Commonweal, the highly respected Roman Catholic Magazine, posted an editorial opposing the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh because of his “injudicuousness.”
The editors compared his aggressive testimony to that of Christine Blasey Ford, and found her to be more credible.
She was nervous but cooperative, explaining that she was there to do her civic duty. She was also courageous: she had little to gain by speaking publicly about the attack and its traumatic effects. In so doing, she also inspired other survivors to come forward on social media and the airwaves to share similar experiences, many breaking years or decades of silence.
Kavanaugh displayed no such poise or sense of the world beyond himself. His opening remarks, all partisan fury, sniveling self-pity, and distortion of the truth, set the tone for the afternoon. Exhibiting petulant disdain for Democratic members of the committee, he came off as nothing so much as the entitled adolescent he memorialized in a summerful of calendar entries, unable to believe his parents are about to ground him for the weekend. He raged at the prospect of being deprived of a job he apparently assumed was his by dint of mere pedigree. At times he seemed barely in control of his anger; perhaps he truly cannot remember doing what he has been accused of. Nevertheless, his reaction to questions about his drinking habits from Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar—“What about you, Senator? Do you ever black out?”—was not just disrespectful but disturbing, and his apology for it devoid of real contrition. Though he loudly proclaimed his innocence, he repeatedly declined to say whether he would support additional investigation by the FBI into the allegations against him. Kavanaugh’s belligerence had a contagious effect on Republican members, stirring Lindsey Graham to preposterous expressions of indignation on the nominee’s behalf. Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona sex-crimes prosecutor Republican senators chose to question Ford in their place, was sidelined soon after Kavanaugh was sworn in; to him, they preferred to speak man to man, fanning his anger with their own.
There were reasons to oppose Kavanaugh’s elevation to the Supreme Court even before allegations of misconduct came to light. His record suggests hostility toward voting rights and affirmative action, and his originalist stance on Constitutional interpretation seems fully in line with conservative aims to dismantle government programs and further deregulate the economy. His writings suggest an expansive view of executive power—troubling especially now, given the current president’s musings on self-pardon and threats to end the investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election. Kavanaugh’s time as a Republican party operative—from his role in drafting the 1998 Starr Report, which laid out grounds for impeaching President Bill Clinton, to helping stop the Florida recount in the 2000 presidential election—raises legitimate questions about his impartiality. He seems to have been less than fully truthful in sworn testimony about his knowledge of documents stolen from Democrats when he worked in the George W. Bush administration.
But Kavanaugh’s performance on September 27—intemperate, partisan, possibly perjurious, and plainly injudicious—was disqualifying. Humility, self-awareness, and acknowledgment of the gravity of the moment might have helped. Indeed, these are the qualities traditionally associated with a Supreme Court justice. Instead there was a diatribe filled with Fox News talking points, a threat to potential political opponents, and dissembling on a number of questions about his past behavior
The FBI report may be inconclusive. They are not interviewing many witnesses. It is not clear what they are unvestigating: is it Ford’s claim that he attempted to rape her? Or whether he lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee?
If it is the former, the investigation is likely to be a dud. If the latter, the FBI has plenty to work with, if they dig.
Mitch McConnell is not waiting to hear what the agents learn. He has already announced that the investigation is a sham, and he will call for a fast vote.

This is off topic but something that absolutely horrifies me. What is there to say? Trump is _______________!! My vocabulary doesn’t get bad enough to cover this ignorant/hate-filled person. He plays to a base that is working to destroy this country.
……………………………….
Trump halts visas for same-sex partners of foreign diplomats, U.N. workers
“State Dept. will no longer let same-sex domestic partners of UN employees get visas unless they are married,” [Former U.N. ambassador Samantha Power] tweeted, noting that “only 12% of UN member states allow same-sex marriage.”
The change, then, is pointlessly malicious. In many countries same-sex relationships are criminalized; in some, same-sex couples are targeted for assault. Stripping the visa status of those couples with a sniffing declaration that well if they want to keep their diplomatic status here they had better just get married is uniquely heartless in the manner only Team Trump can muster.
LikeLike
Re “only 12% of UN member states allow same-sex marriage” — something tells me that the other 88% aren’t the type of countries you want to be modeling your policies on.
LikeLike
This is funny. Commonweal supports everything the Church opposes. It really has no standing since it is an extreme left wing publication. It didn’t have to announce its opposition, it was already assumed.
LikeLike
Is America: The Jesuit Review a “left wing publication”? https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/09/27/editors-it-time-kavanaugh-nomination-be-withdrawn
What about the ABA? Yale? Heck, even Harvard withdrew his Supreme Court class.
