Judgment on the Judge

 

Judicial philosophy is a key. So is whether a drunken teenage sexual assault occurred, with later false denials. But one other key disqualification has been proven to a moral certainty on national television. And Brett Kavanaugh does not belong in a courtroom.

Tinnitus has been a part of my life since early childhood. The volume has steadily increased over the years. It’s not as bad for me as it is for many. In fact, it is easy for me to tune out. I’ve had a lot of practice. During most of my day I do not even realize I am hearing the continuous high-pitched whine.

It causes no suffering but, lately, it does interfere. Even mild ambient noise makes it hard to follow soft-spoken words. Society’s conflation of very soft volume with polite sophistication leaves me out of some small-talk.

So I have trouble hearing with any clarity cross-talk shout-downs on televised debate. That applies to part of the once recorded (1968) and endlessly replayed (forever) viral battle between the late William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal.

The two were assigned to liven up ABC’s coverage of the 1968 Democratic convention, and so they did.

Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in your goddamn face, and you’ll stay plastered

Moments before that climactic exchange, Howard K. Smith asked if demonstrators could reach the limits of the First Amendment by, say, waving a Viet Cong flag.

Gore Vidal defended absolutism in free speech, and Buckley played the occasional conservative martial art, characterizing those on the left as Nazis. Buckley proposed ostracizing pro-Nazi demonstrators, ostracizing being distinct from arrest. Half a century later, ostracizing Nazi sympathizers still strikes me as a better idea than referring to them as fine people.

Very fine people, on both sides.

Buckley clearly lost it when Vidal called him a crypto-Nazi.

As far as I’m concerned, the only pro- or crypto-Nazi I can think of is yourself.

Buckley later drew some fire over the exchange. He defended himself wondering just how one should respond to being called a Nazi. A calm, reasoned response, in fact anything short of violent outrage, would have communicated a sort of validation. Mere refutation could signal that there was something worthy of normal debate.

I dunno. I read no such calibrated consideration in Buckley’s response. I think he just lost his temper.

But I did see something of that calculated fury in the ALL CAPS testimony of Brett Kavanaugh. It began to peek through after Senator Amy Klobuchar spoke about her family’s experiences with her father’s alcoholism. She wanted to know how Brett Kavanaugh would respond to reports from classmates that, as a teenager, he would frequently drink too much, that he had been a mean drunk, that he would often have no later memory of what he had done while drunk.

We have heard your college roommate say that you did drink frequently. These are in news reports. That you would sometimes be belligerent. Another classmate said it’s not credible for you to say you didn’t have memory lapses.

If Mr. Kavanaugh’s combative approach was calculated, it was a strange calculation. A combative set of answers might be convincing after being called a crypto-Nazi.

I’ll sock you in your goddamn face, and you’ll stay plastered

Anger and fury seems counterproductive when you are denying that you are a mean drunk.

So you’re saying there’s never been a case where you drank so much that you didn’t remember what happened the night before, or part of what happened.

It’s — you’re asking about, you know, blackout. I don’t know. Have you?

Could you answer the question, Judge? I just — so you — that’s not happened. Is that your answer?

Yeah, and I’m curious if you have.

I have no drinking problem, Judge.

Yeah, nor do I.

The flip belligerence degenerated into fury that he aimed at those who had posed question to him. The near out-of-control rage spilled out in now famous soliloquies. He was tearfully angry that these charges from his youth would overcome his very impressive professional resume. Is there anyone who has not seen this?

This confirmation process has become a national disgrace!

The Constitution gives the Senate an important role in the confirmation process. But you have replaced advice [sic] and consent with Search and Destroy.

His unwillingness to give clear answers to direct questions did not help his credibility.

A certain evasiveness seems par for the course in judicial nominations. Mr. Kavanaugh did carry it a little far in past weeks, when the subject was his judicial philosophy. There were three main areas of judicial philosophy for he would not answer.

He would not answer questions about past Supreme Court decisions except to say that they were either set precedent or settled law.

