Jesuit Review: The Kavanaugh Nomination Must Be Withdrawn

Brett Kavanaugh attended Georgetown Prep - a school run by the Jesuit order of the Roman Catholic Church.  Not surprisingly, initially America, the official review of the Jesuit order in America - endorsed Kavanaugh's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Like the Catholic Church leadership the Jesuits want judges and justices who will give deference to - indeed, in my view, special rights - to adherents of discriminatory, ignorance embracing religious traditions.  Now, the editorial board of America has rescinded its endorsement of Kavanaugh and that "for the good of the country" Kavanaugh's nomination should be withdrawn.  I agree with the call for the nomination to be withdrawn not only because I believe that Kavanaugh has lied to Congress, is likely guilty of assault as alleged, and demonstrated by his behavior of Friday that he is utterly unfit temperamentally to sit on the nation's highest court.  A piece in the New York Times looks at the stunning reversal here.  Here are excerpts from America's call for Kavanaugh to withdraw his nomination:

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today clearly demonstrated both the seriousness of her allegation of assault by Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh and the stakes of this question for the whole country. Judge Kavanaugh denied the accusation and emphasized in his testimony that the opposition of Democratic senators to his nomination and their consequent willingness to attack him was established long before Dr. Blasey’s allegation was known.

Evaluating the credibility of these competing accounts is a question about which people of good will can and do disagree. The editors of this review have no special insight into who is telling the truth. If Dr. Blasey’s allegation is true, the assault and Judge Kavanaugh’s denial of it mean that he should not be seated on the U.S. Supreme Court. But even if the credibility of the allegation has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt and even if further investigation is warranted to determine its validity or clear Judge Kavanaugh’s name, we recognize that this nomination is no longer in the best interests of the country. While we previously endorsed the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh on the basis of his legal credentials and his reputation as a committed textualist, it is now clear that the nomination should be withdrawn.

[T]he question is not solely about Judge Kavanaugh’s responsibility, nor is it any longer primarily about his qualifications. Rather it is about the prudence of his nomination and potential confirmation. In addition to being a fight over policy issues, which it already was, his nomination has also become a referendum on how to address allegations of sexual assault.

When Republican leaders in the Senate refused even to hold hearings on the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland, they were not objecting to his qualifications or character but to the likely outcome of his vote on the court were he to be confirmed. When Senate Democrats were mostly united in opposition to Judge Kavanaugh well in advance of any hearings (and before any rumor of Dr. Blasey’s accusation was known), they were using the same calculus. While regrettable in both cases, such results are, as we have said before, the predictable outcome of the fact that “fundamental questions of social policy are increasingly referred to the court for adjudication as constitutional issues.”

What is different this time is that this nomination battle is no longer purely about predicting the likely outcome of Judge Kavanaugh’s vote on the court. It now involves the symbolic meaning of his nomination and confirmation in the #MeToo era. The hearings and the committee’s deliberations are now also a bellwether of the way the country treats women when their reports of harassment, assault and abuse threaten to derail the careers of powerful men.

Dr. Blasey's accusations have neither been fully investigated nor been proven to a legal standard, but neither have they been conclusively disproved or shown to be less than credible. Judge Kavanaugh continues to enjoy a legal presumption of innocence, but the standard for a nominee to the Supreme Court is far higher; there is no presumption of confirmability. The best of the bad resolutions available in this dilemma is for Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to be withdrawn.

If Senate Republicans proceed with his nomination, they will be prioritizing policy aims over a woman’s report of an assault. Were he to be confirmed without this allegation being firmly disproved, it would hang over his future decisions on the Supreme Court for decades and further divide the country.

For the good of the country and the future credibility of the Supreme Court in a world that is finally learning to take reports of harassment, assault and abuse seriously, it is time to find a nominee whose confirmation will not repudiate that lesson.

Sanders Endorses Hillary in LA Times Op-Ed

In a lengthy Los Angeles Times op-ed, Bernie Sanders made the case for his supporters to rally to and vote for Hillary Clinton.  While Sanders does not explicitly say this, staying home or voting for a Libertarian Candidate or Green Party candidate is a de facto vote for Donald Trump, a man whose policies, if elected, would be the antithesis of what Sanders has fought for - not to mention the Gospel message that Republicans claim to worship.  Hopefully, Sanders still disgruntled supporters will listen to Sanders and mobilize to make sure that Trump and the GOP go down to a crushing defeat in November.  Here are op-ed highlights:

Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee and I will vigorously support her.

Donald Trump would be a disaster and an embarrassment for our country if he were elected president. His campaign is not based on anything of substance — improving the economy, our education system, healthcare or the environment. It is based on bigotry. He is attempting to win this election by fomenting hatred against Mexicans and Muslims. He has crudely insulted women. And as a leader of the “birther movement,” he tried to undermine the legitimacy of our first African American president. That is not just my point of view. That’s the perspective of a number of conservative Republicans.

