Silence is said to be golden, but in today’s news it is just plain yellow (as in cowardice).
On September 4 began the confirmation hearing for President Trump’s nominee to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court. The Senate Judiciary Committee started on Tuesday to question Brett Kavanaugh about his qualifications to sit on the nation’s highest court.
And the circus began before the gavel fell. Senate Democrats, as instructed by (according to reports) Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, began a program of delay and obstruction to keep Kavanaugh off the court.
On the first day, some 63 times there were interruptions in the testimony, and 70 people were arrested for causing the disruptions. Screaming was frequent, with some of the Senators showing signs of becoming unhinged in their behavior. Wednesday saw some of the same, with Schumer trying a parliamentary maneuver to stop the proceedings. Thanks to the Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, that did not succeed.
With the hearings seeming to become nearer to a circus sideshow rather than serious business, one of the most striking features was the absolute silence from those who could have exercised a calming effect on the participants. But not a word was heard. Who are these who have simply sat back without any attempt to sooth the waters?
We begin with those who have had the power to appoint Supreme Court justices, the ex-Presidents. On both sided of the political aisle, these august figures have not called for decorum. Where are the words of guidance from Jimmy Carter? No word from Plains, Georgia, has come to make the hearings more circumspect. He, who has never shied from giving advice from his “bully pulpit”, seems content to allow the farce to continue. Would he have countenanced such obstructionism from his political opposition? Is his silence golden, or just plain yellow?
Next in line is George H. W. Bush. He, who could not bring himself to vote for his party’s nominee for President in 2016, has been known to criticize the President for his performance in office. But where is the outrage over this conduct? Can he not remember what happened to one of his nominees, Clarence Thomas? Why has he not put his prestige as the elder statesman of the Republicans on the line and called for a halt to these machinations? Does not the high office he once held come with some responsibility to advise his fellow Americans when events get out of hand?
Bill Clinton, because of his “successful” presidency, might have great influence with his fellow Democrats. He, too, nominated people to the Supreme Court, but never dreamed of the chaos that now ensues over Kavanaugh. But his voice has been strangely silent amidst the disgraceful actions of his fellow Dems.
George W. Bush, who had nothing to say publicly about the times his successor, Barack Obama, exceeded his constitutional authority as President (see the times the Supreme Court voted 9-0 against some of Obama’s executive orders), has not hesitated to criticize the performance of his fellow Republican, Donald Trump. Yet where has he raised his voice to denounce the chaos that has been visited on one of the most important exercises in American government? Does remaining silent somehow mute the excesses of the mob that is trying to keep Mr. Kavanaugh from being confirmed? I think not.
And what of the last Democratic President? Barack Obama had two nominees confirmed by the Senate to the Supreme Court, but no demonstrations and interruptions were seen when his two selections were before the Judiciary Committee. Yet have we heard from the one person who could have quieted the mob during Kavanaugh’s hearing? Not a word. For one who came into office promising to “bridge the divide” between right and left, his silence is a sign of political cowardice clothed in partisan posturing.
But we also have heard nothing from those who aspired to become the ones who would have the right to pick members of the Supreme Court. This group would include Al Gore, John Kerry, Mitt Romney, Joe Biden, and the queen herself, Hillary Clinton. In fact, a couple of these have not kept silence, but by their criticism of President Trump and his nominee, have contributed to the resistance circus that we have seen in the past week. Would these, in their dreams of being the Chief Executive, countenanced the actions of the Senators and demonstrators for one of their own selections? I think not, yet not a word of reprimand have we heard from them toward those who have acted in the most reprehensible way in the hearings. Why not? Do all these agree with the antics seen, do these seasoned politicians believe this will become the new normal for national politics?
Many of the Democratic Senators questioning Mr. Kavanaugh have used overheated rhetoric, hyperbole and exaggeration to make their points, but two, who aspire to run for the presidency in 2020 have distinguished themselves by their idiotic antics. Kamala Harris (D-LaLa Land) tried to link the judge to an inappropriate contact with the Mueller investigation, but had no evidence and had to quit her line of inquiry. But Cory Booker took the prize for the worst performance. Claiming a willingness to be a martyr for the cause, he made public a “confidential” email which he said was proof of the nominee’s perfidy. In defiance of Senate rules (“I am Spartacus”) Booker produced the “evidence”, only to have it revealed that the Republicans had already declassified it, and Booker and his staff knew about it. This grandstanding made him look like a fool, but it also brings up another question. If these two who wish to win the right to make the decisions about the Supreme Court makeup were really serious about the country’s course, how powerful would it be if they would strongly push back on the raucous atmosphere in the hearing room?
Even the now legendary hearings about Robert Bork in the 1980s and Clarence Thomas in the 1990s were mere mild disagreements compared to this spectacle. But if those who could exert some measure of tamping down the divisive, demeaning and destructive behavior would speak up, civility might just break out. It has not happened yet and probably will not, but none of those mentioned above will be included in a list of politicians who would be included in a new “Profiles in Courage”. Rather, by their silence, they are part of a new set of “Profiles in Cowardice”, earning their place by saying nothing.
A week later: Now the situation is even worse. Three women have come forward to accuse Judge Kavanaugh of some vague sexual assault, all after the process for examining his credentials for the Supreme Court had concluded. Christine Ford, a California college professor, has no corroborating details to offer and all three of the others she said were present (including her long time friend) have sworn it did not happen, while the second woman has such strong “evidence” that even The New York Times claims the entire episode doesn’t pass the smell test. The third is being put forward by a lawyer involved in legal action against the President, and all three women are Democrats, even to contributing to some Democratic campaigns. It seems that the only thread tying them together is to stop the nomination of Kavanaugh from being voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate, denying him the seat on the Court. Stopping Kavanaugh, to them, is vital to keeping Roe v. Wade from being overturned or watered down, and nothing, even lying, is beneath them to accomplish this task.
In the face of this attack on the character of the nominee, scores of women have come forward, voluntarily, to talk of Kavanaugh’s reputation and actions over the years, which have been above reproach toward women. His coworkers, clerks, classmates in high school and college have refuted the charges leveled against him.
Again, where are those “statesmen and women” in the Democratic Party decrying this perversion of justice? Where are the voices of reason who will tell these partisan hacks that enough is enough? Enough evidence of his fitness has been presented to make a decision — make it!
And, to the argument that Kavanaugh will be a doctrinaire right-wing conservative, no one knows for sure how he will vote. President Eisenhower, in his retirement years, asserted that he regretted nominated Earl Warren and William Brennan to the Supreme Court, as both strayed from what he wanted, and became activists justices. People who do not know history should stay away from making decisions based on what they think someone will do years in the future.
End this circus now.