"I Know Brett Kavanaugh, But I Wouldn't Confirm Him"

Well, I read the article about the advice the author would have given Kavanaugh - author linked to in original article.

The author basically said he was in between a rock and hard place, and so he should just back out. That was it in a nutshell. He was dead on arrival.

He impugns her by his denials of the accusations.

Though Kavanaugh has been careful not to slime Ford, his denial of the incident impugns her anyway, which is legitimate if his denial is accurate. It will not do, however, to impeach her credibility wrongly and then ask for confirmation to the highest court in the land because the false denial was not intentionally false. If the allegations are true, Kavanaugh cannot be confirmed.

Click to expand...

The author already acknowledge the ugly and awful behavior that happened prior to these accusations, and started the day of his nomination. No doubt some in the political sphere will call it justified, but it was nonetheless unprofessional to say the least.

And in this endeavor, Kavanaugh himself bears the burden of proof. This sounds like unjust ground to stake out in a society in which the accused is innocent until proven guilty. But in practical terms, Kavanaugh is the one who has to persuade the marginal senator to vote for him. He is the one who has to give Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski enough confidence in him that they can vote to confirm believing they can defend their actions to a legion of angry voters. It is he, not Ford, who needs to count to 50.

Click to expand...

So, in other words he must prove he wasn't at the party to do such a thing. Problem is? No one knows where the party was, or even the date. No party goers have stepped forward - so he doesn't even know who can vouch for him. I'm not sure how anyone could show their innocence under those circumstances.

The author also seems to have forgotten it's not just two he needs to win over.

The injustice, in fact, is largely optical. The question before us, after all, is not whether to punish Kavanaugh or whether to assign liability to him. It’s whether to bestow on him an immense honor that comes with great power. Kavanaugh is applying for a much-coveted job. And the burden of convincing in such situations always lies with the applicant. The standard for elevation to the nation’s highest court is not that the nominee established a “reasonable doubt” that the serious allegations against him were true.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is largely optical....yet you would never know it. It's also why I have lost respect for many in politics on both sides. I have major issues with Trump and many aspects of his behavior. Yet, I don't see many that act to much better. People are doing their darndest - prior to the allegations to punish and show him a liability.

It seems the author is saying since you can't hold those in the power seats in other position for their reckless, unethical and irresponsible behavior - you need to find a way to rise above them.

This type of approach will make it heavy lifting for any candidate, and basically hints you need to play a game in the opposite direction.

If someone has to do that? Goodness knows what we as a country will get on the bench.

YET, at least the author does see the injustice in the circus we have been experiencing. Heck, the author might be the first one not endorsing him that does.

This last hearing wasn't part of the job interview. It was to ask about a specific event. Everyone who backed Kavanaugh before PRAISED his composure and his ability to impart fair decisions.

This wasn't a partisan attack. What he said was absolutely true. He spoke against the democrats because the democrats ARE attacking him. They are throwing tons of money at this. This is a partisan attack against him. He fought back and defended himself. You all just expected him to hold his tongue.

The FBI investigation wasn't to find something but to stall. And when it's obvious the FBI investigation isn't going to reveal anything, now they're attacking him for drinking, or (insert whatever stupid reason you all say he should be disqualified).

You cannot just choose to ignore almost 40 years of judiciary work in which he was praised for his temperament because of one hearing where he was defending himself. He had every right to call out the partisan attacks against him.

As for saying no other nominee reacted this boldly, you're lying. Look back at Clarance Thomas and his defense. It was just as fiery.

RocksInMyHead said:

The article is from The Atlantic, which may scare off some of the more conservative posters on this forum, but it's written by a fellow of the Brookings Institution who has known Kavanaugh for a long time and often spoken highly of him. Most of the points in it have been made in various places here before, but it's nice to see them all tied up together, and I feel that it encapsulates my feelings on the matter pretty well.

Full Article Here

Click to expand...

Eh, the author doesn’t make a convincing argument Kavanaugh cannot be as “fair” an “arbiter” as anyone on the Court or presently on the bench for any of the lower courts. The author doesn’t remotely argue or explain why Kavanaugh’s specific comments to the Senate Judiciary Committee answer his queries in the negative.

And the author has a rosy account of Ms. Ford’s testimony but it’s based upon some guesses, assumes facts to fill in the gaps, and stretches the notion of corroboration. For instance:

“She appears to have told her therapist about the alleged event years ago, and she identified Kavanaugh as her attacker to her husband years ago, as well.

Appears? Not very compelling. So, did she or didn’t she? Oh, and while discussing the therapist, the therapist’s notes reference 4 males involved, not two, and Kavanaugh isn’t mentioned. What she told her husband isn’t compelling.

It’s just not a very good article justifying a vote against Kavanaugh.

Kentonio said:

He’s interviewing for a position where political impartiality is essential. For him to not be able to control his demeanor and even pretend to be impartial in the senate is certainly disqualifying. He’s trying to become a Supreme Court Judge, not a politician.