In these difficult times, we need a president who will bring our nation together, not someone who will divide us by race or religion, not someone who lacks an understanding of what our Constitution is about. 

On virtually every major issue facing this country and the needs of working families, Clinton’s positions are far superior to Trump’s. Our campaigns worked together to produce the most progressive platform in the history of American politics. Trump’s campaign wrote one of the most reactionary documents.

Clinton understands that Citizens United has undermined our democracy. She will nominate justices who are prepared to overturn that Supreme Court decision, which made it possible for billionaires to buy elections. Her court appointees also would protect a woman’s right to choose, workers’ rights, the rights of the LGBT community, the needs of minorities and immigrants and the government’s ability to protect the environment. 

Trump, on the other hand, has made it clear that his Supreme Court appointees would preserve the court’s right-wing majority.

Clinton understands that in a competitive global economy we need the best-educated workforce in the world. She and I worked together on a proposal that will revolutionize higher education in America. It will guarantee that the children of any family in this country with an annual income of $125,000 a year or less – 83% of our population – will be able to go to a public college or university tuition free. This proposal also substantially reduces student debt. 

Clinton understands that at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, it is absurd to provide huge tax breaks to the very rich. 

Trump, on the other hand, wants billionaire families like his to enjoy hundreds of billions of dollars in new tax breaks.

Clinton understands that climate change is real, is caused by human activity and is one of the great environmental crises facing our planet. She knows that we must transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and move aggressively to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. 

Trump, on the other hand, like most Republicans, rejects science and the conclusions of almost all major researchers in the field.

Clinton understands that this country must move toward universal healthcare. She wants to see that all Americans have the right to choose a public option in their healthcare exchange, that anyone 55 or older should be able to opt in to Medicare, and that we must greatly improve primary healthcare through a major expansion of community health centers. She also wants to lower the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs. 

And what is Donald Trump’s position on healthcare? He wants to abolish the Affordable Care Act, throw 20 million people off the health insurance they currently have and cut Medicaid for lower-income Americans.

I understand that many of my supporters are disappointed by the final results of the nominating process, but being despondent and inactive is not going to improve anything. Going forward and continuing the struggle is what matters. And, in that struggle, the most immediate task we face is to defeat Donald Trump.

Cruz Booed as He Refuses to Endorse Trump

I will be the first to admit that I hold no love for Ted Cruz.  I find the man to be slimy, a liar, an extremist and dangerous among other things.  But tonight Cruz showed that he has some shred of conscience and conviction - unlike all the Republicans who have prostituted themselves to Donald Trump - when he refused to endorse Trump at Trump's own coronation convention.   As a result, Cruz got booed from the stage, but before that happened he made the case that Republicans need to vote their conscience in November.  Obviously, Cruz hopes that Trump crashes and burns and that the 2020 nomination will be his for the taking. But in another sense, perhaps Cruz recognizes just how large a danger Trump poses to the nation.  Politico and CBS News among others have coverage.  Here are highlights from Politico:

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz got booed off the stage Wednesday.

The Texas firebrand delivered a prime-time address at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland and urged Republicans to vote their conscience in November, prompting disapproval from the thousands of Republicans on the floor of the convention.
“To those listening, please, don’t stay home in November,” Cruz said, a plea that suggested he was about to endorse Republican nominee Donald Trump. But he didn’t.

“If you love our country and love your children as much as I know that you do, stand and speak and vote your conscience,” Cruz said. “Vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.” “Heidi and I are so honored to join you here in Cleveland, where LeBron James just led an incredible comeback victory. And I am convinced America is going to come back, too,” Cruz said at the outset of his remarks. He spoke for more than 20 minutes before he was booed off the stage.

[F]ellow conservatives in recent days had increased pressure on the Texas senator to fall in line behind Trump. After it became clear Cruz would not be endorsing the GOP nominee, the crowd in the Quicken Loans Arena broke out in chants of “we want Trump,” to which Cruz replied, “I appreciate the enthusiasm of the New York delegation.” The audience proceeded to break out in overwhelming boos. As Cruz concluded his speech, cameras cut to Trump arriving in the arena, giving the crowd a thumbs up.

As much as I loath him, have to say kudos to Cruz.  Had more of the GOP establishment held by their principles rather than expediency or putting winning elections ahead of all else,  the GOP would not be the insane cesspool that it is today.

