Kavanaugh Nomination: Current Impressions

As the maelstrom around the Kavanaugh nomination may perhaps be starting to draw to a close, a few impressions at the intersection of politics and policy:

  1. As indicated earlier, I submit that Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination should be denied because no one has brought forth a tenable reason why Dr. Ford would make up a claim — of which she has testified she is “100%” certain – when she knew that she would provoke the whirlwind which will now forever mark her life and impact the lives of her family. As far as I can tell, even Republican Senators don’t – as I understand Sen. Orrin Hatch said – find her “uncredible.”  I ask my conservative women friends:  If the roles were reversed, and you knew in high school a now-liberal male judge nominated to the Supreme Court by a Democratic President, would you make up an alleged assault, purely to prevent your former classmate from being elevated to the Supreme Court?  And:  how likely is it that even after 30 years, you would be mistaken about the identity of your assailant?

 

  1. To parrot a point admittedly made by numerous talking heads: While, subject to the outcome of the FBI investigation, a “He Said, She Said” situation appears to exist, this is not a criminal investigation; it’s a job interview.  The “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard that would be appropriately required to convict Judge Kavanaugh of sexual assault isn’t required to withhold consent to his ascension to the Supreme Court; what’s required are sufficient grounds to conclude that we as a people should look elsewhere for our next Supreme Court Justice.  That standard has – in my view – been easily met.

 

  1. I have been and continue to be disappointed at the majority of Republicans’ response to this controversy. Too many seemed obsessed by the timing of the presentation of the allegations.  I consider the timing of the presentation of the allegations irrelevant – a red herring to stir up the conservative partisan base.  I would have expected that the reaction of any Senator of either party to these allegations would have been:  Is Dr. Ford telling the truth, or not?  The truth, as well as it can be determined, is what matters – whether the allegations were brought forth months ago or minutes before the final confirmation vote.  Sen. McConnell is already saying that the Senate will vote “this week.”  Clearly, what he cares about is winning this fight, not truth or right – a shameful dereliction of duty on par with his failure to allow the Senate to consider President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland.  Virtually no commentators think Democrats will take control of the Senate in January, so presumably, if there is sufficient evidence of questionable behavior on Judge Kavanaugh’s part to dissuade a couple of Republican Senators from consenting to the Judge’s nomination, there are plenty of other conservative judges President Trump can nominate that will receive Senate confirmation in either this or the next Congress.  Sen. McConnell nonetheless clearly believes that he can’t take the chance – which says to me (if we needed further evidence, which I didn’t) that he prioritizes partisanship over truth and fair process.

 

  1. I found Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony on September 27 disqualifying in two additional respects not evident in the earlier proceedings. First, conceding (as just about everybody that reads these pages is well aware) that the poster of these notes can be subject to his own Irish eruptions, and that those of us with vitriolic natures sometimes need a bit of tolerant understanding when we erupt, Judge Kavanaugh’s opening statement, in which he stated that the concerns regarding Dr. Ford’s allegations involved:  “… a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” “apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election;” “Revenge on behalf of the Clintons”; and “millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups,” was … unseemly and unsettling.    This display of rank partisanship, no matter the provocation, is unfitting for a Supreme Court nominee and sullies the standing of the Court.  His elevation will cause doubt throughout his tenure whether any litigant with a position contrary to his natural inclination will get a fair hearing.  Second, and as important to me:  although Judge Kavanaugh apologized thereafter, his response to Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s respectful question (given the circumstances) whether he had ever drunk so much that he didn’t remember what he had done the next morning was purely … bullying.  He bullied her.

 

  1. Nevertheless, unless Mark Judge, the only person Dr. Ford places in the room with her and Judge Kavanaugh at the time of the alleged assault, substantially confirms Dr. Ford’s account, I’d consider it highly likely that Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed.  Mr. Judge’s concern if he untruthfully supports Judge Kavanaugh’s account:  if Democrats assume a majority in the House of Representatives next January, they are very likely to commission a more thorough investigation of Dr. Ford’s allegations, which will certainly include checking with anyone that Mr. Judge might have talked to about the Kavanaugh-Ford incident.  Any material discrepancy uncovered between Mr. Judge’s informal exchanges and his account to the FBI could well ultimately have serious repercussions for Mr. Judge … and then-Justice Kavanaugh.

