We have just witnessed one of the most partisan events in the country’s history. As we know, a function of the United States Senate is to offer advice and consent on any judicial nominations put forth by the president. No doubt, this critical role was included in the Constitution of the country as an attempt to maintain the balance of power between the three arms of the government--executive, legislative, and judicial. This critical role was not meant to simply rubber-stamp presidential wishes. Advice and consent should require careful, thoughtful, and thorough inquiry into the lives and actions of the nominees that are brought before the Senate. What occurred over the past couple of weeks was a sham in carrying out the advise and consent process.
From the beginning of the confirmation hearings, it was apparent that the Republican leadership was focused on moving to confirmation of the nominee with deliberate speed. Arbitrary deadlines were announced that, they believed, would fulfill this expectation. Documents were withheld or made available at the “last minute” to undermine any attempt to carefully, thoughtfully and thoroughly examine and analyze the documents. It was reported that only 4 percent of the documents related to the nominee were made available. Once the decision was made to have the FBI investigate the allegations presented by two of the women, the FBI investigation was limited to one week. It concluded in less than a week. To carefully, thoughtfully, and thoroughly investigate these allegations would have required a longer period. The FBI investigation only contributed to the sham that was perpetrated on the American people. The motivation of the majority was to move the nomination along so that the decision would be reached prior to the mid-term elections. This mandate by the leadership was achieved.
Throughout the hearings there remained the lingering question of the nominee’s honesty, integrity, and moral character. Once the accuser appeared before the Judiciary Committee, it came down to the proverbial, “he said, she said”. Did the nominee engage in sexually assaulting the young woman? No doubt, we will never know. Did the nominee tell repeated lies throughout the questioning? There are several sources who claim that this occurred. For example, GQ magazine identified 16 statements made by the nominee that were not supported by factual information. Other references included an article in Slate, “Kavanaugh Lied to the Judiciary Committee—Repeatedly” and an article in Nation, “Brett Kavanaugh Has Lied His Way Onto the Supreme Court”. Were the lies about significant maters or events? How much beer the nominee drank is not of primary significance, but to lie about it goes to the moral character and honesty of the individual. Did the nominee engage in the “Devil’s Triangle” which is sexual activity between two males and a female or was it a drinking game as he claimed? Did he participate in “boofing” which is defined as anal sex or ingesting drugs or alcohol in the anus or did it refer to farting as he claimed? While a student at Yale, did he expose himself to a female student or did this not occur? Whether he engaged in these activities is not the issue. The issue is, did he lie about it. It is not being suggested that the allegations do not have merit, but there are larger issues that flow from dishonesty, lack of integrity and questionable moral character, especially for an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court—this should be the concern of all Americans. In the Slate article the author concluded by stating the following: “But one thing is certain. He lied repeatedly to the Judiciary Committee on Thursday. Some of his lies, about the testimony of witnesses and the integrity of investigations go to the heart of our system of justice. Any senator who votes to put this man on the Supreme Court is saying that lies don’t matter.” This past Saturday 50 senators voted for confirmation. Are they saying that lies don’t matter?