you believe in is commendable. Forcing a supposedly non-partisan, law-focused SC into a tool for your theocratic agenda is not. At least Ross says it
How about if Kavanaugh was a gun-control advocate, but refused to talk about it and got aggressive when asked his position. You'd tear your hair out so his 'agenda' would be exposed. You'd delay votes until the NRA could rate him.
You'll forgive Kav any amount of cringe-worthy behavior, as long as it serves the anti-choice position.
16
Duh! Two white males discuss "healing" the wounds opened by women standing up against the powerful forces that assault them and then dismiss their protests! Give me a break.
You boys have no idea the rage seething through the educated, female population of this country. Yes, the educated because educated women have moved beyond the male-built corral, repeatedly coming up against sturdy, un-evolved misogyny. Misogyny that denies both women's ability and the grounded facts of their accomplishments; ignores dependence on women's work and women's brains everyday.
Like men everywhere, all the time, you just want quiet again. How disrespectful can you get?
Well, based on the examples of Republicans, a lot more.
11
I would not hire Brett Kavanaugh to be dog catcher. Period.
I would not hire The Con Don to run a gym. Period.
Neither they nor their Robber Baron brethren are fit to be in any position of governance in OUR United States of America.
Time for them to go back underground like the predatory liars they are.
7
Ross Douthat: "The thing about being pro-life is that I’ve lived my entire adult life believing that the high court’s jurisprudence has been a moral disaster for American life, which tends to breed a certain … detachment from the idea that there exists some ideal impartial nonpartisan style of jurisprudence that we can all rally around or even patriotically respect."
So you can identify with those of us who feel much the same way after Citizens United, and Hobby Lobby, and the Colorado cake maker, and Shelby County v. Holder, which resulted in giant steps backward for voting rights, and on and on.
11
Whether or not you like Kavanaugh's politics, we have a well-qualified nominee who has a cloud over his head because of a very serious allegation, if we limit ourselves to the one accuser. And as Sen. Flake observed, there is doubt; we'll never move beyond that.
So what does one do when an impressive resume comes with a serious cloud of doubt? What would any wise employer do?
The truth is all too difficult to get to. But even if there's a 5-percent chance that the allegation is true, oh my god. It might not be fair to Kavanaugh because maybe he's innocent of the charge. But wow, how can we take that chance? How can his nomination possibly move forward?
More important than what's fair to him is what's fair to the Supreme Court and the country. The threshold for this vacancy is necessarily high. And if that means denying a well-qualified nominee who is maybe innocent, that's a fair price to pay. Certainly there are other candidates with impressive resumes that don't come with dark clouds of doubt. Neil Gorsuch, who went to the same prep school, is only the most recent. The Federalist Society has a list of them.
Let's set Kavanaugh's resume to the side and start looking at some others. Even if Republicans lose the Senate (they'll probably pick up a few more seats), they have time to fill this vacancy during the lame duck session. And isn't that the goal, to fill this vacancy with a conservative? Just not this one.
@Tyrone Greene He May be well qualified, BUT he would never be hired as CEO of any large American company! Kavanaugh is interviewing for the Highest Court in our land, we should demand a man or woman of integrity! He has lied, to cover up his past sins. And yesterday the New Yorker uncovered that Kavanaugh had sent text messages to friendship asking them to refute the Deborah Ramirez accusation! The man’s unhinged behavior also makes him unfit to on our Highest Court!
1
Remember when there was some hope that Trump's casual lies, divisiveness and anger would not become the new normal?
But here we have Trump's Supreme Court candidate, under oath to the Senate's Judicial Committee manifesting all of those behaviors. Shouldn't perjury and extremely injudicious behavior, in themselves, be disqualifying? Let's not inject this poison into the nation's highest court.
The tone and evident honesty of Dr. Ford's testimony is what we would hope to be normal. Perhaps she should fill the empty SCOTUS chair. Her expertise in psychology will be badly needed.
3
"No matter what the FBI finds"….your heading says it all. Total bias ...you're not interested in proper evidence (even evidence which has not been tested by a Court)..you just have your biased view..
2
Judge Kavanaugh did not correctly describe Maryland drinking laws when he was 17 and 18. Before Kavanaugh turned 18, the drinking age in Maryland had been raised to 21. I'm about 20 years older than Kavanuagh and I remember what the drinking laws were. His testimony on this issue isn't perjury, but it fits in with his apparent problems with alcohol, which even Trump acknowledges.
7
Ross's insistence that someone, somewhere will convince his side that Dr. Ford is telling the truth is at best naive. Those of us who believe Dr. Ford have no doubt that Kavanaugh nevertheless will be confirmed because no amount of evidence will convince your side. Trump admitted to assaulting women in explicit, disgusting terms and many still defend him to this day. That is why Kavanaugh's behavior on Thursday was so damning: had he simply denied the allegations and behaved like an adult, there would have been a vote last week. He brought this on himself.
13
"This latest chapter of the Trump presidency has brought ... contemporary politics into the boldest, sharpest, scariest relief imaginable. " .... Like a bunch of old men hiring a woman to wiggle her whatevers in front of a nationwide audience in the hope of distracting everyone. When the hired prosecutor (30 pieces of silver owed to her for her "services" to men) couldn't do it, they shut her down and went on a male breast-thumping rage that included even Lindsay "I will not shut up" Graham, who WILL shut up about the love that dare not speak its name. This is grunting male machismo (plus a fake macho-man) parading as the best American politics has to offer? Sad. So sad.
5
"Kavanaugh shaded the truth"? Come on, Ross. He lied, repeatedly. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about consensual sex, a scorched-earth, partisan effort in which Brett played a role. Why the double standard? (We all know.)
20
Yep, Trump picked Kavanaugh from a list of persons who could be depended on to be an appropriate partisan justice.
Kavanaugh seems to be a Trump clone.
Perhaps "Trump lite".
Trump bullies his questioners.
Kavanaugh attempted to (and partially succeeded in) bullying his questioners.
Trump is a misogynist and assaults women.
Kavanaugh is or at least was a misogynist who assaulted women.
Trump bragged about his assaults.
Kavanaugh bragged about is assaults (conquests as his yearbook called them)
Trump is a pathological liar.
Kavanaugh frequently lied during his hearing.
Trump is a narcissist.
Watching Kavanaugh's performance in his hearing he appears to be a narcissist.
Both men have very short emotional fuses.
We don't need a Trump clone on the supreme court. The court has already been sullied by the GOP.
5
Kavanaugh had just been accused of multiple gang rapes on top of everything else.
What's happened to America? Just compare his treatment to that of justices Ginsburg,Kagan and Sotomayor who's judicial philosophy is opposite that Republicans..a total of 12 votes against the 3.
Judge Garland wasn't treated fairly but his reputation was not smeared..wouldn't be surprised if Trump picks him at some point.
The problem in America is 'politics of personal destruction' from the Clinton political machine...
Not a man blowing his top at vile accusations.
5
What is appalling in this country is that Roe v Wade has become a rallying cry for the Christian fundamentalists such that it overrides every other moral issue. These people were told it would be a sin not to vote for Donald Trump even after Trump bragged about his sexual abuse of women. Kavanaugh suits them just fine even if Trump chose him as a get-out-of-jail-free card.
9
I dislike the “conversation” style of “writing,” which I see more and more in The Times.
5
The visions of the sneering, belligerent combative lies of Lindsey Graham, Brett Kavanaugh and Chuck Grassley will not soon fade from memory. Their hideous, teeth baring visages are seared into my brain as they likely are in anyone who watched. In case one forgets - unlikely - there are a plethora of memes commemorating their deplorable, childish behavior. May they - and the other male Repulsives - all go far, far away very soon.
18
How about saying that the first he heard of an allegation was in a New Yorker story, when its now come out that he was texted friends to come up with a defense prior to that? Is that enough of a lie for you, Mr Douthat?
11
Right on.
3
All Ross Douthat apparently cares about is getting a judge on the Supreme Court that he is confident will overturn Roe vs Wade. Ross claims to be pro life yet hypocritically has no problems with the death penalty, our wars of agression against weaker countries and our slaughter of civilians, our negligent abandoning of the people of Puerto Rico to die in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria and the neglect of children born into poverty in this country. By all means force women to bear unwanted pregnancies but please don’t claim to be pro life!
20
@Mary
I have stated before, people like Ross can call themselves anti-abortion, but they do not get to call themselves pro life for the reasons you stated.
We should also not refer to them as pro-life. The labeling is important. They also should not be allowed to call themselves conservative, since they have radical views.
4
@CTMD & Mary: Years ago I started referring to them as "pro-forced birth". It sums it up nicely, I think.
@Sara G.
Even better, will use that term from now on, thanks.
Anyone who believes that Kavanaugh did not intentionally lie during his hearing on Sep 27 must be deaf, dumb and blind. And I mean dumb, as in stupid, not dumb, as in mute. Kavanaugh will only further divide Americans and for that reason alone he should not be confirmed as a justice of the SCOTUS.
4
So perhaps one should ask some questions about those who raised the Beerman?
Frank needs to stop interacting with Douthat because the interaction give some cover for Douthat's conservative nonsense. Douthat's support for Kavanaugh demonstrates the approval Douthat harbors for the unhinged and violent Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh is nothing more than your run of the mill conservative and to think he is some how different is misguided.
2
"There are people with more power who are even worse."
-- Is this the new standard?
3
Amazing how Douthat can still equivocate and excuse Kavanaugh’s behavior in the Senate because Douthat so desperately wants to control women’s bodies. How utterly gross.
17
@Chris G
Agree. Douthat writes: "I also suspect Kavanaugh shaded the truth in a couple of his yearbook answers . . . ." "Shaded the truth"?! Yet Douthat considers that somehow he himself is a crusader against moral decay in American culture? Please. Kavanaugh is a bald-faced liar. He lied and lied and lied and lied and lied again. Under oath. To Congress. I felt embarrassed watching that sorry spectacle of male petulance and entitlement.
And, by the way, Ross, speaking of your ongoing attempts to foist your patriarchal religious views off on a secular nation: I view it as a sign of moral decay that I live in a country where there are people like you who think they have a right to control my reproductive health care decisions, abortion included. In a truly moral society, abortion would be rare, yes (because birth control would be widely accessible), but also indisputably safe and legal. In truth, though, it doesn't matter to me personally what the Supreme Court does because I have financial resources, and therefore so do my reproductive age daughters. Heck, I can fly them to Ireland for a safe and legal abortion, if needed. It's the economically disadvantaged women and girls of this country who will pay the real price for your misogynistic efforts to turn your fellow citizens into unwilling baby machines.
1
"Frank: Maybe it’s all just neurochemical fluke. Maybe it’s a function of how much or little well-done steak with ketchup he’s been eating..."
Between the two of you and Krugman (who said today that all who voted for Trump are racists -- what a bunch of elitist snobs. Sad.
3
Uh ... Frank, Ross ... you guys fail 8th-grade civics? Remember "the lame duck session?"
The existing senate stays in power till January, no matter what happens in November. There's TONS of time for the Republicans to install a supreme court justice, presuming they find one on which THEY can agree ... and if Trump avoided the truly cray-cray, probably pick up a few Democratic votes too ... as did Gorsuch,
Joan Larson and Amy Barrett immediately come to mind -- both Trump nominees, both confirmed, I'd be willing to bet a lot personally that neither comes with ugly baggage like Kavanaugh.
Amy Barrett got the narrower confirmation due to her apparent views on abortion -- but crucially both Collins and Murkowski voted for her. Barrett's nomination would surely please right-to-life Republicans.
Kavanaugh wasn't picked for his views on abortion. What made him Trump's choice is his extreme views on presidential prerogatives and immunities, and of course his history as a whitehouse hatchet man.
9
"Ross: I am just a little skeptical of how his critics, in a culture where almost everyone (myself included) drank a lot in college..."
"everyone (myself included) drank a lot in college..."
This is one of those statements showing the myopia and peer-centrism of the people making the claim, like "all guys have gone to strip-bars", "everyone in the 60s smoked marijuana."
I know plenty of people who did not drink heavily during college and high school.
If you hang out with the bar crowd, like duh, of course you're going to think "everyone gets wasted as part of their college experience", and if you're not into heavy drinking, you're going to avoid those bacchanalias and the party crowd, and assume the heavy drinkers are a minority, however significant, whose sphere and behaviors one chooses not to immerse him or herself in.
God forbid that an entitled columnist, who never has to pound the pavement confirming or disproving leads, whose heaviest lift during the workday is to fire up his keyboard and cleverly package his largely set and unexamined "perspective" into a predictable 500-100 word essay, God forbid he should actually research a statement like, "everyone (myself included) drank a lot in college..."
NY Times: please redirect your resources toward the Peter Bakers and Margie Habermans and away from the Ross Douthats, David Brookses and Maureen Dowds.
11
To see Ross Douhat justifying Kavanaugh's lies makes me sick. Scratch a Never Trumper and you come to the same old rot which has torn the Republican Party from its moorings. Let us make no bones about this. Brett Kavanaugh is a pathological personality. He lies, he cheats, he cannot hide his hyper-partisanship. He has no moral compass. Multiple charges of sexual aggression are unproven?
There sure is a lot of smoke there. And why don't these statistics get written about more? Studies show that only 2-10% of these accusations are false. Hundreds of thousands of people have been sent to prison on the basis of one eyewitness testimony. But not rapists, then it is he said, she said. Kavanaugh is fortunate. He will not be prosecuted for perjury, though I do not understand why not. He will not lose his day job where he is equally unqualified. He just will not be on the Supreme Court.
24
The only reason I'm logging into the NY TImes at this point is to see what the left is saying, and to see the day's approach in smearing Kavanaugh.
But to see something this oblivious, its something else. What has Brett Kavanaugh done to us? You are the ones sitting here every day saying "he's angry", "we believe Ford", "why Kavanaugh is not credible"....every day a drumbeat of blanket opposition, hostility, mistrust, assuming the worst.
