It is a sad fact that the New York Times’s transparent, widely reported efforts to disingenuously conjure up a new attack on the character of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was overshadowed by its instant embrace and calls for his impeachment by most of the Democrats seeking the Democratic party nomination in 2020. Imagine, the whole story was based upon the alleged sexual victimization of a particular young lady as described in a soon to be released book. But the Times account left out the fundamental fact – included in the book – that the alleged victim has no recollection whatsoever of the event. And to boot, even the book does not cite any direct eyewitness accounts.
Perhaps, had the candidates taken the time to carefully consider the matter they would have realized the omission and its consequences. But that is a large part of the problem. They didn’t. They just pounced, blinded by an opportunity to further their goal of delegitimizing and unseating Kavanaugh.
Surely this bespeaks a troubling lack of judgment. Moreover, despite the revelations of undeniable journalistic legerdemain, not one of the candidates retracted their impeachment calls.
Of course, these Democratic candidates are always at the ready to cast aspersions on those they fear will tamper with Roe v. Wade. Indeed, the current attack on Kavanaugh is but a continuation of the efforts they mounted during his confirmation hearings last year to deny a seat on the Court to someone they believed would reverse Roe. And therein lies an important tale.
The Democratic Party has never accepted the results of the last presidential election and has adopted a near total rejection of anything associated with President Trump. As we have noted, this has even gotten to be variously referred to in the media as “the resistance” or “Trump derangement syndrome.”
To be sure there are serious policy differences between most Democratic elected officials and President Trump. But that is the point. In our constitutional democracy, elections are supposed to determine who we want to make affairs of state decisions for us. In the case of making appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court, that would be the president, albeit with the consent of the U.S. Senate.
For better or for worse, Kavanaugh went through the constitutional process and there must be finality. While there is most certainly an impeachment procedure, this cannot be allowed to be invoked based merely on policy grounds. The only recourse for a truly loyal opposition is to resort to the next electoral cycle.
Otherwise presumptive legitimacy goes out the window and the system cannot function.
