Not Sure

Hello Everyone:

It is a toasty Monday afternoon and fresh week on the blog. The new week brings a fresh outlook to the ongoing saga of Judge Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation process. After watching the hearings, Yours Truly has a few thoughts to share on the subject. 

First, the Senate Judiciary Committee's decision to hire an outside prosecutor to question Judge Kavanaugh and his principal accuser, Palo Alto University research psychologist Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.  The Republicans on the Committee hired Rachel Mitchell, an experienced sex crimes prosecutor from Arizona, to question both witnesses.  The Democrats on the Committee opted to ask their own questions.  The official reason for the hiring of Ms. Mitchell was to de-politicize the issue.  Really, Ms. Mitchell's presence was a farce, beginning with the stipulation that the senators be allowed to interrupt at any time, for five minutes to ask questions. Why would anyone agree to that?  Yours Truly is not a lawyer (just knows how to argue) but understands that when cross examining a witness, you need to develop a rhythm. Hard to do that when someone chimes in and asks for a few a minutes.  If the republican members of the Judiciary Committee wanted to ask their own questions, then they should have just done so, without making someone a political pawn.  

The hiring of Ms. Mitchell also speaks to the way the eleven Republicans viewed the hearing versus the way the ten Democrats consider the hearing: A trial versus job interview.  A trial implies the burden of proof lies with the accuser (Dr. Ford) and a presumption of innocence on the accused (Judge Kavanaugh). The republicans approached the hearing with the idea had less to with Judge Kavanaugh's character and more about trying to litigate a misedemeanor sexual offense--according to 1982 Maryland state law--than about his character.  

In a way, it kind of makes sense.  Judge Brett Kavanaugh has been accused by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford of attempted sexual assault.  According to Dr. Ford, the two were at a gathering where beer was being served and consumed. She testified that she was pulled into an upstairs bedroom by a drunk Brett Kavanaugh, who pinned her down to a bed, covered her to prevent her from screaming, and tried to remove her clothes.  The only witness in the room was Mike Judge, a friend of Judge Kavanaugh who was not present on Thursday.  For the trial argument to have any merit, there would have to be corroborating witnesses and physical evidence.  There was neither because the Senate republicans essentially undermined their own efforts by refusing to allow Mr. Judge or others present at the gathering, mentioned by Dr. Ford, to testify about that night.  Further, whatever physical evidence from that night has long disappeared.  Thus, in the view of the Committee republicans, it was a he-said-she-said matter with eleven members of the jury predisposed to believing him.  Naturally, the Committee democrats have a different point of view.  For ranking democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and her colleagues this was a job interview.  This argument has merit.

The Supreme Court is a lifetime job. Therefore, it is crucial that a would-be Justice have certain characteristics that make him or her a good fit. When someone sits for an interview, the person doing the hiring has questions designed to assess whether or not the candidate has the right qualities for the job.  If we were just going on the basis of professional qualifications and writings, there would be no problem but this not the case here. 

 The questions posed to Judge Kavanaugh in the initial round of hearings were intended to suss out any biases that may affect future decisions.  Yet, he evaded the questions, offering vague responses to senators' questions.  In the second round, Judge Kavanaugh was more combative in his answers.  During that round, Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) asked Judge Kavanaugh if he sought treatment for a drinking problem, He testily answered, "have you?"  Again, Yours Truly is no expert but if Blogger responded like that to question from a prospective employer, Yours Truly would not get the job.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh's failure to remained composed during the hearing lead to questions about his temperament. In his opening statement, Judge Kavanaugh could barely contain himself; at one point shouting and crying in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Understandably he was upset over seeing, what should have a smooth confirmation process, suddenly get upended. Yes, it is humiliating to have your sordid past paraded out for public examination and have your family watch it.  However, a Congressional hearing is not the place to have a melt down. Come to think about it, if you are going to have a melt down, at least have the decency to do it in toilet like any other self-respecting person. If we continue the job interview thread, losing your composure in front of the panel tasked with moving you forward to the next round of hiring, is not a winning move.  This led Blogger to wonder, what would happen if, during oral arguments, a lawyer or fellow Justice said something that disagreed with his world view?  Would he lash out at him or her.  What would happen if you factored in alcohol?

The biggest issue coming out of Thursday's hearing was Judge Kavanaugh's alcohol intake and whether he has been forthcoming about it.  Both Dr. Ford and a second accuser, former Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez, went on the record stating that Judge Kavanaugh was an angry violent drunk.  This claim was backed up another former classmate Chad Ludington in an Op-Ed in today's New York Times. At Thursday's hearing, Judge Kavanaugh blithely dismissed it, saying he liked beer.  So far, four people have gone on record saying that Judge Kavanaugh really liked his beer. Blogger does not believe that Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez, Mr. Ludington, and Elizabeth Swetnick have some sort of hidden agenda but four people saying the same thing usually warrants some investigation. Realistically, Yours Truly does not expect the justices (or anyone else for that matter) to be monks and nuns as long as there "habit" does not impair their ability to perform their job.  This brings us to Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ).

The Gentleman from Arizona attained hero status on Friday when he and his colleague Senator Chris Coons (D-Del) brokered a deal for a one week pause in the nomination process in order for the FBI to investigate all relevant claims. Earlier that day, Senator Flake's office announced that he was a 'yes' vote in forwarding the nomination to the full Senate.  That was before he encountered Ana Maria Archila and Maria Gallagher on that elevator ride up to the hearing room. Ms. Archila and Gallagher, furious over the possibility of putting an alleged sexual offender on the Supreme Court, told him that they were sexual assault survivors and if the Senate confirmed Judge Kavanaugh, it would like their stories did not matter.  Senator Flake was visibly moved by the encountered, which led to pull his colleagues aside and quite literally put together a back room deal to pause the process and allow the FBI to investigate the matter. As writing, there are still conflicting stories over how limited the scope of the investigation is. As for Senator Flake's hero status, remains to be seen. He did the right thing by joining with his moderate Republican and Democratic colleagues in calling for an investigation. This was something Dr. Christine Blasey Ford iniatially asked for in exchange for her testimony. By the end of the week, we should have a clearer picture of who Brett Kavanaugh is. 

Breaking news: The New York Times is reporting that in 1985, police questioned then-Yale undergraduate Brett Kavanaugh about an altercation in a local bar in which he was accused of throwing ice at a patron. 

Mr. Donald Trump and his Senate supporters were hoping to seat Judge Brett Kavanaugh before today, the first day of the new Supreme Court term but obviously that is not going to happen. You can right,y ask the question why previous background checks did not reveal all of this information?  Perhaps it was not what anyone was looking for.  Should Senator Feinstein said something sooner? Perhaps but she was trying to respect the privacy of Dr. Ford.  One lingering question for Blogger is did Judge Kavanaugh continue to drink himself into oblivion as a professional and were there any incidents where it impaired his ability to perform his function?  Yours Truly hopes that at least some of these questions will be answered in he following days. In the meantime, Blogger remains uncertain about Judge Brett Kavanaugh's viability as a candidate for the United States Supreme Court