The NY Times is leading the charge, handing out pitchforks, then they try this.
5
@Dan You are wrong, the Left had no problem with NEIL Gorsuch! The man was not only qualified but has integrity! So you’re point that the Left is hellbent on destroying conservatives nominated to SCOTUS is wrong. Kavanaugh would not be hired by any large American company as CEO! The sexual accusations against him should be enough to disqualify him! He is a liar. Not fit.
If he had come out and said: "Yes, I drank a lot and to excess when I was in HS and college. I am not proud of that. I do not remember doing anything like what Dr. Ford describes, but if I did I deeply regret it and am ashamed. I am truly sorry for my actions. I am asking for her forgiveness and that of the public. I am a changed man and have led an exemplary life since my youth." Forgiveness and moving forward could then be considered. Instead, he doubled down with lies in order to protect himself.
14
We keep hearing from Douthat that he has a "feeling that there is somebody out there who can, if not clear this up fully, at least shed a lot more light on the situation — either by remembering the party or some piece of the evening as Christine Blasey Ford describes it or by remembering something else that would suggest more strongly that she’s misremembering, As I wrote last week,..."
Yes, we read what Douthat wrote last week, and his "feeling" was an outrageous conspiracy theory that Christine Blasey Ford is either lying, or is "misremembering," and Democrats are using her as a pawn to frame Brett Kavanaugh for another man's crimes, just like in the Dreyfus Affair of 1894.
If that wasn't not bad enough, we are told that Kavanaugh's character doesn't matter to Douthat because "being pro-life" means "believing that the high court's jurisprudence has been a moral disaster for American life." It ignores that American courts exist to uphold Constitutional principles, not religious dogma. The reasoning is that if the Supreme Court fails to act based on religious dogma its decisions are invalid. Hence, if you don't agree with a Supreme Court ruling because your religion tells it is immoral, then you are justified in choosing and supporting an inherently depraved and immoral man who is also a liar as long as he's reliably partisan and will reverse it.
25
I think Frank gets to the heart of the issue: “... the schisms of contemporary America and contemporary politics into the boldest, sharpest, scariest relief imaginable.”
But I am a centrist, nominally a Democrat. I cross party lines when I find a superior candidate.
This Court seat is going to go to a conservative. That’s a given. And okay, it’s not my preference, but that’s our political system.
Today’s issue, however, is that Kavanaugh has disqualified himself as that conservative.
I don’t know if he’s lying or truthful, a sexual predator or a choirboy. But he has exposed himself as a vengeful partisan, openly claiming conspiracy theories, dancing around the truth regarding the definition of his yearbook entries and his affair with alcohol.
Get rid of him, Republicans. You can have your conservative Judge with Amy Barrett. I don’t agree with her on anything, but at least she doesn’t have this perverted baggage.
8
I have to say Mr. Douthat that I consider the statement “. . . saying that Ford’s witnesses “refuted” her is not a lie but a self-interested interpretation;” is a lie covering up a lie. It is not an interpretation to say that “I have no recollection of it” means the same thing as “It did not happen;” it is a falsehood. And to hear that argument over and over again from a judge, who must know the two statements are not equivalent, convinces me that Kavanaugh is a liar.
I also think, as others have commented, that presenting Mr. Kavanaugh’s options for deportment as being only two (calm and low-energy or angry and sobbing) is false. (And you aren’t troubled by his choice of angry, ranting, partisan, accusatory histrionics?)
You dodged on this one Mr. Douthat, asking for more proof of Kavanaugh’s unfitness while ignoring or attempting to obscure the many obvious examples of unfitness that exist.
13
The "taint of Trump" (in the words of a commentator on NPR) has now spread to the supreme Court, having previously blackened our election system, respect for law, honesty in paying taxes, the workings of government and the congress, basic honesty and decency, and even the idea of factually-verifiable truth and reality.
THat's what TRUMP "has done to us"!
6
"It was and is definitely an “in extremis” situation."
Ridiculous. Whatever the outcome, Kavanaugh will continue to lead an extremely comfortable, prosperous life. Christine Blasey Ford has had actual death threats.
"I’m still focused on the assault allegations themselves, where I would really, really like one directly corroborating witness — just one — to events that all seem like they could very well have corroborating witnesses."
Julie Swetnick is willing to take a lie detector test. Republicans don't want her to testify. Hmmmm....
6
Kavanaugh had the support of the Republican Party without any doubt. But the Democrats were looking at a person who was appointed to be a judge because of his strong political advocacy not his appreciation for the law and the courts.
It turns out that Kavanaugh has no grasp of judicial temperament and no appreciation of the importance of the law in our form of government. He’s a group centered person who sees the world in the us verses them way of loyal group members. He identifies with right wing cultural conservatives, based upon being raised in parochial Roman Catholic institutions without developing his own world view, and sees any opposition or criticism of himself as due to opposition to them rather than concern about his own acts and attitudes. He should not be a judge, at least not until he achieves maturity and can see the rest of the world as his group, too.
12
Excellent assessment
Brett Kavanaugh hasn’t done anything to us that we didn’t collectively do to ourselves.
It started with Watergate, then, years later, “borking”. It accelerated with 1994’s “wave election” that catapulted Newt Gingrich to the speakership and it later became deadly serious with the ramming of the ACA under undivided Democratic government and in the teeth of unanimous Republican rejection, then the capture of the House (again) by Republicans in response and a Tea Party that was all about stopping liberals dead in their tracks instead of actually governing. Harry Reid made it worse by repealing the Senate filibuster for presidential nominees other than Supreme Court nominations, setting up the Merrick Garland outrage and repeal of the filibuster for ALL presidential nominees as payback. (Reid was warned – by many, including me, in this forum.) The one-sided and excessively conservative legislation passed under Trump and undivided Republican government hasn’t walked us back from the precipice.
Today is merely a continuation of this destructive, decades-long trend: Dianne Feinstein and Democrats mounted a no-holds-barred political fight to derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation on purely political grounds AFTER she and they already had lost the fight by the numbers – by orchestrating a hideously divisive public spectacle and continuously tossing gasoline on the spreading flames, a process that continues to this very moment.
One can only wonder at what revenge Republicans will …
55
… exact: undoubtedly, it will be impressive. Certainly, the smallest part of it will be confirmation of Kavanaugh and a raspberry to all Democrats.
I used to believe that we could moderate the extreme polarization of our politics and re-create our vast centers incrementally but within Trump’s tenure as president. I’m no longer so sure. We may need to gather up every single Member of Congress and ship them all to Venezuela, arm them with clubs and axes, and just let them fight it out where nobody really cares about the damage they do because the society is a goner anyway.
Blaming Kavanaugh is short-sighted and bootless: we did this to ourselves. Healing of wounds? Not without first kicking out ALL the rascals, and replacing them with new rascals.
10
@Richard Luettgen: We are in a cold civil war now, and the events of the next two years may well determine if that war turns hot. I have voted both Republican and Democrat, but over the last two decades have come to see the GOP in its current form as the greatest threat to our democracy. There is no middle ground left, thanks to Fox News, RW Talk Radio, and the inherently bitter nature of most older white Americans (apparently). Based on the rhetoric I read posted by many on the Right, they clearly want an actual fight and I think they're going to get one.
I do like your idea about shipping politicians from both sides off to Venezuela, though...
@Richard Luettgen "Reid was warned – by many, including me, in this forum."
Oh, you warned Reid that responding to the refusal of McConnell to allow the confirmation of over 100 federal judgeships, eh? Only Republicans get to play hardball in your snowflake game? OK, then here's a warning: confirm Kavanaugh -- despite the out-of-control intemperate, mean, rage of an entitled boor, the serial lying to cover a debauched young adult life, and the extreme views on imperial power and accessible healthcare and the power of money in politics and women's rights (to note a few of his wildly out-of-the-mainstream positions) -- and you will evoke a volcanic rage among citizens of conscience and genuine concern about the Common Good which will generate a tsunami in November's Washington. It was coming anyway, but this travesty will double it. And Republicans can then plot their revenge...it's what they are there for, after all.
An excerpt from an article in Current Affairs:
" The Democratic senators were predictably useless in trying to figure out the answer to the simple question of whether Kavanaugh was telling lies. They left important questions unanswered, failed to pursue promising threads, and seemed to spend most of their questioning time arguing about whether and how there should be an FBI investigation into the allegations. But while the FBI investigation may turn up additional useful information, at this point there is absolutely no need for it unless Christine Blasey Ford wants it. It’s completely unnecessary in determining whether Brett Kavanaugh should be on the Supreme Court; even the very limited questions already asked of Kavanaugh have yielded disqualifying answers. Kavanaugh is lying, it’s provable, and that’s all there is to it. Unless you think it’s acceptable to have someone on the federal bench who treats duly sworn oaths as meaningless, the guy shouldn’t be holding any office."
6
Ross' statement about the high court's jurisprudence was ambiguous. By "detachment" I assume he meant giving up on the idea "that there exists some ideal impartial non partisan style of jurisprudence."
The problem with statement is the assumption that such a thing as non partisan jurisprudence exists. Never did.
When Lord Coke wagged his finger at James I and told him that the Sovereign himself was not above the law, he was being as partisan as he could be. "The King was wroth and moved to strike, but his lordship fell on all foures..."
The issue is whether a judge lets his opinions be guided by the gentle restraints *and* possibilities of words (formal jurisprudence) or simply uses and abuses words to "rationalize" a result (outcome-determination). It is the latter "style" of jurisprudence which has been taught at law schools at least for 80 years. Law gets reduced to mere hucksterism whichever side of the divide one is on.
Roe v Wade was one of the least worst. What could be more calculated to breed cynicism than the holding in 1941 that a back country farmer was "in" interstate commerce because by not participating in it he affected it just as much as if he were. Or, Justice Roberts' "non-tax tax." In fact, most scholars agree that, from a strictly jurisprudential point of view, Brown versus Board of Education was an atrocity.
If Ross wants to take on "outcome determination" he will have to take on much of what the country has become or achieved.
3
The response to being falsely accused is not ranting, insulting, sniping, blubbering and so forth. The response is to know that proving a negative is not possible. The response is to deny the charge and conduct oneself with dignity knowing one is telling the truth, the whole truth, and the unimproved truth. The response is to know that you probably will not be believed but to nevertheless summon your own dignity. That's what I did. A judge certainly would. Wouldn't he? Fortunately for me, after three months my accuser found the item I was accused of stealing. She found it hidden in her desk where she remembered putting it, because it was late on a Friday afternoon and she did not want to go down a flight of stairs and reopen the vault where it was kept. With the hearing, I was willing to listen to "he said and she said" but I am not willing to trust someone who acts like a guilty schoolboy in the principal's office. Judge Kavanaugh and truth don't exist together and not only on the sexual assault issue.
4
To help assuage Mr Douthat's concerns that Kavanaugh scrutiny stemming from his conduct unbecoming last week in front of the judiciary committee may not justifiable because his poor behavior stemmed from newly announced, conceivably unjust accusations: commenter Petey Tonei/Massachusetts posted a comment (to another Kavanaugh article this morning) that, 12 years ago, the American Bar Association submitted that Kavanaugh lacked fairness and he lacked balance regarding his then-potential federal judgeship.
This proves, whether or not you believe the recent sexual assault allegations, that the timeline documenting Kavanaugh's lack of suitability to serve on the Supreme Court is continuous:
1. In high school and college, his peers cited Kavanaugh's belligerent and aggressive behavior when drunk.
2. In 2006, the American Bar Association cited Kavanaugh's lack of balance and lack of fairness ahead of his potential appointment to a federal judgeship
3. Last week, Kavanaugh displayed hostile, unbalanced, paranoid behavior that he, himself, would never allow in the courtroom where he was the judge, whether the defendant was innocent or guilty.
Yes, Mr Trump, it's time to move to Plan B.
9
During the hearing Kavanaugh declared that he "worked his tail off" as though that were exceptional. Read RBG's biography. Then tell me again how hard you worked. Our society would be so much better off if we didn't have such appallingly low standards for people like George Bush, Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh.
18
Still "unsettled": Of what business is it for the federal government to be occupiers of a woman's womb?
Likewise, neither Judge Kavanaugh's immoderate behavior "then" (college partying) or "now" (Senate hearing) display judgment worthy of promotion to our highest court.
5
The reason, Ross, that Kavenaugh's drinking in high school and college and his denial it was heavy enough to black out, should be obvious to you. This isn't about frat boy behavior or stupid binge drinking, which is common, we aren't talking that his drinking in college or high school should automatically disqualify someone, Carrie Nation and her spawn are not the point.
Rather, Alcohol is one of the biggest fuels of date rape and sexual assault, done by people who otherwise would be horrified at hurting someone like that. How many cases have we seen where the accused defense is "I was drinking, and I don't remember?". The point being, If Kavenaugh was drinking heavily, and did so to the point of blacking out, it cast serious doubt on his denials. His lying (and there is no other word for it) about drinking heavily, to where he blacked out, tells me that in some way, shape or form, Kavenaugh himself suspects that when drunk, he did what he is accused of, and as a lawyer knows that admitting he drank to being blotto was a circumstantial case that his denial isn't a lie, but rather he believes he was capable of such behavior when drunk, so has to deny it. Put it this way, could it be that Mr. Kavenaugh is the one who can't remember but deep down he suspects that he was quite capable of doing something like that drunk? It is why the other alleged incidents are important, it indicates someone who when drunk, seemed inclined to inappropriate behavior.
4
If Bruni had the awareness of time ill/well spent of someone in, say, her/his seventies, I wonder how much of his finite capital he would be willing to invest in these exchanges with Douthat.
3
@citizennotconsumer
He's getting paid. I still feel sorry for him though.
