A generally informed person knew, going into the Senate GOP stampeding of Kavanaugh’s hearing, that “Honorable” Brett M. Kavanaugh is a staunch GOP / conservative policy advocate costumed in judicial regalia. Revealed via forceful Democratic Senators and some reporting — for me and others — over the past few days are several specific items that make a mockery of the American Bar Association’s (ABA’s) judging of Kavanaugh as “well qualified” and more than justifying an asterisk next to that honorific “Honorable”.
Here are four items, the first three on their own should be more than disqualifying for a SCOTUS appointment and the first two justify impeachment from his current position on the bench:
Not disqualifying in itself, but one (non)encounter undermines all the propaganda about ‘Brett’ as such a good guy ...
See after the fold for some discussion of these.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said Wednesday that emails being withheld by Senate Republicans show that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh may have lied under oath during his prior confirmation hearings in 2004 and 2006.
The Democrat claimed that six emails from Kavanaugh’s time in the George W. Bush White House may contradict testimony Kavanaugh gave when being confirmed for his federal judgeships.
Should a perjurer be on the Supreme Court?
Note: additional re Kavanaugh perjury.
During the Bush-Cheney Administration, the Democratic side of the Senate Judiciary committee was hit by (cyber-)crime, with significant numbers (1000s) of (including draft) documents and emails stolen. These documents were leveraged by those in the White House working the nomination process. Central to this was the (not yet and not now) “Honorable” Kavanaugh. Sticking with Senator Leahy:
This all led me to the simple question:
A simple question: should a participant in a (cyber-)criminal conspiracy be on the Supreme Court?
Since this is dealing with debunking a myth, a falsehood, it is important to start and with truth (‘to sandwich the lie):
- humanity’s impact on the climate was already being discussed and, in many ways, understood within the Federal government well before the Clean Air Act (CAA) passage and well before creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
- regulations are often about saving lives and protecting property, enabling business to function, enabling society to function — and Congressional staffs and members simply do not have the specific expertise or the resources to delve into the specifics of every single issue to draft every single regulation.
Brett Kavanaugh — as part of his embrace of and engagement of the anti-regulatory mania from the right — has expressed a simple view of the history of the Clean Air Act that is either a demonstration of mendacity (lying and deception) or total ignorance of an arena where he has already been involved in on the Judiciary.
Kavanaugh's views on the so-called "administrative state" harken back to pre-New Deal times. He does not, for instance, believe that the Environmental Protection Agency should be able to deal with climate change, because when Congress enacted the Clean Air Act, it didn't know about greenhouse gases and climate change, so it didn't specifically authorize the agency to regulate in that area.
Hold it, WTF? First on, my analogy:
But, more substantively, this is simply false. Congress DID know about greenhouse gases and this is quite well documented.
And, even more explicitly, climate implications are referenced in the legislation.
Calling out the falsehoods, screaming truth from the rooftops matters.
Thus, should someone who is either simply ignorant of key issues of arenas where he has ruled from the bench or a liar be a Supreme Court Justice.
Note: for interesting laydown of Brett’s deceit re environmental law related to a specific case that he mentioned in the hearing, see here.
Kavanaugh’s “thoughts and prayers” in action
This one is pretty simple: Fred Guttenberg went to introduce himself to Kavanaugh and Kavanaugh turned aside (and sic’d security on him). After hearing so much about how Brett is such a great guy and someone who you’d love to have as a neighbor, Brett demonstrated his true core in that one moment. Kavanaugh could have taken Guttenberg’s hand and said something like, “as a father of young girls, I cannot imagine the pain that you are going through. I am sorry for your loss.” And, then, even walked away. But, well, Brett didn’t even have “thoughts and prayers” for Guttenberg and the other victims. When given the opportunity to be decent, Kavanaugh demonstrated his fundamental indecency.
While I don’t see such indifferent indecency as disqualifying a SCOTUS appointment, it does make a lie of all the “Brett is such a great carpool dad” propaganda that has been push into this discussion.
Above don’t even scratch the surface re (dis)Honorable Kavanaugh
To be clear, the reasons why Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme Court are more serious, wide-ranging, and extensive than the points above:
- the simple truth that the person making these nominations is occupying the Oval Office due to a criminal conspiracy (multiple criminal conspiracies) and is likely guilty of treason. E.g., the very concept of the nomination having been is an outrage and is ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ from criminal acts (and thus should be disallowed).
- that the Senate ‘majority’, like the person occupying the Oval Office, represents a minority (not even plurality) of the American voters (even with voter suppression efforts and Russian interference on their behalf) and thus should not have the power to approve any judgeships without substantial Democratic Party participation;
-
The future of American fashion in Brett’s world
Kavanaugh’s horrific concept of the law, making the Koch Brothers — at times — look like paragons of virtue, would take the United States back to the 19th century on a range of issues from environment regulation, to labor law, to property rights, to government oversight, to a women’s right to control her own health decisions, to …
E.g., the four points above of the diary are not meant to take away from Kavanaugh’s fundamental threat to modernity — the first three, however, are simply disqualifying for a SCOTUS appointment and the first two are grounds for impeachment from the bench.
