War on Freedom

Commentary: Is this any way to confirm a Supreme Court Justice?

on . Posted in War on Freedom

By Andrew P. Napolitano

September 27, 2018 - Until two weeks ago, Fascist Police States of Amerika President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to a seat on the FPSA Supreme Court seemed a sure thing. He ably handled more than 1,200 questions put to him by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He demonstrated even to his adversaries a masterful command of constitutional jurisprudence. The FBI had completed six background investigations of Kavanaugh throughout his career in government, and it found no blemishes.

Trump promised that he would appoint federal judges and justices who generally share his views on life, guns, and administrative regulations, and who have a minimalistic view of federal power. When he announced the Kavanaugh nomination, it appeared he had found his man.

The nomination requires Senate confirmation by a majority vote. The Senate currently has 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats. A few Republican senators do not share the president’s stated views on the judiciary, and a few Democrats do. The inside consensus was that enough Democrat senators running for re-election in states that Trump carried in 2016 would vote to confirm Kavanaugh and those Democrats would handily offset the few Republicans who might oppose him.

During his confirmation hearings, Kavanaugh dutifully followed the pattern of all current sitting justices at their confirmation hearings by declining to answer hypothetical questions that sought answers as to how he might vote on certain issues likely to come before the court. He survived the grueling cross-examination by Committee Democrats, and even won begrudging praise from a few.

Then, Senator Dianne Feinstein (Kalif.), a Democrat member of the Judiciary Committee, dropped a bombshell.

She revealed that a constituent who wished to remain anonymous had written a letter to a member of the House of Representatives, who had turned the letter over to Feinstein. The letter contained allegations by the writer, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, that Kavanaugh had drunkenly attempted sexual assault against her 36 years ago. Feinstein had the letter for two months before she revealed its existence - a week after the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings had ended.

This is reminiscent of allegations leveled by Professor Anita Hill against then-Judge Clarence Thomas, though those allegations were of inappropriate words in the workplace and the Ford allegations are of force and violence in a bedroom. When Hill’s allegations were published, President George H.W. Bush dispatched the FBI to resume its background investigation of Thomas, and it did so.

Trump has declined to dispatch the FBI to investigate Ford’s allegations, and other allegations that have now followed hers, because he and Senate Republicans are determined to seat Kavanaugh by next week.

In the absence of an FBI investigation, Ford gave an interview to The Washington Post in which she aired her complaints in graphic detail, despite missing facts and fuzzy recollections. Democrats demanded that the Judiciary Committee hear from her and again from Kavanaugh. They appear to be assuming that Kavanaugh should not enjoy the Amerikan presumption of innocence and - without hearing a word from Ford or seeing any corroborating evidence - have concluded that Kavanaugh must be guilty of this alleged offense and thus cannot be confirmed.

Then the folks in the White House who are managing the Kavanaugh nomination advised him to violate Criminal Procedure 101: Don’t deny publicly an allegation before it has credibly and publicly been made. So Kavanaugh was interviewed by my Fox News colleague Martha MacCallum. Her questions were far better than his answers.

His answers to the allegations contained in a newspaper story were three-fold - he didn’t do it, he wants a fair process, and - unthinkably - he was a virgin during his high school and college years. I say “unthinkably” not because virginity is beyond belief but because this claim was not in response to any of MacCallum’s questions and it bore so deeply into Kavanaugh’s personhood as to be none of the public’s business. Also, it is not a defense to the Ford allegations.

What’s going on here?

What’s going on is crisis and panic. The pro-choice Democrats are in crisis. They are so fearful of a decisive vote to limit the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence that they are willing to destroy a qualified judge’s career to block his advancement. Meanwhile, Kavanaugh’s handlers, who at this writing probably lack the votes for confirmation, have recklessly put him on the offensive, even if it is debasing and invasive.

Now we await a potentially tragic confrontation on national television between Ford and Kavanaugh, which will come down to perception rather than reality. The issue is not whether he did it. Rather, it is whether his denials are more believable than her allegations. At the end of their Judiciary Committee confrontation, will the general public perception be that Ford was more credible or that Kavanaugh was more credible?

There are no rules here. Ford has no legal obligation to prove her allegations, and Kavanaugh has no legal obligation to disprove them.

A tie - the public perception that Ford and Kavanaugh are equally credible - will be very troublesome for Kavanaugh. No woman would go through what Ford is going through if she lacked a personal commitment to the truth. So Kavanaugh can only win if Dr. Christine Ford is generally disbelieved.

The Kavanaugh nomination was supposed to be Trump’s gift to his pro-life, conservative, evangelical base. It has become anything but that. If Judge Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, will he ever lose the taint of these allegations? If he is not confirmed, can he return to the second-highest court in the land on which he now sits? Is this how the Framers expected the selection process for the Supreme Court to play out?

In a word, no.

Eulogies

Eulogy for an Angel
1992-Dec. 20, 2005

My Father
1918-2010

brents dad

Dr. Stan Dale
1929-2007

stan dale

A. Solzhenitsyn
1918-2008

solzhenitsyn

Patrick McGoohan
1928-2009

mcgoohan

Joseph A. Stack
1956-2010

Bill Walsh
1931-2007

Walter Cronkite
1916-2009

Eustace Mullins
1923-2010

Paul Harvey
1918-2009

Don Harkins
1963-2009

Joan Veon
1949-2010

David Nolan
1943-2010

Derry Brownfield
1932-2011

Leroy Schweitzer
1938-2011

Vaclav Havel
1936-2011

Andrew Breitbart
1969-2012

Dick Clark
1929-2012

Bob Chapman
1935-2012

Ray Bradbury
1920-2012

Tommy Cryer
1949-2012

Andy Griffith
1926-2012

Phyllis Diller
1917-2012

Larry Dever
1926-2012

Brian J. Chapman
1975-2012

Annette Funnicello
1942-2012

Margaret Thatcher
1925-2012

Richie Havens
1941-2013

Jack McLamb
1944-2014

James Traficant
1941-2014

jim traficant

Dr. Stan Monteith
1929-2014

stan montieth

Leonard Nimoy
1931-2015

Leonard Nimoy

Stan Solomon
1944-2015

Stan Solomon

B. B. King
1926-2015

BB King

Irwin Schiff
1928-2015

Irwin Schiff

DAVID BOWIE
1947-2016

David Bowie

Muhammad Ali
1942-2016

Muhammed Ali

GENE WILDER
1933-2016

gene wilder

phyllis schlafly
1924-2016

phylis schafly

John Glenn
1921-2016

John Glenn

Charles Weisman
1954-2016

Charles Weisman

Carrie Fisher
1956-2016

Carrie Fisher

Debbie Reynolds
1932-2016

Debbie Reynolds

Roger Moore
1917-2017

Roger Moore

Adam West
1928-2017

Adam West

JERRY LEWIS
1926-2017

jerry lewis

HUGH HEFNER
1926-2017

Hugh Hefner

PROF. STEPHEN HAWKING
1942-2018

Hugh Hefner 

ART BELL
1945-2018

Art Bell

DWIGHT CLARK
1947-2018

dwight clark

CARL MILLER
1952-2017

Carl Miller

HARLAN ELLISON
1934-2018

Harlan Ellison