The Editors: It is time for the Kavanaugh nomination to be withdrawn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of his legal credentials and his reputation as a committed textualist, it is now clear that the nomination should be withdrawn.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

Mark, respectfully I say to you that yesterday was a man defending accusations made against him that have a significant negative impact on his family, friends and Georgetown Prep community. On every job interview that I have gone on, I don’t get called back a second time to defend myself against accusations made by former employers. Theses circumstances yesterday do not hold up to a comparison of a job interview. He was fighting for his family honor and his reputation. Thankfully an FBI investigation will get to the truth of the allegations.

Stuart Meisenzahl
3 weeks ago

Mark
Ask any person in Human Resources ....they will NOT provide a negative assessment of a former employee to a prospective new employer. The reason is quite simple....in the absence of credible evidence to support "a negative assessment" they will be liable to the former employee. A former employer will not even step out on to this plank.

Job interviews are handled differently, but they are not an exempt category to an accused's rights to due process and freedom from unsubstantiated allegations that affect his employment. This entire "job interview schtick" exemption is an utterly baseless and misleading assertion.
If a coworker accuses you of leering at her in a licivious fashion, you will soon discover that your approach means you are fired without a hearing....see e.g. The Duke Lacrosse Players suspended without a hearing , vilified by an open faculty letter and finally vindicated by Duke University paying each of them many millions of dollars.....just because the were not accorded the presumption of innocence of school ethical rules. The District Attorney and the State of North Carolina paid millions more for a denial of due process in the criminal charges.

Roy Brooks
3 weeks ago

Would an allegation of abuse against any of the members of the editorial board of this magazine lead to their immediate removal and dismissal? Have there ever been charges made against any of America's staff?

As you have chosen to weigh in on "character," and you presume to speak on behalf of American Catholics and the faithful on matters of historical import, you should likewise be held to the same standards. Given the record of the Church on such matters over the last 75 years, any such allegation should be presumed as credible in advance, with evidence to the contrary to be provided in response in order to disprove the allegation of a crime.

Mark D
3 weeks ago

Then ask for an investigation of the allegations, you can't have it both ways. The timeline is completely artificial, the seat was open for an entire year, were you concerned then?

Gail Van der Linden
3 weeks ago

Clearly, the schism is wider and deeper after yesterday's "hearing". It is definitely men v. women, gop v. dem, respect v. tantrum. There is no middle ground ~ gauntlets were thrown down and wild conspiracy theories were aired. Either this behavior has been going on since the beginning and the common folks had no clue due to no information -OR- technology has enabled us to see/hear disgusting, undignified behavior...certainly unprofessional. I wouldn't have Kavanaugh deliberate on the outcome of a worm wrestle. The thought of him on the SC for the next 30 years is terrifying.

Patrick McCorry
3 weeks ago

I'm utterly appalled reading this and ashamed to consider myself Catholic that a Jesuit organization would allow itself to be corrupted by political grandstanding and attacking an honorable man. SHAME ON YOU ALL

Robert Klahn
3 weeks ago

When an honorable man is nominated for the supreme court I'll be interested in your take on that. This man has been clearly shown to be nothing like such a man.

Helen McCaffrey
3 weeks ago

As a Civil Right and Criminal Defense attorney and a woman,I am appalled and dismayed by the stance of the Editors of America calling for the withdrawal of the nomination of an eminently qualified jurist to the Supreme Court.It is the HEIGHT OF imprudence and cowardice.It will serve only to encourage baseless and vicious attack on qualified nominees. Men lie. WOMEN lie. Look at the evidentiary FACTS not the cause au courant.Emmett Till, Richard Jewell,Alfred Dreyfuss and on and on ALL falsely accused. Shame on the editors for being disloyal and caving to the fashion of the times. SHAME.You are NOT helping victims of assault .You are hurting them.

Mark D
3 weeks ago

Then ask for an investigation in the allegations? Can't we do better then this guy? He was a last minute short list candidate because of his writing on executive privilege. Doesn't that alone give you pause? Considering that the guy that nominated him is an un-indicted co-conspirator in at least one felony?

George Roose
3 weeks ago

Democratic liberal much ?

Hugh Beaumont
3 weeks ago

I love the way these writers try to trick us into believing they're being fair. On the other hand, maybe they don't even realize their own motivations.

James Schwarzwalder
3 weeks ago

Guilt by accusation is never acceptable. Dr. Ford's accusations were not substantiated. The four people she named each denied any knowledge of the party or the incident. She didn't remember the date, the location, or how she arrived or left the party. Judge Kavanaugh stated that he wanted to respond immediately to the charges when he heard of them, including a further FBI investigation. The FBI would have come up with the same evidence that the committee already had--sworn statements from the individuals mentioned by Dr. Ford. She was also unaware that the committee was willing to go to her in California. Anyone listening to a radio would have known that. She is afraid of flying but flies all over the world for work and hobbies. Her attorneys never suggested an interview such as is done with assault victims. Judge Kavanaugh should not be convicted on somone's unsubstantiated story. Something happened to Dr. Ford, but we don't know what or by whom.

