The Editors: It is time for the Kavanaugh nomination to be withdrawn

 (CNS photo/Jim Bourg, pool via Reuters)

Editors' note (Oct. 2, 6:00 pm): Our editor in chief, Father Matt Malone, S.J., has responded, in his regular column, to many of our readers’ reactions to and questions about this editorial.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today clearly demonstrated both the seriousness of her allegation of assault by Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh and the stakes of this question for the whole country. Judge Kavanaugh denied the accusation and emphasized in his testimony that the opposition of Democratic senators to his nomination and their consequent willingness to attack him was established long before Dr. Blasey’s allegation was known.

Advertisement

Evaluating the credibility of these competing accounts is a question about which people of good will can and do disagree. The editors of this review have no special insight into who is telling the truth. If Dr. Blasey’s allegation is true, the assault and Judge Kavanaugh’s denial of it mean that he should not be seated on the U.S. Supreme Court. But even if the credibility of the allegation has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt and even if further investigation is warranted to determine its validity or clear Judge Kavanaugh’s name, we recognize that this nomination is no longer in the best interests of the country. While we previously endorsed the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh on the basis of his legal credentials and his reputation as a committed textualist, it is now clear that the nomination should be withdrawn.

The nomination of Judge Kavanaugh has become a referendum on how to address allegations of sexual assault.

If this were a question of establishing Judge Kavanaugh’s legal or moral responsibility for the assault described by Dr. Blasey, then far more stringent standards of proof would apply. His presumption of innocence might settle the matter in his favor, absent further investigation and new evidence. But the question is not solely about Judge Kavanaugh’s responsibility, nor is it any longer primarily about his qualifications. Rather it is about the prudence of his nomination and potential confirmation. In addition to being a fight over policy issues, which it already was, his nomination has also become a referendum on how to address allegations of sexual assault.

Somewhere in the distant past, at least before the word “Borked” was coined to describe a Supreme Court nomination defeated by ideological opposition, Senate confirmation hearings might have focused on evaluating a nominee’s judicial character or qualifications as a legal thinker. But that time is long past. Many cases decided by the Supreme Court itself and thus also presidential nominations to that body (and the Senate hearings that follow) are now thoroughly engaged in deciding “policy by other means.” Neither the country nor the court is well served by this arrangement, but refusing to recognize it does nothing to help reverse it.

When Republican leaders in the Senate refused even to hold hearings on the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland, they were not objecting to his qualifications or character but to the likely outcome of his vote on the court were he to be confirmed. When Senate Democrats were mostly united in opposition to Judge Kavanaugh well in advance of any hearings (and before any rumor of Dr. Blasey’s accusation was known), they were using the same calculus. While regrettable in both cases, such results are, as we have said before, the predictable outcome of the fact that “fundamental questions of social policy are increasingly referred to the court for adjudication as constitutional issues.”

What is different this time is that this nomination battle is no longer purely about predicting the likely outcome of Judge Kavanaugh’s vote on the court. It now involves the symbolic meaning of his nomination and confirmation in the #MeToo era. The hearings and the committee’s deliberations are now also a bellwether of the way the country treats women when their reports of harassment, assault and abuse threaten to derail the careers of powerful men.

This nomination battle is no longer purely about predicting the likely outcome of Judge Kavanaugh’s vote on the court.

While nomination hearings are far from the best venue to deal with such issues, the question is sufficiently important that it is prudent to recognize it as determinative at this point. Dr. Blasey's accusations have neither been fully investigated nor been proven to a legal standard, but neither have they been conclusively disproved or shown to be less than credible. Judge Kavanaugh continues to enjoy a legal presumption of innocence, but the standard for a nominee to the Supreme Court is far higher; there is no presumption of confirmability. The best of the bad resolutions available in this dilemma is for Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to be withdrawn.

If Senate Republicans proceed with his nomination, they will be prioritizing policy aims over a woman’s report of an assault. Were he to be confirmed without this allegation being firmly disproved, it would hang over his future decisions on the Supreme Court for decades and further divide the country. Even if one thinks that Dr. Blasey's allegations are not credible, demonstrating them not to be would require further investigations and testimony. This would include calling additional witnesses and assessing further allegations against Judge Kavanaugh from other women, to which Republicans on the committee have been unwilling to commit and which would be divisive in any case.

The best of the bad resolutions available in this dilemma is for Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to be withdrawn.