Washington Blade Un-endorses Hillary Clinton

Personally, I thought that the Blade was foolish to endorse Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama in the first place. Now the Blade is basically un-endorsing Hillary and telling her to get out of the race in an editorial titled "Hillary, the time has come." Would that the Blade had given her that counsel some time back. In any event, the editorial holds no punches and says what very much needs to be said. Hopefully, the chorus of calls for Hillary to withdaw will continue to swell and she will bow out graciously. Here are highlights of the Blade's call on Hillary to quit the race:

*

Last night's results in the North Carolina and Indiana primaries have left Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton out of options. She ran a tough and spirited campaign that will be talked about for a generation. But it’s over. The time has come for Clinton to adopt a gracious and conciliatory tone, end her campaign and endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president.

*
Tuesday night was, indeed, a game changer. Clinton suffered a drubbing in North Carolina — a “big” state, in her terminology — and barely squeaked out a win in Indiana. She needed a convincing win there and a strong finish in the Tar Heel state to convince voters and, more importantly, donors that she still had a chance to win over the dwindling number of uncommitted superdelegates.

*

Unfortunately, all the talk of experience and competence was belied by a campaign rife with incompetence. From Bill Clinton’s ruinous (and arguably racist) campaign swing through South Carolina, to an obvious failure to craft a strategy past Super Tuesday, her campaign staff made so many miscalculations that Hillary went from a coronation to a shocking defeat.

*
And her behavior during the recent and infamous ABC News debate was over the line. . . . . In sharp contrast to Clinton’s transparent, over-the-top pandering (downing shots with the locals and touting a phony love of guns), Obama has managed to stay above the fray, even during the darkest moments of the Wright saga. He could have gone sharply negative in the run-up to North Carolina and Indiana, as some advised him to do. Instead, he stuck to his own metaphorical guns and rose above the faux controversies and petty attacks. Even in victory Tuesday night, Obama praised Clinton and promised that his supporters would back her if she emerged as the party nominee.

*

But she didn’t emerge victorious and the time has come for her supporters, gay and straight, to embrace Obama’s campaign for the White House. The stakes are too high to allow primary race disappointments to demoralize Democratic voters. And the stakes for gay voters are higher. . . . A McCain presidency would set back the cause of gay rights by a generation. A 50-year-old justice could serve 30 years or more on the high court. With same-sex marriage continuing to roil legislatures and courts across the country, it’s only a matter of time before the Supreme Court will be asked to weigh in on recognition of same-sex relationships.

*

But with the Supreme Court in the balance, no gay voter should pull the lever for McCain in November. . . . . Hillary Clinton’s gay supporters should take a day to mourn her defeat and then join Obama’s cause. She’s resilient and will bounce back, probably as Senate majority leader, a job much more in line with her skills than that of president. And Obama should continue to reach out to Hillary’s disaffected supporters and work to unite the party. It’s time for Hillary’s gay donors and volunteers to look past short-term disappointments and consider the long-term impact of a McCain administration. It’s a scary thought that renders all other considerations moot.

Gay Democrats Flex Some Muscle

Perhaps the LGBT citizens of Virginia are about to start flexing some muscle instead of blindly endorsing incumbents. I live in a different district, so I cannot directly support Henry Light. Excerpts of the story are set out below. The full story is found in the Washington Blade (http://www.washingtonblade.com/2007/5-18/news/localnews/10605.cfm.)

Va. gay group backs challenger in Assembly race Gay Incumbent Joannou has frequently sided with GOP, frustrating some.

By ELIZABETH PERRY Friday, May 18, 2007

For the first time in its 15-year history, the Virginia Partisans Gay & Lesbian Democratic Club has come out against a Democratic incumbent in a General Assembly race and endorsed his rival in the primary, which is scheduled for June 5. Last week, the gay group announced its endorsements for 24 incumbent Virginia legislators for the fall races.

John Joannou (D-Portsmouth) has represented the 79th District, which includes parts of Chesapeake, Norfolk, Suffolk and Portsmouth, since 1998. His challenger is Henry Light, a retired attorney who has been active in various civic, charitable and professional organizations in the South Hampton Roads area.

Light has attracted the attention of former Gov. Mark Warner, who is expected to endorse him at a fund-raising breakfast in Portsmouth Saturday.

Both candidates were contacted by the Blade for interviews, but Joannou did not respond. He also did not respond to the Partisan’s candidate questionnaire on gay issues. Light filled out the questionnaire and talked to the Blade. In his questionnaire answers and in an interview with the Blade, Light said he believes in equality, tolerance and a “level playing field” for everyone.

“I have always sought to be totally inclusive in all of my personal and professional relationships,” he said. “I strongly believe that everyone is entitled to the pursuit of happiness and that no one has the right to deny that freedom to anyone. Laws aimed at punishing people for their sexual orientation are gross violations of the rights of those individuals.”