Liz O
3 weeks ago

Any of alumnus of Georgetown Prep who is upset by the injustice done to Judge Kavanaugh should never give another penny to the school. For that matter, alumni of a Jesuit institution who support Judge Kavanaugh should make it clear why they will never donate to the Jesuits again.

david cortes
3 weeks ago

When America endorsed Judge Kavanaugh some time ago, it reasoned that "there are grave and important issues for pro-life people beyond abortion, including euthanasia, the death penalty and sane immigration policy. These issues, however, must not be traded off against the defense of the lives of unborn children."

That has changed now, however, because of the uncorroborated --- and, one could reasonably argue, refuted --- charges of sexual assault brought by Prof. Ford. Now, in the wake of her allegations, America says there is something more important at stake than the rights of the unborn: "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."

Since when do Americans need to be re-educated in how to address charges of serious misconduct? Why should we change our learning that in a civilized country, the burden is on the accuser? If there is any lesson to be learned from Thursday's hearings, it is that merely to make an allegation of sexual misconduct does not carry the accuser's burden. And yet that is the forbidden premise from which many, if not all, of the Democrats are working. Because of that, this is the precisely wrong reason, the wrong time, and the wrong cause on which America should withdraw its support for a pro-life judge.

America says, "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. * * * 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."

Got that? "Were he to be confirmed WITHOUT THIS ALLEGATION BEING FIRMLY DISPROVED, . . . ."

My God, what has happened to America?

Mark D
3 weeks ago

Then ask for an FBI investigation to confirm the proof. This is not a court of law, the assumption of innocence until proven guilty does not apply. This is a job interview, the court of public opinion. This is a life time appointment, if there is any doubt about the guy then toss him out. There are less tainted and equally good or better candidates. His behavior during his testimony alone should have been enough to disqualify him.

Stuart Meisenzahl
3 weeks ago

Mark
Check this alleged job interview exemption out with a decent lawyer.....it's utter nonsense.

Richard Dubiel
3 weeks ago

David,
Thank you for writing this. You nailed it.

Michael Barberi
3 weeks ago

I am sorry for posting another comment, but when I reread what the Editors said below, I had to challenge the wisdom of their comments. The quotation below is shameful.

"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."

How can the Editors justify withdrawing Kavanaugh's nomination and declaring this to be is in the best interests of our country....even if further investigation is warranted to clear his name? This is both wrong-headed and disgraceful.

> Do the Editors realize that to call for his withdrawal will be tantamount to an admission of guilt?
> Do the Editors recognize that his name and life will be ruined, if it has not already?
> Do the Editors think withdrawing his nomination is the right thing to do even when Judge Kavanaugh believes he is innocent?
> Do the Editors understand that a withdrawal will likely mean that Judge Kavanaugh will have to step down from the Federal Court of Appeals and may never be confirmed to any Federal Judgeship?
> Do the Editors know that he may never be able to coach girls basketball or teach law anymore?
> Under these circumstances and consequences, do the Editors 'truly believe' a withdrawal of his nomination is justified and in the best interest of our country?

The Editors need to rethink if the presumption of innocence and the right to a 'fair and impartial' hearing of evidence. even in a Senate Judicial Committee, should be sacrificed in the best interest of our country. I think not.

Tim O'Leary
3 weeks ago

Michael - the Editors admit that Judge Kavanaugh could be totally innocent. Yet, they want him to sacrifice his reputation, and that of his mother, wife, daughters and female friends, all for the sake of #MeToo movement that includes false accusations, for some greater good. Their craven position kills the #MeToo movement, as it separates its credibility from truth. Imagine if they took the same approach to Pope Francis, where an accusation alone was sufficient to force him to resign "for the good of the "Church" and the future credibility of the" Church "in a world that is finally learning to take reports of harassment, assault and abuse seriously..." Truth matters. Justice matters. The Jesuits used to die for the Truth. Now, they want Kavanaugh to live a lie. This is the end of an era.

A Fielder
3 weeks ago

Michael, the consequences for Kavanaugh are nothing like you have proposed. He is a federal judge and he will be fine, even without a promotion to this very presetgious position.

Tim, "Kavanaugh could be totally innocent" but the probability is slim. Should he be convicted of a crime? Of course not. Can we do better in selecting our next Supreme Court Justice? Yes, we can.

