The Editors: It is time for the Kavanaugh nomination to be withdrawn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of his legal credentials and his reputation as a committed textualist, it is now clear that the nomination should be withdrawn.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.
Thomas Lake
2 months 3 weeks ago

The insistance by the Democrats, that the Honorable Judge Brett Kavanaugh demand an FBI investigation or his guilt is implied, only proved that the Democrats were seeking further delays at his expense, when they had already had several opportunities to handle this behind closed doors, which did not fit their agenda.

The kangaroo court that was held, with reluctance from the right, was intended to humiliate a man in front of millions of people. Although he was there, to refute allegations, it was essentially a job interview turned into a witch hunt, conducted by disrespectful, sadistic purveyors of the Gestapo.

I think that for future reference, every Democrat that is a current member of the Judiciary Commitee should be investigated by the FBI, at least six times and then any interesting tidbits should be shared with the whole country via the media, while they are questioned live.

When Dianne Feinstein received the 'letter', it was no longer in the private domain and should have been shared with the rest of the committee out of respect for all Americans, including the nominee, the Honorable Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

But if you disagree with me, then you contribute to the multiple gofundme accounts set up for Christine Blasey-Ford, or to her pro bono lawyers. In a postive light, I can say she has impeccable timing.

I do not know who won, but the legal system in this country took a big hit last night, in the form of a messy hatchet job, that had no place on public TV.

This country has a problem with sexual assault. It is embedded into our movies, our language, our interactions and our pysche. I personally know at least two dozen people who have experienced this, including men and including myself. And yes, it needs to be addressed, but not at the foot of a statue built by allegations.

The treatment of the Honorable Judge Brett Kavanaugh, was a travesty of justice and the new symbol for the Democrats is an animal with black fur and a white stripe down the back.

J Brookbank
2 months 3 weeks ago

The American Bar Association, having previously endorsed Kavanaugh for SCOTUS, sent a letter tonight to the Senate Judiciary Committee recommending a delay in the vote until the FBI has investigated.

I am guessing they didn't recognize the 53 yr old beligerrent teenager with the drinking problem who also has a brilliant legal mind....

David Begley
2 months 3 weeks ago

The ABA is full of partisan Dems. And no proof of a drinking problem.

Deb Harris
2 months 3 weeks ago

Thomas, I agree with everything you said. Thank you!

Jack Feehily
2 months 3 weeks ago

The editors of America should bow their heads in shame for advocating Kavanaugh's withdrawal. He is innocent beyond the shadow of a doubt with witnesses who deny the incident ever took place including Dr. Ford's dear friend of many years. Oh, I forgot, this has nothing to do with determining truth but only with protecting the nation from an individual perceived to be dangerously conservative by clinging to such things as the rule of law and a strict interpretation of the constitution. Shame on America's editors!

Eric Escamilla
2 months 3 weeks ago

I'll be brief and charitable with my words...ya'll are a real piece of work. I was so ready for Amy Coney Barrett to be justice and go Old Testament, but his testimony actually made me like him even more. Those protesters are possessed along with the Democrat no-brain senators that act so high-and-mighty and support this...it is sickening. If my integrity is on the line and people want to embroil me in gossip and rumors, it is war. One thing is for sure, he was more composed than what I would have been.

Mirjam Eikelboom
2 months 3 weeks ago

@'There is no evidence' - there is plenty of evidence 1. to prove that Mark Judge was a very close friend to Brett Kavanaugh in high school. 2. to prove that both boys were up to their eye-balls in alcohol and sex 3. that both boys drank to excess and didn't have clear memories afterwards 4. that Christine Ford knew who was friends with who and knew other things about Brett, that she never would have know if she had never met him (eg. his visits to the country club swimming pool before he released his calender), the names of several people he hang out with frequently before... etc. The FBI investigation is called for by so many people because the task of the FBI would be to establish facts. Those facts could than also have been presented to the senate.

