1. Ostensibly, this hearing was about who is telling the truth. Dr Ford or Judge Kavanaugh?
Republicans seemed to have conceded that Ford was telling the truth, EXCEPT that she got her assaulter wrong and Kavanaugh was telling the truth when he said he never assaulted her or anyone else. That takes some tricky brain compartmentalization, but since the Trump presidency, Republicans have gotten lots of practice with that.
Democrats felt Ford was telling the truth including her identification of her assaulter.
My perception, and apparently most people's, was that Ford was very credible Even the Republicans spoke of her with respectful tones. The only problem with her testimony, in their eyes, was that she was mistaken about her attacker.
Kavanaugh, on the other hand, provided evidence of what some had alleged was a violent temper when he gets drunk. Except, I presume, he wasn't drunk. He certainly seemed to be highly emotional - yelling in obvious fury about the accusations and also crying at times.
I couldn't help but think about the warning: You don't know how you'll react in a crisis until you are in one. Kavanaugh was in a crisis yesterday and instead of staying calm and reasoned, Kavanaugh lost it completely. He was focused on himself - how unfairly he was being treated. Although people argue that it is difficult to pinpoint the meaning of 'judicial temperament," what Kavanaugh demonstrated yesterday, surely wasn't it.
And Kavanaugh refused to concede the two things that could have cleared his name.
- Unlike Ford, he's taken no polygraph.
- He wouldn't agree to ask an FBI investigation into the assault charge. Despite telling Senators he would agree to anything to clear his name, when they offered him such a way - that he ask Trump to order an FBI investigation, he hemmed and hawed and said everything but wouldn't give a clear yes or no.
- He echoed Republican senators that there could have been an FBI investigation if the Democrats hadn't concealed the Ford letter. (Feinstein said she had done so because of a promise she'd made not to reveal Ford's name.)
- He quoted Joe Biden saying that you could prove anything you wanted with an FBI report, that they didn't make any conclusions, only presented facts. Yet he also said he had been cleared by FBI investigations any number of times when he was up for previous positions.
- Kavanaugh also claimed that there was no need for an FBI investigation because the Senate Judiciary Committee was investigating. Yet each Senator gets only 5 minutes, and a skilled candidate like Kavanaugh who has coached nominees in the past, knows he can eat those minutes up by talking without answering the questions. FBI investigators can ask for as long as they need.
- He also said there was no need to have people like Mark Judge testify because he'd already submitted a note saying that Kavanaugh was not involved in the Ford assault. Yet writing a note - actually it came from his attorney - is clearly not the same as appearing in person and having people ask probing questions and being able to judge how the person responds.
Overall, the only evidence that Ford was wrong about her attacker was Kavanaugh's denial. And his claims of inconsistencies in her story, that trauma experts say are normal memory lapses for trauma victims. That was enough for Republicans. Even though he, and they, could probably get much closer to the truth with an FBI investigation and him taking a polygraph.
2. For Republicans, the hearing was about trying to convince people watching, that the Democrats have poisoned the advise and consent process by,
- hiding the Ford letter until the last minute
- by opposing Kavanaugh from the beginning
Someone even said that from now on Supreme Court nominations will simply be bitter partisan fights, not about the candidates' real qualifications, but about winning and losing.
But, of course, that needs to be put into the context of all the federal judges that the Republicans held up when Obama was president, including never even holding hearings for Merrick Garland.
And the fact that Trump had relatively little trouble getting Neil Gorsuch approved.
The problems are also exacerbated by the elimination of the 2/3 majority requirement for approval of Supreme Court judges. With that rule, presidents knew they had to nominate a judge moderate enough that some members of the minority could vote for. With the simple majority rule we have now, a president can appoint a much more extreme judge if he can get all of the majority to vote yes.
3. Kavanaugh's testimony made this all about Kavanaugh. He was obsessed with how this process was ruining his reputation, his life, and his family. All the things that happen to rape and sexual assault victims, he claimed for himself. Yet as much as he was feeling sorry for himself, many decisions he's made as a judge don't seem to show much empathy for other people who have far more difficult problems in life. See this overview of some of his decisions.
But this process wasn't about Kavanaugh really.
Yes, he is the nominee, but this was a hearing to confirm a presidential nominee to the Supreme Court. No one is owed a Supreme Court position. And no one is 'the only possible good candidate.' The president should nominate the best person he can find that the Senate will approve. In the Senate's vetting process, some problems have arisen. Problems, which if true, should disqualify Kavanaugh.
A candidate who had the best interests of the country in his heart, rather than ranting about his victimhood, might realize that the debate over his nomination was not only hurting the country now, but would hurt the credibility of the Supreme Court if he were to serve.
4. No one is entitled to a Supreme Court seat. He acted as if he were owed this Supreme Court position. It was his and he sees the Democrats trying to snatch it away. I understand that being accused of sexual assault does have a great impact on one's life. But far worse things happen to people every day - innocent people get shot by police, others die because they can't afford medical treatment, or they lose their home so they can pay for medical treatment. Their kids die of violence in schools. And my sense is that Kavanaugh, as a judge, has little sympathy for their plight. But, I give him credit that, like all the Republican senators there, he made sure not to insult Ford or to question her integrity. But one can't help thinking that's because in the #metoo era, they knew it would make them look bad in front of millions.
