For Judge Kavanaugh, It Must Be V For Victory

Judge Brett Kavanaugh is taking fire for those of us who still believe in the institutions, rules, and norms of America’s constitutional order. If Kavanaugh’s nomination fails, then we enter the process of interminable regime decay. Not that we haven’t traversed far in that regard, but certain political moments leave an indelible mark. Those opposing Kavanaugh claim that they too are fighting for the Constitution, but it’s the Constitution whose only guiding principle is egalitarianism in the stifling mode, an equality that strips away every vestige of liberty, along with the rights, protections, and procedures necessary to secure that liberty. To achieve that equality the utmost exercise of power and subterfuge are justified. Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee demonstrate no concern about the truth of the charges of sexual assault leveled by Christine Blasey Ford against Judge Kavanaugh. For that matter, they have shown no restraint on their arguments in support of Ford’s accusations. The Democrats are luring us into a spiral downward flight into nihilism: Truth doesn’t matter.

The logic of the Democrats’ position, should it prevail, compels them to believe the rape accusations against Bill Clinton, and that means they have protected a rapist for decades. That stain doesn’t come out. It also compels them to disqualify any future nominee of theirs against whom such an accusation is made—and if this is the standard for automatic disqualification, such an accusation will most certainly be made. We will be in a civil war. Will it be cold or hot?

Statesmen must always be aware of development and decay within the political orders they are charged with leading and conserving. Decay is a deep corruption of the regime, a condition that is nearly impossible to rejuvenate politically, morally, spiritually. Corruption, Hadley Arkes argues in his early book The Philosopher and the City, manifests itself in a political regime when public authority is transmuted into the device for securing the private wills of the rulers. More deeply, the authoritarian regime is characterized by rulers who do not give reasons to justify the laws they bind their subjects with. They just do it.

Progressive loyalty to the law comes through its ability to effectuate the power interests of group rights. Members of the progressive legal and political class reply that these are public principles, not private ones. But the essence of public rule is that its policies can be rationally debated. Surely, a first requirement in the assertion of an interest is that it be open to deliberation, to “dry political argument.” Instead, we are told that to interrogate the persons making these accusations against Kavanaugh is to seemingly deny that the person making them has public validity. There can be no public argument, only acceptance and submission to the Accusation itself.

This constitutional trial we are in builds on the Leftist machinations that have been practiced for some time now on our campuses and across corporate America. Both institutions have become willing and faithful communicants in the new progressive faith. We have been taught, and made to fear, the accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, and phobias of the limitless identities daily added to the list. Who among us does not self-censor, afraid of incurring the wrath of various authority types with official titles, staffs, and wings of office space? Diversity departments, HR reps, OCR officers on campus, these officials have been commissioned to re-educate us in the endless demands of identity, equality, gender, race, and diversity. They have also been given the keys to bind and loose punishment on their charges without much questioning or accountability.

Kavanaugh is battered and twisting in the wind. Have we already grown accustomed to smaller spectacles occurring in our own institutions? We’re unable to recognize the moment we’re in. Rest assured, the Kavanaugh spectacle means that those who instilled the kangaroo courts and their officers on campus where the accused don’t get to mount a defense, and the mandatory diversity seminars in our places of business where dissent is not permitted, are now attempting to change all of our institutions from the inside out. The classical liberal order is rotting.

What should be an object lesson here is how Judge Kavanaugh, an eminently qualified and moderate conservative jurist, has been hit by opponents from the beginning of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings to fill the open seat on the Court. Consider the first day of the hearings. Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa was interrupted by Senate Democrats, who also spoke over one another, for a combined total of 76 times. Protestors and intruders were so flagrant and uncontrollable in their opposition to Kavanaugh that his daughters were escorted from the room at one point. The goal was to delegitimize the hearings, the process, and the procedures that enable the Senate to fulfill its constitutional role of providing advice and consent for judges nominated by the President for appointment to the Federal courts.