There are many good reasons to support the nomination of a qualified judge who is committed to a textualist interpretation of the Constitution to the Supreme Court. Over time, such an approach may return the question of abortion to the states, where it belongs given the Constitution’s silence on the matter, and where a more just and moral outcome than is currently possible under Roe v. Wade may be achieved. Restoring such a morally complex question to the deliberation of legislators rather than judges may also bring the country closer to a time when confirmation hearings can truly focus on the character and qualifications of the nominee rather than serving as proxy battles over every contentious issue in U.S. politics.

We continue to support the nomination of judges according to such principles—but Judge Kavanaugh is not the only such nominee available. For the good of the country and the future credibility of the Supreme Court in a world that is finally learning to take reports of harassment, assault and abuse seriously, it is time to find a nominee whose confirmation will not repudiate that lesson.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
david cortes
2 weeks 6 days ago

"Discredited integrity is a perfectly valid reason for passing over an applicant." True, but to say his long record of integrity has been discredited by Ford's unproven, uncorroborated allegations is reckless.

MJ Painter
3 weeks 1 day ago

What this editorial fails to mention is that for anyone nominated to highest court in the land, there must be no doubt as to their suitability.

Unfortunately, Judge Kavanaugh today displayed for everyone to see that he does not have the temperament to serve. His very demeanor and the fact that he made all sorts of political accusations against his questioners proved that he's incapable of serving as a justice on the Supreme Court, regardless of the truth of the accusations against him.

Judges simply cannot act that way.

There was already doubt about his veracity because of evasive answers in previous hearings, to the point of concern about perjury, to questions about his role in the White House during the Bush years, including emails stolen from a senator's office. His non-answers today were in line with those and should confirm anyone's concerns about his nomination.

Carol Witmer
3 weeks 1 day ago

I think his temperament is perfect for the job...his defense of himself was remarkable in restraint and sound reasoning. He is a good and brilliant man, much smarter than those who badgered him relentlessly.

MJ Painter
3 weeks 1 day ago

"Remarkable in restraint" ???. Please. Almost yelling at questioners, asking Sen. Klobuchar if she passed out when she drank (which numerous of his friends had mentioned publicly, so it was relevant in regard to him), etc., are not signs of judicial temperament, sorry to say.

When I was growing up and later going to law school, people had more respect for the Supreme Court and judicial decorum than to give someone who behaves in that way a lifetime seat on the Court.

J Brookbank
3 weeks 1 day ago

Absolutely. He was juvenile and belligerent. He descended into schoolboy gossip about his college roommate to head off Senator Whitehouse's question about his heavy drinking in college; and, to Klobachar's question re: whether he had ever blacked out, he said "I don't know. Have you?"

THAT is a man who has hidden some significant immaturity from a lot of people.

Not SCOTUS material, even if every single bit of the sexual assault allegations are false.

This guy is operating at around 14 when it comes to the issue of his drinking. Not an unusual developmental phenomenon in people who start drinking heavily as young teens.

Carol Witmer
3 weeks 1 day ago

I am very disappointed that you are not supporting Kavanaugh. It is disgraceful and disgusting that this good and brilliant man having to go through this ordeal. The woman accuser has proved NOTHING.

J Brookbank
3 weeks 1 day ago

Even if it is true that the accuser "proved nothing" re: her allegations, Kavanaugh revealed a pretty nasty temperament under pressure, especially when the question is about his drinking. That is an employee with secrets about that drinking.

Edward Carthew
3 weeks 1 day ago

Guilty until proven innocent is not consistent with the rule of law in the United States. This process was a political hit job pure and simple by the Democrats. They don't care about women. They care about identity politics and more importantly abortion politics. They must play to their left wing base.

A Fielder
3 weeks 1 day ago

I was pleasantly surprised to see this headline. I agree that this confirmation is about so much more than Judge Kavanaugh’s qualifications or character. Our country is so polarized, and our elected leaders sometimes make it worse. Kavanaugh has been a pawn in President Trump’s attempt to put another polarizing figure on the SCOTUS, but the country needs someone less devisive on the court.

Robert Nalley
3 weeks 1 day ago

I'M am sadly disappointed in the Editors! Sacrificing a qualified fellow CATHOLIC jurist to the Machivellian machinations of democrat politicians is disturbing. I am proud of my Jesuit education (UofD, BC, Weston College). Maybe America needs to move its offices to the midWest to escape the East Coast secular liberal air..........it will also lower your operating expenses. R.W. Nalley

Mike Smith
3 weeks 1 day ago

The burden of truth is not on him. She needs to be able to prove his guilt. If she can't, she shouldn't be there.