So, Douthat's mask has come off. His argument is simple: Abortion is immoral and any court that approves it has no legitimacy. Therefore, it is fine to place on that court a man who lies before Senate and is of questionable personal reputation. It is fine that he will sit next to one man whose seat should be occupied by an Obama appointee and another who lied to get confirmed about his own treatment of women. This is all fine because these men oppose abortion. Never mind the Constitution, Democracy, or the legitimacy of the Court. Douthat and the Republican right are fanatics, extremists, who are a real threat to the Constitution and the rule of law. They will tolerate anyone and anything as long as it leads to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. This is what happens when fanatics pursue what they believe is a higher law.
32
If democrats take the House they will block any substantive legislation put forward by Republicans. If democrats take the Senate they will block any Supreme Court nomination.
Would this be the same species of behavior which can be classified as "car[ing] more about undiluted partisanship and pouting and gamesmanship than about [ ] responsibilities and the proper functioning of the branches of government."
I
2
I'm disturbed that Ross is glossing over the issue of Kavanaugh lying under oath. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. Why not just tell the truth? Many people did drink to excess when young and would forgive him for it. And if Ross listens to today's NYT Daily podcast he'll hear his colleagues describe how this lying under oath was the final straw for many of his former classmates, previously reluctant to speak on the record about his behavior, to now come forward. They say it's not about the drinking, but the lying. They don't believe he should be allowed to lie his way onto the Supreme Court. Why does Ross think that's ok?
9
As was stated many times during the Sep 27th Judiciary Committee hearing; Judge Kavanaugh's public confirmation hearings were job interviews, not a criminal prosecutions. Senators are the only ones who get to vote on whether he gets the job. But let us not forget a Supreme Court Justice is the public employee of all Americans. And those of us who watched Kavanaugh obfuscate and perjure himself during that hearing realize that he is not qualified for the job for which he was interviewing.
1
So, Ross, if Roe v Wade is overturned as you hope, what are you going to do about men who impregnate women against their will, and what are you going to do about men who impregnate women who are not willing to carry the pregnancy to term. I see you and folks like you wanting to hold women responsible for abortion by shaming, and by prosecuting them, and the medical providers who help them. But I have never read where you propose what to do to the men that help or force women into that position of unwanted pregnancy.
So what punishment do you propose for the men?
Jail time? Forced sterilization?
I want an answer.
10
Good points in this article to consider at the voting booth if one is not rabid partisan voting a straight ticket. This BENGHAZI like attack on Judge Kavanaugh is just more dirty politics, and no different than the scurrilous TV attack Ads starting to appear 24/7 now.
2
I watched it all.
Let's just cut to the simple truth...the man made numerous attempts to diminish, deny, and obfuscate what he did in high school and college.
A few statements are bald-faced lies. Boof. Devil's triangle.
I've read a lot of comments of people dancing around his performance to somehow explain it. They don't cut it.
We all know from simple observation that the man is trying desperately to hide something. It's so obvious. Forget all the word parsing and quasi-legal doublespeak, we know deceptive behavior when we see it.
There's no equivalence between the guileless honesty of Dr. Ford and the self-serving, self-righteous indignation of Judge Kavanaugh.
The man is not fit for the bench for multiple reasons.
Case closed.
8
Wow!
"I’ve lived my entire adult life believing that the high court’s jurisprudence has been a moral disaster for American life, which tends to breed a certain … detachment from the idea that there exists some ideal impartial nonpartisan style of jurisprudence that we can all rally around or even patriotically respect."
This is stunning, yes? It explains so much. Am I wrong that this statement contains the idea that R.D. does not have patriotic respect for our Supreme Court!
Past courts have gotten many things wrong. They get corrected. That is precisely why we should have respect for this institution. I don't happen to think Roe-v-Wade is one of the mistakes, Ross does. Fine. But to become "detached" from the value of our institutions over it is an egregious intellectual fault. It is precisely the kind of mistake necessary to become a psuedo-moralist that is "detached" from how partisan victories are achieved.
20
Bingo! This was all that stood out to me in this dialogue. Finally a moment of (accidental?) self reflection and clarity. It is stunning and unpatriotic.
5
Yes, Adam, this remark of Ross is stunning. He is saying a morally correct behavior by the Supreme Court would outlaw abortion, or at a minimum impose severe restrictions upon it. And why would this be morally correct? Because Ross believes this principle stems from some higher authority than mere mortals, and is not to be tinkered with by the Court.
That belief, that a religious belief carries supreme authority, beyond the reach of the laws of the State, is a contradiction to the separation of Church from State. And this elevation of the authority of a particular religious view is exactly why Kavanaugh is so strongly supported among those evangelicals who wish to impose their religion upon all of us.
9
@John Brews ..✅✅
Be careful, John, about that whole "separation of Church from State" thing. The fundamentalists will be hear to preach about how the constitution doesn't literally say "separation of Church and State." No, all it says is that the state cannot "establish" a religion.
Given that these people literally believe that a supernatural being created and populated the earth in seven days -- because that is what the Bible says -- I suppose we should not be surprised by their literal reading of the Constitution. The notion that passing laws to conform to a particular set of religious beliefs is more or less the same thing as "establishing" a state religion is beyond their ability to grasp.
1
This column misses the bigger picture (while purporting to address it):
What does it say about the American justice system that large chunks of the population think a case outcome depends largely on the ideology of the judge elected?
Why else is everyone fighting tooth and nail for it? Even the pious Father Douthat can’t see a liar, and doesn’t see Kavanaugh’s lying as disqualifying for a Supreme Court judge.
It’s an argument for only having centrist judges, who have the capacity to see both sides of the picture.
Judges like Merrick Garland... who was nominated by a Democratic president and highlighted earlier by Republicans as having the right credentials and balance.
Before Republicans badly damaged the Supreme Court with their politics. That’s the truth, hypocrite Lindsey Graham...
13
I am not at all sure that this troubling spectacle helps the Democrats. Working class people often have immediate problems (how to pay for medicine or hospital stays, for instance) that could easily strike them as far more serious than a long ago assault followed by a successful life. I don't think some upper-class feminists really understand that they are among the most fortunate people on earth. All they can see is what they still lack, not what they already possess.
3
@Barbara. Democrats would do well to call attention to more than his opinions on Roe v Wade. His opinions on labor should be repellent to working-class people.
6
Mr. Douthat, you say that your pro-life views have convinced you that "the high court's jurisprudence has been a disaster for American moral life" but then you excuse Kavanaugh's obvious lies and the reason he made them - because he has lived a morally compromised life. No, not "everyone drank a lot in college" and those who did were, and are, disproportionately at risk of self-harm, addiction, belligerence, sexual assault and driving while intoxicated and killing other people. How can you possibly claim to be "pro life" and concurrently excuse this behavior as "everyone did it, so it's really okay"?
It's emphatically not okay. The lies under oath are not okay. Kavanaugh's attacks on the female senators who were doing their jobs in questioning him were not okay, and in fact red flags. His hysterical lashing out at Democrats and his threats of vengeance are not okay. Having four women step forward and recount episodes of sexual assault are not okay. The venality and sexist braggadocio revealed in those shaming high school quotes are not okay. A history of bar fighting is not okay. Multiple college friends saying Kavanaugh regularly drank to belligerent excess is not okay. And yet you are willing to overlook and excuse all of this to get Roe overturned - a protection you will never have to use and which makes no mandate on those who don't want it.
It is all too likely that a Kavanaugh vote to overturn Roe will touch off civil war. And that is REALLY not okay.
5
So finally our priest Ross admits that for him it is only about repealing Roe v. Wade.
It is my belief that only when men have an uterus, having periods, and give birth, they can play with other people's lives.
15
It is puzzling to me that the Republicans haven't withdrawn his nomination and chosen somebody else. There must be other judges with their same agenda with qualifications that are professionally similar to BK. The reason they aren't makes me wonder what kind of deal they made with him. They were told that his nomination was problematic and they went ahead anyway. BK's behavior during the Starr investigation showed him to be totally partisan and willing to do anything to climb the Republican power ladder. I'm puzzled also by the dismissal of his financial problems that seemed to be totally cleared up before he was even nominated. I think they already knew what kind of person he was. But the only thing that mattered is the kind of conservative Republican he is. Probably all the answers to these questions are in the pages of documents that we haven't been able to see. Just wondering.
4
All this hand wringing about "open wounds" is kind of obtuse --- the wounds have been open and festering ever since Mitch McConnell declared his sole objective was to make Obama a one term president, ever since he and his Tea Party handlers determined they would obstruct every Obama policy, ever since he denied Merrick Garland so much as a hearing, ever since he and the Republican Party as a whole lined up behind and supported Donald Trump for president. After all this, we're concerned that not getting a clear answer to what happened between Kavanaugh and Ford will create "open wounds?"
The wounds have been open and festering for a long time. The Republican Party has made it abundantly clear that they have no intention of participating in anything that resembles "healing the wounds", unless it involves dismantling the ACA, restricting the voting rights of minorities, restricting the reproductive rights of women, passing gigantic tax breaks for the Koch brothers, deporting every undocumented immigrant in the country, gutting the EPA, and getting their boy Brett Kavanaugh a seat on the SCOTUS that guarantees their agenda for the next 30 years.
You want to heal the open wounds? Vote in November, take back the House and the Senate, vote Trump out of office in 2020. Anything short of this means the wounds stay open, and we fight like hell against the likes of Brett Kavanaugh. I'm sick to death of being told we need to "heal". Get rid of the Republicans, then we can talk.
8
Ross, you’re off base here in giving Kavanaugh an “out” on the idea that he’s damned if he’s meek and he’s damned if he’s aggressive, so what’s the difference? You’re off base because you’re assuming that everyone’s a partisan.
I don’t think a conservative-leaning court is necessarily bad, so I couldn’t get worked up about opposing his nomination on those grounds.
His demeanor, temperament, and blatantly partisan words on Thursday, however, are cause for deep concern about him, and about the legitimacy of the court were he confirmed.
Thursday made a difference not with regards to what may or may not have happened 36 years ago, but with regards to who this person showed himself to be. Duress reveals character.
9
An excellent respectful insightful discussion between two people on different ends of the political spectrum. Refreshing and unfortunately commonly uncommon.
A good conversation, but in the end people base everything on emotion. Our politicians have become surrogates and scapegoats for our own personal feelings/frustrations as manipulated by the ringmasters.
Aside from the fact that I think the GOP/Trump have brought the public standard to a new low, I do not see Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court Justice. (I see him and see alot of guys I went to high school with, who I also wouldn't want to see on the high court).
For me, it was embarrassing for him to say "I worked my butt off" to get into Yale. Yeah?
He just seems crass and petty.
I would NOT say this about Neil Gorsuch or Merrick Garland. The latter of whom (unless I missed it) didn't get on TV and start crying about a partisan hit job.
6
Ross, take a step back and reread your comments. Kavanaugh was lying, intentionally, about his drinking, ralphing, and his choirboy image. He all but said (or did he actually say?) that Democrats would pay if he got on the Supreme Court.
What the entire country has seen is a nominee who has lied under oath and shown millions of previously unaware citizens what judicial temperament means. And, even if you omit his more recent accusers, the mocking and objectification of his “friend”, Renate, in print fits in with the pattern of behavior he’s accused of.
Like you, I know I drank too much in college, but that’s not what I find disqualifying about Kavanaugh. He seems to be a nominee who believes he can lie, with a contemptuous arrogance, to deny his previous behavior. I can imagine the current eight Justices cringing when they watched that hearing.
9
Ross Douthat, I cannot believe you said what you said in this conversation. I would have thought that someone who is considered an intellectual, someone who has read broadly and knows the nuances of history and culture, someone who has lived a full life and is married to a woman and has children, someone who is supposedly smart enough to be invited to converse with the incomparable Frank Bruni, ... would know better. How wrong I was! Apparently, Mr. Douthat's religiosity trumps all else. Whatever and whoever and wherever is the God in whom you believe, He must be really angry with you right now. Your God is thinking: "I gave Ross a good pair of eyes with which to see, a good pair of ears with which to hear, and a good brain with which to think. Unfortunately, Ross has chosen to close his eyes and ears and mind in the service of his very own preconceptions!"
7
There is still no police reports and no physical evidence, (Monica had a dress). This, like the Monica, Bill controversy has been turned into a dog and pony show. Bill didn't go down because of an affair, it was because he lied. And all those who have lied, either right out or by omission, ( withholding evidence), are going to be facing the same.
42
There are the official notes of Ford’s psychologist to whom Ford detailed the persistent horror of Kavanaugh’s attack from which she never recovered. These notes were taken years before Kavanaugh’s appointment. Dr. Ford is not lying.
3
@Mimi C. This is a job interview not a criminal case, he is a job applicant with credible accusations against him with scores of others waiting behind him. We do not want this mean drunk on the bench.
@Mimi C.there was no physical evidence in the Cosby case so far as I know, and he was found guilty.
Why can't a really good lawyer who went to an average law school ever become a Supreme Court Justice? Are we saying that only Ivy league education folks can make it all the way to the mecca of law? Other than Yale and Harvard, aren't there law schools producing quality students like Kavanaugh? I've been practicing criminal law for 30 years and nothing else and I can assure you there are many great lower court judges in America that didn't go to Ivies. As proof of the incompetence in ALL parties involved, I offer you this as a former prosector and criminal defense attorney in NYC :
Why didn't any of the many former prosectors at the hearing ask one basic fundamental question. "Isn't it true, that in prosecutors offices all over america for the past 50 years, defendants of sexual assault and rapes are charged, often times, in wide swaths of time, dates and place? In other words, "the defendant did rape the complainant, multiple times on multiple occasions, between January of 2017 and May 2017". Often times, the dates go back years. And, if the victim is young, like 15, the accusatory instrument or indictment can be extremely vague. Also, I would opine that no mention of the thousands of defendants convicted on he said she said testimony! No evidence, no forensics, just she said! Both these reporters need to speak to real litigators!
4
@Mick
I am with you on your first point. We need diversity on the court in the form of legal education. Why only Harvard and Yale? It is stupid.