Christine Brasley Ford’s accusations, and the capricious manner in which they have been handled by California Senator Dianne Feinstein, were really the capstone to the entire process that Kavanaugh has been forced to endure. For what? They must protect the decades of progressive constitutional jurisprudence that permits them reconciliation with a constitutional order they are deeply ambivalent about. For that defense, they aren’t giving reasons, justifications, and arguments grounded in the Constitution. They can’t. We are in a contest of wills. How better to understand Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York stating that “One credible sexual assault claim should have been too many to get a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court and make decisions that will affect millions of women’s lives for generations.” Apparently, the need for evidence, cross-examination, analysis, and debate among the accuser and the accused and senators from both parties are not a part of the process of determining whether an accusation is “credible”. The will of the progressive shall not be impeded in its quest for cosmic justice, or more precisely, another generation of abortion on demand.

This is the environment that Ford and her handlers walked into and have exploited rather well. She has made demands on the Judiciary Committee as if it were her own club: An FBI investigation must be opened forthwith or Senate Republicans are protecting an abuser; she must not be questioned by counsel but only the Committee Republican members; she must testify after Kavanaugh; and she must testify offline in a small committee room. If Republicans cave to her demands, then they have told us what they think of their own club and its rules and procedures for, again, fulfilling their constitutional duty.

Ford has already managed to secure delay in her testimony from Monday of this week to Thursday. This permitted another loose and unsubstantiated allegation to be thrown at Kavanaugh by a former Yale classmate, Deborah Ramirez, who alleges that he exposed himself to her during a drinking game. Only she couldn’t exactly remember that it was he until after 6 days of recovering her memory (with Democrat lawyers?) and consulting with other classmates who were in the room or maybe heard of the incident, you know, hearsay style. Even the New York Times refrained from running her story. What’s next?

In all of this is there any sense that the rule of law and the constellation of classical liberal norms that undergird it matter? What does matter?

Kavanaugh’s defeat could spell the end of the Republican Party as many of its most faithful voters conclude that it is weak, impotent, and unable to achieve victory here. One of the party’s pillars has been the possibility of carving back decades of progressive judicial activism. That moment is now. If it slips through the grasp of the Senate’s Republicans, then their party may not recover. Would it deserve to?

What is not in doubt is the nature of the Left and that capitulation only fills their leaders with greater excitement and ambition. They desire a total monopoly on our political, civic, and private institutions in order to reshape them in their image. We must understand what Whittaker Chambers observed in 1952 after his successful war waged against Alger Hiss, the Soviet agent, who had worked in senior levels of government service. Chambers knew that he had ignited the intensity and the madness of the opposition because he hit “the forces of that revolution … at the point of its struggle for power.”  Communism ended, but the formative nature of the Left rooted in absolute quests for justice has not. We cannot shy from the Left or be reluctant to defend what is still good in our country. We either defend our free institutions or they will become something else.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on September 25, 2018 at 19:45:01 pm


Excellent! Spot-on!
And now excuse me for some intemperance.

First, I get the impression that college / university campuses resemble something out of Jan Myrdahl's "Report from a Chinese Village' where one must tow the party line and self-censor.

Comes news today that there are EIGHT Republican Senators "undecided" re: Kavanaugh.
Each and every one of them are LITTLE CHICKENSHITS with the brain of The Tinam and the Heart of the Cowardly Lion while that execrable Chuck Schumer pulls their strings behind the curatin.
Not a one of them has the BALLS to stand up to their "handlers", who are studying every angle and devising survival strategies for these F'ing QUISLINGS.

Comes also news today that the idiot female Senator from Alask, Lisa Murkowski thinks "there must be investigations of the Ramirez allegations because "Kavanaugh confirmation not about qualifications, but about believing victims". This is what we are presented with by a US Senator who owes nominal allegiance to the GOP.

Does ANYONE wonder why The Trumpster was elected to the Presidency when for decades the GOP Country Club SET has steadfastly refused to stand up for that which they campaigned on, to honor the shitty little promises (read: lies) that they offered to the electorate and instead buckles under, indeed, unbuckles their trousers and bends over and invites the Democrat _ Media ( a redundancy, of course) to have their way with them.
At least, The Trumpster, albeit in less than elegant fashion, responds and stand FIRM.
Quite simply THAT is all that the remaining right thinking people of this nation want as they have grown tired of submission in the *Chinese Village" that politics has become.