 

  1. I find it ironic that Republican Sen. Jeff Flake – sufficiently a pariah in some circles within his own state’s Republican party that he chose not to seek reelection – has, despite Sen. McConnell’s myopic preoccupation with Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation, perhaps saved a number of Republican seats in the upcoming midterms by forcing the FBI investigation of the sexual allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. We have been on the road, but even out in the great southwest, we sensed the paroxysm that would have resulted had the Republicans slammed through Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation without investigation of or regard to, and perhaps in disregard of, Dr. Ford’s claims.  Although the partisan skirmishing is continuing, some of the partisan steam seems to have been let out of the pot.  Unless the FBI comes up with credible evidence to support Dr. Ford’s claim, not only will Judge Kavanaugh be confirmed, but Republican candidates in close races may escape the wrath that I submit might have been visited on them for a Republican process deemed partisan and incomplete by a substantial number of Americans.

 

If I were President Trump and Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination fails, I’d immediately nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative favorite.  Unless there is anything disqualifying in Judge Barrett’s background that has so far been unreported, a rejection of Judge Kavanaugh will sufficiently vent liberals’ furor while stoking conservatives’ anger that Judge Barrett’s nomination will sail through.

A Note Outside My General Realm …

A number of years ago, I read an interview of Robert Redford, in which he was asked:  Was there anyone he envied?

Yes, he said, there was:  his friend, Paul Newman.  He said that Newman was married to the woman with whom he remained deeply in love after more than 40 years; that he made a movie when he wanted to; that he drove a race car when he wanted to; that he experimented to create an exquisite meal when he wanted to …

I feel likewise blessed:  I am also married to the woman with whom I remain deeply in love after more than 40 years; TLOML and I are lucky to regularly see our children, our son- and daughters-in-law, grandsons, family, and friends; we are able to travel; I exercise as and when I want to (which I thoroughly enjoy); I ponder our investments (which, again, I thoroughly enjoy); I blog when I think I have something to add …

Sen. John McCain, in an interview after he was diagnosed with the brain cancer that ultimately claimed his life, indicated that he had had an extraordinarily blessed life.  Mr. Redford felt that Mr. Newman was similarly fortunate.  I consider myself in their company.  As our nation – and, for those that have concern, the Catholic Church — endure trials which I believe will only intensify in the coming months, may we remain cognizant of our blessings …

Kavanaugh PPS…

Two laments as this process continues:

I noted news reports this morning indicating that Republicans wished to hurry the vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. Admittedly being my most Pollyannish: Shouldn’t they want to hear all the testimony — on both sides — before deciding whether Judge Kavanaugh should be confirmed? And if you were Jugde Kavanaugh and innocent as he claims, wouldn’t YOU want all evidence heard rather than ascend to the Supreme Court, if at all, under an undeserved cloud?

Admitting that I am fastidious, I was very disappointed to see Judge Kavanaugh — a SCOTUS nominee, for Heaven’s sake — pleading his case (with Mrs. Kavanaugh) on…Fox News. It shreds any remaining vestige of an impression that the Justices put aside partisan politics. (I’d feel the same if a nominee of a Democratic president was reduced to pleading his/her case on MSNBC.)

Tomorrow…will bring another turn of this unfortunate ride…

Postscript on Earlier Kavanaugh Blog…

A few months ago, I listed the criteria by which I felt Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination — as well as that of any other Presidential nominee — should be judged: (1) Is the nominee qualified for the prospective post? And (2) If so, was there any other factor, such as a substantiated history of drug abuse, sufficient to nonetheless disqualify the nominee?

Conceding that at the time of this post, a credibility contest exists between Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford… If I had a vote, I would now vote to deny Judge Kavanaugh under the second criteria for the reason that I submit that any rational, nonpartisan jury would: the Judge has everything to gain by lying, and Dr. Ford (1) has nothing to gain by lying and (2) wouldn’t have subjected herself and her family to an obviously predictable hyperpartisan whirlwind if she wasn’t sure that it was Judge Kavanaugh that assaulted her.

No matter how this turns out, no one will be a personal “winner” here…

The Coming of the Driverless Car …

Recently, my manual transmission Passat suffered reverses such that it made no sense to continue with the car (I loved it).  Since TLOML has wanted a Prius for quite a while … we got one.  We traded in the Passat as part of the deal, and my primary car has become what was formerly “her” Nissan Altima.  Keeping in mind that my most conservative instincts involve either foreign policy or driving, a few impressions have emerged over the last few weeks:

First, the most obvious:  as a condition for buying the Prius, she had to check a box that provided, “I agree that I will always drive this vehicle so cautiously that I am a danger to me and to all vehicles around me.”