LikeLike
So is *America: The Jesuit Review” also a “left wing publication”? They have also called for pulling BK’s nomination.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, the WaPo did call it “a favorite of Catholic liberal intellectuals.”
It’s also based in New York City/!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/america-a-popular-intellectual-catholic-magazine-bans-terms-liberal-conservative/2013/06/28/53f9fe6a-df6c-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html
LikeLike
Well, I don’t think we’ll be hearing from “The Church” anytime soon– are you speaking for Her on the K issue?
RCism is a huge tent that takes all comers, “even” American liberals; in fact, RC’s poll more progressive than average Americans on virtually all political issues — except abortion, where they poll same [i.e., slim majority says abortion should be legal in all or most cases].
LikeLike
Good Job Commonweal. Now maybe they could suggest that the FBI get busy and interview Dr. Ford! As if today, she has nit been contacted by the FBI.😳
LikeLike
“unvestigating” —
By George, I think you got it!
LikeLike
Meanwhile there was the 2018 Values Voter Summit, September 21-23, for Trump loyalists. Vice President Pence, spoke from a tick-list of Trump’s accomplishments and received loud applause when he said “I believe that Judge Brett Kavanaugh will soon be Justice Brett Kavanaugh and take his seat on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, also said “In the very near future, Judge Kavanaugh will be on the United States Supreme Court.”…” We’re going to plow right through this and do our jobs.”
All speakers were Trumpsters. The speakers came from groups intent on winning hearts and minds, and shaping federal policies that enshrine their religious values. These values are identified as Christian, Biblical, and family centered, meaning based on traditional or “natural” marriage between one man and one woman. See http://www.valuesvotersummit.org/speakers
These were the major sponsors of the VV Summit. The websites show that they seek federal laws and policies that would make this nation a Christian, Bible-based theocracy—a form of government thought to have been articulated by the “founding fathers” of the nation.
1. Family Research Council (FRC). Promotes “natural marriage, family, religious liberty and the sanctity of life…in the White House, Congress, federal agencies, the courts, many states and internationally… through: policy research and development, grassroots mobilization, mentoring the next generation of conservative leaders, public education on Capitol Hill and in the media, fostering relationships with elected officials, building coalitions with key policymakers, and testifying before Congress.
2. FRC Action. The legislative, political action arm of the Family Research Council. FRC Action lobbies for religious values said to “protect what America stands for: “Policy founded on Christian principles.” The FRC Action PAC (a related organization) supports pro-family candidates for public office.
3. American Family Association Action (AFA Action). A non-profit 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to advancing Biblical, family values in society and government through education and by influencing public policy. AFA Action is also the Governmental Affairs Affiliate of American Family Association (AFA).
4. American Values. Is ”uniting the American people around the vision of our Founding Fathers.” ”Committed to defending life, traditional marriage, and equipping our children with the knowledge and values necessary to stand against liberal education and cultural forces.” (Notice that liberal education is positioned as if hostile to American values).
5. Christian Healthcare Ministries. “Empowers believers to serve one another by sharing each other’s medical bills…an eligible option under the Affordable Care Act. (Enrollment is conditional on regular church attendance, abstinence from drug abuse, practice of sexual morality, and more. see https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/christian-healthcare-ministry-cost-sharing-insurance-has-limited-coverage-church-attendance
6. Inspire. A Christian investment firm…providing biblically aligned investment options.
7. United in Purpose. ”Mission is to unite and equip like-minded conservative organizations and influencers to bring “cultural transformation in America based on Judeo-Christian principles.”
I also looked at the websites of exhibitors at the 2018 Values Voters Conference. Here is a sample of the allied marketers of ideas, services, and products during the conference.
Policy Players, Federal, State, Local.
American Conservative Union. Offers ratings of elected federal and state officials by conformity to the conservative agenda. Sponsors the huge annual “CPAC” conference. http://cpac.conservative.org/speakers/
Concerned Women for America: “Bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy”
Faith and Public Policy. Our vision: See the church regain its influence on our culture in order to restore our nation to its Biblical foundation.
Liberty Counsel. Pro bono legal services for situations involving “religious freedom, the sanctity of life and the family.” Active in policy and education. Successful litigation here https://www.lc.org/cases
National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. This is the “lobbying arm of the NRA.”