The problem with Mr. Douthat’s obvious desire to overturn Roe v. Wade is his and the Right’s refusal to see that not every religion views the fetus as the Catholic Church and the Evangelicals do. As long as it’s “my way or the highway” any candidate who isn’t against that decision is the wrong one. That stance is by itself unpatriotic and anti-Constitutional rights for the individual woman. But that has never stopped men from telling others how to live, has it?
7
What has Kavanaugh done to us? The better question is what has McConnell done to us. He wouldn't even schedule a hearing on Merrick Garland because there was an election nine months away. The people had the right to speak, notwithstanding that Garland was appointed by a President who had won reelection by a handy margin. If Hillary had won the intent was to leave the seat empty for four years. That's fine, Meanwhile, the Democrats are causing endless delay by holding off the vote 7 days to investigate allegations of attempted rape and sexual assault against a Supreme Court nominee.
Kavanaugh is unfit for the bench. His testimony became unhinged. The Clintons? The *Clintons*? He couldn't hold himself back with the female senators, none of whom were having any of it, thank you. He shouldn't be sitting on the bench anywhere unless it's in a park.
9
I wouldn’t let him sit on a bench in any park, particularly if he was drinking and there were any schoolgirls near.
1
Enough of this tribalism. Enough of this cherry picking. ('this is a lie', 'no it isn't', 'what about that word definition?') I don't need more investigations. I saw with my own eyes his behavior at the hearing, and I no this savagely partisan person should not be sitting on the supreme.
I'm guessing most Republicans AND Democrats could agree on one thing. They wouldn't want him dating their daughters. Why elevate him to the supreme court?
2
I would like to know who in the White House has gotten to Trump---this entire mess was made for Trump's twitter attack---and yet, for the most part, he has acted presidential. Was it Ivanka, his wife...??? I believe, if Trump has played his political cards right, he could really solidified Republican control of our government---I won't go into the particulars, but instead of weekly trips to his rally's, or spending nights on twitter, if he had focused on not only the GOP agenda of tax cuts and deregulation, but, hauled McConnell and Ryan into his office with the charge to straightened out Obamacare---not eliminate it---and get one or two infrastructure projects going--not the wall---and get a fair and just immigration law passed---not a Miller template---. Trump has the luxury, which is now passed, to launch a bipartisan agenda that leaned towards GOP goals, but, his temperament and intellect was just a bridge too far.
1
And who gave us Kavanaugh?
Traitor Trump is the Chaos president who sees every disruption as a vacation from being held accountable or questioned about his lies, complicity and money laundering.
Fielding questions about Kavanaugh's groping and boofing? That's a vacation for Trump, almost equivalent to a golf outing.
5
I am an upper-middle class white woman and I am outraged by what the democrats, not Kavanaugh, are doing to us. He is a decent man with an stellar record and I want him on the Supreme Court. The democrats are trying to destroy him and his family in order to get their way. The Kavanaughs are merely collateral damage. The democrats are terrified to have another conservative on the SC. They can't get their radical policies through legislation and they depend on the SC for that. His confirmation will set them back for years. I hope this confirmation happens and soon.
George's wife
2
@George Fisher I am an upper-middle class white suburban woman, and I too am outraged by the Democrats, not Kavanaugh, as are many of my friends. We will be voting accordingly in November. We will not forget.
@George Fisher. A decent man you say. You are quite sanguine about ignoring an enormous amount of evidence to the contrary.
2
@George Fisher: do you recall Merrick Garland, the nominee that McConnell refused to interview? Were you outraged by that?
Kavanaugh is a poor choice and simply unqualified. He's hyper-partisan, intemperate, belligerent and he lies. He lied throughout all of his confirmation hearings, not just the most recent one. I urge you to look that up. Kavanaugh will lock up the Koch Bros/Federalist Society/Oligarch/anti-choice groups. If you're OK with a world without access to birth control/abortion, a polluted, dying planet, and one in which corporations and oligarchs rule our country, I guess he's indeed your man and the GOP is your party. You must be very wealthy with terrific health care.
1
What the Senate could do to improve things – in less than 90 seconds, and regardless of who wins a majority in the next Senate term...
They might consider:
1.Re-instating the filibuster in its full scope of a decade ago – but with a 55 vote threshold
2. Eliminating the top-5 time-wasting procedural gimmicks...They make a mockery of the place, and give the rest of us the sense that these folks are greatest – and at their greatest – when purposefully doing nothing
It’s not that so many things are breaking with age in this country – it’s that we’re being left behind by nations who aren’t just doing newer things, but also doing better things...
Wrapping yourselves in a flag and a copy of the Constitution to hide our economic and diplomatic decline – which started four terms before Trump even stepped into the Oval Office – you look like some homeless person huddled near a grate in a midtown NYC doorway, trying to fend off the impending Northeast winter...
But, to end on a high note – for a lifetime, I have been awed and humbled that so many things get dealt with through words in this country...
Some of those words can tank the economy, or deny people basic rights, or further enrich the already rich when they think the rest of us aren’t looking or just don’t understand...
So – am optimistically looking beyond this cruel DC winter, to a Great American Spring...
Hope springs eternal...
Reading this exchange is disheartening. Kavanaugh’s attitude alone should disqualify him. And so should his blatant partisanship.
4
Brett Kavanaugh has done nothing to us. Congress and the polarized media propagandizers have done it. An ill educated populace that takes everything for granted has done it.
Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, Fox News, MSNBC and a host of others are just symptoms of the rot in this country.
They are not the cause.
4
Isn't the better question: what has Christine Ford done to us?
Or: what has Diane Feinstein and company done to us (and to the Democrat hopes for a blue wave)?
4
It was interesting to watch Kavanagh’s wife’s face when he attacked others during his testimony. There were moments where she cringed along with the rest of us.
My first thought: “ This is not the first time she has witnessed these belligerent outbursts.”
One wonders.
6
Healing of wounds? Not going to happen so long as Mitch McConnell is in power and refusing any respect, hearing, fairness or Senatorial rights to Democratic Senators. When McConnell is on television saying it is time for the Democrats to stop the delaying, all I can think of is Mitch sitting on Obama's nominee for over a year to take the chance that lightening would strike and give them a Republican on the Court. My mental gloves came off with that McConnell trick and I will never, ever, trust a Republican again. They can wrap themselves in all the Christian blessings and happy talk that they want. They are, probably literally, the gun slingers in the knife fight of Washington, and any weapon against them is fair game. Heal the wounds? You can't heal wounds until the NRA's hired hit man stops firing new rounds into your belly.
6
Brett Kavanaugh hasn’t done anything to us.
Democrats and so-called ‘progressives,’ though, in all their calculated malevolence, have caused tremendous damage to the integrity of the SCOTUS.
Just as they intended.
3
@EGD. It is always refreshing to receive commentary from the Planet Zog.
1
@Chuck Burton
Southern California, actually, which is an entirely different plant for many.
How would we be talking if Brett and his buddy were accused of attacking a black man in a room? Or if their yearbook had references about black people. "Renate Alumnus" their term for their black classmate that had no idea of its derogatory meaning. Like his best friend said, "Black people should be struck occasionally like gongs?" Of if Brett verbally challenged a black male senator in the room and would not answer the question. How about the caption under the picture, "Do these boys beat their wives?" to "Do these boys beat black people?" Then Brett said, "I always respect black people." Do we believe him? Will he be impartial when issues come up with regard to the rights of black Americans? This isn't about the soul of our country, it is a job interview. And trying to get one witness to show that it really was an attack, not just slander, makes me think it really doesn't matter. How can a man of such pedigree be bias to black people? He went to all the best schools and was top of his class! And he likes beer!
4
OH please Bruni, you're such a partisan. There is no evidence that Kavanaugh assaulted Ford. There won't be. A limited investigation is exactly because Feinstein held this back -- knowing nothing would come of a timely investigation before the hearings, but an accusation of sexual assault would be seen as truthful by dems everywhere. The equation is simple -- you must believe women regardless of the evidence, he's a privileged conservative white male who (OMG) drank in HS, and therefore is guilty.
Blame Feinstein if you're complaining about too short and too narrow an investigation.
But don't blame Kavanaugh for being angry. He knows exactly what this was, an orchestrated character assassination led by democrats. And lacking any real evidence, instead of probing into anything that might prove that an assault occurred they instead delved into his HS yearbook page and his drinking habits as a teen. Who among us would stand up to scrutiny re everything they did as a kid.
And Rachel Mitchell in a memo to Republican senators -- which this paper apparently won't report on -- clearly states this case is weaker than he said, she said. Ford has clearly evolved her story as well as lied. Many examples -- but her fear of flying was nothing more than a lie designed to stall the proceedings.
But Frank, my hope is that one day someone will accuse you of a crime of some sort, someone from deep in your past, and you will have to prove your innocence.
2
What bothers me is Mitch McConnell's elimination of the judicial filibuster. Having that in place produces the incentive to, you know, COMPROMISE. Instead, the ethos in McConnell's Senate is not to win based in your arguments, but to win based in rigging the rules to favor you, something we've seen here in North Carolina.
And while I respect Ross' pro-life stance (while not agreeing with it), can we finally all agree that the right's animus to abortion, and to women's sexuality in general, is the real bone in their craw?
1
Personally I think they have Trump on tranqs in order to test the short term memory of Americans just prior to the U.S. elections that are still under siege by Putin and his hackers.
Kavanaugh has lied which disqualifies him as far as I am concerned, and the FBI knows how to do their job and where to concentrate their best efforts in the short amount of time allowed in this farcical get Kavanaugh on the bench to represent the wealthy and privileged upper classes of America NOW campaign!
2
I love this feature.
I’m more of a Frank guy politically but I think Ross is a fantastic, measured conservative columnist.
The next iteration of this should be “Frank and Ross go for a hotdog” — in which they politely debate the issues of the day while heading to one of those famous NYC sidewalk stands.
Oooof, Ross. It pained me to read your avoidance on the partisan "what goes around" observation Frank made. If I read your comment correctly, it boiled down to: "1 impartial justice that over-turns Roe would be worth it." Please walk that back as a responsible citizen of this democracy. It's more important than any 1 issue that you have subjectively elevated. He all but promised to use the position to destroy his political opponents.
Being raised in the Catholic church and having lived through the first abuse scandal, "I've lived my entire adult life believing the [church and it's dogma] has been a moral disaster for American life, which tends to breed a certain detachment from the idea that there exists some ideal [religious teachings which are worthy to be upheld] or even respect.
See what I did with your words? Don't dump your morals on us, I try to avoid embroiling myself in your moral journey. Please return the favor.
10
Why are even your intelligent commentators not zeroing in on the key point?
1, If Kavanaugh lied about his drinking, he may indeed have been a blackout drunk.
2. If he was a blackout drunk, then his denials re: Blasey are not credible, because he simply may not remember what happened.
3. If his denials are not credible, then there is too much doubt about him to put him on the Supreme Court.
It’s not a court case. It’s a job interview. We don’t need to convict or exonerate him, we just need to decide if he’s the kind of person we want on the highest court in the land. If he lied about his drinking, the answer is a clear “No,” and we can move on.
10
@Wesley Clark, MD, MPH Wesley, gee, love the credentials. But you're basing your case on a lot of IFs that don't link. And yes it's a job interview, but the job was essentially already won until an allegation of criminal sexual assault from 36 years ago came from MS. Ford. Therefore, for that accusation to be determine whether or not Kavanugh is seated on the SC, there needs to be proof and the burden of proof lies with the accuser.
1
Pro or Con, you have to admit, the phrase: 'Sober as a Judge', has lost a bit of its luster.
9
I cannot help but wonder that if Kavanaugh had just admitted he made a terrible mistake when he was just a kid, issued a heartfelt apology to his victim and said that he was truly sorry, that this all would have been forgotten.
"He would be saying to the country that he cared more about undiluted partisanship and pouting and gamesmanship than about his responsibilities and the proper functioning of the branches of government."
Isn't that more or less a description of his entire presidency? I haven't seen anything from the Executive branch since he took office that suggested that anyone there was at all interested in "the proper functioning of the branches of government."
Except maybe the resignations.
1
Ross says: “The thing about being pro-life is that I’ve lived my entire adult life believing that the high court’s jurisprudence has been a moral disaster for American life”
This remark underscores Ross’ misconception that his concept of morality stems from such a height that it must be imposed upon all Americans, whether they share this perception or not. This viewpoint is a direct contradiction of the principle of separation of Church from State, which Ross either misunderstands or else denies.
And this idea of Ross apparently is shared by many Kavanaugh supporters who also wish to impose THEIR concept of morality upon EVERYONE. Including those who share their distaste for abortion, but believe such a decision is complex, not black and white, and is best decided by those immediately involved in the decision, who see its particularities in their particular case, and not decided by rote, by abstractions insensensitive to important details.
8
Everybody seems to accept as a given that all high school and college kids drink alcohol. What is that all about?
Thing number one -- Not all persons under age 21 drink alcohol.
Thing number two -- If I'm wrong and all persons under age 21 do drink alcohol, why aren't we changing the law, or enforcing it? How are we supposed to respect "the law" when we supposedly all know that no one obeys it anyway?
Thing number three -- Is it possible that we like senseless laws that make everyone a criminal, because then we can enforce them selectively? The kids at elite prep schools and Ivy League colleges get away with it, but the working class kids who drink in a parked car at the playground get busted?
10
Adolescents are instinctively transferring their identities from their families to their peers and seeking individual independence and learning to be self reliant all at the same time. They really have no idea where it is going. They have no idea what they are doing, they have no firm internal system of beliefs to which they hold firmly. Most try to rely up what they have been taught but adult hypocrisy makes it slippery and suspect. That is the mind that addresses your questions about choices about good conduct.
A significant conclusion to be determined in this case is whether the remote event in her adolescence now described in sworn testimony by Dr. C. Blasey Ford, stated by her to be with 100% certainty, occurred in fact, and on which a memory is based, or did not ever occur.