He would not answer questions about cases that might come before the Supreme Court because they might keep him from deciding them in an impartial manner.

He would not answer hypothetical questions.

Sir, I’m not gonna answer hypothetical questions of that sort.

So no answers on past decisions, no answers on prospective cases, no answers on hypothetical questions. That does not leave a lot.

This seemed to carry into the sexual accusations concerning his wayward youth. One recurring question was whether he would join in demanding an FBI investigation. He answered variously that it was up to the committee, that he would go along with whatever the committee wanted – very good of him – and that he had wanted to have a hearing as soon as he heard of the first accusation.

And always, the anger was part of it.

All three of these women have asked the FBI to investigate their claims. I listened carefully to what you said. Your concern is evident and clear. And if you’re very confident of your position, and you appear to be, why aren’t you also asking the FBI to investigate these claims?

Senator, I’ll do whatever the committee wants. I wanted a hearing the day after the allegation came up. I wanted to be here that day. Instead, 10 days passed where all this nonsense is coming out, you know, that I’m in gangs, I’m on boats in Rhode Island, I’m in Colorado, you know, I’m sighted all over the place. And these things are printed and run, breathlessly by cable news.

You know, I wanted a hearing the next day. I — my family’s been destroyed by this, Senator, destroyed.

And whatever the committee decides. I’m all in.

… But the question is…

Immediately. I’m all in immediately.

Other questions were dealt with similarly. He was asked whether yearbook entries accurately reflected his attitude at the time. He answered with the purpose of yearbooks and said he was a very good student, the best in his class. He was asked what, as a teenager, he would have considered drinking to excess. He answered with whatever a blood-alcohol chart would say. He was asked whether he had ever forgotten conversations because of alcohol. He answered that most kids drank in those days.

Throughout, his impatience verged on, and sometimes spilled into, white hot anger. But the evasiveness went on.

Vox.com created an easy reference chart comparing the responsiveness of accuser Professor Christine Blasey Ford with that of nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Blue areas represent direct answers to questions. Red areas show non-responsive non-answers. Readers can click on the chart and read actual testimony to illustrate the validity of the chart. Sometimes those areas show outright refusals. More often there is simple circumlocution: talking about side issues until the clock ran out.

The Christine Blasey Ford side is true blue. The Brett Kavanaugh side has some blue, and a whole lot of red. Placed together, they form quite a contrast. All the evasiveness is on the Kavanaugh side of the moral universe.

The tactic of anger puzzles me. I find only one strategic explanation:

There is an active contingent within the body politic who believe that, in any controversy truth lies near the middle. Perhaps Mr. Kavanaugh holds the notion that extreme, angry talk moves the goalposts so that the center position also moves. Maybe the laziest idea becomes easier to hold: No need to consider evidence. Truth is in the middle His wild-eyed conspiracy theories are way out there, but the accusations are probably false as well.

It doesn’t seem to have worked. Outside the rarefied atmosphere of Senate testimony, people do not seem to like what they see. Public support for the nominee has been in free-fall.

If he is innocent this has been a trial by fire. A false accusation can be a test of character, an ordeal of injustice whether in a Senate chamber or in Judge Kavanaugh’s courtroom as a defendant. His emotional dismissal of the proceeding as all this nonsense is not a model for those who stand before him accused. It is an indication of judicial temperament gone sour.

If he is guilty, if he has been lying to authorities for years, if all this has been a manipulative calculation, it is a calculation that has not served him well.

To a current accusation of lying, he demonstrates his truthfulness with evasion.

To an old allegation of assault by a teenage mean drunk, he shows his temperament with meanness bordering on madness.

In the face of respectful questioning, he shows his judgment by challenging the integrity of those asking him to answer.

In the end, if he loses this battle, we may have been saved. Perhaps from guilt or evil. Perhaps not.

But one fact is clear. Brett Kavanaugh has proven that he is too damn dumb for the job.
 

---

– More –