Forget Brett Kavanaugh’s hyper-partisan demeanor. Forget his lust for the most sensational details about the Clinton-Lewinski encounter. Forget the thousands of pages of his writings that were hidden by the White House and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Forget his rude and dismissive behavior toward Fred Guttenberg , the father of a Parkland shooting victim. Forget his tearful and angry tirade attacking sexual assault victims, Democrats and his wild accusation of an unproven conspiracy.
All of that is more than enough reason to deny his lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.
More alarming are the multiple lies he told while under oath before the Judiciary Committee – any one of which represents a felony. For example, he clearly lied when asked if he had received stolen documents in 2002 from the staff of Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He lied during a 2004 confirmation hearing about his involvement with another judicial candidate who called Roe v. Wade “the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history.” He lied during a 2006 confirmation hearing when asked if he had knowledge of the NSA warrantless wiretapping program. And he again lied about his knowledge during the most recent confirmation hearings. He lied about participating in discussions about the Bush-era detainee program. He also lied about his involvement with the controversial Charles Pickering who reduced the sentence of a man who burned a cross in front of an inter-racial couple’s home.
During the most recent confirmation hearings, he lied when saying that he had no help getting into Yale (he was a legacy student as a result of his grandfather’s prior attendance). And he obviously lied when asked about the notations in his high school yearbook; about the definition of Ralphing; about claiming to be a Renate alumnus; about the definition of Devil’s Triangle; about Boofing.
There is little doubt that he knew that Ralphing referred to vomiting when drunk; that Boofing referred to anal sex or the ingestion of alcoholic beverages through the rectum; that Devil’s Triangle referred to two males simultaneously having sex with a single female; that by stating he was a Renate alumnus he was claiming to have had sex with a young woman named Renate. He also lied when he said that he only drank after reaching the age of 18, the legal drinking age in Maryland. (At the time, the legal drinking age in Maryland was 21.)
Even more preposterous is his claim that he never drank in excess – in high school or at Yale – a claim that has since been exposed as a lie by two of his Yale roommates. Others who were at Yale at the time have also stated that Kavanaugh was a frequent drunk. And at least one has stated that Kavanaugh often became vulgar, belligerent and violent when drunk.
While I am no one to criticize teenage drinking and drinking to excess. I drank a lot when I was home from college during the summers. I also said some highly controversial things that I now regret. But I would not lie about my actions, not even in a job interview. But Kavanaugh did. He could not allow himself to appear human. A fact that became crystal clear when he turned his back on Fred Guttenberg’s outreached hand.
Given his inability to tell the truth and to admit that he was no angel as a school boy, as a college student or as a Republican operative, how are we to believe that he is telling the truth when he claims his innocence in the face of accusations of sexual assaults? The clear answer is that we can’t. We don’t need to wait for an FBI investigation to know that he is unsuited to be a Supreme Court justice.
Seriously, is this the kind of person we want to be given a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land? A person of questionable character? A spoiled brat who abused his wealth and position? A man who all too closely resembles the lying pussygrabber who nominated him?
Of course, those who are opposed to abortion will continue to support him in the hope that he will be the deciding vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. But what about all of the other cases that reach the Supreme Court? What about the appearance of fairness? What about the integrity of the court itself? We ask Supreme Court justices to be impartial, to seek the truth, and to weigh cases solely on the facts. If we can’t trust Kavanaugh to tell the truth about his past, why on Earth would we allow him to sit in judgment of others?