First, he was “Bork”. Then he was “Thomas”. Now, apparently, he is “Spicoli”.
The first line of attack was also the most nonsensical. Brett Kavanaugh never approached a Bork-level of intellectual output, and his testimony about past rulings (which now seems like 70 years ago) was vanilla and moderate. No chest-thumping about Roe, no prying his gun from his dead, cold fingers…just a Bush 43-level conservative judge.
Turning him into a white Clarence Thomas was, in retrospect, a predictable next move. Expect this tactic every time from the party that enabled the Weinsteins and the Clintons, The Democrats doth protest too much, methinks.
Having failed spectacularly to prove that he committed sexual assault (and thank God no actual victims will ever have to rely on the likes of Sheldon Whitehouse or Mazie Hirono to bring their case), we are now hanging on for further clarification on yearbook slang, short tempers, ice throwing and the song-stylings of UB40.
“Fast Times at Georgetown Prep”, a #MeToo Production.
I think it’s safe to say that the final vote is too close to call. But if the smear campaign against Kavanaugh were a hockey game, the Democrats would be pulling the goalie right about now.
Ironically, it was the larding-on of absurd declarations like the Swetnick-Avenatti traveling road show that brought down the case. You didn’t have to believe the judge to disbelieve Ms. Swetnick—the idea that someone would serially-attend gang-rape parties, be raped at one, and keep this secret for decades (and no one else ever told either) is insane.
I won’t go into the further evidence discrediting Julie Swetnick, except to say that it’s sad. The Deborah Ramirez allegations from a breathy magazine piece are even worse…for her.
Remember, though, that the people carrying Swetnick’s and Ramirez’ stories forward were doing so to buttress Dr. Ford’s story. They were in support, or corroboration, of it. Yet they were worse than hers, from a fact standpoint.
Two legal experts on our show this past week said no responsible attorney would bring so much as a civil case based on the holey account of Dr. Ford, and the non-fact pattern of the other two accusers.
We should not “believe women” or “believe men”. We should believe evidence.
The evidence we DO have is this: One of the most respected jurists and public servants in the c0untry has been reduced to a future “Jeopardy” answer, so befouled by innuendo that he has to withdraw from coaching youth sports in his neighborhood and teaching law students at Harvard.
Rich Lowry writing in National Review makes a thought-provoking point: many of us studied “To Kill a Mockingbird” (book and movie, starring Gregory Peck) in high school. Perhaps young Brett Kavanaugh did as well. Peck’s country lawyer Atticus Finch, Lowry writes, “did not #BelieveAllWomen…he defended an accused rapist vigorously and unremittingly…he did it despite considerable social pressure to simply believe the accuser.
“To Kill a Mockingbird stands firmly for the proposition that an accusation can be false…that it is admirable and brave to withstand the crowd—at times in the story, literally the lynch mob—when it wants to cast aside the normal protections of justice.”
So, my question: do we ban “Mockingbird” or make senators read it?