But Kavanaugh made it clear - this wasn't about the good of the country, it was about him and his entitlement. He yelled in anger. He cried in (not sure, frustration?) And he told us how his life had been ruined.
Most of us have survived not being appointed to the US Supreme Court. And most of us have been turned down for something we felt was important - whether a job, a marriage proposal, a job. And we've all been upset for a while and then gotten on with our lives. Most of us have not had temper tantrums during the job interview. The temporary fuss over Kavanaugh's confirmation will blow over. His children will still love him and he will find lucrative opportunities. In fact, his fallback position, should he not be confirmed, is his current life time appointment as a judge.
5. This isn't a trial. Neither Kavanaugh nor Ford were on trial yesterday - though the Republicans hired a woman prosecutor to question Ford for them as if she were on trial.. There will be no verdict of guilty or innocent. No one will face jail time or other penalties as a result of these hearings. And because this is not a courtroom, their resolution of which person is telling the truth, need not be "beyond a reasonable doubt."
6. Kavanaugh was too clever for his own good.
Kavanaugh knows this Senate process well. He's coached other court nominees when he worked in the Bush administration. But all rules of strategy are meant to be broken when conditions change. One rule most judicial candidates have adopted is to be as evasive in answers as possible. Don't let the Senators pin you down. Kavanaugh has become an expert in not saying yes or no. As mentioned above, he skirted the issue every time Democratic Senators urged him to ask for an FBI investigation to clear his name.
But in another question - Did he wish that Dr. Ford had never come forward? - he again weaseled. This really seemed like a softball question. There was no one watching (I'm sure) who didn't believe that Kavanaugh would have preferred to have his hearings over with without Dr. Ford's accusations. Yet he wouldn't say yes. I assume that his training in evasion wouldn't let him acknowledge what everyone knew to be true. In my opinion, he would have sounded uncharacteristically candid had he just said, "I would love not to have to be here today, so yes." He couldn't. All he could do was continue playing dodgeball as Democratic senators kept throwing questions at him.
There was so much to think about during yesterday's hearings. These are just a few observations I had.
And I can't help but imagine what people who did NOT see the testimony and are relying on news reports might think. Even reports I heard on NPR seemed to be bending over backwards to not suggest any bias - thus depriving the listener of how different the testimony of the two was.
Steve, imagine my surprise when I watched the judge in his roar-out to the nation and the good professor. I felt, I might have done that -- cornered, as he was -- I might have lashed out like that. Thing is, I know I don't have the temperament to be a judge. He claims he does.
ReplyDeleteWhen the (not so good) judge poured words onto his sparked hatred of (conspiratorial left-wing Democrats), I leaned forward as I watched his performance become modern tragedy. I thought, Oops. He’d need to recuse from review of Obamacare and quite a few legislative issues.
From the moment he attacked Democrats as he did, captured in twitter feeds and instagram posts, FB messaging and phone videos, he recused himself for participation in anything like deciding a Gore-Bush election in 2000. Kavanaugh would step into a post reviewing many decisions crafted in the world of partisan politics. He stated animus towards Democrats!
Then I have trouble believing his denials of black-out drinking; his ‘I didn’t have sex with that woman’ rejections of further or any FBI investigation; yet what I see from all this, is that finally sitting on the Supreme Court, he wouldn’t leave his politics out of the chamber.
Kavanaugh is not fit for purpose. His temper (thankfully) displayed his hatred toward half the people of the USA.
Finally, we need a way out of this in the future. Previously, Senate rules required a nominee to the US Supreme Court pass on a 2/3 vote (to avoid filibuster). With recent changes, it now only requires 51 votes. Returning to the previous rule would drastically change vote calculus (except in the case of super-majorities) to consideration of the minority.
A bit of correction. Listening to the NYT video post, Kavanuagh didn't so much say Democrats were out to get him but rather a 'frenzy from the Left'.
DeleteUm, as he opposes ideals and notions of rights cherished by this 'Left', who does he mean as he said the 'calculated political hit' he experienced was orchestrated by 'people in this room'.
Putin operatives, perhaps?
For me, it was a demonstration of a thwarted teenage Incel and unacknowledged alcoholic. For right-wingers, it was a strong performance by a wronged, Christian man and that he had every right to be a bully. Fighting back. Ask Trump who loved it.
Delete1. Ostensibly, this hearing was about who is telling the truth.
ReplyDeleteDid you hear Franklin Graham yesterday AM, in his pre-vote speech say this, "This hearing was NEVER about the truth." I have not seen it noted nowhere, yet. If this is not an admission of the Republican majority committee's lack of integrity I don't know what is.
Ooops, don't know who this Franklin Graham is! I meant Lindsay of course.
DeleteWhy, he's the son of God's counsel to US Presidents, the (now eternal) Rev. Billy Graham, of course. I was trying to make sense of your post; this helps a bit. Thanks.
DeleteIf the Hearing was not about the truth, why hold it? I am appalled at the breezy disregard this statement -- I have seen no one else in the media or on-line quote it. Am I missing something here? -- does it not mean what I think it means?
DeleteI am willing to have this phrase explained in any other way.
For an enlightening and worrying look at what at the viewers thought of both proceedings, have a look at the Fox News Facebook Comments and then Occupy Democrats or The Hill.
ReplyDeleteEach accused the other's testifier as "acting", among other things.