First, the hearing in which the Judge’s temperament is criticized was one where he was fighting for his very life and that of his family. He was not deciding a legal issue. If he had been a judge in this case he would have recused himself. But he himself was on trial – a very public and very unfair trial in which he was essentially being asked to prove his own innocence. Yet, in asserting that innocence strongly and firmly he is now told he is guilty of bad temperament. Essentially, this is a catch-22 in which one is guilty if they say they are innocent.
Secondly, throughout his years on the DC Circuit the Judge has exhibited fairness and judicial temperament of the highest quality in every case that he has decided. In the first hearing on his nomination, when his qualifications and not his alleged high school antics, were the subject, there was no issue of his temperament, no allegation that he did not have proper judicial temperament. Indeed, there has been no question of his temperament until he was placed in the untenable position, following weeks of a politically motivated smear campaign, of proving that he is innocent of unsubstantiated accusations. Even then, the temperament issue did not arise until it was clear from both the testimony of the accusers and further investigation that the allegations would not destroy Kavanaugh as intended.
Third, the attacks on his temperament generally refer to his “performance” and argue that this is not how one should react in the face of such allegations. How should one act? That question cannot be answered because we all will act differently in the face of such attacks. Yet, we are holding the Judge to some sort of standard that is certainly not clear, at least to me: When one is charged with something that he claims is false, and is faced with more biased questioning from those who participated in the smear campaign, is he supposed to simply sit back and take more, or is he not entitled to feel the very personal wounds of the political assassination attempt and stand up for his own innocence? Apparently, in the eyes of his opposition, that personal defense from their attacks is enough to disqualify him. This was a personal attack on the judge and his life; it had nothing to do with his judicial temperament. He was angry; I suspect most everyone would be angry in this or similar situation. Did he not have a right to defend himself without being condemned for doing so?
Fourth, we demand that this man act in some one specific way or we will continue to destroy him, but throughout these weeks of smear campaign we have been told that women act in all sorts of ways when they make accusations and we are supposed to accept that without question and bend over backwards to accommodate their behavior, whatever it is. This certainly sets up two very different standards for two different identity groups.
The attacks on Judge Kavanaugh’s temperament are just one more weapon that the Democrats are using in their attempt to keep this highly qualified jurist from the bench. It is one more red herring, designed to distract us from the actual qualifications of this fine jurist. One should be entitled to defend oneself, to assert one’s own innocence without that defense being used to find new guilt. No one should be distracted by the opposition’s latest red herring.
No comments:
Post a Comment