MJ Painter
3 weeks 1 day ago

This wasn't a criminal trial. It was a job interview, and no one has the right to a particular job. It's up to the job seeker to prove his or her suitability—especially when the job is one as important as a seat on the US Supreme Court. And how one reacts to a situation is as important as the situation itself.

Judge Kavanaugh failed his interview today. And there were already doubts about his veracity from his previous hearing. Unfortunately, those have been overshadowed by the assault allegations and the refusal of the White House to release other records from Kavanaugh's time there.

PJ Mill
3 weeks 1 day ago

This is one of the main reasons I, a 44 yr long catholic, find myself s non practicing and a rare church attendee... The catholic. Faith is supposed to stay separate from the halls of politics NOT attempt to influence it... You want to get me Nd those like me back in church, then quit trying to influence that which you are supposed to be separated from!!!

Robert Dowd
3 weeks 1 day ago

Today -The only thing the Democrats had was a 1982 Georgetown Prep year book.I am embarrassed about the Jesuits and this article.!

Catherine Goldschlager
3 weeks 1 day ago

Dear American Magazine Editors, Thank you for your call to withdraw the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh from SCOTUS. The editorial echo the point that consumed me all afternoon while watching the Judicial hearing--what kind of damage would be done to a nation that failed to apply moral and ethic values to the treatment of women.
You have given me hope.

Antoinette Carbone
3 weeks 1 day ago

I listened to the entire hearing. The Democrats were disgracefull to judge Kavanaugh. They found it hard to show him any civility. The Republicans were smart not to do the questioning of the accuser. The accuser and the judge were both believable. Both suffered from the media circus. That is the real tragedy. Dr. Blasey now realizes by telling her friends she contacted Sen. Finestein she unwittingly gave up the privacy she wanted. Judge Kavanaugh got a lesson when someone professes his innocence it does not mean he is believed. Innocent people have been found guilty; private people have lost their privacy through media frenzy.
Editors of America magazine have taken the easy road to a decision. Better to have reflected on the real lessons.

Peter Connor
3 weeks 1 day ago

Editors, I believe you have put your sled on a ver slippery slope. One cannot simply deny a candidate's suitability for office based upon what might, legally, be known as hearsay. Further, you support Judge Kavanaugh's removal as a candidate for the Supreme Court based upon his behavior as an adolescent, and upon which his adult character is based. When is one allowed to be released from adolescent behavior? Apparently after age 53.

Stuart Meisenzahl
3 weeks 1 day ago

Peter
Imagine all the Jesuits who would have to resign if their adolescent past were the proper basis for judging their fitness to serve!

J Brookbank
3 weeks 1 day ago

Judge Kavanaugh behaved like an adolescent TODAY. The kind of adolescent who ends up in detention over and over again because he cannot refrain from acting out when in the hotseat. THAT is what the 53 year old Judge demonstrated today and THAT is why his nomination should be withdrawn. But we have a president who behaves the same way so I think we saw our SCOTUS Associate Justice today.

Peter Connor
3 weeks ago

What the the SCOTUS candidate, Kavanaugh, showed on Thursday was the depth of his human feeling, not a cold, calculating 'applicant' whose responses were measured and crisp. You, nor I, can fathom what the back story is regarding what happened, yesterday. To say Kavanaugh is anguished is an understatement. Is he a liar? Is he a miscreant, today? Is his past not deserving of remaining exactly there - in the past? If he is not qualified to serve on The Court, then let that decision be made on the merits of his professional career as a judge. But I stand on my original premise: The behavior of an adolescent should not be the deciding factor of whether or not Kavanaugh should be seated on The Court.

LuAnn O'Connell
3 weeks 1 day ago

Kudos to the editors. Kavanaugh's nomination is too tainted to move forward as the questions would remain and he has shown himself to be rude, partisan and not equanimous.
And why so many readers take issue with this editorial, except that they, too, are partisan, is beyond me. Just because someone is Catholic, doesn't mean the Jesuits should support them. Innocent until proven guilty is a standard in criminal cases, which this wasn't, while some didn't read the editorial thoroughly (the editors never said he was guilty), though are quick to declare the Democrats guilty without proof. Our culture and even the Catholic church, as recent grand jury investigations show, have wrongly sided with powerful males in the face of sexual abuse and derided the victims for too long and women and millennial have had enough of that lack of compassion, hypocrisy and power-mongering.
The one thing I take issue with the emphasis on Roe v. Wade. No Supreme Court nomination should be about one issue. The point is to select qualified justices, not to get the outcome one group of Americans want, though, sadly . Rather than trying to stack the court right or left to try to get the outcomes each extreme wants, presidents should return to nominating based more on qualifications. Once upon a time most justices were confirmed by a vast majority of the Senate. Have a group like the Federalist Society groom lawyers for the courts and pass on lists that the president chooses from is sure to yield controversial and partisan nominees and seems very unfair to all Americans.