Deb Harris
2 months 3 weeks ago

None of those things were proved just alleged to destroy his good reputation. As much as you would like it to, an FBI investigation can't prove something that isn't true. There are signed statements from the 4 people Ford said were her witnesses under penalty of purgery that nothing she described happened. They knew nothing about it. If the Dems wanted an FBI investigation they could have called for one at least 2 months earlier. He has had and passed with the highest rating possible 6 times. Knowing things about someone in your community certainly doesn't prove anything except that she seems obsessed with him and perhaps she's a stalker.

pbtax@yahoo.com
2 months 3 weeks ago

Bork, bork, bork, bork. Delay, delay, delay. He was friends with Judge, he drank a lot. Nothing else is supported by anything other than wishful thinking and the uncorroborated testimony of Dr. Ford and the Democrat borking machine.

dogget09@gmail.com
2 months 3 weeks ago

You're wrong. Very wrong. By withdrawing his nomination he'd be setting a dangerous precedent of future nominees being railroaded with the simplest unsubstantiated allegation of any type of abuse or assault. It's asinine the editors would take such a defeatist stance. If she had the slightest proof - a photo, a witness, a legitimate non-changing story, a timeline, a location, anything, we could say your stance is accurate. However in the absence of any tangible or credible proof, it's only her word and that's not enough. On the other hand, he has compelling evidence such as HER witnesses stating it never took place. It's on the accuser to prove a crime was committed. How can you editors ignore this? To do so makes you complicit in the injustice of this entire allegation. It merely becomes a witch trial. Don't look foolish by printing ridiculous and obvious notions encouraging a watershed of false allegations to every male in powerful and successful positions. To do so is irresponsible and not in accordance with our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Please reconsider and take this article down. It's an embarrassment.

Deb Harris
2 months 3 weeks ago

dogget09, I agree. I think this article is unfair and using their influence in this way is very damaging and dangerous.

Diana Lavaughn
2 months 3 weeks ago

Let's remove any statements of malfeasance on either parties behalf. They may, in, a way be telling the truth, as they know it. Let's look at Kavanaugh strange reaction to questions regarding his drinking. He repeats the he drank beer, liked beer, still liked beer. He drank to much sometimes. Sometimes others drank to much. Realistically, not a big deal. Except when Chris was touched on by other senators, the answer was verbatim. And when he was asked.if he ever passed out, he said he fell asleep and turned it back on the Senator, to shut her down. So, clearly he might have a few moments in his youth that aren't crystal clear. Maybe he doesn't remember this particular party as well as he thinks (though he clearly knows which party as he can show precisely on the rather unusual calendar he wasn't there) and just maybe, this is one of those times he drank too many beers and 'fell asleep.' With that in mind, he may not remember his drunken action and may truly believe his conspiracy theory filled rant. Dr Blasey Ford may have a clearer memory of the assault. She clearly remembers a timeframe, one that could be checked. Bearing this theory, no one is acting on bad faith in this case. In terms of preventing or obstructing a hearing for a presidential Mimi, I'm afraid we need look no further than Mitch McConnell who refused Merrick Garlr even a private meeting. Republicans and glass houses...

A Fielder
2 months 3 weeks ago

Highly respected professionals don’t need to avoid impropriety only, they need to avoid even the appearance of impropriety so that no one ever has cause to question his or her ethics. Kavanaugh is not looking to be an advertising executive, he has been nominated to a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. The bar is high for a good reason. Our country deserves better.

Vincent Gaglione
2 months 3 weeks ago

Ultimately, Judge Kavanaugh’s temperament during the hearing yesterday and his failure to address questions with plain-spoken answers convinces me to agree with the editors. His partisan attacks rendered his alleged lack of judicial bias questionable.

The frenzied attacks – verbal, written, and otherwise - on both Blassey-Ford and Kavanaugh and their families is appalling, a testament to the example and modus-operandi of a president who distorts the political values of the nation.

Anne Clark
2 months 3 weeks ago

The people of the United States deserve to have the candidate for the highest office in the land vetted properly by the FBI. This was not done after additional allegations were submitted. There is absolutely NO justification for not having the FBI investigation even now. God help our Country.

Neal Mcelroy
2 months 3 weeks ago

what's there to investigate?
Here, maybe she would say something like this.
“It was 35 years, 34 years. I’m not sure where. But I know that when I was 15, I was at a party, and some guy jumped on top of me.”
So let’s say the FBI agent decides to actually take this further and in a very respectful way says, “Well, Miss, were you raped or injured?”
“Uh, no, not really.”
“Did you report this or tell anyone at the time, 36, 35 years ago?”
“Uh, no.”
“What year was this, again, that this happened?”
“Uhhh, I’m not — I’m not sure. I think it was 1982.”
“Where did this happen?”
“I don’t know! I don’t know. I was so traumatized; I don’t remember any of it. I just remember some guy jumping on me and I was drunk and — and I don’t know. But I want you to investigate it.”
“Okay. Ma’am, were there any witnesses?”
“Just the one friend of his that pushed him off, and then they left before he could do anything.”
Do you think if somebody shows up at an FBI office with that story, if they show up in person with that story, that the FBI is gonna give it any time whatsoever? The agents are gonna look at each other with kind of wary eyes and they’re gonna crack silent jokes to one another. I’m not kidding. You take this out of the realm of a letter to a crazed, partisan United States senator, Dianne Feinstein, and just move this into the victim walking into an FBI office.
There will be backlash. November is looking better and better. Thank you democrats.
Liberals must be defeated not convinced