Of significance to this determination would be the contemporary opinion and sworn testimony of the psychotherapist by whom she was seen with her husband in recent years in couples therapy, and to whom she has said she had related a partial version of her current testimony. The therapist took notes of the therapy sessions.
Neither the therapist nor the notes taken have been made available for evaluation.
No reason for this exclusion has been proffered by either political side of the dispute.
1
@ATMDPHD Doctor-patient privilege & the HIPPA policy that is federally mandated. Do you want your medical records available to anyone who wants to look into you?
@Nostradamus Said SoYou are wrong. Ford could easily release them. Sorry.
This is a good exchange, yet unfortunately, already slightly outdated due to some apparent news that the nominee may have lied about knowing about the 2nd assault allegation and attempted to interact with witnesses prior to his hearing, and the story about a bar fight with a police report that contradicts the nominee's friend and supporter. The entire pattern of volatile behavior, from high school, college and right up to the 2nd Senate hearing, to the untruths in the hearings, allegations of assault, handling of stolen Dem emails, and unusual and unaccounted for debt payments, does not paint a picture of a person most would say is indicative of a federal judge. There's just too much unethical, and potentially illegal behavior patterns. The partisan tirade was highly inappropriate with the Senate, including threats of retaliation and belligerence. Couple that him being the aggressor against Clinton during the Lewinsky days, and any facet of impartiality is clearly gone.
4
Ross: Please take on Kavanaugh's behavior towards Senator Amy Klobuchar. You did not discuss it, even when presented an opportunity. Those few minutes told me everything that I needed to know about his suitability as a Supreme Court Justice on the court for LIFE. He is unfit.
785
@Cathy he was so emo and unhinged from reality. shrill. irrational. maybe shock therapy would help him regain control of himself.
@Cathy
Such a common evasion tactic and twisting of the truth is why I also question the suitability of Mr Douthat as a NY Times editorial contributor. I know there are Republicans out there with integrity, and those are the ones we need to feature so we can have real, honest discussions that both sides of the aisle can learn from.
The NY Times really should take a stand for honesty and integrity. The standards for editorials are of course looser than for reporting, but there should still be some standards. Giving a platform for sociopathic behavior in which lies are disguised as opinions threatens the integrity of news media.
response to @Dan Kravitz
I too wish Senator Amy Klobuchar had responded to Kavanaugh's attacking her with a reprimand as he displayed a clear attitude of disrespect to her and other Democratic Senators.
However, Senator Amy Klobuchar's restraint reveals why she is a potential and worthy presidential candidate and that Kavanaugh is not fit to be a judge on any bench.
39
Young Susan Blasey, if her recollections are close to the truth, came of age in a social context where, if she had alleged assault, she was likely to be smeared and Kavanaugh was likely to be cleared in a millennia old system where women were blamed, in Roman Catholic culture, as being occasions of sin just by being in a room with a male. Brett Kavanaugh's year book entries clearly provide "cave drawing" type anthropological evidence of his self-awareness of his place in that system: untouchable, privileged, and free to boast about his conquests. Susan Blasey, her family, her girlfriends, her male friends, her teachers and any counselors she might have sought out back then would likewise have been aware of Kavanaugh's privileged place in the system because the double standard system operated in every socioeconomic, cultural and religious class identifiable at the time. Times have not changed much. Whatever can be proven about Judge Brett Kavanaugh's past, he's shown himself to be today what Dr. Ford suggests he was in the past: a bully.
And, I'd like to thank Frank Bruni for his talk in Syracuse last week.
14
@Debra Merryweather And...honest to God, I have a brain injury that resulted from an assault on me when I was in grammar school. Incorrect names and mispronunciations plague my speech and writing. For some reason, I got it stuck in my mind to call Christine Blasey Ford, "Susan" and for the most part, I correct it before I post or write anything about this. Sorry. I'll try harder.
1
Ross: “Almost everyone drank a lot in college”.
I didn’t. My friends didn’t. Gorsuch didn’t. Everyone doesn’t join the ralphing club. In fact, by statistics, though college kids might drink some beer, the majority do not binge drink and do not pass out or “fall asleep” from drinking.
I wish republicans would stop trying to normalize Kavanaugh’s drinking in an effort to make him look better. I am sending a son to college next year. Speakers have visited his school, statistics in hand, to say look, don’t feel pressured, lots of kids don’t drink, most kids don’t binge drink, or vomit and pass out. It doesn’t make you uncool to skip the extreme drinking culture.
So stop republicans. Just stop with your “everybody binge drinks in high school and college” excuses. And falling down drunk is no big deal. Didn’t Kavanaugh get involved in a bar fight? Isn’t Kavanaugh’s good friend Mark Judge an alcoholic? Didn’t Kavanaugh’s college drinking buddy come forward to say they drank a whole lot and he’s not too proud of his own drinking behavior. Please, tell that to the kids. Because the binge drinking path can easily end in alcoholism. Or find you sitting in front of senators deflecting, lying, snarling and putting on a generally ugly show to hide some pretty ugly behavior.
In the context of this nomination I reminded my son that bad choices often result from too much drinking, including STDs and day after regrets.
Go ahead Ross. Young people are listening.
690
@Ellie How do you know Gorsuch didn't drink? There was no forensic investigation of his yearbook or his college and high school days! As for yourself, would you be willing to state your full name and address so that I, and others can verify your accounts of what you did not do in college? I'm waiting.
@Ellie
I think I had one or two sips of Boones Farm a
nasty mess
never ever found beer or wine as good as an iced coffee
in New Orleans
16
@Ellie I drank in college: One piña colada my freshman year, half a Foster's lager my senior year. Regretted both. Most of my college friends didn't drink, certainly not to excess. Most were also from relatively poor families, like me.
I have two kids in college. My son almost never drinks--he's always the designated driver. My daughter sometimes drinks, but not to the point of being staggering drunk or blacked out.
Those who say that almost everybody drinks a lot in college largely come from a privileged demographic; people who believe, with some good reason it seems, that their wealth and connections endow them with the inalienable right to behave badly, and a get-out-of-jail card when they go too far.
2
I think Brett Kavanaugh has been good for the country by a) bringing forth a witness, on national TV, who credibly and movingly informed the public about the long-lasting effects of sexual assault and the persistence of memory on that score; and b) revealing by his own performance just how extreme partisanship is destroying out most important institutions, infecting not just a power-hungry real-estate developer but also a respected high judge. And in case we needed reminding, (Bork nomination, Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, Shelby County v. Holder), that it has deeply corrupted the U.S. Supreme Court.
34
@Charles Michener
I completely understand why you wrote what you did. I only add that this is a very expensive lesson for this country.
No, guys. This argument is like the opposite of a bird in the hand. Kava is bad for our country. You can’t accept him because there might be someone worse, or that might energize Rs. 4-4 is better than 5-4, period.
1
It's take to stop using the euphemism "pro-life" to mean "anti-abortion". It's one example of how the conservative movement dominates the national political discussion to color perceptions.
Regarding Kavanaugh's enraged performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he reminds me of how high school students defend themselves when confronted with their wrongdoing. It's wasn't me, it was someone else, how dare you suggest that of me, and what about about what person X did all in an effort to change the subject, all justifications delivered in a heated manner. Kavanaugh's anger was an effort to shut down the discussion, not get at the truth.
1
Later tallies showed that Al Gore won the Florida vote and was the legitimate winner of the 2000 election. But bullies like the smug angry GOP frat-boy goons of the "Brooks brothers riot" who physically stopped ballot counting prevailed. Brett Kavanaugh was part of the team that robbed our democracy in Bush v. Gore. Like a hyper-partisan Zelig, he shows up In the Starr investigation, the torture justifications, and a host of bad decisions.
Between McConnell's denial of a hearing for moderate Merrick Garland, to the attempts by over-caffeinated bullies in the House to block an investigation into a conspiracy with an autocratic kleptocracy to rig our elections, the GOP has shamelessly adopted an anti-democracy path. And they're not afraid to lie and play as dirty and mean as their agenda is.
You bet I'm angry. The health care of every person I know with a pre-existing condition is at stake. The democracy that expands the very personal rights of all citizens is under attack. The American middle class will be paying the taxes and responsibilities that the wealthiest have shirked.
Democrats have for too long advocated for bipartisanship while the Republicans ran over them with an agenda of greed and bigotry. Hooray for the Senate Democrats for standing up and fighting back.
20
@DLNYC....Later tallies showed that Al Gore won the Florida vote and was the legitimate winner of the 2000 election. ....Do you have a source for the claim? In any case the result was sufficiently close that no one will ever be able to say with certainty who won.
@W.A. Spitzer
What I do know is that the so called “states’ rights” conservative justices could not bring themselves to let the state of Florida do the recount, or to let the will of the people prevail. Hypocrisy of the utmost degree.
Extreme situations are a test of character and Kavanaugh failed miserably. To gloss over that, or to claim he had no choice before the Judicial Committee, is preposterous. Of course he could have struck a different tone. Of course he could have given us a glimpse of his wisdom, his humility and generosity of spirit and given us all pause. But that's not what happened. Clarence Thomas was indignant, too, and it was the performance of a lifetime, but he didn't come off as unhinged.
6
Kavanaugh had an opportunity to say "I was young and foolish, going with the crowd, and I admit I got out of control a few times. I don't remember the alleged episode with Ms. Blasey and if it's true I'm mortified and I apologize. I've grown out of that phase."
But clearly he hasn't. That disqualifies him.
34
This
"He [Trump] would be saying to the country that he cared more about undiluted partisanship and pouting and gamesmanship than about his responsibilities and the proper functioning of the branches of government."
Um, isn't that where we already are? Isn't that exactly how Mitch McConnell has comported himself? I see no downside for Trump in his 2020 bid to behave this way.
When people are wearing T-shirts that say "I'd rather be Russian than vote for a Democrat (paraphrasing here) we are already in a bad place. A very bad place. One would think there's only one way to go then (up) but I am fearful we still have a long way down to go.
1
Thank you Ross and Frank for a sensible, reasonable, non-explosive discussion of the Ford/Kavanaugh issues. Unfortunately for many NYT readers their hatred of Kavanaugh has throttled their ability to reason and use commonsense. It's good to see that at least you two have maintained yours. Let's hope that your example will improve the quality of the discussions.
I don't like Kavanaugh but I don't think that his nomination and upcoming confirmation will be the end of American democracy or our civil society. Progress, as e.g. toward sexual and racial equality, is always conflicted and stressful and yet it is unstoppable.
2
No Ross.
We did not all drink or got drunk in college, much less High School.
Having a beer did not, does not, makes mean we did did it to excess.
If you did, it was you. Don't paint us all with your brush.
Some of us had to work hard.
9
Growing up weren’t most of us, as part of our parental moral teaching, told time and time again that there were no such things as “little white lies”, that a falsehood was a falsehood and to claim otherwise resulted in a harmful, slippery descent into immorality? Apparently, either Kavanaugh’s parents skipped that important ethical instruction for their only child, or this fundamental guidance never adequately sunk in for the youthful and the adult Brett. Aside from the sweeping collection of false utterances he so easily spouted at his confirmation hearings, possibly subjecting him to perjury charges, how can such a morally compromised individual ever be considered for a lifetime appointment to America’s highest federal court?
7
Kavanaugh’s appointment is another step being taken by the Republican-controlled government to force this country into an extreme right wing abyss from which it can never return. Everything else is mere commentary.
11
I don't think voting for Kavanaugh is where undecided Senators want to be. I think undecided Senators would prefer not to vote on Kavanaugh at all. These are elected officials after all. Even outside politics, they have a future they need to worry about. Unlike Kavanaugh, swing vote Senators are not playing an all or nothing game. I'm guessing they would ideally like to see the FBI report come back with enough evidence to force Kavanaugh's withdrawal. No vote, no responsibility.
Said another way, Kavanaugh is already too compromised for any Senator possessing even a remotely vulnerable seat. Only entrenched partisans like Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell feel comfortable forcing Kavanaugh to a vote. Unfortunately, most of the Senate consists of entrenched partisans.
Best case scenario for swing voters, the FBI comes back with enough evidence to undermine Kavanaugh and the whole thing goes away. We might end up with a 4-4 split in this scenario. However, Republicans could also hold the Senate rendering the entire conversation moot and placing congressional Republicans in a much better position heading towards 2020. The absence of argument would actually help vulnerable Republicans in 2018 as well. Republicans will finally have an issue to talk about.
There's one problem though. If Democrats take the Senate, I can totally see Trump and McConnell forcing a lame-duck nomination. Unrepresentative governance is sort of their specialty. To them it's a feature, not a flaw.
6
Ross, Jeff Flake and others who consider Kavanaugh’s behavior at his last hearing justified:
Please consider the following and report back. Anger vs rage. Adult expression of anger vs. adult tantrum. Anger vs. disrespect and outright rudeness. Anger vs. anger coupled with lying. Anger at being misjudged vs. anger at being misjudged due to an unproven conspiracy theory. Expressing anger vs. coming unhinged. Expressing of anger vs. ranting. Expressing anger while maintaining self-control vs. expressing anger without self-control. (These are the kinds of things we teach our children.)
Now please consider each of the above with the following phrase added: “during a job interview” or “during a U. S. Senate hearing by a nominee for the Supreme Court.”
4
Eleven Needed Changes:
-- The Supreme Court needs to be increased in size. (At its present
size, the Justices are still one member shy of being able to daven as a
minyan.)
-- Lifetime appointments should be eliminated. Ten years is enough.
-- The overreliance on Harvard and Yale Law Schools must be ended. Too much drinking and other anti-social behavior in both places.
-- The Court needs a few non-lawyers alert to social and economic
issues in the country. Bartenders, marriage counselors, school teachers and cops would be useful additions.
-- The Court must cease its virtually total reliance on Federal Judges.
