Kavanaugh Proved Himself Unfit for The Supreme Court or Any Court

Between traveling to Charlottesville for an alumni committee meeting yesterday morning and then a Hampton Arts fundraiser gala last evening, I never had an opportunity to post.  I did listen to non-stop political coverage while driving to Charlottesville Friday evening and then returning to Hampton. The conclusion I reached even before we find out what the farcical one week FBI "investigation" reveals is that Brett Kavanaugh is unfit for a position on the Supreme Court or, in my view, any court.   First, I truly suspect that he is guilty of the allegations against him.  Second, he's already lied repeatedly in testimony before the Senate - and not just about sexual assault allegations.  Perhaps most disturbing, during his hearing on Thursday afternoon, Kavanaugh confirmed that he utterly lacks the temperament and disposition and lack of bias so needed by judges on the bench.  Had a woman, gay or minority nominee acted as petulant and aggressive during what is basically a job interview - which, therefore, involves NO issue of due process - they would have been immediately deem unqualified.  Sadly, that same standard doesn't apply to spoiled, rich white males in the eyes of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.  A column in the Washington Post looks at all of these failings of Kavanaugh.  Here are excerpts: 

The unprecedented Supreme Court confirmation process for Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh has surfaced three problems (at least).

The question of whether he sexually assaulted women in high school and college is the main event, and the FBI is now investigating, according to The Post, Deborah Ramirez’s claim that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a party at Yale University when he was allegedly drunk.
The second is genuine concern as to whether he was telling the truth and the whole truth under oath — with regard to his acquaintances, sexual innuendos in his yearbook and, most of all, his drinking. These are small matters, his defenders insist; but, whether big or small, his slippery responses have spawned a cottage industry in ferreting out them all. I have no doubt some enterprising attorney will document and then submit an account to the Bar, to the new Democratic majority (if they win a majority in at least one house and look ready to pursue impeachment) and even to the FBI.
However, here I want to focus on what may be the most significant issue — whether Kavanaugh’s “big reveal” that he is an angry partisan who thinks Democrats conspired to get him — now disqualifies him to sit on any court, let alone the Supreme Court.
The “politicization” of the court, as many call it, didn’t start with Kavanaugh. . . . . the GOP became a right-wing, radical party that eschewed long-held principles such as truth, humility, decorum and respect. Republicans radicalized, and with no filibuster to sift out the political operatives from the judges, we get Kavanaugh’s nomination.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but should not Kavanaugh recuse himself from every case involving a left-leaning group that is part of the conspiracy he decried?
As he yelled at Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, it was not hard to imagine that he would be less than evenhanded if they were a party in litigation. “With his unprecedented attacks on Democrats and liberals, Kavanaugh must now likely broadly recuse himself from matters including those groups,” says ethics guru Norman Eisen. “It may wipe out a substantial portion of his docket should he be confirmed. We have a rule of thumb in government ethics: When recusals are so broad that the nominee can’t do his job, then maybe he shouldn’t be confirmed to the position. It is time to consider that question here.”
“[T]here is a very strong argument that Kavanaugh’s intemperate screed attacking liberal groups and spinning conspiracy theories when he testified on Thursday afternoon now requires him to recuse in any case where such groups appear before the Court of Appeals on which he sits.” Tribe continues, “For him to remain on a three-judge panel that sits in judgment on any legal claim affecting such a group would obviously create at least the appearance of a conflict of interest and probably an actual conflict.”
In other words, we would be expecting a fierce partisan to recuse himself (for excessive partisanship), so the high court wouldn’t appear to be simply a political machine. That’s a poor bet, and even if Kavanaugh recused himself from some cases, each and every Supreme Court decision would come with an asterisk. The Supreme Court’s legitimacy, already fraying, would be decimated. The more than half of the country that didn’t vote for Donald Trump understandably would think the court’s 5-to-4 decisions stemmed from political bias.
In 2006, when Kavanaugh was up for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the American Bar Association became concerned that he was unduly rigid and impervious to persuasion. That prompted the ABA to reduce his rating from “well qualified” to “qualified.” . . . had Kavanaugh had a scene like the one we saw Thursday the ABA would have rated him “unqualified.” It should reexamine its rating based on new evidence.
Putting a judge on the Supreme Court who expressed hatred and resentment toward a wide swath of the Democratic Party would shred whatever is left of the court’s intellectual integrity.
It’s inconceivable someone so biased, someone who vowed revenge (“What goes around, comes around,” he shouted), could be elevated to the Supreme Court.

Biased and bigoted judges discredit and undermine the legitimacy of the courts.  Worse yet, they harm litigants when they ignore the facts and constitutional principles in favor of their own prejudices.  A host of litigants would have no chance of justice if Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Court.  If the man had honor and decency, he would withdraw his nomination. Of course, he will not since he has no honor or decency.