Democrats' Kavanaugh Obsession Costing Them Dearly

After a grueling and vicious battle, Judge Kavanaugh has rightfully been confirmed to the Supreme Court.  Despite the fact that Kavanaugh is exceptionally qualified and possesses the perfect temperament to sit on our nation's highest court, Democrats cry foul and make various arguments about why Kavanaugh should not be on the bench.  While some Democrats believe that their conduct is helping their party, their calls for impeachment and their illogical arguments appear partisan in nature and could be hurting their credibility with the voters.

Despite Kavanaugh's lawful confirmation, the drumbeats (regarding impeachment) are still being heard from those on the left.  For example, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) indicated that the option of impeaching Kavanaugh should not be ruled out and supported further investigation.  "If there is conclusory evidence that shows unequivocally that he lied to a Senate committee, that is a crime and he should be held accountable for those criminal acts."

Perhaps Mr. Booker and other Democrats calling for Kavanaugh's impeachment need to review the record, which includes seven FBI investigations, over thirty hours of testimony, individual meetings with senators, and a hearing involving Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford.  While Democrats supported a one-week delay for the FBI to investigate the allegations against Kavanaugh, they were dreadfully unhappy with the results: no evidence that Kavanaugh committed any wrongdoing.  Simply stated, it appears that Democrats are grasping at straws to find an impeachable offense.

Given the absence of an impeachable offense, Democrats added another argument to their repertoire.  According to former attorney general Eric Holder, Kavanaugh's addition to the Supreme Court calls into doubt the legitimacy of the Supreme Court:

"With the confirmation of Kavanaugh and the process which led to it, (and the treatment of Merrick Garland), the legitimacy of the Supreme Court can justifiably be questioned. The Court must now prove – through its work – that it is worthy of the nation's trust," Holder tweeted, referring to former President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee whose confirmation process was blocked by Republicans in 2016.

Senator Dianne Feinstein echoed Holder's remarks, stating that confirming Kavanaugh "in the face of credible allegations of sexual assault that were not thoroughly investigated, and his belligerent, partisan performance in last Thursday's hearing undermines the legitimacy of the Supreme Court."

Feinstein's argument is wrong for several reasons.

First, Kavanaugh underwent seven FBI investigations, the last of which was conducted roughly one week ago.  None of these investigations produced any evidence of wrongdoing (the allegations were uncorroborated).  Second, Kavanaugh was not belligerent and partisan.  Rather, Kavanaugh fervently defended his innocence and welcomed whatever additional steps the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended.  In addition, he was rightfullyupset and angered due to the uncorroborated and false allegations that were launched against him and his family by Senate Democrats.  Feinstein's conclusion that Kavanaugh's confirmation undermined the legitimacy of the Supreme Court appears to be an indictment of Judge Kavanaugh based on politics and desperation.

Some media outlets also joined in this farce.  For example, according to an article in Newsweek, Kavanaugh is now the "fourth out of nine justices nominated by a president who did not initially win the popular vote."  In other words, if a president fails to win the "popular" vote, then any of his nominees to the Supreme Court, by association, is illegitimate because the majority of people don't support him.

This argument is illogical for two reasons.  Fist, pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, the president of the United States alone is empowered to nominate Supreme Court justices, and the U.S. Senate is required to confirm those nominations.  There is no mention of the popular vote, nor is it relevant to the legitimacy of the nominees to the Supreme Court.  Second, just because a president does not win the popular vote, that does not mean that the majority of people will oppose the candidate he nominates for the Supreme Court.  This argument lacks merit, as the two issues are separate and distinct.

In addition to the Democrats' impeachment and illegitimacy arguments, CNN legal analyst Areva Martin opined last week that Kavanaugh should recuse himself from cases involving civil rights, such as gerrymandering.  "Those cases are often brought by political parties, they're brought by Democrats, so if Judge Kavanaugh believes that this allegation brought by Dr. Ford was somehow orchestrated or engineered by Democratic operatives, how can he be unbiased in a gerrymandering case that's brought by a Democratic party?"  "His name on the court will always have an asterisk."

It appears that Ms. Martin believes that recusal is necessary due to Kavanaugh's alleged bias against Democrats.  However, a review of Kavanaugh's record reflects a jurist who issues rulings based on the law and not based on party or politics.  As one example, "recently nominated Circuit Judge for the D.C. Court of Appeals, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, once voted in favor of President Trump's least favorite 'news' organization, CNN."

It is time to accept the reality that Justice Kavanaugh was properly and fairly nominated, and confirmed, to the Supreme Court.  The arguments by some on the left are illogical or devoid of any factual support or corroboration.  By consistently making such arguments, Democrats could well be hurting themselves with moderate and centrist voters and, ultimately, helping Republicans as the midterms inch closer.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/democrats_kavanaugh_obsession_costing_them_dearly.html