The Last Angry Man

The Democrats seem to have given up on arguing that Christine Ford’s ever-changing account is actually true. Instead, they focus on the claim that Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s righteous indignation at being smeared reveals an injudicious temperament. This argument strikes me as too ridiculous to require refutation, but others have undertaken the task. A commenter at Ann Althouse’s site neatly sums up the evolution of the Democrats’ attacks on Kavanaugh:

It’s not a bug, it’s a feature! Basically this entire process has been designed from the get go as a Kafkaesque trap:

1) Hey, there are some terrible accusations and if you don’t withdraw, they are going to come out and it’s going to be embarrassing for you and your family. You should withdraw.

2) Okay, you deny the accusations and aren’t withdrawing? Well we’re going to draw this out so that all the crazies can come out of the woodwork and accuse you of being a closet horrific criminal. Don’t make us have a hearing – you don’t want that.

3) Okay, you’re going to cause us to have a hearing? We’re going to make sure the salaciousness of every accusation is stretched out in loving detail on TV.

4) Oh, this makes you angry? Well that’s clearly a sign that you lack the temperament to be on the court.

5) You point out how partisan this has been? Clearly you’re not going to be a fair umpire on the court. We, who were never going to vote for your confirmation anyway, are shocked that any potential justice would consider these obviously partisan attacks as partisan.

6) Does this process make you angry bro? Well, by the way you’re acting, it’s possible to see that this has damaged your mind and you’re probably no longer fit to be on the court.

7) Oh, you got confirmed anyway? Nearly half the country is going to think of you as a rapist for the rest of your life. It’ll be mentioned in every biography ever written about you and will be one of the only thing that anyone remembers about you in the future.

I cannot wait to see who wants to go through this process in the future. And boy, howdy, I cannot wait for the next time a Democratic president tries to get someone confirmed. It’s gonna be lit!

#MeToo!

Paul Mirengoff, who I think is still in Greece, addresses the Democrats’ argument in a characteristically rational manner, via email:

The Democrats and many in the media are now arguing that Kavanaugh should not be confirmed because he is so angry at Dems and feminists that he won’t be able to rule impartially on a host of matters. Ben Wittes made this case in a column for the Atlantic.

A few points about Wittes’ main argument. First, this isn’t the first time the Dems have screwed Kavanaugh. His nomination to the DC circuit was held up for several years, first by general obstruction and later because Hillary Clinton wanted revenge for Kavanaugh’s role on Ken Starr’s team.

As a judge, though, Kavanaugh has not been highly partisan. He voted not to find Obamacare unconstitutional. He called the penalty a tax, which was the same rationale Roberts later used to salvage the Act.

Second, Kavanaugh is more likely to give left wing feminists a fair shake than Ginsburg was, at the time of her nomination, to give anti left wing non feminists a fair day in court. Ginsburg had been the chief litigator for a leftist women’s “defense” outfit. And as a Justice, sure enough, she has followed feminist orthodoxy to the letter.

Similarly, Sotomayor had written about judging as a “wise Latina.” What chance would litigants opposing Latino interests have of winning her vote? Slim or none, and time has eliminated “slim.”

Third, it is so like the Democrats to defame a guy, accuse him of being a rapist based on evidence that hardly rises to the level of flimsy, and then, when the nominee reacts angrily, claim he lacks judicial temperament.

These kinds of stunts explain why I have come to regard Democrats with great contempt.

Responses

Books to read from Power Line