Kavanaugh’s Conduct At the Hearings Is More Than Sufficient Reason to Reject Him

Here’s a little of the ol’ Both Sides Do It worthy of Ron Fournier himself:

We’ve been through this before, but the Republican Party line Glenn is repeating here has no factual foundation whatsoever. There is no reason not to take Feinstein’s stated reasons for not immediately releasing Blasey Ford’s letter at face value. This is just an excuse Republicans are using not to take her charges seriously. But don’t take my word for it: listen to her own testimony!

And it’s worth noting that this is even hackier than it seems on its face. The initial criticism was an implication that Feinstein sat on the information because she wanted her fellow neoliberal confirmed or something. But now, the criticism is apparently that Feinstein sat on it because she’s a Machiavellian partisan brawler intent on denying Kavanaugh the due process of law. Both are false but they certainly can’t both be true. Rarely has the fact that virtually all of Glenn’s writing about American politics these days begins with the premise that the Democrat Party is the foremost evil in the world and proceeds accordingly been more transparent.

Amusing as it is to document Glenn turning into Mark Halperin for the anti-anti Trump set, though, the real issue I have here is with yet another invocation of an unspecified “process” that is “due” powerful wealthy white men not involved in criminal proceedings but facing credible accusations of sexual assault. In this case, the question is easy; the “process” that Kavanaugh is “due” is “nothing.” A promotion to a higher-level Article III judgeship is a privilege, not a vested right. The advise and consent power is entirely unbounded. Merrick Garland, nominated for exactly the same promotion, had his nomination die on the vine without a hearing. A senator can vote against a federal judicial nominee for ideological reasons or because they don’t like his haircut or for no reason at all.

But let’s assume that the phrase here has some colloquial meaning like “senators should have good reasons for voting against a Supreme Court nominee for personal fitness reasons, even if this is not legally required and is also no longer an established norm.” Here’s the thing: Kavanaugh’s conduct on Thursday renders the question of what burden of proof should be applied before the alleged sexual assault can be disqualifying moot. His comprehensive dishonesty and evasiveness are, in themselves, eminently good reason to vote no. His paranoid partisan ranting is not only perfectly good grounds for rejecting him but for impeaching him from the job he has now.

But let’s leave the phrase “due process” out if it — it reflects Kavanaugh’s own entitlement all too well. He doesn’t have a right to this job. He has to show he’s worthy of it. He’s not.