Adding a few Police Magistrates and Juvenile Court Judges to the mix
would be good start.
-- The Court should televise its hearings.
-- Slavish devotion to precedents in business cases should be
discontinued. They give far too much power to the highly monied
segments of society.
-- Males and females should be represented on the Court in roughly equal numbers.
-- The Court should be moved to Taos, New Mexico or some other
distant location far away from the debilitating political influences of Washington D.C.
-- The Court should be granted the power to directly remove Presidents who display clear and convincing symptoms of erratic behavior and physical or mental decline.
-- 5 to 4 decisions should be eliminated.
12
@A. Stanton
Indeed, Stanton. Having a SCOTUS that is one short of a minyan in a country of over 325.7 million is a joke.
Another joke it that quite a number of states still have two senators but only one house representative, at a time when the news reaches even the tiniest village in every state, and so-called fly-over state have more power than more populated ones.
@A. Stanton
Under George Washington, the Supreme Court had 11 members.
You two talk as though Trump has to appoint someone else if Kavanaugh is rejected. However, Merrick Garland has been appointed to the seat by a POTUS. The Democratic Senate should simply seat him in January. Trump need not be involved.
17
Trump's relative serenity, if that's what it is, while his opponents twist about in outrage over Kavanaugh, stems from the fact that like the rest of us he enjoys the gloriously tacky spectacle of what should be a rather dull technical affair morph into a tabloid monstrosity churning along with tales of drunkenness, gang rapes, and other debaucheries. Much more interesting than whether some old law case was wrongly decided or the doctrine of separation of powers. Not only that, of course, but this stuff has helped Trump politically. And even in the unlikely event that the nomination fails to muster the votes, they have a more conservative nominee to announce next day, likely with zero baggage, who will be confirmed on the shortest schedule in history. What's not to like?
4
@Frunobulax. Oh my! I misread your opening to say Trump's relative senility, no doubt wishful thinking on my part. Then getting to the pro-Kavanaugh meat of your argument, I realized my error. Which leaves me one question! On what planet does Donald tRump reflect any degree of serenity?
He was a political apparatchik for the Republicans, he remains one and will continue to do so, wherever he lands.
2
Trump thrives on chaos. What are the chances he didn't throw Kavanaugh into the mix with exactly that intent? What are the chances that Republicans didn't help light the match under the Blasey-Ford hearing just to excite their voter base in the midterms? In all of this chaos and hyper-partisanship, I continue to hold the Senate and past and current Senate leadership totally responsible. They are the last bastion against the tidal forces threatening our diverse nation. They represent entire, ungerrymandered, States. Their constituents are Republican, Democratic, Independent and everything else. And yet, they have discarded rules of comity and bipartisanship that held politics together since the Civil war, and have instead become partisan warriors in America's culture wars. The Kavanaugh disaster would not have been possible in a Senate functioning according to regular order and historical norms of filibuster and 60 vote cloture. His nomination would simply have gone nowhere, precluded by his extreme views. Someone has suggested that we, the voters, need to throw out the entirety of the current generation of Senators and start again. It couldn't hurt, especially if fifty percent of the new leadership are women.
5
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of an 8-person court, at least until the country can move past its tribalism. This will force them to act like judges, rather than pen-wielding partisans.
6
Ross: Would you agree the difference between "shading the truth" and "lying under oath" is simply in the eye of the beholder? Wouldn't it be more intellectually honest for you to admit that the talented and experienced lawyer under scrutiny, Mr. Kavanaugh, indeed did not tell the truth in several instances (perjured himself) under oath and--in your view-- his perjury should not keep him off the highest court in America because he was backed into a corner where he had no choice but to lie? After all, he had a clear record of heavy drinking, and with such a history, it's tough to defend against all that might have happened on all the nights you had "too many beers" in high school and college? For someone so interested in seeking the truth, Ross, let's call a spade a spade.
20
@Maria Kristina. Why shouldn't his perjury send him to prison? It is a federal crime.
1
The fiery outburst by Brett Kavanaugh at his last appearance before the Judiciary Committee was the most heavily scripted, repeatedly rehearsed belligerence and self-pitying victimhood ever seen by the nation.
And that includes the “lynching” complaints by Clarence Thomas at his hearing many years ago. Thomas never put tears and sobbing in his script.
Kavanaugh had lots of help crafting his attacks on the Democratic senators present and on every favorite liberal target. It is naïve for any of us to think the performance did not spring directly from Donald Trump’s orders and Don McGahn’s pen.
Trump, McGahn, Kavanaugh and any other helpful firebrands simply miscalculated the public reaction.
If we don’t realize that fact, we do not fully understand where things stand right now.
10
After watching Dr. Ford testify, I think Kavanagh assaulted her. No one has offered a plausible explanation for why Dr. Ford would say what she has said unless it was the truth. Unless the FBI turns up something that shakes her credibility, I think she should be believed, because her testimony was believable and I don't perceive any motive for her to lie.
8
@Old blue......Consider for a moment, no matter how plausible her testimony, that the incident did not occur. Whether guilty or not the accused will say it did not happen - innocent or guilty they have no defense. There is no way for anybody to be certain what is true.
1
One doubts healing is possible any time soon, simply because the Kavanaugh hearing have brought into sharp relief WHY the country is divided. Half the country is sick to the teeth of seeing the powerless victimized and this hearing was a distilled encapsulation of victims of sexual assault are always treated by much of society (though thank goodness, Senate Republicans didn’t query Dr Ford about her sex life, so maybe that is progress). When adding in the defense of the lies (which we see even here. Review the drinking laws in Maryland, Ross) in defense of the attacker that strays far from actual reason, the half of America that still believes in the value of demonstrable fact is reminded of the way conservatives have approach topics from climate change to Trump’s lies about Immigrants and all the rest. In short, the Kavanaugh hearings, like Trump’s election, prove beyond a doubt that the worst stereotypes of the other half of America are not only true, but worse than commonly realized.
Add into it that this half of America constitutes a solid majority of the country but is consistently cut out of any voice in their government, and the recipe for rage is clear, not just at the half of America that seemingly rejects notions of liberty and justice for all or a commitment to objective reality, but also at the institutions that let that minority seize control.
I don’t see any healing happening until the minority of America embrace justice and facts.
11
With all the dogs I've had and taken to puppy school for training, I guess I just never quite understood the point of teaching a strong, healthy dog to roll over and play dead. It would be extremely arrogant of me to force something to pretend to be something it's not, as you would have us believe you would prefer to see Kavanaugh be. I saw what was publicly done to him in front of his wife and family and for him to just lay there and play dead for the sake of that position on the high court would be what would make me lose all respect for it. Lap dog politicians are bad enough, but not lap dog supreme court judges as well, regardless of what Lawrence Tribe and Lawrence O'Donnell thinks.
@John Doe.....Would the dog be more angry if someone lied about his behavior, or if someone revealed a truth he thought was buried?
1
There was a time when someone dropping their mask and revealing their true face actually had consequences.
Nowadays it's a bitter, mixed blessing: one the one hand we see a man capable of incredible vitriol and rage which should obviously disqualify him as a justice.
On the other, a party that can look right past it. Maybe it's worse than that though; in the age of Trump, the rage is in fact a signaling of complicity, a kind of weird handshake into the secret club that's not even trying to hide, proud of being in plain sight. Today's meeting of the Let's All Hate Democrats club is now in session.
It's sickening.
367
@Mark Holmes
Truly brilliant comment. This sums up perfectly how most of us feel. I do not understand how Judge Kavanaugh got as far as he has, and cannot believe it was solely on the basis of merit.
2
@Mark Holmesa "party that can look right past it" were you speaking of Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy?
It is sickening. For a long time congress has been the branch of government in which we witnessed emotional, irrational, undignified partisan tirades, but in the executive and judicial branches we have continued to maintain a standard, at least in public, of moderation and civility. With the election of Trump, the standards for the executive branch were tossed. Now we see a nominee for SCOTUS behaving just like Trump or a member of the Freedom Caucus. So now the judicial branch has joined the Faux News chorus as well. Sickening, depressing, disappointing...
2
There has been more on Mr Kavanaugh since Dr Ford. We have multiple allegations of sexual misconduct, multiple people stating that Mr Kavanaugh had a problem with drinking, and now with anger while drunk. We now know that he lies repeatedly under oath, which cannot be said about his accusers.
The bar keeps rising, because Mr Douthat likes a beer, and choses to ignore putting a hand over someone's mouth as they tried to call for help.
If it were any other crime, it would be enough. Not to convict but to not promote.
6
Mr. Douthat says that Judge Kavanaugh, in shading the truth about his yearbook entry and in his claim that possible witnesses refuted Dr. Ford's allegation regarding the party at which the sexual assault occurred was merely acting as his own lawyer. He further characterizes Judge Kavanaugh's outburst against the Democrats as understandable anger at the effect of the accusation against him on his reputation.
This is all true, but the question is whether we shouldn't expect a candidate for the Supreme Court to be able to restrain such impulses. It also raises a question about Judge Kavanaugh's judgment in that if he had simply said he did some stupid things as a teen ager but was no longer the same person, and that he may have blacked out from drinking and lost memory of things he did, he probably would have been confirmed last week.
6
In each of these chummy conversations Ross keeps expressing his need to be able to legally assault and control women's reproductive and sexual lives. He is basically just concerned about the optics. There is no push back at all from Frank. Just some worry about how the country is being ripped apart. As if the sex negative fury that seems to drive Ross is just an opinion that has no real consequences. Can you even imagine Michelle Goldberg or Michelle Alexander so passively going along just to get along.
9
The Supreme Court you say?
No, sadly, these are the characters for The People's Court!
The world is watching, America.
1
If both parties can't reach across the aisle at the end of the day and work together, we will become of our democracy. What we are witnessing with Kavanaugh is just a symptom of the pus infected disease that has grabbed hold of our government. We are at the point of gangrene and soon will require an amputation. Seriously, this Congress needs an intervention and some intensive counseling if we are to solve any of the issues that face this country. The egregious lies demonstrated by our leaders, the vitriol they spew daily, is not only outrageous, but reprehensible to say the least.
I am sick and tired and truthfully so saddened to hear the political partisan rhetoric as a defense to whatever issue is at hand. We have some serious problems in this nation- and in this world, and unless we all come together ( and I am not suggesting we all sing kumbaya although that image warms my heart) and create a healthier and more enlightened non partisan narrative, our country will stay stalled in hate, anger and pain.
123
@Joy While I agree with you about the seriousness of our dysfunction and would like to see a little less partisanship myself, it is not both parties who have done the most harm.
It is not both parties who refuse to reach across the aisle. Democrats, to many of their party members dismay, have too often worked across the aisle only to find that they were betrayed or ignored.
Barack Obama famously tried to work with the very Republicans who openly stated that they would do nothing to help him. It did not matter to them that the country was tanking due to the financial crisis. It was all about tax cuts for the wealthy even then. How many Republicans voted for the Jobs bills; the rescue of the auto industry; extending unemployment and COBRA; the ACA; equal pay; and so on? I get kind of tired about this view that both parties are equally at fault regarding this. They are not. Democrats actually believe in process and policy - they believe, as many of us once did, that government is the protection from rapacious business interests. Republicans sadly seem more concerned about tax cuts and power.
Enough already.
5
@Joy - It won't happen until AM hate radio and Fox News becomes passe, which won't happen until a larger segment of our society becomes emotionally mature. Emotional immaturity is the leading cause of this silliness.
2
@Joy I appreciate your desire for a better world, but you have blinders on if you think Democrats are as culpable as Republicans. For starters, which side promotes "alternative facts"?
1
Conversations like this could be shortened a bit. Just let Ross declare that he is the moral arbiter of the known universe and everyone else is wrong and be done with it.
10
Father Douhat next employs the deniers’ favored trope that in the absence of video tape of the sexual assault, then the crime has obviously been misremembered by the victim. He “feels”/hopes that there is someone out there who will similarly dismiss Dr. Blasey Ford’s testimony and “suggest more strongly that she’s misremembering.” Sinking even lower, our intrepid priest posits ominously that there are dark, revealing truths “lurking” in Ms. Blasey Ford’s therapist’s notes or to be revealed by interviewing her parents and siblings. So pathetic.
12
This is really not just about did he or didn't he. The prep boy has shown himself to be dishonest and slipper in many of his non-answer answers. He has shown himself to be a partisan political operative. This is not a "conservative" - this is a dishonest agent of right wing anger and hatred.
Federalist society?
It used to called the John Birch Society.
8
Is Ross being disingenous or does he really believe that Kavanaugh's performance on Thursday is what could be expected from a man unjustly accused? Did Kavanaugh really display the temperament expected from a judge, much less one that belongs on the Supreme Court? The Senate hearing is basically a job interview. No self-respecting law firm would hire Kavanaugh after that intemperate outburst.The FBI investigation may or may not reveal anything of significance but in my eyes it is irrelevant, Kavanaugh does not display the character, dignity and decency that should basic requirements of a Supreme Court Justice, regardless of whether he is thought of as conservative or liberal. How would the Republicans on the panel react if they were faced with a candidate that spouted venom at them? What I find astonishing is the total lack of self-reflection from GOP Senators that makes them unable to see past a political food fight. No wonder they are incapable of legislating.
41
What has Brett Kavanaugh done to us?
More to the point what have we done to ourselves?
Instead of a serious look at candidates platforms, and the real impact on the citizens of our country, we long ago abdicated our Democracy to the blarney of ideology promoted by self serving politicians,special interests groups,and corporate money.
Media didn't do much to enlighten or inform, too often preferring the horse race rather than issues.
Hopefully the Trump experience will leave an indelible mark on American voters, permanently implanting the citizen activism, and participation we now are experiencing.
