Now We Know: They Tell Us After Thursday That Judge Brett Kavanaugh Lacks the Judicial Temperament to Sit on the Supreme Court

Judge Brett Kavanaugh broke an unwritten rule Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He was not dutifully deferential to them. He talked back rather than appeasing the democrats on the Committee. Witnesses are not supposed to aggressively respond to the Congressional interlocutors. Witnesses are not supposed to upset the grandstanding bloviations of the Senators. The judge knew it wouldn’t be a reasoned discourse. Some Senators would act like bullies. He stood up to the bullies. He knew it was not a court of law. He would play to the court of public opinion. He had nothing to lose; he knew the ten Democrats on the Judiciary Committee would never vote to confirm him. He said to the Senators: “You have replaced advice and consent with search and destroy.” He called the proceedings a “national disgrace.” He showed anger. He cried. He showed defiance. He said “My family and my name have been totally and permanently destroyed by vicious and false additional allegations.” He was not going to sit back and placidly accept more of it from the Democrats. Yes, Judge Brett Kavanaugh was righteously defiant. He threw down the gauntlet: “You may defeat me in the final vote, but you will never get me to quit.” The New York Times editorialized: “Defiant fury … evidence of an unsettling temperament in a man trying to persuade the nation of a judicial demeanor.” Thus he lacked judicial composure and temperament. The New York Times labeled his presentation a “diatribe.” Rebecca Traister of the Times said Dr. Ford “trembled” while Judge Kavanaugh “bellowed.” A columnist wrote he is “an injudicious man, unfit for the Supreme Court.” Adam Liptak for the Times called his diatribe “angry and emotional, embracing the language of slashing partisanship.” Michelle Goldberg of the Times said Kavanaugh “was all snide, self-pitying fury.” The Boston Globe called him belligerent. Nothing subtle about the Boston Globe: “Make no mistake; Brett Kavanaugh’s a liar.” The Times’ Roger Cohen called him “an injudicious man, an angry brat.” Eric Thomas in Elle said he was “petulant and surly.” The judge “Gave a messy, angry performance ….” David Savage of the Los Angeles Times remarked “in tones that were by turns angry, mocking and scornful of the Democratic senators” He further opined “[H]is angry, partisan words …. also may have damaged his ability to be seen as a fair justice on the nation’s highest court.” Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of University of California Berkeley School of Law piped in “There will be damage to the court and its reputation.” CNN viewed his angry rhetoric as a divisive message. The Los Angeles Times called it “a raw combative defense.” Virginia Heffernan of the Los Angeles Times had several choice words for Judge Kavanaugh: “Kavanaugh would rob the court of its magic power” “Hurly-gurdy self-pity jamboree” “Insolent snot who snarls at members of the U.S. Senate” “Rabid far-right agent on the court” The New Yorker saw “not even a hint of the composure one would think a potential Supreme Court justice would have carefully cultivated.” The Star called him “Incensed and wounded, combative and partisan.” Nancy Pelosi called him hysterical and unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh did not question Dr. Ford’s belief, but called out the politically motivated attack by vengeful Democrats. The judge called the hearings a “circus.” He was not going to play the fool or clown (my words – not his). He knew, going into Thursday, that none of the ten Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee would ever vote to confirm him to the Supreme Court. He knew that they would do their best to politically crucify him. Senator Feinstein was stunned by his response: “Candidly, in my 25 years on this Committee, I have never seen a nominee for any position behave in that manner. She called him “angry and belligerent.” Of course, she was shocked. Appointees are supposed to be dutifully meek and mild, putting up with whatever abuse is hurled at them. The Senator had asked the judge why he wasn’t calling for an FBI investigation. He responded by saying she could have done it six weeks earlier if she had promptly released Dr. Ford’s letter rather than it being leaked at the last moment. The Senator was not used to being called out by at a Senate hearing. Judge Kavanaugh was not meek and mild. He was fighting not only for the appointment, but his honor and reputation. If we are going to talk about judicial temperament, let’s talk about the liberal’s favorite Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, affectionately referred to as RBG. Justice Ginsburg in July 2016 called Donald Trump a “fake” and couldn’t imagine what America would be like with Trump as president. A political comment of that nature is hardly showing a judicial temperament. She followed up in February 2017 by saying “We’re not experiencing the best of times.” Then we have her 2012 rejection of the United States Constitution. She told an Egyptian audience: “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012. I might look to the Constitution of South Africa.” She called our constitution “a rather old Constitution.” Our “old” Constitution is the fabric that built our great country and held it together. An update on the 100 plus page South Africa Constitution. The new South Africa government is seriously considering seizing without compensation the lands of White farmers and redistributing the lands to Blacks, thereby following the path of Zimbabwe. I’ll take Justice Kavanaugh’s judicial termperament any day over Justice Ginsburg.