Religious Freedom Coalition: The RFC supports and advocates for federal laws (also called Family-based legislation. Key issues: (1) Support First Amendment guarantees—”voluntary public prayer, acknowledgement of our Creator, display of religious symbols and portions of Scripture such as the Ten Commandments. “We believe that pastors, priests, and rabbis should be free to preach and teach about any portion of Scripture or moral issue without intimidation or retribution.” (2) Promote the defense of innocent human life from conception until natural death. We oppose all efforts to aid or encourage public school students to have abortions, to force taxpayers to fund abortions, to destroy embryos through medical research, or to promote assisted suicide or the intentional killing of those who are disabled or terminally ill. (3) Acknowledge that marriage is between one man and one woman, that the family is the basic unit of society, and that parents have a God given right to rear and educate their own children free of unwarranted government interference. (4) Promote the dignity of the ancient church founded by the Saints which is under attack throughout the Middle East
Pro-Life, Anti-Abortion
The Center for Medical Progress. Provides legal and media expertise for attacks on Planned Parenthood.
And Then There Were None ProLife Outreach. “Exists to help abortion clinic workers leave the abortion industry”
March For Life. End abortion by uniting, educating, and mobilizing pro-life people in the public square.
GirlScoutsWhyNot.com. “Answers you have been searching for and the information you need concerning Girl Scouts’ advocacy for pro-abortion ideals.”
Human Life International. Defends Catholic teachings about conception, natural death, marriage “a lifetime union between one man and one woman that is open to life.”
Gays And Ex-Gays
Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX). “Helping ex-gays and parents and friends of gays who want help, hope and community.”
Americans for Truth about Homosexuality. “The sad reality is that Christians and other conservative moral advocates have been outhustled, outmaneuvered and outlasted time and again by the “Gay” Lobby—whether it’s in the courts, in corporations or in schools.” See https://americansfortruth.com/issues/youth-and-schools/
Schooling & Education
2nd Vote. Rates business and other groups 1-4 on support of school choice and against Common Core. Other issues also addressed.
Liberty University Helms School of Government. “We help develop leaders who are guided by duty, honor, and morality.” Classes are from a conservative Christian perspective.
Trail Life. A Christian Outdoor Adventure, Character, and Leadership Program. Operates a K-12 program for Troops (boys and young men only) that are chartered through churches in 48 states.
Americans for Freedom of Religion. Offers publications and video on prayer in schools (truth and lies).
Media And Marketing
Catalyst Resource Group. Marketplace for Christian films and filmmakers
Founders League. Dedicated television “established to be a Voice for Christ in our nation by promoting the use of Founding Principles; Biblical Principles; Christian Principles in all of our communities.”
iPray. “The social media platform where God instead of ourselves is the center of the universe.”
The Trump Prophecy Movie Film People who Claim Trump is calling for people to honor the message in 2 Chronicles 7:14
A Shining City on a Hill. Website for Frank Mitchell. Markets his books, videos, lectures on End Times, Trump’s Place in History, “Voice of reason in a world that has gone half mad with the Democrats’ outrageous Liberal Leviathan statism.”
I think i must be among the “half mad” in the world, certainly a non-believer in most of the policies being pusued by these fans of Trump.
LikeLike
You are the sane one, certainly, Laura. Everything that Trump is doing now, and everything that these people stand for, will be undone. Time wounds all heels.
LikeLike
This is leading us down the road to having the extreme ‘religion’ be our government. Our leaders don’t like Muslims and in many Middle East countries an extreme version of Islam rules. I don’t see any difference. Freedom of belief and speech would be gone. Hatred for anyone different would be the norm.
This is CRAZY!!!!! Trump, and his looney followers, is destroying this country one step at a time.
“We oppose all efforts… to promote assisted suicide.” How can anyone support the NRA and oppose suicides? Most deaths by guns are from suicides by gun owners.
LikeLike
Carol,
The biggest contradiction of the loony crowd is on the issue of abortion.
They love the unborn.
Once the child is born, they cast him or her aside as unworthy of health care, food security, a decent life.
Life matters to this crew only until birth, not after.
LikeLike
“Life matters to this crew only until birth, not after.”
Yeah, for these people, conception is a miracle of God, and so is birth, but then the whipping can begin.
I doubt, we can be too surprised about this view. According to Lakoff, 30% of people have the authoritarian view that kids are born bad, and they have to earn everything in life, while 30% of the population have the nurturing view and think, kids are born good, and hence they deserve many things immediately like free healthcare and schooling.
K and Redrat have the deep (probably religious) conviction that they deserve their high position in society, because they earned it. They got where they are because God let them, probably because they were chosen. Human laws don’t matter to them, and if you oppose these people, you oppose God’s plans with them.
LikeLike
Diane is right.
LikeLike
On another matter: Trump just signed an order barring same-sex partners of diplomats from getting US visas. A poem for the occasion:
To Donald, with Apologies to EBB
How do I loathe thee? Let me count the ways.
