Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
WashPost Editorial: The Post's View Opinion Vote 'no' on Kavanaugh
The Post's View Opinion
Vote no on Kavanaugh
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/vote-no-on-kavanaugh/2018/10/04/23495e3a-c7f3-11e8-b1ed-1d2d65b86d0c_story.html?utm_term=.47a553abf1e5
By Editorial Board
October 4 at 7:15 PM
AS SENATORS prepare to vote this week on Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh, they, and the rest of the country, must wonder: Which Brett M. Kavanaugh are they evaluating? Is it the steady, conservative jurist he was reputed to be before his confirmation saga? Or is it a partisan operative harboring suspicions and resentments about Democrats, with possible misdeeds in his past?
Unfortunately and unnecessarily; it didnt have to be this way too many questions remain about his history for senators to responsibly vote yes. At the same time, enough has been learned about his partisan instincts that we believe senators must vote no.
We do not say so lightly. We have not opposed a Supreme Court nominee, liberal or conservative, since Robert H. Bork in 1987. We believe presidents are entitled to significant deference if they nominate well-qualified people within the broad mainstream of judicial thought. When President Trump named Mr. Kavanaugh, he seemed to be such a person: an accomplished judge whom any conservative president might have picked. But given Republicans refusal to properly vet Mr. Kavanaugh, and given what we have learned about him during the process, we now believe it would be a serious blow to the court and the nation if he were confirmed.
One element of the GOP vetting failure has been all but forgotten in the drama over alleged sexual assaults, but it remains for us a serious shortcoming. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee refused to ask for all the potentially relevant documents from his time serving in the George W. Bush White House. The reason was not principled but political: Though they had kept a Supreme Court seat vacant for most of 2016, they wanted to ram through Mr. Kavanaugh before this years midterm elections. Those documents, which could have been processed without crippling delay, might end up supporting his case, or they might not; we have no idea. But any responsible senator should insist on seeing them before casting a vote.
It certainly would have been preferable if Christine Blasey Fords allegation had surfaced sooner, and then been investigated more promptly. But what matters now is not partisan fault but finding the truth about her claim or at least making as fair and thorough an effort to find it as possible. Mr. Trump and the Republicans have prevented such an effort. This weeks belated investigation, reluctantly agreed to by the majority, was unduly narrow. Unsurprisingly, Senate Republicans quickly and unconvincingly claimed that it was exculpatory. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) came to his conclusion before even this cursory examination was complete.
We continue to believe that Ms. Ford is a credible witness with no motivation to lie. It is conceivable that she and Mr. Kavanaugh are both being truthful, in the sense that he has no memory of the event. It is also conceivable that Ms. Fords memory is at fault. We wish the FBI had been allowed to probe Mr. Kavanaughs credibility more fully. But our conclusion about Mr. Kavanaughs fitness does not rest on believing one side or the other.
If Mr. Kavanaugh truly is, or believes himself to be, a victim of mistaken identity, his anger is understandable. But he went further in last Thursdays hearing than expressing anger. He gratuitously indulged in hyperpartisan rhetoric against the left, describing his stormy confirmation as a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election and revenge on behalf of the Clintons. He provided neither evidence nor even a plausible explanation for this red-meat partisanship, but he poisoned any sense that he could serve as an impartial judge. Democrats or liberal activists would have no reason to trust in his good faith in any cases involving politics. Even beyond such cases, his judgment and temperament would be in doubt............................
Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh takes a seat before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Sept. 27. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 875 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (13)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WashPost Editorial: The Post's View Opinion Vote 'no' on Kavanaugh (Original Post)
riversedge
Oct 2018
OP
dalton99a
(81,520 posts)1. Kick
Uncle Joe
(58,366 posts)2. Kicked and recommended.
Thanks for the thread riversedge.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)3. K & R
SWBTATTReg
(22,143 posts)4. Well spoken. BK does this solely to himself by revealing how partisan he truly is. I wonder ...
if prior judgments he's made should be examined now closer to ensure a true sense of impartiality? The DC circuit courts and judgments, if any w/ BK's participation...