Michael Barberi
3 weeks ago

A Fielder

If Kavanaugh withdraws his nomination 'in the interest of our country' it will be viewed as an admission of guilt of sexual assault. The withdrawal In the interest of our country not only will disqualify him from SCOTUS, it most likely will disqualify him from the Federal Court of Appeals and the Federal Circuit Court. Such appointments must be confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. If he cannot serve on the SCOTUS because it would not be in the interest of our country, how can he continue to serve on the second highest court in the U.S., the Federal Court of Appeals of WDC? To say 'he will be fine' is ridiculous. His life and name will be ruined and he will live in shame.

A Fielder
3 weeks ago

Michael, perhaps I am naive, maybe there really are people who are out to get him because of something that may have happened in his youth. I do believe you are over reacting, but if there are publically negative consequences for him (in addition to being voted down or withdrawn) I will personally do whatever I can to defend against this.

Michael Barberi
2 weeks 6 days ago

A Fielder,

Thanks for clarifying your comments. I don't think you are naive but I also think your comment that "he will be fine" was ridiculous. Perhaps you did not give this enough consideration. Perhaps you will agree with this: If Kavanaugh does not get confirmed his life is ruined because the Senate will be affirming the testimony of Dr. Ford that he sexually assaulted her. If he withdraws his nomination, it will be tantamount to an admission of guilt and his life will be much worse. I am happy you believe that there should be no publicly negative consequences for him. Unless the FBI investigation uncovers a credible witness, he will be confirmed. However, the 4 witnesses Dr. Ford said were at this gathering did not corroborate her allegations under penalty of a felony. In fact, her best friend said she never met or knew Kavanaugh, nor did she ever see Kavanaugh at a gathering with Dr. Ford.

A Fielder
2 weeks 6 days ago

Michael, one small clarification.., I don’t believe Kavanaugh should withdrawal, I think he should be withdrawn - by the President. This need not be an admission of guilt, only recognition that he is not the best choice to sit on the SCOTUS at this time. Also, two of the “witnesses” were not witnesses, they were only named as being at the same party. They just don’t remember being there, which makes sense because it was not a traumatic event for them. The only true witness is Mark Judge and he certainly has motivation to lie, since he was a party to the alleged assault. If anything, the list of names provided by Ford actually does correlate with the 7/1 calendar entry of Kavanaugh.

Michael Barberi
2 weeks 5 days ago

A Fielder
If every Supreme Court nominee should be withdrawn by the President of the U.S. based on "allegations with no corroborating evidence" especially an event in High School that is 36 years old would be violating our nation's principle of innocent until proven guilty. While we are not in a criminal trial but in a highly partisan political Senate hearing we need to give as much weight to Kavanaugh's testimony as Dr. Ford's. The biggest problem for Dr. Ford is that there are no corroborating witnesses and the details of her testimony raise questions. Kavanaugh's withdrawal at this moment would be wrong-headed.

We do not agree on these things, so I suggest we end our give-and-take here because further arguments will not be productive.

Bruce Keener
3 weeks ago

What the opinion writers here simply don't care to consider.. with no evidence what so ever and all of her "witnesses" say never happened... if his confirmation goes down his life is ruined. These unproven allegations (you can't prove a negative as true, it is impossible to prove he is innocent) he would have to be removed from the US Court of Appeals where he currently sits. This man will lose everything on the unproven, unprovable allegations. What is that old saying in the US Justice system? In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation is the principle that: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". That is exactly what is happening here Judge Kavanaugh has been convicted, found guilty, and soon to be sentenced without a single piece of solid evidence. SAD! VERY SAD!

Rose Puerto
3 weeks ago

Despicable that an allegation can be lobbed, unproven, and that you would suggest unequivocally that he should take the fall. This says a lot about the degradation of our politics and society. I don't think anyone agreeing with your sentiment would find it just in any way should it happen to them. And this is a Jesuit magazine?

Mark D
3 weeks ago

Well, he should support a full and thorough investigation then shouldn't he? Doesn't he want to clear his name?
What's the rush? The GOP held the seat open for a year right before last years election? Why not let the voters decide? Right?

Robert Klahn
3 weeks ago

When abortion becomes the only issue of significance in judging a candidate for office, appointed of elected, your chances of making the wrong choice goes up drastically.

Kavanaugh may or may not be truly opposed to abortion, but he most certainly is poorly qualified otherwise. His appointment to the federal court was clearly political, to the Supreme Court would be intolerable.

He has twisted the story enough, in his introductory remarks, as to justify impeachment as soon as the Democrats retake the congress.

Until you think "Whole Life" you have no status at all as "Pro Life".

Mark D
3 weeks ago

Excellent article. I do take issue with this section,

On the face of it, but he was nominated by a President that is an un-indicted co-conspirator in a one or more felonies AND after he lied to the Senate last time AND after Garlands seat was robbed AND his writing on Presidential authority is what got him ADDED to the Federalist's list in the first place.
Of course I know this Magazine endorsed him in the first round, so congrats on getting it right now, but let's not whitewash his past and the truth just by saying the "Democrats do it too". A closer examination of WHY Democrats are doing it is required.

