Kavanaugh hearings still offer a warning one year later
Just over a year ago, the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings got under way. They dropped a bomb on American social psychology and created a tectonic divide. And as a book published this week suggests, their controversies were the result of a politically motivated hit campaign.
I have to admit that when President Trump picked Brett Kavanaugh to fill Anthony Kennedy’s seat on the high court, I wasn’t doing cartwheels. My choice was Amy Coney Barrett, the Notre Dame law professor and federal judge who in 2017 had been accused of letting Catholic dogma “live loudly” in her. The way she handled that incredibly offensive line of questioning from California Senator Dianne Feinstein was a reflection of how she’d deal with people who think conservative female judges can’t separate their personal ideology from their constitutional obligations.
But if I couldn’t have Amy, Brett was a good substitute. As I watched the process unfold over a few weeks, my tepid support became rabid advocacy. I wrote articles in support of Kavanaugh’s nomination. I championed him on the radio. I wrote social post after social post arguing in favor of his confirmation. I did everything but try and unseat one of our senators so I could cast a “yea” vote on his behalf.
It wasn’t because I became convinced overnight that Brett Kavanaugh was the finest person to be nominated to the Supreme Court since the late, great Antonin Scalia. It was because of my profound belief that if his nomination was derailed by what I saw as the #MeToo witch hunt and by allegations from Christine Blasey Ford — who struck me as confused, manipulated, and wholly out of her element — the concept of due process would become a sorry charade.
As part of that charade, two women confronted Arizona Senator Jeff Flake in an elevator to demand that he vote against Kavanaugh’s confirmation. As a woman, I couldn’t bear to see these hysterical theatrics become the modus operandi of my gender.
I did not want the hashtag #BelieveHer, used to show solidarity with Blasey Ford, to justify claims about orgies, rape, and youthful bacchanals without further supporting evidence. As a woman who believes in the strength and resilience of my sisters, I did not want hazy allegations of incidents that might have occurred decades ago — two other women followed Blasey Ford in alleging acts of sexual misconduct dating back to the ’80s — to derail the nomination of a highly qualified judge. I did not want any of this because it would mean that society had yielded to the pressures of some very loud women with an agenda.
That agenda is outlined by the National Law Journal’s Ryan Lovelace in his book “Search and Destroy: Inside the Campaign Against Brett Kavanaugh,” which was published Sept. 3. According to Lovelace, the women who orchestrated the attack on the nominee were motivated by a desire to undermine his ability to overturn Roe v. Wade. While they might have legitimately been concerned about sexual assault and harassment, Lovelace argues that their primary goal was to taint a pro-life judge, the fifth Catholic who would sit on the bench if confirmed. According to Lovelace, “[Christine Blasey Ford’s] audience was not the Senate … but the American people. If they could be persuaded that Justice Kavanaugh was a predator, then they might not accept a future ruling by the five Republican-appointed justices altering the right to obtain an abortion established by Roe v. Wade.”
After the election of Donald Trump, progressive women knitted their hats and started marching. They harnessed the anger they felt and turned it into movements like #MeToo and #TimesUp. But the irony is that the campaign was based not on strength but rather on a sense of victimization, fear, and retribution. We saw that chillingly in the death threats GOP Senator Susan Collins of Maine received after she, a self-described pro-choice woman, voted in favor of Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
That alone obligates us to remember the Great Witch Hunt of 2018, if only to make sure it never happens again.
The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.
How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent
Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:
—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.
—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.
—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”
—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).
—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.
—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.