And no apologies for my intemperance. Frankly, it IS what IS needed.

read full comment
Image of gabe
on September 25, 2018 at 19:46:10 pm

That should read : "Brain of The Tinman" - not Tinam.

read full comment
Image of gabe
on September 25, 2018 at 21:29:20 pm

Not to be picky, but wasn't it the Scarecrow that was lacking a brain and the Tinman a heart (the Lion was missing courage, as are the Republicans).

Otherwise, BRAVO!!!! (to both you and the writer)

Let's see if the R's can summon the backbone to push this through. I have my doubts.

read full comment
Image of Richard Werther
Richard Werther
on September 26, 2018 at 07:54:56 am

Richard Reinsch wrote:

"In all of this is there any sense that the rule of law and the constellation of classical liberal norms that undergird it matter? What does matter?"

If I'm not mistaken, for any honest originalist, the "rule of law" is rooted in the natural-law principle of promoting the well-being of our fellow humans (per Cicero -- the love of our fellow men is an essential component of justice, the "mistress and queen" of all the virtues). I don't think that this element of the Founders' jurisprudence is present in classical liberalism.

Regarding Kavanaugh in particular, it seems to me that the Republicans are at fault for covering up the voluminous record of his deeds as an apparatchik for the Bush administration.

Is transparency in public evaluation of the record of a judicial nominee (especially of a nominee who has been publicly accused of lying to the Senate in a previous confirmation hearing) NOT essential to the rule of law?

read full comment
Image of John Schmeeckle
John Schmeeckle
on September 26, 2018 at 09:48:16 am

The author's second comment is this: "Not that we haven’t traversed far in that regard, but certain political moments leave an indelible mark." He then goes on to write much more (about political/partisan Right-vs-Left, which I don't care about), but let me just address THAT point.

I would argue that the American Judicial System (in the large, but especially the Federal) has long passed the point-of-no-return. That is, it suborns Judicial Misconduct of the most blatant/worst sort, specifically by abridging Rules of Court (esp. Motion-to-Dismiss and Summary-Judgment) at will. It's a good-ole-boys&girls network, with no throttle (such as IG for the Judiciary, a ballsy Executive/Legislative, whatever).

And I have PROOF: See the case & SmokingGun at http://judicialmisconduct.us/CaseStudies/WETvIBM#smokinggun. You-all who are lawyers must see immediately the Obstruction of Justice occurring there (constitutional-level, refusal of right-to-be-heard). If any of you can prove otherwise, feel free to speak up. But no thoughtless knee-jerk reactions, please, I've heard enough of that already.

read full comment
Image of Walt Tuvell
Walt Tuvell
on September 26, 2018 at 10:25:15 am

Democrats are not guided by egalitarianism. They are about acquiring and retaining power. Thus, they won't feel compelled to disqualify any SC nominee if a sexual accusation is made.

read full comment
Image of Windswept House
Windswept House
on September 26, 2018 at 12:36:09 pm

This is spot-on in its understanding of the progressive Left's goals and motivations.

read full comment
Image of QET
on September 26, 2018 at 16:36:44 pm

The tactics of the left are not new, but in this instance they have reached a despicable, disgusting, dirty low that for which no words exist to describe how low Democrats have gone and are willing to go. Reagan was called an idiot and a war monger certain to start WW III and failing to understand anything about the economy, diplomacy and normal conduct--and a racist to boot. GWB was equally seen as stupid, racist, uninformed and a danger to the entire nation; there was talk of his impeachment as there is now of impeaching Trump. McCain was put forth by the opposition as both a war monger and senile, or almost so, while Romney was accused of animal cruelty, killing employees by denying them health insurance, tax evasion, anti-feminism and general ignorance of world affairs. The media, then and now, has been happy to support these characterizations. Accusations of sexual misconduct is now seen as a cudgel for which there is no defense, and with Republicans long painted as misogynist cavemen, a view again propped up by the media, the power of those accusations are far greater when aimed at them, at least when it occurs without evidence. It is frustrating but it is what the world has become. A large portion of women, perhaps a majority, are now supposedly ready to believe accusations the flimsiest accusations of sexual misconduct, as are many men. This means that a significant bloc of voters are literally prepared to suspend all rules of evidence and allow character assassination, or worse, in order to achieve political goals. A good portion of these voters have either been indoctrinated. Another portion are probably too stupid or ignorant to view evidence, or the lack of it, objectively. We are in a dangerous place where the only thing we can do is recognize that we are where we are and fight tooth and nail to defend against living what will become a real or de facto dictatorship where no one will be safe and freedom of thought and expression will be crushed.

