CommentsVIEW FROM HERE-At this year’s Atlantic Festival in Washington D.C., Nancy Pelosi answered the Kavanaugh impeachment question in the following way: “that would not be my plan…we are not about impeachment. Democrats are not about dividing the country.”
Even though the House of Representatives is entrusted with the responsibility of voting on impeachment, this is not Pelosi’s first rodeo. The likely Speaker of the House knows that the Senate would ultimately be required to hold a trial for any underlying misconduct, and that 67 votes in the Senate are needed to convict him. Moreover, according to a 2015 report from the Congressional Research Service, no one has ever been impeached “solely on the basis of conduct occurring before he/she began their tenure in the office held at the time of the impeachment investigation.”
Considering that the Senate needs a two-thirds majority to remove him, and neither party has had a two-thirds majority in the Senate since 1967, it seems prudent for Democrats to shrug off this issue as a non-priority for the party. Beyond all the sound and fury, the historical fact remains that there has never been a Supreme Court Justice removed through the impeachment process. In fact, the last Supreme Court Justice impeached was Samuel Chase in 1804. One of the original signers of the Declaration of Independence, Chase survived his trial and went on to serve 25 years on the bench. In that case, as with a potential Kavanaugh impeachment, the charge must rise to the standard of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
With all of that said, I do not fault Nancy Pelosi with directing her party’s attention toward things like infrastructure, student debt reform, social security, and health care. As a strategy, it makes perfect sense given the current political climate. But I do think it would be a mistake for Democrats not to investigate Justice Kavanaugh further. I say this for three reasons:
First and foremost, on the witness stand, Kavanaugh may have lied under oath; and lying under oath has always been considered a significant violation for a judge. The perjury allegations date back to 2006. During the confirmation process for his seat on the D.C. Circuit, it appears that Kavanaugh was at best evasive about his involvement in the nomination of Appeals Judge William H. Pryor Jr. during the Bush administration.
He was also shown to be misleading regarding the Manuel Miranda episode. According to the Washington Post, “Miranda, the former Republican counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee, was involved in an infamous episode around 2002 in which he gained computer access to records stored by Democrats on the panel. Kavanaugh was associate counsel at the White House at the time, working on judicial nominations…Senator Leahy of Vermont has repeatedly asked at prior confirmation hearings whether Kavanaugh received information that Miranda got from the Democratic files. Leahy said in a statement that Miranda and another staffer were behind what he called the hacking of 4,670 computer files and used them “to assist in getting President Bush’s most controversial judicial nominees confirmed.” He said Kavanaugh “worked hand in hand with Miranda” to help nominees win confirmation.
Secondly, immature yearbook boasts and excessive drinking may be excusable on some level, but lying under oath about them is not. It reveals a serious character flaw that calls into question the man’s integrity and honesty, traits which are absolutely essential to being an impartial and competent Supreme Court Justice. The veracity of sexual misconduct claims aside, these suspected incidents of perjury must be probed exhaustively.
Thirdly, it is inevitable that a House Judiciary Committee member receives a complaint about Kavanaugh and a subcommittee is formed to explore the matters at hand. The magazine Mother Jones has reported that at least 17 members of the House Judiciary Committee are willing to raise his impeachment as an important issue to the country. Even Jerry Nadler, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has indicated that he would be open to investigating Kavanaugh.
As I see it, a valid and fact-based investigation may uncover actual misconduct, and that would force the Senate to vote for or against his removal, consequently holding each voter accountable in 2020. If that is the case, with Democrats in control of the House, and with several vulnerable GOP seats set to be contested in 2020, a deal could be struck between the two parties. What looked futile and counterproductive before the midterms now looks doable: the forced removal of a Republican nominated Justice.
Last point. What do Democrats have to gain from flaccidly accepting Kavanaugh’s inappropriate political bias, misrepresentative testimonies, and possible criminal duplicity? What message would that send to the base? What message would that send to women voters in 2020? If no misconduct is discovered, then Kavanaugh will have earned the nation’s confidence to remain in his post, just as Chase did. What’s to lose? From the Democrat’s perspective, why not use the authority invested by the American people to pursue the truth?
(George Cassidy Payne is an independent writer and adjunct professor of philosophy at the State University of New York (SUNY). Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.
Tags: George Cassiday Payne, View from Here, House Democratic majority, impeachment, Brett Kavanaugh, Nancy Pelosi