I loathe thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight
For the ends of utter, complete disdain to embrace.
I loathe thee to the level of every day’s
Most fervent rage, by sun and candle-light.
I loathe thy morals, thy contempt for every right.
I loathe thy vanity and seeking constant praise.
I loathe thee with the passion put to use
In all old griefs, and with my childhood’s faith
That our decency, under thy boot, we shall not lose.
Let us curse thee with our every waking breath,
Thy objectification of all, thy every ruse,
Thy instincts as kind as those of a wasp on Meth.
LikeLike
Bob Shepherd: What a perfect description of our great Orange IDIOT, Buffoon and Hair Monster!!
LikeLike
Bob: Hope its okay to send it to three friends who would appreciate this gorgeous poem that celebrates the great Ignoramus.
LikeLike
ofc, Carol. Thank you.
LikeLike
Thanks, Bob Shakespeare. I wanted to say, it’s a waste of your talent to sing to and about Redrat, but then I thought about Macbeth, Richard III and friends, and so I guess, there is a high purpose here to explore.
LikeLike
LMAO. Thank you, my friend. Each time I open one of these pages, I scan the column for one of your stimulating observations.
LikeLike
Indeed, no person should be used as a means.
LikeLike
Revised version.
Trump just signed an order barring same-sex partners of diplomats from getting US visas. A poem for the occasion:
To Donald, with Apologies to EBB
How do I loathe thee? Let me count the ways.
I loathe thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach. I cannot stand the sight
of thee. Disdain thou makest me embrace.
I loathe thee to the level of every day’s
Most fervent rage, by sun and monitor-light.
I loathe thy morals, thy contempt for every right.
I loathe thy vanity seeking constant praise.
I loathe thee with the passion one might chose
To heap on vandals, and with my childhood’s faith
That our decency, under thy boot, we shall not lose.
So may we curse thee with every waking breath,
Thy objectification of all, thy conman’s ruse,
Thy instincts not of a man but of a wasp on Meth.
LikeLike
Wow. Extremely well written and also informative.
He raged at the prospect of being deprived of a job he apparently assumed was his by dint of mere pedigree.
LikeLike
So the Great Orange IDIOT made fun of Blasey Ford at his rally in Mississippi. How can sane people stand him? This is the same character who made fun of a disabled journalist and boasts about his sexual conquests.
…………………………….
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the FBI investigation into claims of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh could be completed as soon as today, keeping Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on track to hold the confirmation vote at the end of the week or over the weekend.
At a rally last night in Mississippi, Trump mocked the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her at a high school party in 1982.
“How did you get home? I don’t remember. How’d you get there? I don’t remember. Where is the place? I don’t remember. How many years ago was it? I don’t know. What neighborhood was it in? I don’t know. Where’s the house? I don’t know. Upstairs, downstairs, where was it? I don’t know, but I had one beer. That’s the only thing I remember.” – Trump
Ford’s attorney fired back over Twitter.
Michael R. Bromwich
@mrbromwich
A vicious, vile and soulless attack on Dr.
Christine Blasey Ford. Is it any wonder that
she was terrified to come forward, and that
other sexual assault survivors are as well?
She is a remarkable profile in courage. He is
a profile in cowardice.
LikeLike
Opps. Sorry. I sent it and forgot about the never use K_______! It’s too early in the morning!!!
LikeLike
This is off topic but shows the integrity of Trump. GRR. And he has the audacity to make fun of Dr. Blasey Ford.
………
And The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Trump sought a restraining order against Stormy Daniels, the adult-film actress who claims to have had an affair with the president.
The threat of a restraining order was apparently a last-ditch effort to keep Daniels from talking about the alleged affair. Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen has claimed that Trump directed him pay $130,000 to Daniels to not discuss the allegations.
Cohen has pleaded guilty to charges of bank fraud and one campaign finance violation pertaining to the payment.
LikeLike
Ugh. We’re really going to have two supreme court justices who went to the same expensive private high school?
We really can’t cast the net any wider than this?
Is it any wonder the federal government is so hostile to the public schools that 85% of people attend? Is it any wonder they all portray public schools as terrifying and dangerous places full of low performing thugs? None of them have gone anywhere near one, other than to drop in and do their obligatory volunteer work, which they then use on their resumes.
This isn’t a government, it’s a club.
Our government might be more responsive to ordinary people if any of them had experience that was remotely like the vast, vast majority of the people they supposedly “serve”.
LikeLike
This is completely off topic, but I wanted to pass on this opinion piece from today’s Times. The gist is that the tight focus on Russian meddling in US politics via social media ignores the much bigger problem of domestic meddling, and the ways in which that’s fostered by the structure of Silicon Valley and social media companies.