J Brookbank
3 weeks 1 day ago

I agree on all points.

Michael Kendzierski
3 weeks 1 day ago

This article is a perfect example of why I have turned my back on the Catholic Church. The editors have chosen to take the word of a woman who has named people as witnesses that have come right out and said that her charge is not true. You will not defend a good man, yet the Catholic Church defends, hides, and gives safe harbor to child molesters.

Not one person that she has named as a witness to include her "best friend" have denied that what she claims happened.

Dr. Ford said she was afraid to fly to attend the hearing, yet she has no issue flying to go on vacations?
This publication is nothing more than another arm of the Democratic party, as is the Catholic Church. See how long either of you last once the socialism takes over that you support so much.

dogget09@gmail.com
3 weeks ago

I agree with you. They should take it down because it sets an embarrassing standard of accepting assault claims at face value with a simple utterance of a word. Where is the burden of proof? They conveniently leave this out.

Being accused does not taint a man. Being accused without proof vindicates a man. Being accused with proof taints a man deservedly. Take Clarence Thomas for example. According to the editors, he should never have been confirmed to the Supreme Court. Why? Simply because he was accused. Forget that there was no proof of wrongdoing. Forget that he held strongly in defense of himself, as Judge Kavanaugh has done. Forget that he had witnesses attesting to his strong character, as Judge Kavanaugh has. No, the editors want to change the principles of individual rights under our laws and say that every man is presumed guilty until proven innocent. Dangerous society we are living in. If The Jesuit Review feels this strongly. then I hope it receives the rightful backlash coming.

Abbey Arletto
3 weeks 1 day ago

The fact that you even endorsed him in the first place says a lot about Catholicism in America today. You have more in common with rightwing Evangelicalism than the Church of saints Francis and Thérèse of Lisieux.

Richard Bell
3 weeks 1 day ago

We hardly need appeal to a presumption of innocence. We need only apply common sense and prudence -- yes, including the political prudence that, according to America's editors, indicates that Judge Kavanaugh's nomination should be withdrawn.
Ford's testimony is prima facie evidence that she was sexually molested at a party that boy Kavanaugh attended. But common sense and prudence deem her identification of boy Kavanaugh as the person who molested her so dubious as to be a nullity.
Grant America's editors the logic of their argument, but do not grant them the essential premise; Ford's testimony is far from prima facie evidence that Kavanaugh was the perp. The MeToo era can be a great advance of social justice, but the MeToo era will be horrible if it brings credit to assertions like Ford's.

J Brookbank
3 weeks 1 day ago

The editors did not say they believe Kavanaugh is guilty. They said the world needs to change and this process has been part of the old world in need of changing.

Richard Bell
3 weeks ago

I do not recognize your statement about what the editors said in this piece. Did the editors not say they believe Kavanaugh's nomination should be withdrawn? Yes, they did not say they believe Kavanaugh is guilty. I hope they did not say that, in the new world you want, a Supreme Court nominee should withdraw in the face of a mere accusation of molesting someone. Indeed, I did not understand them to say that. So, I pointed out what is obvious: Ford's identification of Kavanaugh as the perp is not in the least credible. It is a mere accusation, and withdrawal of Kavanaugh because of it would be a bad overshooting of the salutary MeToo principles and attitudes.

Joan Sheridan
3 weeks 1 day ago

Don't you realize this is about abortion? The pro choice will do anything to keep a pro life judge off the court

Phil Lawless
3 weeks 1 day ago

It is clear that this is an asymmetric discussion. Dr. Ford presented her case without any obvious gain and has already had a lot to suffer. Why would she persevere in this without some recompense? Judge
Kavanaugh has much to lose if he is denied the Court seat. Who has the incentive to shade the truth about what happened? In addition, why would he not assent to suggestions, repeatedly, that he ought to affirm the need for further FBI investigations. It seems that he may be afraid of what they would reveal.

J Brookbank
3 weeks 1 day ago

Yes.

