Opinion: Hypocrites for Kavanaugh


WASHINGTON — Be prepared for a festival of hypocrisy, evasion and misdirection from supporters of the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Begin with the idea that because Kavanaugh is qualified, well-educated, intelligent and likable, senators should fall in line behind him.

Sorry, but Senate Republicans have already demonstrated that none of these characteristics matters. If they did, Judge Merrick Garland would be a Supreme Court justice. In blocking Garland, conservatives made clear that personal qualities have nothing to do with confirmation battles. They are struggles for power.

Everything we know about Kavanaugh demonstrates he would cement a right-wing majority on the court on social issues as well as regulatory and economic questions. The environment, gun safety and health care are all at stake. So are civil, voting and labor rights.

Progressives are told they should get over the shameful treatment of Garland. What an astonishing exercise in hypocrisy from conservatives who have been reliving the defeat of Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court for 31 years. And unlike Garland, Bork got a hearing and a vote.

Kavanaugh’s defenders will pretend that his ideology is not a legitimate matter for senatorial examination.

But these same people made conservative ideology central to their case to Trump on Kavanaugh’s behalf. As Ashley Parker and Robert Costa reported in The Washington Post, “Former clerks fended off criticism that his record on abortion was squishy and that his rulings were too deferential to government agencies.”

Kavanaugh’s champions can’t have it both ways — and neither can Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, or Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who are supporters of abortion rights.

Don’t count on the good judge to help us unravel these mysteries. Kavanaugh kicked off his confirmation campaign with a statement that lacked all credibility. “No president,” he said, “has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.”

Good grief! Trump’s list of potential appointees was formulated in consultation with right-wing groups. Period. Civil rights groups, women’s organizations, labor unions and countless other sectors of our society had no part in this.

And given that the president who named him is facing legal scrutiny, the would-be justice’s sweeping views about presidential immunity are highly relevant to whether he should be put in a position to adjudicate Trump’s future.

Kavanaugh can’t be let off the hook just because his now widely read 2009 Minnesota Law Review article suggested that presidents should be protected by congressional action, not the courts. Nowhere does he say explicitly that the courts couldn’t act. His only statement on the matter is that the Supreme Court’s decision in Clinton v. Jones requiring former President Bill Clinton to testify in a civil lawsuit “may well have been entirely correct.” Hmm. That may well have been is one heck of a verbal loophole.

As for Republican efforts to rush Kavanaugh through, the judge wrote in that law review article that the Senate “should consider a rule ensuring that every judicial nominee receives a vote by the Senate within 180 days of being nominated by the president.”

It’s interesting that going the full 180 days would take us well past November’s election. And according to the Kavanaugh Doctrine, Garland ought to have been given a vote. Senators should ask him about that, too.

Writes for The Washington Post.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Opinion: The late hit on Judge Kavanaugh

Upon the memory and truthfulness of Christine Blasey Ford hangs the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, his reputation, and possibly his career on the nation’s second highest court. And much more. If Kavanaugh is voted down or forced to withdraw, the Republican Party and conservative movement could lose their last best hope for...
Opinion: Why the haste with Kavanaugh?

WASHINGTON — For those insisting that Republican senators take Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh seriously, one aspect of the conversation is particularly infuriating: the notion that the timeline established by the GOP for completing this process is quasi-sacred. Virtually everyone commenting on Kavanaugh&rsquo...
Letters to the editor: Sept. 20, 2018
Letters to the editor: Sept. 20, 2018

Re: Sept. 16 commentary, “Both-sideism presents more than journalistic problem.” Leonard Pitts raises an important structural issue in journalism related to fairness. Some would have us believe that ethical and moral considerations exist as mathematical equations. This inevitably leads to false equivalencies in which cultural values are...
Editorial: Hard liquor ban is first step in safer Greek life culture
Editorial: Hard liquor ban is first step in safer Greek life culture

Removing hard liquor from University of Texas fraternity houses and events is an important first step. But, the Greek organizations, university leaders and lawmakers looking to prevent drinking-related deaths and other tragedies, as well as dangerous hazing incidents, also need to add some things to the equation: Greater public transparency on whether...
Editorial: Hard liquor ban is first step in safer Greek life culture
Editorial: Hard liquor ban is first step in safer Greek life culture

Removing hard liquor from University of Texas fraternity houses and events is an important first step. But, the Greek organizations, university leaders and lawmakers looking to prevent drinking-related deaths and other tragedies, as well as dangerous hazing incidents, also need to add some things to the equation: Greater public transparency on whether...
More Stories