LikeLike
Moonves’ salivated when he described the boon that Trump’s polarization was to T.V. ratings. It was clear that the nation’s best interests played no part in the CBS decisions that Moonves made.
LikeLike
As I’m finishing up my morning online reading, I’ll pass along another piece, which I think is the best piece I’ve seen on the Kavanaugh issue.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/why-i-wouldnt-confirm-brett-kavanaugh/571936/
I Know Brett Kavanaugh, But I Wouldn’t Confirm Him
BENJAMIN WITTES OCTOBER 02, 2018
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 glee—as validating preexisting political, philosophical, or jurisprudential opposition to Kavanaugh’s nomination—I 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 character—more than once—and 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 Ford’s allegations are entirely accurate, rejecting him on the current record could incentivize not merely other sexual assault victims to come forward—which would be a salutary thing—but 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.
Despite all of that, if I were a senator, I would vote against Kavanaugh’s confirmation. I would do it both because of Ford’s testimony and because of Kavanaugh’s. For reasons I will describe, I find her account more believable than his. I would also do it because whatever the truth of what happened in the summer of 1982, Thursday’s hearing left Kavanaugh non-viable as a justice.
A few days before the hearing, I detailed in these pages the advice I would give to Kavanaugh if he asked me. He should, I argued, withdraw from consideration for elevation unless able to defend himself to a high degree of factual certainty without attacking Ford. He should remain a nominee, I argued, only if his defense would be sufficiently convincing that it would meet what we might term the “no asterisks” standard—that is, that it would plausibly convince even people who vociferously disagree with his jurisprudential views that he could serve credibly as a justice. His defense needed to make it possible for a reasonable pro-choice woman to find it a legitimate and acceptable prospect, if not an attractive or appealing one, that he might sit on a case reconsidering Roe v. Wade.
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 Ford—for that we can be grateful—but 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 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.
Consider the judicial function as described by Kavanaugh himself at his first hearing. That Brett Kavanaugh described a “good judge [as] an umpire—a 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 Thursday’s 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:
He went on: “This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election. Fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons. And millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.”
As Charlie Sykes, a thoughtful conservative commentator sympathetic to Kavanaugh, put it on the Weekly Standard’s podcast Friday, “even if you support Brett Kavanaugh . . . that was breathtaking as an abandonment of any pretense of having a judicial temperament.” Sykes went on: “It’s possible, I think, to have been angry, emotional, and passionate without crossing the lines that he crossed—assuming that there are any lines anymore.”
Kavanaugh blew across lines which I believe a justice still needs to hold.
The Brett Kavanaugh who showed up to Thursday’s 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 counsel’s office and working on judicial nominations and post-September 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 Kavanaugh’s performance Thursday is not important. What is important is the dissonance between the Kavanaugh of Thursday’s 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 Ford’s allegations against him, Kavanaugh’s display on Thursday—if I were a senator voting on confirmation—would preclude my support.
Perhaps if I believed Kavanaugh’s testimony in its totality, if I believed his denial—and thus his anger—to be entirely righteous, I could see fit to look past the impropriety of his performance. If Kavanaugh is, in fact, wholly innocent, after all, what has happened to him is so monstrous that perhaps we might forgive him the excess in view of the pressures he is under and the wrongs he would clearly have suffered—though the outburst was part of his prepared statement and thus should be seen as his considered decision about what he wanted to say.
But there are reasons to worry about the integrity of Kavanaugh’s testimony. A number of senators, most notably Jeff Flake and Bob Corker, suggested in the hearing’s wake that the evidence was in some kind of equipoise, that both Ford and Kavanaugh had testified credibly, and that norms of fairness thus counsel giving Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt. Before he shifted gears and sought a delay and an FBI investigation, Flake stated that he “left the hearing yesterday with as much doubt as certainty” and that “our system of justice affords a presumption of innocence to the accused.” Corker, for his part, declared that “both individuals provided compelling testimony” but that since “nothing that has been presented corroborates the allegation,” he would vote to confirm. President Trump presumably feels similarly, given that he continues to support Kavanaugh despite having declared Ford “a very credible witness.”
I fear the evidence is not, however, quite in equipoise, even if one believes that a senator should confirm a justice on the basis that the presumption of innocence should break the tie between two equally compelling testimonies. At least as I read it, though it pains me to say so, the evidence before us leans towards Ford. Let’s consider the balance sheet carefully.