Thomas Lake
3 weeks ago

Phil, the only ones that need an FBI investigation are the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee who held back information that was public domain when it was received by Dianne Feinstein. As for as recompense, Doctor Ford is a Democrat, and she has several gfundme accounts in her name ( I checked) and pro bono lawyers and I can gurantee you, there is a book in the works. *** A note on her wikipage: Ford considered moving to places such as New Zealand if Kavanaugh were to become a Supreme Court Justice.

J Brookbank
3 weeks ago

The American Bar Association wrote a letter to the Committee tonight recommending the vote be delayed until the FBI completes an investigation.

dogget09@gmail.com
3 weeks ago

According to your statement, you want to presume guilt or innocence on whoever has the most or least to lose? That's preposterous! Burden of proof is required in a case of assault. Burden of proof falls on the accuser regardless of how much one has to gain or lose.

bill carson
3 weeks 1 day ago

Notice how the Jesuits say that they want the nomination to be withdrawn, not simply voted down. They don't want Kavanaugh to even get a vote, the Jesuits want his name withdrawn by Trump so the Jesuits can say, "finally, Trump admitted that the Jesuits were right all along and agrees with us that Kavanaugh is despicable."

Well, too bad for the leftist Jesuits. Senators are going to vote on this guy and those who wish to muzzle others will not prevail, regardless of the final vote tally. Personally, my guess now is that he'll be confirmed.

Elka Hern
2 weeks 6 days ago

Lets hope so, let's hope so. My solace is in the end we all answer to God. And boy or boy there will be a lot to answer for regarding people trying to degrade and trash a good man, who by the way went thru 6 FBI investigation to prove he is a good man, (and his family) and those who purposely lie (and under oath) or concur up old memories with no certainty and no witnesses. The Jesuits should be so ashamed of themselves. So ashamed.

Kerry Guiney Feeney
3 weeks 1 day ago

Hasn’t Judge Kavanaugh demonstrated in his adult life that he is a “ man for others”? Has he not learned from the Jesuits how to learn to question, to pray, to love? What about his years at Georgetown Prep... “Grad at Grad” ? Cura Personalis? Magis? Are they all a front by the Jesuits? I have for the past three years paid full tuition at a Jesuit high school for my son... you just proved to me that if my son had unsubstantiated accusations made towards him, you would abandon my son? I don’t doubt that something terrible happened to Dr. Ford during her high school years, however it can’t be proven that it was Judge Kavanaugh. Shame on you American Magazine. I received your message loud and clear!

Elka Hern
2 weeks 6 days ago

Kerry, I am glad you recognize this- something probably did happen to her, but it sure as heck wasn't BK doing. Yes, we have to be very concerned about our sons, and husbands, and brothers, etc. And what kind of world are our daughters, and wife and sisters and mothers having to deal with now as well. People are people and just because they are female or male does not make them believable or unbelievable. Credible evidence and witnesses are required. Thanks Kerry for your comments.I pray Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed. If not I fear greatly for our Republic and our freedoms.

Mike Reiner
3 weeks 1 day ago

I find it either disingenuous or utterly poor judgement that an unsubstantiated allegation that has absolutely no independent corroboration sways your initial endorsement. At best, Dr. Ford, honestly believes she was assulted and let’s give her benefit of the doubt. But, she nor her lawyers provided any evidence required under our system of presumed innocence to convince any reasonable person that Judge Kavanaugh assaulted her. In fact, I ask why you don’t provide Judge Kavanaugh with same amount of deference in his under oath and penalty of perjury absolute denial of the accusation? I can only assume it’s due to your political ideology. Let me ask the editors this question. Using your logic, why don’t you call for Pope Francis’ resignation based upon the much more believable accusation of Archbishop Viganò?

pbtax@yahoo.com
3 weeks ago

Exactly! But they probably should not endorse people in any event. They obviously are out of their depth.

Dan Ess
3 weeks 1 day ago

It's time appoint him and put these shenanigans behind us. If we don't, then we might as well be prepared to give up more of our Freedom. Your own editorial stated the Democrats were doing the same thing the Republicans had done with the last nomination. The Democrats awe they were going to fail and stooped to even more corrupt practice. Now is not the time to fold, it is the time to STAND.

Elka Hern
3 weeks 1 day ago

Wow, so the Jesuits pull their support (do we actually care?). Kavanaugh should be embarrassed to be a Catholic. But considering who is pulling the support ( a bunch of pedophiles) he should welcome it .

