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: Our ‘America first’ president put America last in Helsinki

America’s child president had a playdate with a KGB alumnus, who surely enjoyed providing daycare. It was a useful, illuminating event: Now we shall see how many Republicans retain a capacity for embarrassment. Jeane Kirkpatrick, a Democrat closely associated with such Democratic national security stalwarts as Sen. Henry Jackson and former Sen...
Opinion: Spare me your shock at Trump’s sellout to Putin

“Lawmakers in both major parties and former intelligence officials appeared shocked …” —The Chicago Tribune “U.S. lawmakers of both political parties reacted with shock …” —Voice of America “Some of Mr. Trump’s own advisers privately said they were shocked …” —The New...
POINT OF VIEW: NATO is about more than money

I take serious objection to the Palm Beach Post letter-writer who thinks that money is the key to the U.S. relationship with NATO. Having worked with NATO for more than 12 years, I have a deeper understanding of the extremely high value NATO plays in our security. The idea that we are bearing a higher portion of the total funding belies the value of...
Editorial cartoon
Editorial cartoon

CARTOON VIEW WALT HANDELSMAN
Letters: Ex-lifeguard can attest: Reeds treated employees well

Reeds treated employees well Thank you for your recent article, “The Reeds,” (Tuesday), on the Reeds and the Jupiter Island Club. I was a seasonal lifeguard at JIC from the late ’80s to the mid-2000s. As the article states, they did treat their employees with kindness and respect. They had annual get-togethers and even weekly employee...
More Stories