Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI Know Brett Kavanaugh, but I Wouldn't Confirm Him (from The Atlantic)
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/why-i-wouldnt-confirm-brett-kavanaugh/571936/?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=the-atlantic-fb-test-433-3-&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_medium=socialI Know Brett Kavanaugh, but I Wouldnt Confirm Him
This is an article I never imagined myself writing, that I never wanted to write, that I wish I could not write.
Benjamin Wittes
Editor in chief of Lawfare and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution
If I were a senator, I would not vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh. These are words I write with no pleasure, but with deep sadness. Unlike many people who will read them with gleeas validating preexisting political, philosophical, or jurisprudential opposition to Kavanaughs nominationI have no hostility to or particular fear of conservative jurisprudence. I have a long relationship with Kavanaugh, and I have always liked him. I have admired his career on the D.C. Circuit. I have spoken warmly of him. I have published him. I have vouched publicly for his charactermore than onceand taken a fair bit of heat for doing so. I have also spent a substantial portion of my adult life defending the proposition that judicial nominees are entitled to a measure of decency from the Senate and that there should be norms of civility within a process that showed Kavanaugh none even before the current allegations arose.
This is an article I never imagined myself writing, that I never wanted to write, that I wish I could not write. I am also keenly aware that rejecting Kavanaugh on the record currently before the Senate will set a dangerous precedent. The allegations against him remain unproven. They arose publicly late in the process and, by their nature, are not amenable to decisive factual rebuttal. It is a real possibility that Kavanaugh is telling the truth and that he has had his life turned upside down over a falsehood. Even assuming that Christine Blasey Fords allegations are entirely accurate, rejecting him on the current record could incentivize not merely other sexual-assault victims to come forwardwhich would be a salutary thingbut also other late-stage allegations of a non-falsifiable nature by people who are not acting in good faith. We are on a dangerous road, and the judicial confirmation wars are going to get a lot worse for our traveling down it.
...
Kavanaugh, needless to say, did not take my advice. He stayed in, and he delivered on Thursday, by way of defense, a howl of rage. He went on the attack not against Fordfor that we can be gratefulbut against Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee and beyond. His opening statement was an unprecedentedly partisan outburst of emotion from a would-be justice. I do not begrudge him the emotion, even the anger. He has been through a kind of hell that would leave any person gasping for air. But I cannot condone the partisanshipwhich was raw, undisguised, naked, and conspiratorialfrom 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.
Consider the judicial function as described by Kavanaugh himself at his first hearing. That Brett Kavanaugh described a good judge [as] an umpirea neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no litigant or policy. 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.
...
A very different Brett Kavanaugh showed up to Thursdays hearing. This one accused the Democratic members of the committee of a grotesque and coordinated character assassination, saying that they had replaced advice and consent with search and destroy. After rightly criticizing the behavior of several of the Democratic members of this committee at [his] hearing a few weeks ago [as] an embarrassment, this Brett Kavanaugh veered off into full-throated conspiracy in a fashion that made entirely clear that he knew which room he caucused in.
--------------------------------
Much more at link.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 1068 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (14)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I Know Brett Kavanaugh, but I Wouldn't Confirm Him (from The Atlantic) (Original Post)
Stonepounder
Oct 2018
OP
honest.abe
(8,685 posts)1. This will leave a mark.
FakeNoose
(32,783 posts)2. Further quotes from the OP
The Brett Kavanaugh who showed up to Thursdays hearing is a man I have never met, whom I have never even caught a glimpse of in 20 years of knowing the person who showed up to the first hearing. I dealt with Kavanaugh during the Starr investigation, which I covered for the Washington Post editorial page and about which I wrote a book. I dealt with him when he was in the White House counsels office and working on judicial nominations and postSeptember 11 legal matters. Since his confirmation to the D.C. Circuit, he has been a significant voice on a raft of issues I work on. In all of our interactions, he has been a consummate professional. The allegations against him shocked me very deeply, but not quite so deeply as did his presentation. It was not just an angry and aggressive version of the person I have known. It seemed like a different person altogether.
My cognitive dissonance at Kavanaughs performance Thursday is not important. What is important is the dissonance between the Kavanaugh of Thursdays hearing and the judicial function. Can anyone seriously entertain the notion that a reasonable pro-choice woman would feel like her position could get a fair shake before a Justice Kavanaugh? Can anyone seriously entertain the notion that a reasonable Democrat, or a reasonable liberal of any kind, would after that performance consider him a fair arbiter in, say, a case about partisan gerrymandering, voter identification, or anything else with a strong partisan valence? Quite apart from the merits of Fords allegations against him, Kavanaughs display on Thursdayif I were a senator voting on confirmationwould preclude my support.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)3. Booooooommm!!!
Hugin
(33,222 posts)4. I bet this guy is all for Gosuch.
The only (so far) JOTSCOTUS who was appointed with a purely partisan vote. He is exactly as biased as Kav, but, was wise enough to keep his big mouth shut.
dchill
(38,547 posts)6. "...wise enough to keep his big mouth shut."
Which passes for judicial equanimity, these days. I guess.
Duppers
(28,127 posts)5. That was...
"that was breathtaking as an abandonment of any pretense of having a judicial temperament.
That was a layer of this onion that Charlie had never seen, uh. Truth comes out and that onion stank badly.