WHY KAVANAUGH SHOULD NOT BE CONFIRMED
Who do you believe, Kavanaugh or Ford? I certainly believe Ford; no one makes up a story like that with such details. It rings true. She has everything to lose by telling her story and nothing to gain.
I am also willing to accept that Kavanaugh does not remember the incident. After all, he was likely blind drunk when it took place. And there are enough remembrances of others who knew him during his high school and college days to confirm that drunken partying was routine for him and his friends during those years. Furthermore, why would he remember it - just another wild party with the usual girl chasing. If it was a common occurrence why would one particular incident stand out? Particularly a failure. Certainly for the aggressor there would be no lasting psychological impact. He probably thought nothing of it and forgot about it the next day, particularly since there were no immediate implications. I see no contradiction in her remembering and his forgetting. And under those circumstances how can he do anything but deny, and deny vehemently. To even acknowledge the possibility that the attack took place and if so it was due to drunkenness and youth ("I didn't know what I was doing, and I apologize for my behavior.") would have been devastating to his chances of being confirmed (even with Republican Senators for whom misogyny is a way of life).
So, accepting that the incident took place as she describes it, is it enough to justify denying him confirmation? Is this just a youthful indiscretion? Excessive drinking, for example, can perhaps be considered youthful indiscretion when it involves only harm to oneself, but when it involves violent physical and emotional damage to others it no longer gets him the benefit of the doubt for the innocence of youth. Even at the age of 17 or 18 he knows the difference between right and wrong. Nor is there any issue of consensuality here.
Okay, but it was a long time ago, and there is no suggestion that he has led other than an exemplary life since then, or at least since his college years. Shouldn't he get a pass for good behavior since then? Isn't this analogous to restoring the right to vote to convicted felons who have served their time? No, it isn't. This is a nominee for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. The context makes a difference. For such a position, there can be no statute of limitations. The standards have to be higher. Any concerns about defects in character should be resolved against the nominee. There should be no doubts.
The tone of Judge Kavanaugh's response to the allegations at the Senate hearings raises new concerns - those of judicial temperament and impartiality. His bombastic attack on the Senators questioning him, his sense of entitlement based on his scholastic record, athletic prowess, hard work and career resume, his conspiratorial accusations that the allegations were a calculated and orchestrated political hit by Democrats, charging them with exacting revenge on behalf of the Clintons and outside left wing opposition groups, his calling the allegations a grotesque and coordinated character assassination all raise questions as to his suitability to render reasoned, impartial and just decisions on the complex issues he would face as a Supreme Court Justice. Is his channeling of Trump a vision of how he would judge on presidential power? Does such a man belong on the Supreme Court, or, for that matter, on any court? Under the pressure of the moment the true character of the man was revealed.
These outbursts also reflect the depth of his partisanship. It was always known that he was a conservative. That was to be expected, for better or for worse. But this goes beyond conservative views. This reflects an innate bias towards a tribal view of judicial decision making, of "us against them".