Click to expand...

His comments do not establish he would be politically biased while on the bench.

wing2000 said:

Cavanaugh had a right to be angry and defend himself...however, I agree with the author's assessment on this point:

But I cannot condone the partisanship—which was raw, undisguised, naked, and conspiratorial—from someone who asks for public faith as a dispassionate and impartial judicial actor. His performance was wholly inconsistent with the conduct we should expect from a member of the judiciary.

Click to expand...

How exactly does his commentary, made in a different setting and under different circumstances than sitting on the bench and evaluating a case, mean he can’t be impartial?

RocksInMyHead said:

This makes no sense. The senators are not members of the judiciary branch and are not expected to be impartial arbiters. Kavanaugh was absolutely expected to conduct himself like a judge at the hearing - it was part of the interview process for the highest court in the country.


Passionately defending himself isn't the problem. Passionately defending himself by lashing out in a partisan manner is the issue here. He could have easily defended himself in a passionate manner without spouting conspiracy theories and making partisan attacks. And I'm not sure how you could possibly know what the reaction would have been had he used a different approach.


The author of the article was extremely supportive of Kavanaugh right up until the hearing and took quite a bit of public flack for his support. Have a read through his twitter if you don't believe me. Or just read the article. It'll take you five minutes.

Click to expand...

Newsflash, judges and justices are partisan, perhaps not overtly. This isn’t a secret. Being partisan doesn’t necessarily mean or imply lack of impartiality. Impartiality rationally meaning lack of bias for or against a party, such a meaning being logically differentiated from a lack of preconception for or against a particular legal view.

NotreDame said:

How exactly does his commentary, made in a different setting and under different circumstances than sitting on the bench and evaluating a case, mean he can’t be impartial?

Click to expand...

If he can't defend himself with out resorting to cheap political attacks in front of the whole world watching, why should I should I trust his discernment on the bench?

NotreDame said:

Eh, the author doesn’t make a convincing argument Kavanaugh cannot be as “fair” an “arbiter”

Click to expand...

He doesn't, but I don't think that's the point Wittes is trying to make. Fair to Kavanaugh or not, his outburst will cause people to suspect his impartiality. Whenever he passes an unfavourable decision, people will trot out his outburst and wave it around to impugn the legitimacy of the court. That's a lot of baggage to bring to a supreme court position. (Not saying such doesn't already happen, RBG's comments on Trump were also problematic for a very similar reason, among other incidents)

Or as the articles states:

Gigimo said:

Sounds like his friend is a fool.

Click to expand...

Constitutionalists should listen to Mark Levin.

wing2000 said:

If he can't defend himself with out resorting to cheap political attacks in front of the whole world watching, why should I should I trust his discernment on the bench?

Click to expand...

So, roll over and play dead? Come on now. People would have criticized his calm demeanor if he had chosen that approach too. There has no fair play in this circus so far.

Cheap political attacks are key for those that want to vote on him - and many things that directly impact our lives in so many ways...yet that is okay for them? lol because it shows great discernment on their part? They carry more weight in our daily lives than the Supreme court! Every week they pass something IMPACTFUL!

Even the author acknowledged their deadly deeds in not so nice terms. They used some optics to brand the man, and his wife and children are getting the very same treatment people are complaining about with Ford. Why is that happening to his family? From the labor of love prior to the accusations which most call cheap political attacks in front of any camera that would listen. lol trying to convince the audience of their master of discernment.

This is what is causing me to pause here. They used Ford, and her demeanor showed she clearly wasn't ready for the show. Yet, since they outed her? Might as well go for the pressure campaign to make sure she knew she must! The poor woman couldn't answer questions from less than 2 months ago, and Feinstein - great optics there by the way - had to turn around during the hearings to ask her staff if her office leaked the letter! She said NO after consulting with her staff DURING the hearing,and then turned around and blamed the witness's friends of doing it. lol this is the HEAD of the discerning party that started this in front of the whole world watching!

They stinked this up, and people are making excuses for their behavior. lol and then in the next breath complain about Trump's? They have kept pace with him - if they are not out doing him!

All these politicians - both sides - slime!

HannahT said:

So, roll over and play dead? Come on now. People would have criticized his calm demeanor if he had chosen that approach too. There has no fair play in this circus so far.

Click to expand...

Nope. His defense of himself would have been much stronger if he left out the political attacks.

HannahT said:

Cheap political attacks are key for those that want to vote on him - and many things that directly impact our lives in so many ways...yet that is okay for them? lol because it shows great discernment on their part? They carry more weight in our daily lives than the Supreme court! Every week they pass something IMPACTFUL!

Click to expand...

Leave it to the committee members.

RocksInMyHead said:

The article is from The Atlantic, which may scare off some of the more conservative posters on this forum, but it's written by a fellow of the Brookings Institution who has known Kavanaugh for a long time and often spoken highly of him. Most of the points in it have been made in various places here before, but it's nice to see them all tied up together, and I feel that it encapsulates my feelings on the matter pretty well.

