For GOP Senators, Confirming Kavanaugh Goes From Option to Duty

Image result for carl sagan extraordinary
Image Source

I do not know who Casey Mattox is, but a June tweet of his popped up in my Twitter feed the other day:

I rate this a perfect tweet. It is both concise and evergreen.

The Supreme Court of the United States is supposed to be the clear third of three branches of the federal government. The Judicial Branch is not supposed to make laws or give orders of any kind. Courts are meant to determine the constitutional legality of disputed actions between individuals and groups. The legislature legislates, the executive executes, and the judiciary judges. It’s not a difficult concept.

Unfortunately, bad-faith reading of the Constitution has resulted in a politicized court system in which many actually make the ridiculous argument that judges should conjecture what the consequences of a law will be, instead of simply reading the law itself, and rule based on those assumptions. SCOTUS Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor do not even try to hide their use of this method when writing decisions from the bench.

As outraged as everyone should be with the state of liberal jurisprudence, Brett Kavanaugh is not my ideal Supreme Court justice either. As Judge Napolitano has eloquently explained, Kavanaugh’s understanding of the 4th Amendment is wrongheaded and dangerous. If this were the case being made against Kavanaugh, I would be all ears.

Instead of criticizing the processes and actions of the federal government based on constitutionality, philosophy, and the individual human rights the United States of America was founded upon, hazy memories from many decades ago, that have conveniently resurfaced exclusively in their owners’ minds only as Kavanaugh’s illustrious career is set to culminate in the highest court in the land, are being used to railroad his confirmation.

The accusations made against Kavanaugh are unverifiable and uncorroborated within themselves. They are also immaterial to the situation at hand.

As someone who generally disagrees with but respects Ronan Farrow, I am shocked and disappointed that he agreed to publish something as salacious, hazy, and irrelevant as his September 24th story. Its publishing undermines the credibility of actual sexual assault victims and needlessly politicizes the #MeToo movement which the entire country, albeit to varying degrees, is generally supportive of.

The point of view of the Democrats regarding this matter deserves no consideration from honest and thoughtful people. They decided to vote against Kavanaugh as soon as he was nominated and almost entirely forewent asking relevant questions during his confirmation hearings. Instead, they delayed the process on the basis of arcane technicalities and focused on creating sound bites and video clips throughout the duration of an agonizing and embarrassing process. They have since done their best to capitalize on allegations against Kavanaugh to delay his confirmation even further, certainly hoping that they can run out the clock through midterm elections or at least keep Kavanaugh from being confirmed before the Supreme Court begins their October session.

GOP Senators now have a choice. They can allow the media and opposing political party to bully and shame them into submission, or they can grow a pair by taking a stand against a ballooning culture of hyperbole and hysteria.

The GOP Senators will set a historical precedent either way. The former choice would make it clear that loosely-characterized sexual assault allegations from decades ago are a political weapon they will not fight back against. This will be the end of the current GOP and likely the end of textualist jurisprudence in the Supreme Court for decades. The latter choice would promote the dignity of the accused and take the wind out of bad-faith political actors’ sails, at least for the time being.

I am not a Republican and have never voted for a Republican. I registered as a Democrat when I first became eligible to vote and will officially become a member of the Libertarian Party in 2019. If GOP Senators cave, they can bet that more and more of their constituents will join me in the LP or simply stay home and laugh as Democrats wipe the floor with them in November.


If you enjoyed this post, please follow me at Also check out my podcast on iTunes  and like my Facebook page.

For GOP Senators, Confirming Kavanaugh Goes From Option to Duty

5 thoughts on “For GOP Senators, Confirming Kavanaugh Goes From Option to Duty

  1. Al says:

    “Courts are meant to determine the constitutional legality of disputed actions between individuals and groups”


    The exact functions of the federal Judicial system – Article III, Section 2 US Constitution:

    1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

    2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

    3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

    That does not give the SCOTUS (or any other federal judge) the power to determine constitutionality. It gives them the power to do what judges and juries are supposed to do – arbitrate/judge legal disputes – in this case, those which involve the United States of America in their dispute.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. buddyglass says:

    Three questions, just for fun:

    1. If you had a daughter and she were sent back in time to the early 1980s, would you be more comfortable with her getting drunk with Brett Kavanaugh, or with some demographically similar man chosen at random?

    2. If I gave you $100k on the condition that you wager it, straight up, on whether Kavanaugh is completely innocent of both Ford’s and Ramirez’s allegations, *and* that he at no point knowingly lied in his own defense after the allegations came out, how would you wager?

    3. What do you estimate are the odds that a randomly chosen man (not Kavanaugh) from among the names discussed as possible Trump nominees would face accusations similar to Kavanaugh’s? Kethledge? Hardiman? Willett? Mike Lee?


    1. 1. Ridiculous question.
      2. No bet. Too much arbitrary language.
      3. Hard to say. From what I understand, Kavanaugh grew up surrounded by Liberals and went to Yale. Mike Lee grew up Mormon in Utah. Don’t know about the others. The current situation is extra touchy because Kavanaugh would be the 9th Justice of a 4-4 court. As I said in my next latest post, Trump should have nominated Barrett to take away the #MeToo card (and because she’s a better judge).


  3. Al says:

    The ridiculous thing about all of this (regardless of whether the accusations are true or not) is that there is perfectly legitimate criteria to block Kavanaugh’s nomination. His position regarding the 4th Amendment is highly questionable and clearly a concern for a SCOTUS Justice and his position regarding Presidential power should also be a concern. But the Democrats don’t want to vote against him on those criteria because that puts them in a position of taking a position based on the Constitution, which could come back in the future and bite them in the ass. Would make it hard to block Mike Lee or Amy Barrett after that.

    Much easier to make the objections on personal grounds, not philosophical ones. Limits the risk the next time a Democrat is in the White House. And gives them more leeway to block the next appointee.

    All these people took an oath to the Constitution – to support and defend it – but you couldn’t tell that from their behavior.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s