On September 14, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford publicly accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape in the summer of 1982. After Ford came forward, two other women — Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick — also made sexual assault claims against the Supreme Court nominee. Although these accusations against Kavanaugh do not presently overcome the beyond reasonable doubt maxim, senators must consider his guilt on another account: whether he will remain impartial as a Supreme Court justice. Given his reckless slur of Democrats during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, however, Kavanaugh demonstrated that he will not.
Historically, a Supreme Court nominee is considered for their ideological stance, professional excellence, integrity, and notably, impartiality. For over 200 years, presidents have cautioned Alexander Hamilton’s prescription in the Federalist Papers that a justice must be able to “approach cases impartially, without personal prejudice.” The logic goes that if judges are impartial, they will not let their views, affiliations, or animosities affect their decisions; instead, rulings will be the outcome of judicial judgement. This impartiality is further recognized as an integral check on majority rule, especially when one party controls the legislative and executive branches. Consequently, elected officials must seriously reconsider the confirmation of Kavanaugh, acknowledging that he will bring a profound bias against the Democratic Party to the Court.
In last Thursday’s hearing, Kavanaugh echoed the Trumpian portrayal of Democrats as deceitful and immoral political adversaries. In his opening statement, he blasted Senate Democrats for replacing advise and consent “with search and destroy.” He later minimized the serious accusations of sexual assault as a deliberate, calculated “political hit” from Democrats who “couldn’t take [him] out on the merits.” He asserted that the nomination process “…is a circus.” He made allegations that opposition to his nomination was driven by “revenge on behalf of the Clintons.” Most concerning, he threatened to Democrats that “what goes around, comes around.” These are not the answers of an impartial and objective Supreme Court nominee. These are reactions laden with indignation and bitterness.
Kavanaugh’s supporters will try to contend that his anger was justified, that anyone in his situation would react similarly, or that his emotions indicate truth. These first two points are simply ignorant of our exalted expectations for Supreme Court justices—expectations for temperament, integrity, and, to repeat, impartiality. The final argument that Kavanaugh’s emotions indicate truth is also invalid, since the same argument can equally and oppositely be used to endorse the truth behind Ford’s testimony. To argue that Kavanaugh’s emotions prove innocence is no different than to say Ford’s emotions prove her truthfulness.
Last Thursday, Kavanaugh showed the American people that he is prone to think unfoundedly and allow his emotions to supersede facts. Beneath his disregard for truth, Kavanaugh also showed his hand of partiality, characterizing the investigation of his conduct as a character smear from Democrats. In a shameless abandonment of professionalism, he even went so far as to threaten members of Congress by stating “what goes around, comes around.” The senators voting to on his confirmation must not legitimize this demeanor in a Supreme Court justice, as crucial precedents will be threatened. We must see that Brett Kavanaugh’s inflamed testimony was neither humanizing nor praiseworthy; it was concerning and disqualifying.
Image Credit: Google Images/Office of the Vice President