As to the Nissan:  we’ve had it for a good number of years.  I obviously have driven it from time to time.  I’ve always considered it a “good” car – reliable, not terrible pickup, good gas mileage – in short, the perfect car for my spouse, who derives no satisfaction or fulfillment from driving.  Now that it has become “mine,” I’ve become acutely aware:  that I don’t have to put a key in the ignition to start the car; that it unlocks itself when it knows I’m nearby; that it knows whether it is light or dark, and turns its own lights on; and that – most importantly – once it starts down the road, I don’t have to do anything as we accelerate.  I have become superfluous.

For those that decry the coming of the driverless car … count me amongst your ranks.  As far as I’m concerned, I’m already subjected to one …

Harvard Analysis of WRS

The latest Wisconsin Retirement System newsletter reports that a recent Harvard University report on a stress test analysis of the largest public pension plans in 10 states cited Wisconsin as an example of how “strong funding policies can help to ensure that the public pension systems are sustainable and secure.”  The WRS’ strong financial standing is a source of comfort for all those that receive pension benefits through it; its effective management, sound investment approaches and performance, and benefits formulae will hopefully continue to escape any effort by the Governor to try to “improve” it.  [Perhaps he’ll be wise enough to stay away from the plan in order avoid having the hijinks that he has visited on so many other parts of Wisconsin government adversely affect his own pension ;)].   

If You’re Going to Be the Best …

In early June, I entered a post noting that baseball is a long season, and that the Milwaukee Brewers’ performance up to that time – then the best record in the National League, with a 3+ game lead on the Chicago Cubs – would only mean something if the Brewers stood up through the summer; what would matter was where the team stood after Labor Day.

We’re now well past Labor Day.  As of today, Milwaukee has, through acquisition of additional talent and adroit use of its pitching staff, played incredibly well down the stretch; it is but two games behind Chicago for the NL Central lead while building a four and half game advantage for a post season Wild Card berth.

While it will be validating for Milwaukee to reach the postseason at any level, I’m not a big fan of baseball’s Wild Card playoff.  Unlike the NFL, where every playoff game is “sudden death,” it seems odd to me – recognizing the seasonal constraints that Major League Baseball faces when it extends its playoff period — that a Wild Card team that labors over countless series of games to reach the postseason has to win one game or be eliminated.

That said, the system is what it is.  There is, however, a way for Milwaukee to avoid the risk of a “one and done”:  win the National League Central outright.  The team has one game left with the Cubs – tonight.  If it wins, it will be only one game behind Chicago, with each team having about 15 games to play; I’ll personally like its chances of winning the Division.  If it loses, Chicago’s three-game lead in the Division – while anything can happen in baseball – will be formidable.  Chicago has already won a World Championship with primarily the same cast as it has now.

So what will it be for the Brewers?  In a phrase that all sports fans have heard countless times (which doesn’t make it less true):  If they want to Be the Best, they have to Beat the Best …

Postscript to Taking a Knee

Around Memorial Day, I did a post on “Taking a Knee,” relating to NFL players’ demonstrations during the national anthem, and it engendered as much response – pro and con, from people on both sides for whom I have the highest regard — as any note I’ve entered thus far. 

With so much in our nation and the Catholic Church worthy of discussion, I enter this now only because of an op-ed published yesterday on NBC News by former NFL player Nate Boyer, a six-year Army veteran and Green Beret with tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Perhaps all but me are already aware of this, but Colin Kaepernick’s decision to take a knee during the national anthem as his manner for protesting police brutality toward African-American males arose as a result of a discussion with Mr. Boyer.  Apparently, the first week that Mr. Kaepernick staged his protest, he had sat on the bench during the national anthem, and Mr. Boyer had taken him to task for his apparent disrespect for the nation and our service men and women.  Messrs. Kaepernick and Boyer had their discussion not long thereafter.  I found this quote attributed to Mr. Boyer, in which he described the players’ exchange after he understood what Mr. Kaepernick was actually intending to protest by his gesture: 

“I expressed to him, maybe there’s a different way of demonstrating, where you’re showing more respect for those who laid down their lives for what that flag and anthem stand for.  I suggested kneeling, because people kneel to pray; we’ll kneel in front of a fallen brother’s grave.”

Mr. Boyer makes clear that he disagrees with what Mr. Kaepernick did, but supports Mr. Kaepernick’s right to do it.  A link to his recent op-ed is posted below.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/colin-kaepernick-national-anthem-america-how-military-service-influenced-my-ncna906956

Link to Senior Administration Official’s Anonymous NYT Op-Ed

It is likely that everyone that has an interest has already read the anonymous op-ed piece published today in the New York Times authored by a senior political appointee of the Administration (i.e., an official that cannot be labeled a part of the President’s fantasized “deep state”).  Nonetheless, this was worth posting in the event that there is anyone having an interest that wishes to access it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html