On one side of the ledger, Ford is wholly credible. Yes, her story has holes. The location of the event is unclear in her memory, as is—importantly—how she got home and what happened after she left the house in question. Yet few observers seem to dispute her credibility. Not even Kavanaugh and his supporters contend that she is lying or making up the incident in question, merely that she is mistaken as to his involvement in it.
Her story is certainly plausible and certain details she offers lends it additional credibility. She correctly identifies, for example, a social circle that appears actually to have existed around Kavanaugh during the summer in question. A fabulist likely would not know, for example, of Kavanaugh’s friendship with Mark Judge and their propensity to drink beer together in the relevant period with other individuals she named. While Kavanaugh said he didn’t recall meeting Ford but that it was possible they had interacted, it seems overwhelmingly likely that her claim to have known him and his circle socially while the two were in high school is true.
While Ford can offer no contemporaneous corroboration of story in the form of testimony from people who remember being present at the alleged event, her story is not wholly uncorroborated either. 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.
She initially raised the allegation with her congresswoman before Kavanaugh’s nomination took place. At a minimum, it seems quite clear that Ford was genuinely part of the world in which she claims the attack took place and that she genuinely believed—long before Trump’s election, let alone Kavanaugh’s nomination—that Kavanaugh attacked her.
That she believes this story sincerely is corroborated, if only weakly, by her polygraph exam. Polygraphs are not especially reliable, but the willingness to take one can be a show of strength in a witness. The polygraph is not evidence that Kavanaugh attacked Ford. It is evidence that Ford believes her story truthful and is an earnest accuser, not a conspirator.
Her story is also corroborated, imperfectly but perceptibly, by Kavanaugh’s high school calendar. Ford describes the attack as taking place at a gathering at which at least four boys—Kavanaugh, Judge, Patrick (P.J.) Smythe, and a boy whose name Ford could not remember—and one girl, Leland Keyser, were drinking beer. Ford specifically allowed for the possibility that there might have been others present as well.
Kavanaugh’s calendar entry for the evening of July 1, 1982, contains an entry that reads, “Go to Timmy’s for skis with Judge, Tom, P.J., Bernie and Squi.” In the hearing, Kavanaugh acknowledged that “skis” in this entry referred to “brewskis,” or beer; that P.J. was Smythe; that Judge was Mark Judge; and that “Squi” was a boy who, Ford had earlier testified, just happened to have been someone she “went out with” for a short time. The calendar entry does not include Ford or Keyser, so the corroboration is far from perfect. It also includes people not mentioned by Ford. Then again, the degree of overlap with Ford’s story is striking. In the summer in which Ford alleges that Kavanaugh attacked her at an evening get-together with a small group of boys drinking beers, his calendar identifies an evening get-together with a small group of boys drinking beers, including three of the boys named by Ford, along with one she dated. Why exactly Kavanaugh imagines his calendar entries to be powerfully exculpatory I am really not sure.
Ford’s story also finds some degree of corroboration in Mark Judge’s employment history. Ford claims that she saw Judge some weeks after the alleged attack at the Safeway where he worked and that he was visible uncomfortable seeing her. The Washington Post verified from Judge’s own memoir that he was, in fact, working at a grocery story as a bagger in the relevant period. Assuming the FBI investigation firms that up, it would offer another data point tending to corroborate her account’s consistency with verifiable facts.
On the other side of the ledger is Kavanaugh’s testimony, and here we cannot be quite so confident that the witness was being candid.
Kavanaugh’s testimony, whatever one makes of his impassioned claims of innocence on the specific charge, is not credible on the more general issue of his drinking habits. It is, as Kavanaugh suggested at the hearing, absurd for senators to argue with a Supreme Court nominee over his high school yearbook. Then again, Kavanaugh’s unwillingness to acknowledge the obvious—that his yearbook described a hard-drinking culture that he was a part of and that make Ford’s account more plausible—made it necessary to do so. Kavanaugh would not concede that the phrase “Beach Week Ralph Club — Biggest Contributor,” referred to drinking culture, claiming it was simply a reference to his having a weak stomach. He ascribed implausibly innocent definitions to other terms that appeared in the yearbook. He diminished the casual cruelty he and his friends showed to one girl, Renate Schroeder Dolphin, by describing themselves as “Renate Alumni.” He claimed they intended to show her respect and friendship, but that is not how she reads it three-and-a-half decades later. She told The New York Times, “the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way.” She is not a fool. His repeated suggestion at the hearing that he had never been so drunk as to have any possibility of memory loss flies in the face of the memories of a number of classmates from college.
My point is not that his confirmation in any sense turns on how much Kavanaugh drank or whether he and his friends made misogynistic jokes as teenagers. But his testimony doesn’t have the ring of truth either. And lack of candor in a witness in one area raises questions about the integrity of that witness’s testimony in other areas.