A Fielder
2 months 3 weeks ago

Neal, your facts are wrong. Ford knows exactly who held her mouth shut while he was grinding on her. Judge did not push Kavanaugh off; he laughed as Ford struggled to break free. She then hid in the bathroom until the drunk boys went back downstairs. You accuse the democrats of being partisan, but you are the one spreading falsehoods with animus. The only person you discredit is yourself.

Gail Sockwell-Thompson
2 months 3 weeks ago

Imagine if Dr Ford was the one who had the hysterical crying jag, complete with name calling of her questioners. Kavanaugh is #Unfit4SCOTUS.

John McCauley
2 months 3 weeks ago

Thanks for not standing up to the truth and supporting our rule of law. Thanks for demonstrating the relativistic thinking that makes your magazine a perfect demonstration of mamby pamby pseudo catholic thinking. Thanks for giving me another reason to be embarassed and disappointed as yet another “trusted voice” reveals itself to be deeply and perhaps irrevocably politicized. Shame. Shame.Shame.

Deb Harris
2 months 3 weeks ago

The editors said, "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."
You are foolish and your intentions are questionable as it makes no sense. If this confirmation is blocked in this way, there will never be another constitutional justice appointed, the same antics will happen to any further constitutional nominees. The churches

David Begley
2 months 3 weeks ago

Brett Kavanaugh learned every thing he needed at a Jesuit high school. He is the finest product of American Jesuit education. He brought passion and intellect to a dishonest fight started by the Democrat party. The Dems can’t be rewarded for their skullduggery. This was all a plan by the Dems to deny Trump another pick to SCOTUS. It was all about winning Congress in 2018.

John Rosson
2 months 3 weeks ago

I am afraid that this editorial might have been constructed before the hearing phase two,
the hearing phase one, and perhaps even before the nomination. The Editors might have
been more adroit if they had listened thoroughly and discerned - an established Jesuit tradition.

Richard Mulvaney
2 months 3 weeks ago

So the Jesuits have abandoned a good and decent Catholic man. I am so sick of this Jesuit order and its heretical views. It has become a liberal form of Catholicism that has abandoned scripture with it pro choice and pro homosexual agenda. Now they have become like the Sanhedrin supporting those who bring an army of false witnesses to destroy the life of a good and decent man. The Catholic Church has been infected with a virus of which the jesuit order is its primary force. I'm disgusted with their malice and falsehoods. They have become an abomination. Unless the Church does something to reign in these heretics I am leaving this Church and will join a Christian Church that is scripturally based. Satan is at the door.

A Fielder
2 months 3 weeks ago

If you think this publication is pro-choice (on the issue of abortion) you probably have not read any of the articles. Malice and falsehoods are indeed dangerous.

Judy Cardamone
2 months 3 weeks ago

Not sure why Jesuits would ever have endorsed this man, or any other conservative considering their anti social justice stance. What this conservative party is doing to the poor, to children, to families, to women is about as anti Christ as it gets. No person who actually believes the words of Jesus can tell me they support this man, this conservative hate mentality and how they use religion, fear and the nastiness on display today to cultivate greed, racism, sexism as tools of governance.

Moderate Prof
2 months 3 weeks ago

Tell me more about how the liberal party in the US is the champion of the poor, of children, families, of women, and religion. Remember to include in your response ALL poor communities, ALL families, ALL children (born and unborn), and ALL religions. Detail, please, how the liberal party in the US doesn’t use fear and nastiness to cultivate greed, racism, and sexism as tools of governance.

Go on. I’ll wait.

Vince Killoran
2 months 3 weeks ago

In addition, Judge Kavanaugh was truly unhinged at yesterday's hearing: bellowing, crying, and insulting. His exchange with Senator Amy Klobuchar was astonishing rude. I do not want such a person as an associate justice on the Supreme Court.

