Steve Frey
Will Judge Brett Kavanaugh be elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court? Senators will be grappling with this decision in the coming days. Since this is a lifetime appointment, careful deliberation is essential.
Sometimes the entire process is reminiscent of Diogenes walking through Athens in daylight with a lamp “looking for an honest man.” Diogenes never found one, but there are undoubtedly many good men and women around.
What qualities do you think a Supreme Court justice should possess? The Athenian philosopher, Socrates, said: “Four things belong to a judge: To hear courteously; to answer wisely; to consider soberly and to decide impartially.”
Let’s look at Kavanaugh’s last testimony with the Senate Judicial Committee in this light.
Kavanaugh began with his angry condemnation of the process and the Democratic senators, claiming he was a victim of a left-wing conspiracy that even included the Clintons.
This, of course, shifted the focus off of the actual reason for the follow-up hearing: his alleged drunken sexual assault of a young woman when he was in high school.
His anger during the opening statement continued into the questioning where, in the eyes of some, he was belligerent and disrespectful.
He also failed to answer many of the questions using the “filibuster” technique of repeating the same talking points instead of answering the actual question asked, wasting a lot of the questioner’s allotted five minutes.
For example, when asked about excessive drinking/blacking out, he repeatedly talked about attending Yale, working hard, being captain of the basketball team, etc. He did not listen courteously or answer wisely, many would claim.
Another example of this behavior was to sarcastically throw back a question to a woman senator instead of answering; he later apologized for being disrespectful. “Consider soberly” (no double entendre intended) did not appear to be employed by Kavanaugh at times during the hearing.
Let’s look at “decide impartially.” Mark Twain once said, “Judges have the Constitution for their guidance; they have no right to any politics save the politics of rigid right and justice when they are sitting in judgment upon the great matters that come before them.”
In Kavanaugh’s opening statement, he indicated a possible bias by condemning various groups as mentioned earlier such as the Clintons and Democrats and by alleging that their bitterness over the 2016 election loss for president was a motivator for the hearing.
Will he be able to decide cases impartially based on the extended tirade about his self-declared political persecutors?
It could be argued that Kavanaugh does not meet Socrates’ qualities for a good judge—hearing courteously, answering wisely, considering soberly and deciding impartially.
Yes, this is one viewpoint, and others would claim his indignation was totally righteous based on his denial of being involved in assaulting the young lady(ies) and his belief in the conspiracy theory.
They would applaud his anger, disrespect to the senators and the process, and his refusal to give straight answers based on the way he felt he had been treated.
There is that discrepancy between the accounts told by Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.
Ford came across as credible in her statements to many people, but other witnesses Ford said were there could not recall the incident. Is it possible that the boys were extremely drunk (as asserted by Ford), which diminished their recollection?
On the other hand, Ford’s experience as a victim of sexual assault left a searing emotional scar on her.
Perhaps the FBI investigation will illuminate events, but it is equally possible that no new leads will appear.
If new information or clarification do not come to light, including from the account by Kavanaugh’s fellow Yale student Deborah Ramirez (it is unclear if Julie Swetnick’s claims will be investigated), one is left to consider his behavior in the hearing (courteous, sober, wise, impartial?), the credibility of his accusers’ accounts of events and his statements.
According to reports, about a dozen classmates (before the FBI investigation) said Kavanaugh was untruthful to the committee about his level of drinking.
He also lied (was mistaken?) about the official drinking age in Maryland when he was in high school. Other reports assert he was not truthful in his testimony about sexual/other references in his yearbook. Will lying under oath be a contributing factor with senators?
Many Democratic senators have already said that they felt his positions on various issues were extreme and should remove Kavanaugh from consideration. Now, all senators will have to weigh the additional information that has surfaced.
Only 111 justices have served on the United States Supreme Court. Does Kavanaugh rise to the level of a John Marshall, Earl Warren, Hugo Black, Oliver Wendell Holmes, William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall or Louis Brandeis?
Does he have the temperament, honesty, character and credibility needed for this lifetime appointment?
Senators will have to determine whether Kavanaugh should decide cases that will affect Americans for decades to come. Is he the best person in America for this position?
Diogenes could not find one honest man, but it would seem possible to find the next great Supreme Court justice from among the many excellent men and women jurists in our country.
Maybe they should look at the chief justice with the court on which Kavanaugh currently serves—Merrick Garland.
Now, that would be ironic, wouldn’t it?
Steve Frey is a writer and CEO of Ascendant Educational Services based in Radford.