Thursday evening, after the hearing, former FBI Director Jim Comey tweeted, “Small lies matter, even about yearbooks. From the standard jury instruction: ‘If a witness is shown knowingly to have testified falsely about any material matter, you have a right to distrust such witness’ other testimony and you may reject all the testimony of that witness …’”
In response, I tweeted a passage that had been haunting me all day from a Guantanamo Bay habeas case in the D.C. Circuit called Al Adahi v. Obama. The passage reads:
The opinion was not written by Kavanaugh, but Kavanaugh was on the unanimous panel that decided the Al-Adahi case.
There’s another factor that weighs in Ford’s favor: the failure of the committee to meaningfully engage Mark Judge. The current FBI investigation should ameliorate this problem, and it’s possible, I suppose, that Judge could change the picture significantly in Kavanaugh’s favor—if, for example, he informs the FBI that Kavanaugh was never out-of-control drunk with him or if he denies ever working at the Safeway. The committee’s contentment with the perfunctory letter he sent, however, has the air of fear—fear of what Judge would say. This unwillingness to ask Judge obvious questions erodes Kavanaugh’s position.
To be clear, I am emphatically not saying that Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did. The evidence is not within 100 yards of adequate to convict him. But whether he did it is not the question at hand. The question at hand is how a reasonable senator should construct the evidence to guide a binary vote for or against elevation of a judge to a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. By my read, we have two witnesses who both profess 100 percent certainty of their positions—one whose testimony is wholly credible and marginally corroborated in a number of respects and the other whose testimony is not credible on a number of important atmospheric points surrounding the alleged event.
It’s not a tie, and it doesn’t go to the nominee.
There’s one more reason I could not vote to confirm Kavanaugh: his apparent lack of candor on the culture of drinking at Georgetown Prep and later is a problem of its own, quite apart from what it may indicate about the truth of Ford’s story. People throw around words like perjury too blithely. I won’t do so here. I will say that I do not believe he showed the sort of candor that warrants the Senate’s—or the public’s—confidence. To the extent some commentators on the right are defending Kavanaugh’s testimony as containing the sort of white lies that anyone might tell under the circumstances, let me just say that I don’t believe that Supreme Court justices get to tell self-exculpating white lies—and I don’t believe in white lies from anyone else either in sworn congressional testimony.
Over the weekend, I listened to a number of podcasts in which liberals mocked Kavanaugh as an entitled white male refusing to face accountability for what he had done. I find the tone of these discussions nauseating—undetained by the possibility of error. I, like Flake, am haunted by doubt, by the certainty of uncertainty and the consequent possibility of injustice. I spent a lot of time this weekend thinking about Oliver Cromwell’s famous letter to the Church of Scotland in which he implored, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.” I also spent some time with Learned Hand’s similar maxim, “The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.” We all need to think it possible that we may be mistaken; we all need to be not too sure that we are right.
But my bottom line is the opposite of the one Flake expressed in his statement: faced with credible allegations of serious misconduct against him, Kavanaugh behaved in a fashion unacceptable in a justice; it seems preponderantly likely he was not candid with the Senate Judiciary Committee on important matters; and the risk of Ford’s allegations being closer to the truth than his denial of it is simply too high to place him on the Supreme Court.
We are in a political environment in which there are no rules, no norms anymore to violate. There is only power, and the individual judgments of individual senators—facing whatever political pressures they face, calculating political gain however they do it, and consulting their consciences to the extent they have them.
As much as I admire Kavanaugh, my conscience would not permit me to vote for him.
LikeLike
“It was not just an angry and aggressive version of the person I have known. It seemed like a different person altogether.”
Well, that “other” person apparently has been in hiding, but now it came out, was in plain view for us all, and this is enough reason not to appoint him—irrespective of his actions with Ford.
LikeLike
The Repubs are down and dirty. A Republican congressional committee is telling the world about one lady who says she saw things about K. How biased can they get? What is the FBI doing?
……………………………..
Republicans on Senate panel release explicit statement about K accuser’s sex life
Elise Viebeck, The Washington Post Published 7:52 pm CDT, Tuesday, October 2, 2018
…In his statement, Ketterer said Swetnick once told him that she sometimes enjoyed group sex with multiple men and had first engaged in it during high school. Ketterer said the remark “derailed” their relationship, which he described as involving “physical contact” but no intercourse.
Ketterer said Swetnick “never said anything about being sexually assaulted, raped, gang-raped or having sex against her will” and “never mentioned Brett K in any capacity.” He described their relationship as lasting for a “couple of weeks.”
