I began after Kavanaugh was appointed with the knowledge that I would fight this appointment, but that anyone who was appointed in his place would be just as bad. But when I learned more about him, especially his part in the Clinton investigation and Starr report, the Florida recount, the worst aspects of W’s presidency in the early years, as well as his position in the case of the immigrant teenager being kept from getting a court-approved abortion and a couple of other decisions and dissents, I had more serious concerns about this particular candidate, and felt that another Federalist Society choice might indeed be better. The Supreme Court is no place for a political hack.
Then watching the first round of hearings, I thought that a fundamental dishonesty was at the heart of his character. His weaseley wordiness and inability to answer a straight question with a straight answer (or even simply to say he would not answer the question) were at first annoying, then frustrating, then infuriating. He went into those hearings with the intent to obfuscate, and that’s what he did. After all, it’s what he taught judicial nominees under President Bush to do, so that the courts could be filled with ideologues. That’s why it was such a joy to see Kamala Harris redirect him and then move on when he still wouldn’t answer her. He faced her with a smugness and challenge that she simply ignored.
That’s why I went into the second round of hearings (besides all my personal issues about sexual assault, which have kept me and so many other women awake since hearing Dr. Ford’s testimony) ready not to believe him. But after being torn apart by the first part of the hearing, and with growing admiration for Dr. Ford, I was shocked by the rage that took over the room in the second half. Chuck Grassley hadn’t opened his mouth during the first half without sounding angry, but Kavanaugh’s statement made the rage palpable, and the Republican men on the committee merely amplified it. I could picture that man assaulting a woman. It also showed him for what he is — a political hack with a sense of entitlement and smugness that makes me want to wipe the smile off his face. His answers to Democratic questions were so loose and inappropriate enough at times that I wondered if he was quite sober — a dry drunk, perhaps?
Decades ago, in my social psychology class, we learned that after a debate, the audience is most influenced by the last argument if they have to make a decision soon afterwards, but that if there is more time, the first argument is most remembered. In this case, however, the amplification of the media and I think also the political machinery that turned the story into a conspiracy against an innocent man, virtually silencing Dr. Ford’s devastating testimony — the men (and I will add Susan Collins to the list) bowed to the necessity to condemn sexual assault while erasing the victim. Where in 1991, the verdict on Anita Hill was that she was making it all up, in 2018 they had to admit that Dr. Ford had been traumatized, but insisted that her memories were wrong. The result was the same.
In my efforts to convince my senator, Jeff Flake, to vote against confirmation (which I didn’t really think was possible), I had eventually exhausted all the personal stories and political arguments I could muster, and was left with one: the appointment of this man would tarnish the reputation of the Supreme Court and detract from its stature and the trust people have in it and our system of justice. Justice John Paul Stevens, who admires Kavanaugh’s learning and jurisprudence, withdrew his support after seeing his testimony, which he said showed a partisanship and lack of self-control that should not be on the Court. Lisa Murkowski essentially said the same thing in her speech announcing her refusal to vote for confirmation. If you haven’t watched that speech, it’s worth watching.
In the end, justice was on trial here, and justice lost.