CommentsCORRUPTION WATCH-Whether or not Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh ever engaged in any questionable sexual activity, his recent behavior proves that he is worse than unqualified.
Kavanaugh’s Bad Character Disqualifies Him
Kavanaugh does not believe that fact gathering should come before decisions. His own words reveal that he is concerned only about himself and he does not care about other people including millions of Americans whose lives depend upon justice for every individual under the law.
Kavanaugh’s First Accuser
The American people have the right to know Kavanaugh’s character. We cannot allow vital facts to remain secret because some worry how the truth might impact his career. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, the first person to accuse Kavanaugh of aggressive sexual conduct when he was in high school, is just as much a person as is Kavanaugh. And her future is equally important as Kavanaugh’s.
Californians have been down this road where the controlling criterion is protecting the perpetrator’s future. California Judge Persky gave a very light sentence to Brock Turner, a swimmer from Judge Persky’s alma mater Stanford University, who had been convicted of sexual assault. During the subsequent furor, Judge Persky was recalled. In 20 prior cases not involving scions of wealthy Stanford families, Judge Persky followed the prosecutors’ sentencing suggestions. Cases like this should make Kavanaugh aware that the public dislikes double standards in which males receive lenient treatment to protect their futures.
MLK’s Character, not Color of Skin, is What Counts
When Martin Luther King said that we should judge an individual by the content of his character and not by the color of his skin, he did not mean that we ignore bad character of white males. MLK concisely re-stated words in the Declaration of Independence declaring that every individual has certain inalienable rights including Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. In 1787, the U.S. Constitution’s Preamble built upon this concept, saying that the purpose of the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, … promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of Liberty.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution (art II, §2, cl. 2) provides that the President nominates justices, the Senate confirms the nomination through its Advice and Consent, and then the President appoints them.
The appointment process does not take place in secret, although the Senate may hold some preliminary private hearings. The Senate, however, must hold public hearings. Our Union would be far from perfect if the public were kept in the dark about nominees’ histories. Our liberties would be imperiled if judges applied different standards to themselves and friends than the rules which they set for the rest of us.
Since Kavanaugh is only 53, it is reasonable to assume that he will be on the Court when he is 83 (that would 1,560 weeks on the Supreme Court). Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85. Furthermore, over the next 30 years, there will significant medical advances. The High Court will be able to function with a vacancy for a few weeks while facts are gathered, so that people have the time to weigh in after Dr. Ford testifies. Compare this to the 30 years that Kavanaugh will be on the court if the vote is taken too quickly. A delay to investigate facts is close to a constitutional requirement.
Witnesses May Not Dictate How the Senate Proceeds
A digression is required to discuss the unfortunate demand by Dr. Ford’s supporters that the FBI should conduct an investigation before the Senate was to hear Dr. Ford’s testimony. That demand disrespected the Constitution. A witness does not assert a non-existent right as a precondition to doing her duty to testify. The fact that her supporters then mislead the public about Anita Hill, claiming that the Senate had asked for an FBI investigation before she testified cast a cloud over Dr. Ford. The reality is that Anita Hill testified confidentially before the committee first, after which an FBI investigation was suggested and conducted prior to her public testimony. Dr. Ford was provided very poor legal advice.
Back to Our Main Story
Leaving aside the debacle caused by Dr. Ford’s advisers, the constitutional “advise and consent” process should not be rushed. It must follow the facts and not be ended before they are known. It is axiomatic that facts precede verdicts. No judicial system renders decisions before the facts have been gathered. Yet, Kavanaugh has no problem with his confirmation being unfair in a way which harms the nation.
Kavanaugh’s Call for “Fair Process” Extends only to Himself
Kavanaugh repeatedly said on Fox News that he wants a “fair process where I can clear my name.” Kavanaugh shows zero understanding that the confirmation process is about forming a more perfect union to establish justice. Kavanaugh wants a quick vote before people learn all the facts. It is not about his career! As a judge, Kavanaugh knows that fact gathering is far more extensive than hearing a couple people testify.
Kavanaugh’s Failure to Speak Up to Defend the Constitution
The manner in which the Senate has been attempting to proceed has been harmful to the constitutional mandate it has to advise and consent. Kavanaugh has been free to say that he favors the establishment of all facts by investigation before any vote is taken. Yet, he has chosen not to support the constitutional advise and consent process. Once again, it is not about him; it is about the Union and establishing justice for “We the People.”
Kavanaugh knows that if he is confirmed, his decisions will affect hundreds of millions of people for decades. A Supreme Court that is seen by a large segment of the public as inherently unfair, with its members having one set of rules for themselves and another set for others will sew eternal disorder within the Union. What sort of person would not admit that to “form a more perfect Union and establish justice” we need full disclosure and full investigation?
The only person who would support Kavanaugh’s position is one who is worse than unqualified. Kavanaugh’s recent conduct has shown that his basic nature is antithetical to the judicial process. Since he does not promote fact-gathering before decision rendering in his own case, he will have no concern for Justice if he is confirmed.
(Richard Lee Abrams is a Los Angeles attorney and a CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Abrams’ views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.