read full comment
Image of Peter Miller
Peter Miller
on September 26, 2018 at 18:09:34 pm

I thought I was a solid Democrat. I'm not now. Their hypocrisy is as disgusting as has been Tepublicans in this last year. I'm a woman of the same generation as Kavanaugh. Even if part of what these women claim is true , and I think there are a lot of memory issues here, if anything happened, it was probably confusing. If it was not rape, then it belongs in the category of who knows? I can well believe that there were compromising moments in every teen's life but that's life , that's growing up. We move on.

read full comment
Image of Mo
on September 26, 2018 at 18:17:53 pm

If we don't nominate Kavanaugh, " We will be in a civil war."

Oh no! I guess we had better get these women to shut up and get him confirmed, pronto! If we don't do it soon, there will be an investigation and we don't want that! That would lead to civil war!!!

read full comment
Image of Nobody Important
Nobody Important
on September 26, 2018 at 18:55:06 pm

'@ Peter Miller: You write that " a significant bloc of voters are literally prepared to suspend all rules of evidence." I have no problem with that -- both Republican and Democratic voters can be manipulated by slick advertising campaigns, which is why there is so much money in politics.

But in this particular case there seems to be a special issue of HIDING the evidence -- the record of Kavanaugh's record as part of the Bush White House staff. Perhaps Judicial Watch has an opinion on that? I think that this has led to a sense of "something is rotten around here" which feeds the Democrats' cauldron of (carefully timed?) smear stories. (Um, see my first point above.)

I'd like to suggest that underneath the question of the growing list of "flimsy" allegations of sexual misconduct is the more general (and serious) question of Kavanaugh's moral fitness to serve on the Supreme Court. Please understand that I am not leveling any charge against Kavanaugh, but I do think that assessing moral character is a fundamental element of the Senate's constitutional role in deciding whether to confirm a judicial nomination.

read full comment
Image of John Schmeeckle
John Schmeeckle
on September 26, 2018 at 20:12:40 pm

Actually, everything is George W. Bush's fault. We know this because the Smartest President Ever told us so every chance he got. ;)

This no holds barred fight is the result of the "living Document" theory of jurisprudence on the left. I call it the Humpty Dumpty school of law.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

If the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution based on how it was understood when it was ratified, who was on the Supreme Court wouldn't be worth sliming people like Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas or Brett Kavanaugh. But, as we found out in Obergfell, what the people ratified in the 14th Amendment doesn't make any difference. In 1868, homosexual acts were illegal in every state, but, no matter, the 14th Amendment mandates same sex marriage. The court could have said the full faith and credit clause says that any marriage legally performed in one state must be recognized in all states, but they took the Humpty Dumpty approach instead. That's why we're now talking about baseless allegations of events that are alleged to have happened 36 years ago. Supreme Court decisions are like NFL games. On any given day, the Supreme Court could go 5 to 4 either way.

read full comment
Image of Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
on September 26, 2018 at 21:37:49 pm

The burden of proof for Kavanaugh's allegers - now 4 independent & corroborated withnesses AND the K&J self declarations in the YEARBOOK - is:

NOT more than 91% or Beyond REASONABLE DOUBT (note: even then not ALL doubt) required only for CRIMINAL conviction in CRIMINAL court,

and NOT more then 71% or LIKELY one would suceed t full hearing, required only for preliminary injunctions.


With the current list of witnesses & the YEARBOOK we ALREADY have more than 91%+ certainty ALREADY, much more than the required 51%+ MORE LIKELY THAN NOT certainty test.