J Brookbank
3 weeks 1 day ago

The American Bar Association https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/28/american…) whose endorsement Kavanaugh and Senator Graham cited, sent a letter to the Committee TONIGHT recommending the vote on Kavanaugh should be delayed until an FBI investigation has been completed.

See the ABA's letter by googling ABA Kavanaugh FBI Letter

pbtax@yahoo.com
3 weeks ago

Are you a lawyer? If you follow these things, it should come as no surprise that the ABA is falling into line with the Democrats. That is to be expected- but not a cheap shot from the Jesuits.

Michael Barberi
3 weeks 1 day ago

If we believe the allegations against Kavanaugh why have we not seen any whisper of accusations of sexual assault at anytime over his entire professional career? The two accusations by Ramirez and Swetnick (spelling?) are ridiculous and uncorroborated. The 3-4 witnesses Dr. Ford said were at this party, denied they were there and her best friend who she said was there said she never knew or met Kavanaugh. There were 65 women that knew him from HS that submitted an affidavit to the Senate Committee in support of his character, as well as his college friends

For the Editors to call for the withdrawal of Judge Kavanaugh's nomination lacks the recognition of the facts, the Senate investigation and evidence presented. It is based on the possibility that Dr. Ford's allegations might be true. However, people are not guilty until proven innocent whether in or outside a court room.

Are we to ruin Judge Kavanaugh's reputation and life based on the possibility he might be "guilty by accusation" especially when Dr. Ford has no corroborating witnesses? This is far from right moral action.

We might never know the truth here, but the evidence to date favors Kavanaugh's innocence. Dr. Ford might have been sexually assaulted at a time and place, but the evidence demonstrates that it was not Kavanaugh. He had a detail calendar that supports he did not go the party Dr. Ford says he sexually assaulted her. I repeat, the 3-4 witnesses she named in support of her allegations have refuted her accusations.

The letter Dr. Ford sent to Feinstein was held for 6 weeks. Feinstein could have shared this letter (and not Dr. Ford's name) confidentially with Senator Grassley and a confidential Senate or FBI investigation could have started and been completed before the Senate Committee interviewed Kavanaugh. Why was this not done? It is clear that this entire confirmation process was a "seek and destroy" character assignation, not a search for the truth. The Democrats were against Kavanaugh before Dr. Ford's allegations and they are against him now.

If Kavanaugh is confirmed, this allegation will hang over him for decades. That is the unfortunate result. However, for Kavanaugh or the President to withdraw his nomination would be highly irresponsible because it would be a moral failure by surrendering to false uncorroborated accusations. It would be a national disgrace.

J Brookbank
3 weeks ago

The American Bar Association tonight wrote the Judiciary Committee to recommend a delay until there is an FBI investigation. Senator Graham gave "pride of place" in his comments today to the ABA's earlier recommendation of Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh referenced their support for him. Seems the ABA heard something today that concerns them.

I am putting my money on the complete lack of judicial temperament displayed by a 53 yr old belligerent adolosecent with a drinking problem who also has a brilliant legal mind...

Stuart Meisenzahl
3 weeks ago

J Brookbank
Assuming Ms Ford's allegations are investigated by the FBI and there is no proof offered that Judge Kavanaugh was at a party with her, then will you withdraw your objections to his confirmation?
I think not!......and if not , then therein lies the truth that you are just playing for time through the next election.

Deb Harris
3 weeks ago

Michael Barberi, excellent post, very well said.

Chuck Kotlarz
2 weeks 6 days ago

Mr. Barberi, how many witnesses does rape require?

Advertisement

The latest from america

Catherine Pakaluk, who currently teaches at the Catholic University of America and holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University, describes her tweet to Mr. Macron as “spirited” and “playful.”
Emma Winters October 19, 2018
A new proposal from the Department of Homeland Security could make it much more difficult for legal immigrants to get green cards in the United States. But even before its implementation, the proposal has led immigrants to avoid receiving public benefits.
J.D. Long-GarcíaOctober 19, 2018
 Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, then nuncio to the United States, and then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, are seen in a combination photo during the beatification Mass of Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, N.J., Oct. 4, 2014. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz)
In this third letter Archbishop Viganò no longer insists, as he did so forcefully in his first letter, that the restrictions that he claimed Benedict XVI had imposed on Archbishop McCarrick—one he alleges that Pope Francis later lifted—can be understood as “sanctions.”
Gerard O’ConnellOctober 19, 2018
Kevin Clarke tells us about his reporting from Iraq.
Olga SeguraOctober 19, 2018