Full Article Here

Click to expand...

Good article. Thanks for sharing it.

wing2000 said:

Nope. His defense of himself would have been much stronger if he left out the political attacks.

Click to expand...

You and I both know it wouldn't. The attacks came out prior to the accusations. Many that lacked discernment even then.

Leave it to the committee members.

Click to expand...

The source of the politically attacks, and those that showed their bigotry prior to the accusations. That makes no sense.

If they had shown - with some respectful banter - their disagreement? I can respect that. It's okay if I disagree. Yet, they couldn't muster even that. They disrespected both parties in this debate.

It's sad that they - whom has no respect for either parties in this circus (Kavanaugh/Ford) have more power over our lives in general - that we must 'leave it' them.

What's strange? People are okay with that.

NotreDame said:

His comments do not establish he would be politically biased while on the bench.

Click to expand...

They don’t establish it, but they certainly strongly imply it. Wittes was spot on about that.

wing2000 said:

If he can't defend himself with out resorting to cheap political attacks in front of the whole world watching, why should I should I trust his discernment on the bench?

Click to expand...

A very good question.

Of course, it’s desirable to have a judge or a justice who will evaluate the facts of a case rationally. It’s also desirable for a judge/justice to issue an opinion or decision based on reason, the law, and the facts, as opposed to a decision that is the product of an emotional outburst of anger.

It’s improtant to remember Kavanaugh is a man, a homo sapien, and not a Vulcan. Like the rest of humanity before him, and the multitudes of generations of people to follow, being angry is to be human. Uttering a few unwise comments as a result of anger is also to be human. Add to this the context in which his anger was displayed.

The context was one accusation of attempted rape, one accusation of public indecency, and an accusation of drugging women so multiple teenage boys could have sex with the drug induced female, or at least facilitating in some manner that conduct. The accusations pervaded American society. In nearly every corner of the country and all the spacious land in between, people judged Kavanaugh to be a rapist, a sexual predator, and his name and reputation, on the basis of mere accusations, was forever tarnished.

That’s the context and it is understandable why Kavanaugh’s anger resulted in some unwise remarks.

His opinions, concurrences, or dissents while he’s been on the D.C. Circuit, speak to his proper discernment. Those many years of writings while on the D.C.
Circuit, showing his discernment, aren’t overshadowed by his palpable anger before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

NotreDame said:

His comments do not establish he would be politically biased while on the bench.

Click to expand...

Appealing to conspiracy theory and promising retribution says otherwise.

Another article in the same vein as the Wittes article. I feel this one is a bit better argued.

The Anger of Brett Kavanaugh

I mean...there's anger, and then there's anger. If someone wrongly accused me of something, sure I'd be upset and angry. I'd call for an investigation so that my good name would be cleared.

But would I get red in the face and yell about the Clintons? Would I speak darkly of "reaping the whirlwind"? I'm not sure that I would. When I think of judges, whether they sit on the Supreme Court or a circuit court, I think of someone who is impartial, nonpartisan, and on an even keel. I don't believe that Kavanaugh showed any of those qualities, even if you think he's completely innocent (which, full disclosure, I don't but has no bearing on my opinion about the temperament - or lack of it - that he showed).
Ringo

AllButNone said:

It doesn't, but I don't think that's the point Wittes is trying to make. Fair to Kavanaugh or not, his outburst will cause people to suspect his impartiality. Whenever he passes an unfavourable decision, people will trot out his outburst and wave it around to impugn the legitimacy of the court. That's a lot of baggage to bring to a supreme court position. (Not saying such doesn't already happen, RBG's comments on Trump were also problematic for a very similar reason, among other incidents)

Or as the articles states:

That Brett Kavanaugh reminded us that “the Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution. The justices on the Supreme Court do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. They do not caucus in separate rooms.”​

Click to expand...

Fair to Kavanaugh or not, his outburst will cause people to suspect his impartiality.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by impartiality? Impartiality meaning a lack of bias for or against a party? That’s my understanding of impartiality.

However, people suspicious of Kavanaugh’s impartiality can’t be enough to keep him off the bench. Isn’t it preferable to require more than suspicion? Demonstratored partiality is justifiable concern but merely being suspicious shouldn’t be sufficient to keep him off the bench.

Whenever he passes an unfavourable decision, people will trot out his outburst and wave it around to impugn the legitimacy of the court. That's a lot of baggage to bring to a supreme court position. (Not saying such doesn't already happen, RBG's comments on Trump were also problematic for a very similar reason, among other incidents)

Click to expand...

This may be compelling if similar conduct wasn’t already occurring in regards to Justices sitting on the bench and occurred in regards to a renown justice no longer on the court. Which is to say, Kavanaugh’s “unfavorable decision” would’ve been inevitably attacked without Kavanaugh’s angry demeanor on 9/27.