Vince Solis
2 months 2 weeks ago

I'd be pissed if they were doing that to me? What? we can't fight back? This is politics, the post Barack Obama, community activist, in your face, Saul Alinsky tactics Democrat party. Apparently you've swallowed the hook (willingly or unwillingly). I just don't want to end up in the fish tank.

C Walter Mattingly
2 months 2 weeks ago

She was terrified, he was angry. Why should anyone be surprised? Unlike Thomas, he wasn't able to refer to the events as a high tech lynching. But the circumstances suggest it was equally applicable here.

dominic scibilia
2 months 3 weeks ago

Over the course of the Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination for the Supreme Court, I have witnessed the loss by the agents of the American experiment to do what is so essential to our social contract: use of reason to seek the most reliable evidence that will lead us to make decisions that create a society wherein people flourish. Words like collaboration, compromise, informed debate have been absent. What I witnessed is a political tribalism that undermines regards for the dignity of people and the quest for a social good that we can hold in common.

Vince Solis
2 months 2 weeks ago

What you are witnessing is Progressivism.

pbtax@yahoo.com
2 months 3 weeks ago

This is a disgraceful editorial, starting from the incorrect definition of "bork." Google it: : "to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification." What you evidently do not understand is that two credible witnesses often contradict one another. Sometimes one (or both) is lying, sometimes one recalls incorrectly. That is why corroborative evidence is so important. She and the others have none. All corroborating evidence favors Kavanaugh. And Dr. Blasey's memory conveniently omits facts that could be used to discredit her story. This is about whether borking/ smearing will succeed. You should be ashamed.

Edward Gallagher
2 months 3 weeks ago

The editor of AMERICA was delighted when Kavanaugh was nominated, just as he was saddened at the death of Justice Scalia. Such support for those on the crazy, Originalist fringe of American jurisprudence remains troubling and disheartening. Now, Kavanaugh’s display of unhinged anger before the committee has convinced many that his temperament—witness his almost maniacal, unhinged performance on Thursday, 9/27—disqualifies him from the Supreme Court or any court for that matter. So I agree with AMERICA’s call for Kavanaugh’s withdrawal even though the editor’s reasons fail to take into consideration Kavanaugh’s inherent weaknesses: judicial extremism and unbridled rage. In the words of the nun in the Blues Brothers, what are unacceptable are his foul mouth and bad attitude.

Lainey Smith
2 months 3 weeks ago

How is it "unhinged" to defend yourself from horrible attacks and character assassination with absolutely NO PROOF. I too would be outraged if someone accused me of horrible acts all in the name of political theater. Disgusting. And I am sure that you never liked this man to begin with - you disgust me.

Paul Miller
2 months 3 weeks ago

Having been educated by the Jesuits for eight years, high school and college, and having a former President and Publisher of 'America' as a professor, (Political Science), a college advisor, and lifelong friend, I can tell you that he is rolling in his grave over The Editors of this magazine writing such a reversal. Unfortunately, other forms of the media have already said and written this morning, "The Jesuits are pulling their endorsement from Brett Kavanaugh because he is not believable." Your magazine, and the Editors, are not the mouthpiece of the entire Jesuit order, nor do you speak for every Jesuit educated person in this nation. Your left leaning writing are as shameful as the liberal hit job being perpetrated upon this nation. As President Obama so often said, "Elections have consequences." Yes they do. The charade in the Senate confirmation hearing is nothing more than the Democrat's wanting to reserve an election. You too are now part of the division in this country. You have ruined your own reputation in the process.

Barb Spellman
2 months 3 weeks ago

It’s your mag & you have the right to withdraw your support of Judge Kavanaugh. However, it’s a shame a good, “Jesuit man” isn’t entitled to defend himself & family & certainly such a serious accusation (WITH NO BASIS) then have an org such as this show that, apparently, you agree with the accuser. As I’ve read: “Nothing is hard to a man whose will is set in it, especially if it be done out of love.” St Ignatius Loyola

Edith Kurie
2 months 3 weeks ago

I am sorry for the editors of this respected publication. It was made abundantly clear prior to the Kavanaugh/Ford hearing that there was, beyond Dr Ford’s vague, quivering and clearly coached response NO corroborated or irrefutable evidence that Judge Kavanaugh was in any way guilty of that which he was falsely accused. If your issue was with his passionate and justifiably angry response to democratic senators for their delays and posturing I am appalled at you. Remember, even Jesus spat the indifferent and lukewarm out of His mouth. Shame on you.

