Torching the republic: Forcing Kavanaugh on the American people

Things are moving quickly since yesterday’s testimony by Christine Ford that Brett Kavanaugh tried to sexually assault her. Last night, a prominent Jesuit magazine rescinding its endorsement of Kavanaugh, and the American Bar Association asking the Judiciary Committee to delay the vote and request a thorough FBI background check:

Each appointment to our nation’s Highest Court (as with all others) is simply too important to rush to a vote. Deciding to proceed without conducting additional investigation would not only have a lasting impact on the Senate’s reputation, but it will also negatively affect the great trust necessary for the American people to have in the Supreme Court.

How much do Republicans care about these developments? Not one bit.

Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley is clearly having none of this. He hasn’t even addressed the Jesuit endorsement, but he has commented on the ABA’s letter by outright rejecting the ABA’s relevance. From CNN:

“The ABA is an outside organization, like any other that can send us letters and share their advice — but we’re not going to let them dictate our committee’s business,” Grassley said.

That’s not exactly the tune that Grassley was singing when the ABA deemed Kavanaugh “well qualified” to be a Supreme Court Justice. Earlier this month, Grassley was toting the ABA’s recommendation as a reason the Kavanaugh nomination should move forward:

The man is quick to promote the ABA when it suits him, and to denounce them when it doesn’t.

Will it matter that the dean of Yale Law School (Kavanaugh’s alma mater) has now joined the ABA in calling for a delay and investigation? Or that three of Kavanaugh’s law school classmates (all of whom previously endorsed Kavanaugh to the Judiciary Committee) are also calling for a delay and investigation?

Does it matter that even the White House said it would be “open” to having Deborah Ramirez, a second accuser, testify before the Judiciary Committee? Does it matter that, as The New Yorker broke this morning, the Judiciary Committee stonewalled Ramirez all week, refusing to even speak to her on the phone unless she provided “evidence” in advance of a phone conversation? From The New Yorker:

Heather Sawyer, the Democratic staffer who was copied on the e-mails in accordance with committee policy, wrote to [Republican committee staffer Mike] Davis, “As you’re aware, Ms. Ramirez’s counsel have repeatedly requested to speak with the Committee, on a bipartisan basis, to determine how to proceed. You refused. I’ve never encountered an instance where the Committee has refused even to speak with an individual or counsel. I am perplexed as to why this is happening here, except that it seems designed to ensure that the Majority can falsely claim that Ms. Ramirez and her lawyers refused to cooperate. That simply is not true.”

Davis responded, “I have not refused to speak with anyone. I am simply requesting – for the 7th time now over the last 48 hours – that Ms. Ramirez’s attorneys provide the Senate Judiciary Committee with any evidence that they have before we move to the next steps.” (Emphasis in original.)

Yeah, if you’re demanding physical evidence as a prerequisite to a phone call, that means you’re actually refusing a phone call.

None of this seems to matter at all to Grassley, or to other Republicans. All that mattered to them was persuading Senator Jeff Flake, the only undecided Republican on the Judiciary Committee, to vote for Kavanaugh. And early this morning, Flake announced that he would. The retiring Senator who once showed glimpses of courage to challenge Trump and Republicans who blindly follow him, and even made money selling a book to that effect, has exposed himself as a weakling and a coward.

From Flake’s statement this morning, offering the weakest possible defense of confirming a Supreme Court Justice in recent history:

When Dr. Ford’s allegations against Judge Kavanaugh surfaced two weeks ago, I insisted that she be allowed to testify before the committee moved to a vote. Yesterday, we heard compelling testimony from Dr. Ford, as well as a persuasive response from Judge Kavanaugh. I wish that I could express the confidence that some of my colleagues have conveyed about what either did or did not happen in the early 1980s, but I left the hearing yesterday with as much doubt as certainty.

What I do know is that our system of justice affords a presumption of innocence to the accused, absent corroborating evidence. That is what binds us to the rule of law. While some may argue that a different standard should apply regarding the Senate’s advice and consent responsibilities, I believe that the constitution’s provisions of fairness and due process apply here as well.

There are two major problems with Flake’s argument:

1. This isn’t a trial, it’s a job interview! Concepts like “presumption of innocence” and “due process” are concepts of criminal law. Kavanaugh is not under trial here, he is not owed any “due process” because he cannot be deprived of life or liberty by these proceedings or by Flake’s vote. To even argue otherwise, to admit that Flake now has “as much doubt as certainty” about whether Kavanaugh sexually assaulted at least one woman, is to assert that any Supreme Court nominee is entitled to the seat they’re nominated for by default. If this is what he believes, could Flake please explain why he never spoke out against Mitch’s 293-day denial of due process to Merrick Garland?
2. If Flake has “as much doubt as certainty” and is concerned about “corroborating evidence”, he has options other than voting today to advance Kavanaugh’s nomination. As the Judiciary Committee’s swing vote, Flake could easily call for an FBI investigation. He could have called for Kavanaugh’s other accusers to testify (such as Ramirez, or Julie Swetnick, who already provided a sworn affidavit to Congress). He could have voted this morning to subpoena Mark Judge, a potential witness to Kavanaugh’s attempted rape of Ford. Instead, he cast the deciding vote to not subpoena Judge, the motion failing 11-10.

   Flake wants the appearance of doing his job, while abdicating his responsibility as a Judiciary Committee member. Flake even admits he has “doubt” while declining to use his power, in his last remaining months as a retiring Senator, to challenge Grassley and Republicans to actually do their damn jobs. He’s openly and admittedly planning to confirm a Supreme Court Justice that he suspects might be an attempted rapist.

   Grassley should be ashamed. They should all be ashamed. But as a retiring Senator, having practically nothing to lose and positioned himself as a champion of “true conservatism” and Trump’s foil, Flake is damaging himself the most. History will remember that, when it came down to the hard decisions, he didn’t vote differently at all.