"Presumption of innosence" people are talking completely UNEDUCATED, complettely WRONG NONSENSE! Know what you are talking about.

read full comment
Image of Jac Wright
Jac Wright
on September 26, 2018 at 21:54:21 pm

In light of the stories that have been oozing into the news, is it out of bounds for a Senator to ask if he has or has ever been a habitual cocaine user?

read full comment
Image of John Schmeeckle
John Schmeeckle
on September 26, 2018 at 22:38:48 pm

Over the past 100 plus years the Left has gotten ,directly or indirectly,all 10 Planks to the Communist Manifesto (albeit in modified form) woven into the American Fabric. The Income Tax,Inheritance Tax,Central Banking,control of the economy,public education the welfare state, etc.,etc. This could not have been accomplished without the aiding and abetting of the Federal Judiciary. When a potential candidate for a seat on the Supreme Court, who believes in the Founders original intent,comes on the scene the Left will fight tooth and nail to keep him or her off of that seat. Look what happened to Bork and Thomas when they were considered for a seat. To the Left any threat to the Leviathan State or to the Federal Government gravy train must be destroyed by any means necessary. Fair or foul,that individual must be kept off of the court. This is now what is happening to Judge Kavanaugh. The situation is very similar to the Duke lacrosse team controversy several years ago when an over zealous prosecutor,a mob of race hustlers and a compliant Media destroyed the lives of several young men. Its amazing how history repeats itself.

read full comment
Image of libertarian jerry
libertarian jerry
on September 26, 2018 at 22:47:59 pm

Ok. Let me try this again. I posted a comment before with an invalid email address. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that the invalid email was the reason you did not post my comment.

So, if we do not confirm Kavanaugh as Supreme Court Justice, "We will be in a civil war."

Oh no! I guess we had better get these women to shut up so we can quickly confirm his nomination, then. Otherwise, there might be an investigation, and we can't have that! Confirm him, pronto before more women come forward!!

read full comment
Image of Ghroth Bot
Ghroth Bot
on September 26, 2018 at 23:21:29 pm

Hey, good point!
I will use the fact of Kavanaugh's cocaine addiction in my next news conference along with my latest discovery that he practiced a rather "literal" form of animal husbandry.

This serial brutaliser must be stopped!

Michael Avanetti

read full comment
Image of Guttenburgs Press and Brewery
Guttenburgs Press and Brewery
on September 26, 2018 at 23:46:25 pm

Excellent piece. Nails it.

read full comment
Image of David Frisk
David Frisk
on September 27, 2018 at 09:00:53 am

Apparently Jac does not understand the meaning of "corroborated". The mere repetition of 'hearsay" is NOT corroboration.

Also, Jac should learn how to spell before accusing others of being "uneducated."

One also wonders from where Jac has derived his "percentages" of proof.

read full comment
Image of Guttenburgs Press and Brewery
Guttenburgs Press and Brewery
on September 27, 2018 at 10:06:55 am

Gee, I guess you have not heard that TWO OTHER MEN have now admitted that THEY WERE THE ONES that assaulted the eidetic Ms Ford.

Yes, indeed, let us have an investigation into Ms Ford, Mr Avanetti and Ms Feinstein - who knows we may find another Chinese spy is behind this just as he was behind the wheel of the Dunce Senator from California.

My goodness, how large must be the ring in the noses of these Democrats that the media may so readily lead them by the nose. I would also suspect that the nose ring would adversely affect ones' ability to smell BULLSHIT when it is right in front of them.

read full comment
Image of Guttenburgs Press and Brewery
Guttenburgs Press and Brewery
on October 07, 2020 at 06:27:12 am

[…] and ask, “how could civility be applied to this situation?” Consider the Senate’s character assassination of now Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Activists and Senators trumped up charges that this respectable man […]

on October 07, 2020 at 07:34:44 am

[…] politics and ask, “how could civility be applied to this situation?” Consider the Senate’s character assassination of now Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Activists and Senators trumped up charges that this respectable man […]

on October 17, 2020 at 12:10:15 pm

[…] politics and ask, “how could civility be applied to this situation?” Consider the Senate’s character assassination of now Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Activists and Senators trumped up costs that this respectable man […]

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.