On October 24, 2018
© By John Arkelian
How does one appoint a man accused of sexual assault to the Supreme Court of the United States? There were no criminal charges (let alone convictions) against Brett Kavanaugh arising from the sexual assault claims made by Christine Blasey Ford and two other women. But, surely a lifetime appointment to such a powerful position requires a higher threshold than the mere absence of proven criminality? Blasey Ford seemed credible in her testimony before a Senate committee on September 27th. That’s not proof positive of the veracity of her claims, of course; but it ought to have made the approval of Kavanaugh too unpalatable to contemplate. There was a hasty last-minute investigation into her claims; but it looked for all the world like the FBI was severely circumscribed in their work by the Trump Administration. The results of their seemingly truncated ‘investigation’ were not made public (though Senators sworn to secrecy did see the FBI’s report).
Quite apart from the charges made by Blasey Ford and others, Kavanaugh himself gave the Senate ample reason to reject his nomination with his rabid (not to mention unjudicial) demeanor and his harsh accusations of a smear against him orchestrated by the Democrats and by the Clintons. Such an egregious display of partisan political rancor instantly disqualified the man from a place on the Supreme Court. How can his objectivity ever be trusted given that ugly outburst of partisanship? Nor were we impressed by his response to the suggestion that a vote be postponed while the accusations of sexual assault were investigated. Kavanaugh equivocated, when he should have declared: “I not only agree to an investigation, I insist upon one – to clear my name!” Isn’t that what a falsely accused person would demand?
There are other factors that taint this appointment. The first is that no Trump nominees should have been considered by the Senate – for any level of court – while Trump himself is under investigation for possible corruption, conflict of interest, abuse of power, and collusion with a foreign power to subvert a U.S. election. The Supreme Court may be called upon to assess Trump’s alleged wrongdoing in the future. How can it do so without partiality if some of its members were put there by this same president? (Kavanaugh’s reputed views on unfettered presidential powers and immunities are added cause for concern in that regard.) As the maxim states, justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. Finally, Republican Senators improperly refused to meet to consider a nominee (Merrick Garland) for the Supreme Court put forward by Barack Obama in the last half-year or so of his presidency. Their failure to hold a hearing to consider that nominee, and to instead deliberately let the clock run out on the Obama presidency, was a gross dereliction of their constitutional duty, despite their spurious claim that a president in the final months of his last term in office lacked the authority to put forward such nominees. If Republican Senators were determined (as they most assuredly were) not to approve any nominee proffered by that Democratic president, they should have had the political courage of their partisan convictions: They should have held the requisite hearings and then voted down the nominee on their narrow partisan grounds. But they had no courage, only shabby partisanship; and that fact means they have no moral authority to consider any Republican nominee now.
Copyright © 2018 by John Arkelian