Difficult as it might be, let us put the sexual misconduct allegations against SC nominee Brett Kavanaugh to the side for the moment. Let's focus on his op-ed in The Wall Street Journal where he states, "The Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution." Kavanaugh adds that "a good judge must be an umpire - a neutral and impartial who favors no political party, litigant or policy."
Who does Kavanaugh think he is kidding? The only reason Kavanaugh was nominated, much less considered for the highest court in the land is because of partisanship.
One only need consider this article in The Federalist by Clark Hildabrand written after Anthony Kennedy's retirement listing his 10 most likely successors. Hildabrand begins his article by stating President Trump "will no doubt endeavor to select someone in the conservative vein of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas."
When writing of Kavanaugh, Hildabrand characterizes him as "a reliable neoconservative vote on the D.C. Circuit" while cautioning "the major concern with Kavanaugh is whether he will drift left on social policy as Kennedy did."
Conservative vein? Neo-conservative? Drift left? Kavanaugh isn't exactly being praised for his ability to call balls and strikes, now is he?
Obviously it takes two to turn the Supreme Court into a partisan institution. Both the Left and Right are guilty of this behavior and this country is the worse for it. But while the Left wears its partisanship on its sleeve, the Right is pretending they are above partisanship when they are neck deep in it. Since Kavanaugh wants to use baseball metaphors and we are in the post-season, if Kavanaugh is calling balls and strikes then why did he swing for the fences during his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week?
No comments:
Post a Comment