22
I disagree that Kavanaugh is (was) in a no-win situation. A calm and (apparently) sincere acknowledgement that Christine Blasey Ford had clearly undergone a terrible experience, that his heart went out to her, that he had certainly done his share of college drinking and that, for all that, the behavior she described was not something he remembered doing, was not consistent with his character or beliefs and that he would be horrified to learn he had done in a drunken moment, would have gone a long way toward easing this liberal Democrat's antipathy toward him. That he did none of those things, that he elected instead to exhibit intemperate rage and unadorned partisanship, had everything to do with his judgement and choices and nothing to do with "much of the media."
158
The real problem here isn't Brett Kavanaugh. Just like with everything else in life the problem always starts at the top which in this case is Donald Trump; whose presidency has done more to rile and divide America than anything else.
At the moment this country is less of a democratic republic and more like a one-party state, where opposing or independent thought isn't tolerated.
Who ever thought the United States would ever come to this?
Between this president's incessant tweets and growing dependence on right-wing media sources to distort the news, we have become prisoners in his own state of mind, with a Congress either unfit or unwilling to do anything about it.
That's why it should surprise no one that he would choose a candidate for the Supreme Court who is as unfit for the office as he is himself.
And if after all this, Mr. Kavanaugh is still confirmed to sit on the bench, our nation's fate will be as sealed as some of his past decisions are.
Case closed.
60
@N. Smith Perhaps (likely?) too late, recognition that anyone may receive party approval and be elected to our highest office is a grave threat to our future, if not also currently to our very lives.
If Kavanaugh had some humility and good sense, he'd withdraw from this completely. But he would rather cause pain for decades just to make a point. What character!
65
Douthat again confirms that there is no limit to what he would do to overturn Roe v Wade. But he is consistently dishonest about that too. He won't stop at overturning Roe because he knows, or will soon find out, that the result of overturning Roe will be some states, like New York for example, will have permissive laws on abortion. Many will outlaw it but that won't be enough for Douthat and soon he will be arguing that the US Constitution prohibits the states from permitting abortion.
60
It appears Ross is simply unwilling to admit that abortion is a difficult moral issue and that reasonable, moral people disagree on this issue. It is telling he is willing to "put up" with Kavanaugh's intemperance to overturn Roe. While I am worried about Roe being overturned since it will cause untold hardships for many women, I am also worried about Kavanaugh's views on tort, environmental and coporate law. His arguments on these issues appear to be very radical and not in the judicial mainstream.
6
@Horace The "State" ~ of any kind ~ has NO business dictating a woman's decision to choose whether or not to have a baby. That said, and given only his personal demeanor in hearing, I can't imagine ANY woman wanting Judge Kavanaugh's legal "decision" on the matter.
2
@Horace. Douthat is anti women, pro forced birth. He may think he is taking the "moral high ground" but he himself will NEVER face what ANY female could face. He should perhaps go and enter the clergy, insteqd of spouting the drivel he does here. He tries to make out that he is a reasonable "conservative" but meanwhile he's a one trick pony shilling for the Catholic Church.
6
There's an interpretation of what we see here that hasn't got the emphasis it deserves. Judge Kavanaugh appears not to be simply a conservative jurist who serves the fundamental purpose of packing the Court long-term. That common view omits an even more ominous possibility or dimension, namely, that Kavanaugh, as a Justice, would serve as a reliable Trump loyalist, other supplicant, a "protector", a sort of judicial Nunes. Now, that's ominous!
76
You hit the nail on the head!!!
1
@StanC
No one is going to be a "loyalist" to Trump once he's gone. Trump is a means to an end (conservative ideals that can't get passed in normal democracy). There is no one obvious in the public sphere who thinks of Trump's ideas (changing as they do every day) as a defining theme.
The only Trump ideals I see are allowing moneyed (not "liberal") elites to do whatever they want. IRS be damned.
Still, your pessimism for the future is well founded and logical.
Trump’s has had very low key reactions recently when asked by reporters about Kavanaugh. He indicates that the Senate will make its decisions, and he says that is fine.
It sounds to me like he knows Kavanaugh won’t be confirmed. He wants any failure to confirm Kavanaugh to be pinned on a decision reached by the Senate.
26
@Jean
You read my mind !
A tempered trump response yesterday saying, Gee Whiz, that Brett guy really drank a lot is trump's way of telling Brett to withdraw, get off my back. And, without a vote, the rest of the republican senators can breathe.
Except vile "can't even discuss Merrick Garland" McConnell insists there will be a vote this week. The other repub senators should sit on him with a pillow over his mouth.
If Brett was smarter he would realize not only the Supreme Court seems closed to him, but he has placed his current judgeship in peril - revealed a liar.
3
Ross, as a fellow Catholic, I am also pro-life. As a woman and an American, I believe government should have no say in a woman's choices regarding her body, that she be free to exercise self-determination which is the foundation of our country. How do I reconcile these positions?
One, greater access to birth control for women through health insurance, and development of an equivalent type of birth control for men, whose choices right now are condoms and vasectomy. An employer's insurance should not be able to deny birth control to female employees based on the employer's choice. Does the same employer deny vasectomy to men? Censure men who use condoms?
Two, more value for children once they are born, through parental leave, and greater access to quality child care, so that women and men can choose to have children without fear of financial ruin.
I could go on about my concerns about children's status in this country, but you get the point.
365
@Kathleen
Which points out the fundamental problem with many who are pro life , they are anti abortion, want to ban it, then kind of like the US after Russia left afghanistan, wash their hands of the consequences of it. A lot (not all, not yourself) of the pro life people are also stridently anti sex, the people who promote abstinence only sex ed and fight things like mandates to pay for birth control or condom distribution, so instead of trying to make abortion rare via lowering the rate of uninetended pregnancies they are also shutting that off.
Not to mention that many of the pro life people are also the supposed fiscal conservatives who want to get rid of social safety net programs, many of which help children of the poor. From WIC to food stamps to head start to school funding for poor districts, the pro life right often has had the attitude of "we protect the unborn, once you are born, good luck to you"
24
EXCELLENT COMMENT!!!!!!
1
@Kathleen thank you, citizen!
1
It does seem like Kavanaugh’s prep session time with Trump led to him being told the Trumpian Way: only our base exists. They like rage. They like histrionics. They don’t care about truth. They do t like women, Dems, or Clintons. No one else matters or even exists except to be our enemies. Attack them. Irrationally. That’s how we win.
48
A prosecutor I know told me that outright repeal of Roe v. Wade will be a meaningless event. Here is his reasoning:
1. Few prosecutors will seek criminal indictments of mother or doctor for having procured an abortion. They are elected officials and would risk being voted out of office if they did.
2. Few grand juries would return such indictments.
3. Assuming an indictment were returned, the resulting criminal trial would ensure the very finest lawyers for defendant(s), thus risking a not guilty verdict and guaranteeing intense publicity against the prosecutor who brought the case.
4. Few if any juries would vote to convict under the governing standards of uninimity and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. Assuming return of a guilty verdict, judges would be hard-pressed to impose anything other than a nominal fine on defendants. Anything more severe would shock the conscience.
6. Appeals of any judgment of conviction would drag on for years and would likely result in ultimate reversal with directions to dismiss the indictment.
Under this scenario, the prosecutor suggested, it's unlikely that even a single criminal case would result if Roe v. Wade is overturned.
6
@S.R. Simon Prosecutions aren't the way this will happen. The way it will happen is through licensing laws and insurance laws, which will ensure that no doctor or nurse practitioner who wants to keep his or her license will be willing to perform abortions. If the court overturns Roe v. Wade, then the other non-prosecutorial limitations on abortions will be legal and we will go back to secret, deadly abortions.
31
@S.R. Simon.
And yet, one imagines doctors would be dissuaded from performing an illegal procedure. Doctors and nurses are the ones who would receive the real penalties.
14
@S.R. Simon
Your analysis is technically correct, but what you are missing is how the anti abortion right has already been shutting down abortion (in many states, while legal, there are now very few abortion providers). If they in fact make abortion illegal, while the threat of real prosecution may be unlikely, the threat of prosecution alone will do a lot, but then, too, there will be the fact that the state can harass clinics and doctors they suspect of doing abortions with all kinds of onerous regulations, that today would be seen as illegally restricting abortion. The environment would be such that doctors and nurses and clinics would be too afraid to perform abortions, because of all the things the state could now dump on them, and would make it likely only to happpen in the shadows.
2
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "What Has Diane Feinstein Done To Us?"
Doctor Ford wanted confidentiality. There's methods in place within the Judiciary Committee to investigate such matters in confidence, without making a circus about it.
Feinstein chose to sit on these allegations for weeks, without using the tools in place to have them looked into.
She chose poorly, and the nation is suffering for it.
13
@badubois I am a life long democrat and want Feinstein to go away with the wind. Her time has come and passed. She is responsible for this debacle.
4
@badubois
I agree but if it was done the right way sparing Ford and Kavanagh and their families the public circus Trump would have appointed a different conservative without his disqualifying baggage. Seems obvious the chance to take the senate and prevent Trump from appointing a conservative was too tempting. For certain the Republicans would have acted similarly.
@badubois
I also have a hard time with Feinstein’s behavior of not immediately sharing Dr. Ford’s information with the committee.
It is comparable to Obama knowing, but not immediately making public, his knowledge of Russian hacking during last election
Kavanaugh would not necessarily be the angriest justice, now or in the past, but that does no mean we should have more. We need justices that are above the fray, or at least pretend to be above the fray. When they become openly political the public loses trust in the Judicial Branch. The last thing we need in American society are more jaded voters that don't show up for general elections in a presidential year. Whether Kavanaugh committed the horrible acts or not that he is accused of, he has proven to be unfit in his defense. Further, Senate hearings do not have to assume innocence, so character assassination is what they are all about. He, as much as anyone, should have known to keep his cool.
34
As much is at stake here, there's even something greater: the state of our democracy. The dynamics of this case are driving our society further through a sewer. Our intense anger now, on both sides, is taking us down--together. It doesn't matter anymore who started or contributed more to it.
Beginning to re-build, finding our civility, putting off our intense desire to win, suppressing our anger if necessary, that's more important now. It will take leadership, certainly from a few in the Congress to start, the citizenry, the press.
It may even be practical, as barring new revelations this week, Kavanaugh is probably going to get in.
So here's a very uphill proposal. A deal is cut that after that vote next week, it is announced that the next Supreme Court nominee, regardless of who is President, will be Merrick Garland.
That would be shocking, perhaps enough to wake people up to the greater stakes. That pause may be enough to cause a re-direction from "winning," which isn't much of a win for either side in the long run, to re-vitalizing what legitimately was great about this country--before we've totally lost it.
It could defuse a lot of the anger on the Democratic side, which drives the Republicans, or vice-versa (but why does it matter).
If it helps, we could also focus on the good that comes out of this mess: the now-known long term career consequences of the drinking culture, a deepening of the respect for women, the need for one standard, the truth even when it hurts.
13
@Matt Polsky:
Yes, I like good dreams too. Meanwhile, I am voting D for Decency in November.
4
Yes, a grand compromise. I thought Hillary should of said something like this during the campaign. The GOP was screaming about USSC. Throw water on the fire by announcing that every other S C Justice would be an appointment made by COMPROMISING with GOP. Who knows, she could now be POTHUS.
1
Brett Kavanaugh has done nothing to us. He is simply a cipher in the hands of the real malefactors, Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, the United States Senate and the White House.
What these figures are doing to political tradition based on the US Constitution is to tear the country and its government to shreds. They do this in all due deliberation with eyes wide open.
When naked partisanship routinely trumps sober governance, then all we have left is the partisanship. As for us voters, we are willing accomplices in the destruction of our own country.
Perhaps we'll wake up next month.
53
@John lebaron, who said:
"Brett Kavanaugh has done nothing to us. He is simply a cipher in the hands of the real malefactors, Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, the United States Senate and the White House."
This is factually and wildly incorrect. It is a common illusion, or perhaps de-lusion is a better word.
The petty players you mention are simply controlled by
the real malefactors: Corporate and financial influence, industry that wants less regulation, pharmaceuticals and health care controlled by selfish and destructive interests, the Military Industrial Complex etc....
And now made obvious, the Russians and other foreign influence.
Quite simply,these true malefactors want Oligarchy here, at least more than we already have.
Kavanaugh and these Repubs are simply the operatives for these evil forces, and believe you me, they are evil. There will be no "waking up" until folk understand and recognize the true forces at work to ruin our Country for their gain.
In this regard, the carefully groomed Kavanaugh is simply an agent of this evil. With respect, if you don't understand that, you understand little of the forces that shape our politics.
2
Douthat reveals himself as a classic conservative who is willing to overlook egregious moral failings in a politician, or in this case a supreme court judge, in order to overturn Roe v Wade. He also does the classic conservative gambit of when someone asks legitimate questions about specifics, to then answer by citing an extreme. For example, Bruni lists all the ways Kavanaugh has lied, Douthat responds, “I’m not…convinced…he’s a sociopath.”This is the same tactic as McConnell who responds to demands for a thorough FBI investigation with “…we will then be treated to a lecture that anything short of a totally unbounded fishing expedition of indefinite duration is too limited, or too arbitrary, or somehow insufficient.” Conservatives think they have morally superior goals (or are just superior), which then absolves them from their own dirty tricks. For them, the end will always justify the means. This is what makes them so scary, as well as morally repugnant.
236
@Doc Holiday Hey Doc, I agree entirely with your conclusions but using the label "classic conservative" is wrong. These views and the people who espouse them are not classic conservative. They are utilitarian and amoral but not conservative at all. If anything, they are views associated with authoritarian and repressive forms of government, far away from anything a classic conservative would support.
19
I am so disappointed that Senator Klobuchar didn't put Kavanaugh in his place: "Mr. Kavanaugh, please remember that I am here to question you. You are not here to question me." Hard to imagine what reply he could have made. If a female appointee had gone shown half of Kavanaugh's hysteria, she would have been laughed out of the hearing.
Of course membership in a bizarre cult owned by the Koch Brothers should automatically disqualify anybody from a federal judgeship, but with the entire government in thrall to radical reactionaries, membership in the Federalist Society is now a prerequisite. Our courts are being poisoned for decades to come.
