What we've lost sight of in the Kavanaugh mess

Rich Lowry in Politico and Bret Stephens in the New York Times have penned pieces defending Brett Kavanaugh. Lowry's piece takes issue with the portrayal of Kavanaugh as a liar — but specifically and only about Kavanaugh's purported lies about his alcohol abuse as a young man and about his controversial remarks in his high-school yearbook. Stephens takes on the "bullying" by liberals, focusing heavily on the devastating effects an attempted-rape allegation can have on a man's reputation. Both pundits portray Kavanaugh's accusers and their accusations — and whatever testimony they have been permitted to give — as not credible.

Stephens' outrage prompts him to wonder:

Will a full-bore investigation of adolescent behavior now become a standard part of the “job interview” for all senior office holders? I’m for it — provided we can start with your adolescent behavior, as it relates to your next job.

Without ever saying so, Stephens accuses everyone who opposes Kavanaugh of bad faith. That's essentially the same argument every Kavanaugh supporter has made since Lindsey Graham went on his querulous rant last Thursday. The accusations have no shred of supporting evidence, the witnesses are inconsistent, the accusers are inconsistent, etc., etc.

In all this, the body politic has lost sight of a couple of things.

First, in attempting to defend himself, Kavanaugh went on his own querulous tirade last Thursday. In doing so he manifested a volatile, angry temperament I wouldn't want in a DMV clerk, much less a man who wants to be on the Supreme Court. He also ranted about the accusations of sexual assault against him being a political hit by the left and went so far as to accuse supporters of Bill Clinton of being behind the accusations. How could anyone who isn't manifestly conservative or right-wing possibly expect a fair hearing from a man with such unabashedly partisan bias?

This is something that Kavanaugh himself has had to address in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece today. I haven't read it but it's worth noting that his most partisan remarks were contained in his written statement, prepared prior to the hearing. He didn't blurt out anything spontaneously. He planned his worst remarks!

Second, we seem to have forgotten that Kavanaugh was nominated by Don Trumpone because of the judge's fringe belief that the president of the United States must not be compelled to respond to lawsuits or other judicial proceedings while in office. Kavanaugh is ready to defend our domestic Dear Leader by shielding him from any subpoenas, including but not limited to any that Robert Mueller might serve. Again, this is a fringe view that Kavanaugh has never disavowed, and he shows no discomfort about having been nominated for the Court precisely because he holds this fringe view. He has demonstrated full willingness to be Don Trumpone's lap dog on the Court, having not just met with the president nominating him (every nominee does that, of course) but having huddled in the Oval Office to strategize his confirmation.

Neither Lowry nor Stephens goes within a hundred miles of either of these fundamentally disqualifying points. Both of them know they have no answers to these weighty objections. So both of them, like every other Kavanaugh supporter, is hoping we won't remember them.

None of this is to suggest that we shouldn't perform a real investigation of the sexual-assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh himself would benefit if the allegations can be disproved.

However, whether the allegations can be proved is irrelevant to his fitness to serve on the Court. He has already demonstrated that he is not fit.

His supporters are crossing their fingers that we in the body politic have lost sight of why.