ER Cole
2 months 3 weeks ago

Shame on you. You are convicting this man without a trial! And abandoning one of your own sheep!

Mike Fitzpatrick
2 months 3 weeks ago

Will the Jesuits be returning all contributions made by Kavanaugh to Georgetown Prep and the Jesuit community?

Joe Fahey
2 months 3 weeks ago

The editors take the opposite position of my diocesan leader. He urges the flock not to accept allegations without corroboration. The editors here obviously think allegations are enough, completely ignoring the political context in which they were made. You are convenient fools.

Yue Wang
2 months 3 weeks ago

Sad that a Jesuit institution supposedly committed to critical thought jumps on the circus bandwagon. Everyone suffers if the rule of law and clear processes are not followed. Dr. Ford obviously has suffered trauma; I don't think anyone would doubt that. At the same time, it is equally obvious that Judge Kavanaugh was not the cause of that trauma. Both the doctor and the judge and their families are victims of the inept Senate Judiciary Committee and bullying reporters. Had the Judiciary Committee respected Dr. Ford's request for confidentiality, they could have conducted their investigation and heard the witnesses without the circus that happened. Yes, the allegation needed to be heard and investigated, but it did not have to be aired as a show. A confidential, closed door hearing 60 days ago would have provided more than enough time to do a thorough investigation. But because senators chose to act like a group of bratty junior high kids on a playground slinging mud at each other, the situation has been reduced to a simple power play. And at this late hour, some of the senators have the temerity to suggest that Judge Kavanaugh himself should call for an FBI investigation. Why must he be responsible for what the committee should have done weeks ago? Is it too much to ask that a group of supposedly intelligent and compassionate adults could recognize that they have two situations before them: a wounded, hurting person who needs help and a credible, professional person who has been accused falsely? Both persons were treated as pawns and were not afforded the dignity they deserve.

Tim O'Leary
2 months 3 weeks ago

This is a sad day for this "America" journal, not because it has so blatantly taken the position of the Democratic party (it usually does that), and not just because it puts political expediency above due process, assumption of innocence and Christian fairness. It is a sad day because it seeks to be complicit in the utter destruction of a man, his wife, daughters and his community of friends, hundreds of women and men. For the good of the country, and the Jesuit order, and the Church, this journal needs a new editorial board. Fr. Matt Malone - I don't know if you are innocent or guilty of this travesty, but you are not leading a just organization right now.

Michael Barberi
2 months 3 weeks ago

Apart from my previous post, I would like to make the following additional comments.

1. According to testimony, there were about 6 people at this gathering, 4 boys and 2 girls one of whom was her best friend.
> Ok, who drove her to this gathering? One of the boys or her best friend?
> If there were more than 6 people at this gathering, Dr. Ford does not know who they were and no one has come forth to claim they attended this gathering beyond the witnesses that Dr. Ford claims were there.

2. When Dr. Ford says she quickly left the gathering, she claims she does not recall who drove her home as we now know that this house was at least a 20 minute car ride away from her house.
> Since she was only 15, she would have had to ask someone at the party to drive her home. This question is important. While this event took place 36 years ago, and many sexual assault victims do not recall a lot of facts, not knowing how she got to the gathering and who drove her home is highly confusing to me.
> If someone from the gathering drove her home (a most likely event), would not the one who drove her home ask her about why she wanted to leave the gathering? Would not her best friend ask her that same question, if not when she saw her leave the house suddenly, then later in the day or the next day? Keep in mind that her best friend affirmed under penalty of a felony that she does not recall being at the gathering, nor did she know Kavanaugh or did she ever met him. This is most highly important.

3. Dr. Ford claims she went upstairs to go to the bathroom. When she got to the bathroom, near a bedroom, someone pushed her into the bedroom, locked the door, put on music and attempted to rape her.
> This implies that Kavanaugh and his friend were lying in wait upstairs. Having to go to the bathroom is something only Dr. Ford would know. So, it is very suspicious why Kavanaugh and his friend would have been lying in wait upstairs for Dr. Ford when everyone was downstair at this gathering. Since Kavanaugh and his friend could not have known that Dr. Ford would be going upstairs to the bathroom, what was Kavanaugh and his friend doing upstairs when the gathering was downstairs? In a court of law the types of questions would be asked. Nevertheless, they are important for credibility purposes.