It was highly unusual for a congressional committee to release a statement that included such explicit and unconfirmed details about a member of the public. The Republican side of the panel, which said the statement was provided by Ketterer “under penalty of felony,” emailed excerpts to journalists and posted the full statement on its website.
Ketterer said that his “lasting impression” of Swetnick was that she was “smart, fun and funny.” He also described her as “an opportunist” who sought him out at the bar where he said they first met.
“I felt she only had interest . . . because I was on television and well-known,” he said.
Swetnick attorney Michael Avenatti called the statement “bogus and outrageous” and called for the FBI to interview Swetnick and Ketterer to assess their truthfulness.
“At the same time the committee refuses to provide documents, they don’t hesitate to provide this piece of garbage,” Avenatti said Tuesday afternoon in a phone interview.
https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/Republicans-on-Senate-panel-release-explicit-13276627.php?utm_campaign=email-desktop&utm_source=CMS%20Sharing%20Button&utm_medium=social
LikeLike
The host of the American Family Association’s radio show said about the Kavanaugh hearing, “Unless the biblical standard of two or three witnesses is met, an accusation should not be considered credible”, in other words sexual assaults done in private shouldn’t have consequences. The standard rejects overwhelming circumstantial evidence and protects the powerful and privileged.
“Biggest contradictions” of the religious right- a founder of Family Research Council, George Rekers, was videotaped with a traveling companion or, as Rekers’ described it, “he was just there to carry the luggage” (an airport photo showed Rekers pushing a cart that had the luggage- “Gay Escort Controversy”).
Jeb Bush appointed an article co-writer of Rekers, Jerry Rieger, to head the Florida Department of Children and Families.
Another guy associated with FRC wanted to rehabilitate spanking. So, it’s not surprising that a deep south charter school would be in the forefront of that movement.
The disgraced Josh Duggar (t.v. program about 19 kids) served as the Executive Director of the action arm of FRC.
Foster Freiss, Steve Bannon’s pick to run for office gave more than $41 mil. from 2007-2013 to the National Christian Foundation who donates to FRC. (Inside Philanthropy by Philip Rojc, Aug. 13, 2017, “Who Funds the Religious Right”) Freiss is infamous for saying an aspirin between women’s legs was a birth control method. Freiss funded the despicable Turning Point USA, a college campus organization.
Tucker Carlson, an FRC proponent, employed writers, who were also writing at alt-right sites, branded similar to Richard Spencer, under pseudonyms.
Paul Weyrich’s religious right takes the Lord’s name in vain, when they claim ACA violated all 10 commandments.
SPLC describes FRC as a hate group.
LikeLike
The DeVos family foundations fund the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, leaders of the evangelical right that push their cramped version of morality on everyone else.
LikeLike
The religious right is so far removed from moral that it is not a version of it.
LikeLike
I had contact with these folks occasionally in a past professional life. In addition to being hateful prudes, they are very creepy people, but I repeat myself.
LikeLike
Linda: “Unless the biblical standard of two or three witnesses is met, an accusation should not be considered credible”
How many rapes have 2 or 3 credible witnesses? This is pure nonsense. I believe that many ‘biblical standards’ were invented by men a long time ago.
LikeLike
“I believe that many ‘biblical standards’ were invented by men a long time ago.”
Or, to put it differently, even if there were biblical standards agreed upon by all Christians, why should we care about them when deciding if someone is decent?
Should we start posting some of these supposed standards at state capitols? Uh, wait a minute
Arkansas
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/27/534558892/ten-commandments-installed-at-arkansas-state-capitol-aclu-plans-lawsuit
Oklahoma
https://newsok.com/article/3728824/ten-commandments-monument-is-installed-at-oklahoma-state-capitol
It’s quite pleasing to hear that people act violently when attempts are made to decorate official state properties with such “standards”.
LikeLike
Carol,
The lesson here is that women are responsible for getting 2 or 3 witnesses if they are raped
LikeLike
I have spent a little time today, trying to find a part in the scriptures which says “If you get raped, or get assaulted in any other way, you better find at least 2 bystanders, or the Lord forbids you to accuse your assailant.” No luck so far.
Btw, there was at least 1 witness (besides K), wasn’t there? Mark Judge… Why isn’t he interviewed?
LikeLike
On the other hand, there is a dean at Catholic University who used his school internet account to demean one of Kavanaugh’s accusers. Students protested like when they opposed Catholic University taking a huge strings-attached donation from the Koch Bros. Evidently, the universe of Catholic hierarchy includes pedophiles, pedophile defenders, haters and subjugators of women, those who support starving the downtrodden and destroying democracy and some good people.
LikeLike