Dan Kravitz
396
@Dan Kravitz
I also wish that Senator Amy Klobuchar's had responded to Kavanaugh with a reprimand -- he insulted her and other sitting Senators.
However, Senator Amy Klobuchar's restraint showed why she is a potential presidential candidate and why Kavanaugh is not fit to be a judge on any bench.
10
@Dan Kravitz, there's a very specific reason why those sitting in judgement are physically seated so much higher than the one they're judging. Maybe,some would say, it photographs better but also the only way to actually make one flawed mortal actually "higher" than another when in fact they're do different. I can't believe for a second that any of those people sitting on high that day hadn't done anything similar themselves when they were young, and I'm not talking about only what trying to steal a kiss at a party has been blown way out of proportion into. I'm perfectly unafraid to see women traumatizing themselves to their heart's content as they keep continually reminding the world that only they suffer in it.
@Dan Kravitz If a male senator had said that, he would look like a statesman. If Senator Klobuchar said that, they would be calling her "shrill", "over-bearing", "hysterical".
You just don't get it, Dan.
If this exchange was meant to salve the sore wounds of the electorate, trust me, it does not. Who's in charge of salting wounds on the NYT Editorial Board? Here we find two otherwise fine thinkers semi-debating Kavanaugh's worthiness for the Court based on allegations of his so-called misbehavior 30 years ago.
Two observations: Riddle us why we are seeing these allegations now. Tempus is supposed to fugit, but here we have an alleged complaint that should have been addressed ages ago instead of this "convenient" time. Lastly, who among us would have the temerity to turn back Sen. Klobuchar's demeaning: "Have you ever blacked-out from drinking?" with his "What about you, Senator?" What faults lurk in your life?
7
@Lake Woebegoner Kavanaugh claims that he has no memory of a party at which he, Ford, and Judge were present. Numerous friends and classmates from high school and college have attested that he is a heavy drinker. Asking him whether he ever blacked out from drinking is not demeaning (watch recordings of Anita Hill's testimony if you want to see demeaning questions), it is *directly relevant* to the inquiry the committee was charged with conducting.
66
@Lake Woebegoner
A simple “No” would have sufficed in response to Klobuchar’s question. He behaved immaturely under stress—fine for a teenager, but not ok for a Supreme Court pick.
7
@junewell; If the purpose of the Senate hearings is for the judicial candidate to incriminate himself, then it should be a court where taking "The Fifth" makes sense.
Did I ever imbibe too much? Did you ever imbibe too much?" Given that gauntlet, we'd have no one worthy of any office.
What this conversation proves between Frank and Ross is that it’s possible to have civility between tribes. Both sides made valid points for consideration. I strongly suspect that this is what our “framers” had in mind when they put together the constitution. The question now is, how do we instruct our fellow tribesmen to do the same?
If we truly analyze the chaos of this past week, all it really shows is that neither tribe really cared to listen to the other. I had already made up my mind that Kavanaugh was guilty because it passed the O.J. test. What’s the O.J. test? That you believe O.J. killed Nicole and if you had to, you could actually pull the switch. What it also means is that it’s entirely possible that O.J. actually believes he never did it, even though in reality, he did.
I think this is the true definition of Quagmire.
3
Wow. Wow Ross. You are no better than Trump or the people who allowed him to come to power. Your belief about abortion will otherwise allow you to look the other way while a untempered firebrand gets put on the highest court in the land. That's disgusting. Your belief is just that, YOUR belief. You have no intrinsic right to force your beliefs onto others. I for one do not believe in God. I do not want to live under your religious doctrine. That is freedom. The people in the best position to make those kind of decisions are not Supreme Court Justices, they are each of us. Each and every woman deserves to have the right to choose her fate and her path. The fact that you hide behind a single issue just to gain the right to force your single belief onto everyone else is disgusting. You can deny it all you want, but you are no better than Trump. You are in the basket of deplorables.
306
@James Swords
Right on, James. You nailed Ross with your words.
Thanks for descriptions
3
@James Swords -- especially since we are not talking about forced abortions it is a choice. Not one I as a man would ever need to make but I can certainly understand a woman might. No one is forced to have an abortion. But then again if you have a child you are on your own mostly in this country. Change that dynamic first by making it easy to care for children.
2
@James Swords
Agreed with only 1 difference -- Ross is just a well educated, articulate deplorable!
1
Ross opines: “an underappreciated dynamic in all this is that Murkowski and Collins really want to vote for Kavanaugh because they don’t want a more conservative nominee.”
There is an apologist for you! Painting a spineless approval of a blind ideologue to the Court as an honorable opposition to a supposedly even worse outcome: a principled conservative.
83
Let's try to imagine how a mature man of solid character and even temperament---a "judicious" man, we might say---would handle these accusations if true and if false. If true, such a man would own up to the facts but state that he's regretted the incident ever since and has tried to live the rest of his life as a better man (and point to his apparent success at that). If false, such a man would express sorrow for Dr Ford but firmly and calmly maintain his denial. And, if as seems to me most likely, the accusations are true but he was too drunk to remember, a man of proper maturity and judgment would admit that he his drinking left him unable to recall events of that night but that if he did what Dr Ford claims, he is shamed and embarrassed and can do nought but offer his belated apologies. Instead, we were treated to the disturbing spectacle last week of a man nearly unhinged by a threat to his promotion. This is not the character of a person who should have a lifetime appointment as one of the country's few dozen most powerful people
168
@Rob Porter. Tell your gripes to your Senator. If he’s a Republican be prepared to get blown off, if you get a response at all.
1
Do you mean: "what have we done to Brett Kavanaugh?"
Good god I feel sorry for this man.
WOUld that you be judged on your actions in high school?
39
@John Wilson I would be judged by my actions in High School. As would most if not all of the men I know. His behavior can not be dismissed as high school hijinks. That said, there many other reasons to deny him this seat, not least of which is that we still haven't seen 80% of his documents. What are they hiding? I'm way more interested in that then any drunken rages, awful as those are and what they say about the man.
29
@John Wilson
I think it's more a matter of people looking into his actions in high school, but judging him on his insane behavior last Thursday.
5
@John Wilson Yes, absolutely. And beyond that...what about all of his other lies? His demeanor? We are talking Supreme Court, lifetime appointment here. But clearly deplorables only want to have more deplorables to applaud.
5
If I had behaved like Judge Kavanaugh did in front of (and in the face of) The Judiciary Committee when I was in kindergarten my parents would have been called to take me home immediately and seek professional counseling for me before my being allowed back in class. He merits a demotion and not a promotion.
68
@Greg Tutunjian
In some households, before the professional counseling you speak about happened, there would have been a good old-fashioned spanking. That may not be very PC these days, but when I see the Kavanaugh's of this world acting out because they can't to the cookie jar they so immaturely feel entitled to have on demand, I think corporal punishment is underrated - for some.
1
The ugliness of what is happening at the hearing stems from the need for denial by all the GOP Senators on a personal level. They all are on trial and they do not want to be forced to look back and admit or own behaviors that we now would judge reprehensible. They hired a woman to question Ford not only because of the optics but because they could not allow themselves to recall their pasts. They may not have ever been as extreme as Kavanaugh, but they probably discriminated against women, were dismissive, were excessively forceful or manipulative, and somehow used their male privilege and power.
184
@afriedman their attitude toward women was evident the minute Sen. Feinstein started to speak & was interrupted immediately. their beloved lord & master consistently cuts off women & interrupts with snide stupid remarks all the time. No Respect in the White Man World!
5
@Friedman. well , if not, brilliantly said.
1
@afriedman I assume you know nothing of Blumenthal and Booker?
"The thing about being pro-life is that I’ve lived my entire adult life believing that the high court’s jurisprudence has been a moral disaster for American life, which tends to breed a certain … detachment from the idea that there exists some ideal impartial nonpartisan style of jurisprudence that we can all rally around or even patriotically respect"...Douthat "detachment" is just cynicism...he'll accept that Kavanaugh would be "a radically polarizing figure" and that maybe Kavanaugh "shaded the truth" a bit, but heh so what, if Kavanaugh votes his way that is all that matters...not much of a philosopher is Douthat...where is David Brooks when we need him...Douthat brings nothing to the discussion ...
31
Talk about playing to a political base! This entire farce is about the Democrats trying to protect Roe v. Wade by any means possible, never mind that they now cast doubt on all claims of sexual aggression by presenting such a flimsy and unsubstantiated complaint. Credible and sympathetic witnesses do not meet the burden of legal proof.
5
@Larry It's not a trial. It's a hearing to determine the fitness of a man for a lifetime appointment to the highest judicial body in this country. And I would say he has demonstrated himself to be patently unfit.
25
@Larry Why is legal proof important at this point? Although several allegations have been made, this is not a criminal or civil trial. This is a process by which they are trying to evaluate the character of someone who is being considered for a lifetime appointment to an incredibly influential job. Regardless of whether the allegations can be proven in a court, the hearings and investigation have provided a great deal of information about the candidate's mindset, his temperament, and- most alarmingly- his honesty. I think, at this point, it would be hard to argue that Kavanaugh has not been evasive and deceptive- even if he has managed to skirt the borders of outright perjury.
Regarding the politics of the situation- is it not hypocritical of conservatives to call out Democrats' opposition to Kavanaugh when the Republicans refused to even have hearings for Obama's nominee?
8
Merrick Garland
2
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has publicly impugned the integrity of a sitting United States senator, Diane Feinstein. He alleges that she unethically mishandled Christine Blasey Ford's allegation of Brett Kavanaugh's sexual assault. He's in a lot of trouble if he can't prove it. Either Feinstein or Graham should be censured--and if it can be shown that Graham ran off at the mouth once too often, then he should be expelled from the senate for his egregious attack on Feinstein.
85
@WDG. Exactly. Look at how McConnell fulminated over Elizabeth Warren being so unethical with regard to a fellow Senator as to start reading a letter, already in the Congressional record, from MLK's widow, in opposition to the appointment of racist Jeff Sessions as attorney general.
Oh, I get it now. Senate decorum forbids Democrats from disparaging Republican senators, but not the other way around.
1
Almost daily, I write a comment that excoriates Douthat as a narrow-minded, self-righteous hypocrite who stakes his arguments on taking gratuitous potshots at us evil liberals.
It's interesting how he seems able to take the edge off of that when he's actually conversing with another person. He almost comes across as a rational human being.
Which brings me to Kavanaugh (and the Republicans/Conservatives in general): Just because you can put on a veneer of rationality and civility in public doesn't negate your self-righteous and us-versus-them mentalities. Douthat displays his true self in his columns; Kavanaugh displayed his true self last Thursday, in the Starr report, etc.
That's the true essence of the Conservative Brotherhood.
28
Headline for the next conversation:
What Has Dianne Feinstein Done to Us?
No matter what the FBI finds, her delayed disclosure of a sexual assault allegation will color the midterms, 2020, institutional trust and partisan warfare going forward.
9
Kavanaugh isn't the cause, he's merely one effect of a multi-decade effort by far-right Republicans (and their television propaganda network) to seize control of the judiciary, presidency and congress by any means necessary, even if it means eroding institutional trust, normalizing terrible behavior and tactics (flat-out refusing to hear the nominee of the sitting president, for example) and endorsing mentally unstable sexual abusers. They have gone too far in placing party over country. But then the country they want looks a lot like the candidates they promote: rich, white, straight, "Christian," predatory.
76
I don't see that Kavanaugh has done anything to us. He was unknown until Trump tried to drag him into the swamp, hopefully with no success. You can drop this shoe on Trump and the anti choice conservative evangelicals that have Trumps ear and blessing. In a way Kavanaugh may just be the bugle call for Democrats and those of us that do not want religion in their government or courts.
13
The Senate confirmation is sound and fury, signifying nothing. The die has been cast. The Rubicon has been crossed. It's a done deal! Even if they had proof that Kavanaugh lied to congress, he'd be confirmed. We're in for thirty years of backward evolution toward a second Dark Age. However, in the near future, the human mind will be programmed in the computer based on a "survival" algorithm, and we will have irrefutable proof of how we trick this survival program in the mind with our ridiculous beliefs about what exactly is supposed to survive - creating minds programmed de facto for our destruction. At that point we can begin the long trek back to reason and sanity. See RevolutionOfReason.com
7
More like what has Mitch McConnell done to us. The guy is pure partisan sleaze. He ruined his legacy as a steward of the institution of the Senate by thumbing his nose at the Garland nomination. Now we get crocodile tears about how nasty and political the Democrats are being by trying to sabotage the Kavanaugh nomination. Boo hoo. You made this bed, McConnell. Now lie in it.
145
@The Lorax No, Biden/Schumer made the bed when they said that a president in the last year of his term should not make an appointment to the SCOTUS.
@h dierkes. Words are cheap. They made a partisan argument that had no effect. As if McConnell even pretended to have an excuse not to consider Garland.
@h dierkes
According to Politifact- "The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election." Biden suggested it but it was never brought to the floor for a vote. They held up no appointments or confirmations. Opining on something and actually acting on it are two different things. Does your obtuseness not allow you to see the difference?
Yet again we have New York Times columnists unable to see the obvious. As Scott Adams has pointed out on Periscope numerous times, Trump uses his ego like a tool and will ramp it up or down to meet the needs of moment. Rather than comprehend that, the columnists follow the same old tired canards about Trump being an irrational actor on the world stage.
6
The irony in all this is that, by the standards of Trump appointees, Kavanaugh is a Star. Can you name 3 Trump appointees - not Judicial, any appointees in the Federal Government - that are not more outrageous than Kavanaugh?
7
Sorry, Ross. We can't heal the wounds until we amputate the gangrenous part of the body politic. That would be the party who refused to give Garland a hearing. That would be all the money in politics. And very specifically, that would be the festering Kavanaugh.
122