4. The timeline between writing the letter on July 30th and what transpired after that until the letter was leaked was highly confusing. First she did not want her name known, then she said she talked to the Washington Post, then Feinstein says no one on her staff leaked the letter nor does she have any idea who leaked it.

5. The FBI only transcribes the verbal testimony of various witnesses and friends of the accuser and accused. We already have sworn testimony from those 3-4 witnesses that Dr. Ford named who were at this gathering. The Democrats said an FBI investigation would only take a few days to investigate, so they want to delay the confirmation vote for a week. If the Democrats are so righteous in calling for another FBI investigation, they could have done that in August if Feinstein would have shared these allegations, "in confidence", with Senator Grassley. Is it not highly suspicious, and blatantly obvious, that this letter was leaked to the press just after the Senate closed its confirmation hearings and called for a vote? This was done for one purpose...to delay a vote until after the elections. Let's be honest here. If the FBI investigates and they find the same thing we already know, the Democrats will demand all witnesses appear before the committee for questioning. They want to turn the entire month of October into a political circus for political ends to gain leverage for the November elections.

We will never know the complete truth if the FBI does another investigation or not. Everyone will have questions and doubts. Let the Senate vote next week, one way or the other. We all know that the vote will be political and highly partisan.

J Cosgrove
2 months 3 weeks ago

Michael

You are trying to be logical. That was old Jesuits. New Jesuits are all emotion.

Tim O'Leary
2 months 3 weeks ago

Michael - impeccable reasoning. Many other questions could have been asked if truth was the objective. Dr. Ford says she was diving before the party. And she had a one-piece bathing suit under her clothes. Does she remember who was diving with her that afternoon? Did she have a second bathing suit she changed into? When she left the house, didn't she have a bag with clothes, towel, etc.? She says she went straight out of the house but doesn't say if she took here (probable) gym bag with her. Did she come back for them later? Does she recall any of these steps? Did she continue to swim and dive at the club, or stop going there because of theoretical psychic trauma? Kavenaugh's uniquely detailed calendar/diary should have convinced everyone it was logistically improbable such a party occurred, and the ten parties Swetnick totally impossible. Note the Democrats didn't ask any questions - yet they harassed Kavanaugh with accusations & innuendo all afternoon. The committee held several investigative meetings yet the Democrats refused to show up. But, I know the Democrats have no morals when it comes to a perceived political opponent. What I am shocked more about is that this journal would go even more extreme than the Democrats, more than the liberal NBA. They want Kavanaugh to withdraw, and forever be assumed guilty of a sex crime, or multiple crimes, with no hope of ever recovering his reputation. They admit "The editors of this review have no special insight into who is telling the truth." boy, is that the truth!

Fred Ossefogva
2 months 3 weeks ago

Stunning that the editors would support a nakedly political ambush with character assassination in a lynch mob atmosphere. Shameful.

Lainey Smith
2 months 3 weeks ago

Disgusting that accusations can trash someone's character with absolutely NO PROOF. I find it repugnant and frightening that people would lynch this man with nothing other than innuendo. Hope it doesn't happen to you someday.

Mark D
2 months 3 weeks ago

Let the FBI go get the proof then. You can't have it both ways. Why not an FBI investigation? it should be routine, right?

Tom Curtin
2 months 3 weeks ago

Dear Editors: The liberal abortion lovers could target you next. Would be OK with folding your publication “because the credibility of the allegations has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt”? I was educated at a Jesuit university and also was an Army prosecutor. The evidence presented is so flimsy I would have to recommend its dismissal.

Mark D
2 months 3 weeks ago

Dude, you were a prosecutor? Then you should know that hearing wasn't a court of law, it was a job interview. If a job candidate talked to me, my colleagues or my customers that way then I would not hire him. Even if I agreed or disagreed with him, I don't need more inflammatory people in power, his behavior was totally unacceptable.

Advertisement

The latest from america

In his World Day of Peace message, Pope Francis warned against the vices that are too often linked to politics today and do not build peace in society.
Gerard O’ConnellDecember 18, 2018
The request is a clear indication that children, not the reputation of the church, will be the paramount concern at this meeting.
Gerard O’ConnellDecember 18, 2018
As today’s Gospel suggests, righteousness is no guarantee of a smooth life.
Elizabeth Kirkland CahillDecember 18, 2018
The very best television is like an Ignatian contemplation: It tells stories that offer us some kind of gift—an insight or encouragement for our lives.
Jim McDermottDecember 18, 2018