Paul Schneider
3 weeks ago

"The editors of this review have no special insight into who is telling the truth."

No, the editors of America magazine have no insight. Period.

"We recognize that this nomination is no longer in the best interests of the country."

Why?

"This nomination...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."

No, I'm not misquoting the Editors, they actually said that.

"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."

Think about that: The judge "continues to enjoy a legal presumption of innocence," but he's unconfirmable because presumptively guilty (of this allegation!).

"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."

There it is: Judge Kavanaugh is a "lesson." We're going to subject a human being (and his family and loved ones) to horrible injustice in order to teach white males about taking harassment and assault reports seriously.

Seriously?

Tracy Bryant
3 weeks ago

Shame on all of you. It is NOT a bell weather on how we treat assault victims...it is however, a referendum on our ability to reason, stand up for what is good and true, and not let a good man's character be destroyed for political folly, you cowards.

Barbara Scott
3 weeks ago

Thank you, this character assassination and hate crime broadcast to the world is disgraceful and done for political reasons makes it even worse.

Michael Swanson
3 weeks ago

The real issue here is Mr. Kavanaugh's character, which he revealed before the Senate Judiciary Committee and the American public yesterday. The explosion of rancor, incivility, anger, and blatant hostility was telling, and there is simply no place for this kind of behavior on the Supreme Court. There does not appear to be any way to unveil the truth of Mrs. Fords accusations, but we now know the truth of Mr. Kavanaugh's character. In addition, he seems to have a very privileged attitude, as if he was entitled to the position. This also seems to be reflected in other comments, such as "What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep". This seems to be another way of saying that privileged prep school boys are not responsible for their actions. At this point, the only way that he can redeem himself is by withdrawing his nomination. I somehow don't think that he has the courage to do that.

J Brookbank
3 weeks ago

I agree.

Michael Swanson
3 weeks ago

The real issue here is Mr. Kavanaugh's character, which he revealed before the Senate Judiciary Committee and the American public yesterday. The explosion of rancor, incivility, anger, and blatant hostility was telling, and there is simply no place for this kind of behavior on the Supreme Court. There does not appear to be any way to unveil the truth of Mrs. Fords accusations, but we now know the truth of Mr. Kavanaugh's character. In addition, he seems to have a very privileged attitude, as if he was entitled to the position. This also seems to be reflected in other comments, such as "What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep". This seems to be another way of saying that privileged prep school boys are not responsible for their actions. At this point, the only way that he can redeem himself is by withdrawing his nomination. I somehow don't think that he has the courage to do that.

Pamela Dunn
3 weeks ago

And Then, You spew the same idiocy again:
Well, here's my comment again:
So IDIOT, you "think" (used loosely in your case) that an INNOCENT man should ALLOW his honor and character be crapped on and slandered WITHOUT getting angry about it? What a sad load of idiocy you are, gutless, spineless WIMP fits you to a "T".

Jim Francis
2 weeks 5 days ago

I believe MJS’ mindspring ran dry…

Frank De Silva
3 weeks ago

I strongly disagree with this editor’s opinion for the following reasons. We have a justice system not just to decide if somebody is a criminal or not but rather to ensure that innocent people are not victimized in anyway. This is not a question of if Judge Kavanagh and Ford had physical contact that they both agree and one calls it rape and the other it was with consent. This is a case where he says he was never there. You simply cannot destroy a person’s reputation based on unproven allegation. In the least it should go to a vote. That would at least signal the fact that this is unproven. Now if he gets the job that’s great. Does that mean we forget Ford, definitely not. The allegations should be followed its logical conclusion. If the conclusion is the Judge was lying, then he can be removed from office on perjury charges. Are we saying that if he lied under oath he can keep his current job? Obviously not, If he is fit for his current job he is fit for a promotion.

Pamela Dunn
3 weeks ago

NO; Kavanaugh says it NEVER happened, that he was never there, that he NEVER knew her; Then too she CANNOT remember the year month day, place or time when it supposedly happened and the others she names say they WERE NOT there. She is nothing BUT a lying liberal useful idiot.

mypurview@hotmail.com
3 weeks ago

Really? Democrat much? You know I could never understand how one of the oldest and most conservative religions in the world produces so many devout Liberal Democrats. To throw a truly devout Catholic and dedicated public servant, both in word and action, under this political Greyhound is more than sacreligious, it is the essence of immorality.
Matthew 26:33-35 But Peter told him, “Even if everyone else turns against you, I certainly won’t!”
Find your faith in man, and therein you will have your honor. Shame on you from a resepectful Methodist.

George Roose
3 weeks ago

God Bless you sir!

Barbara Scott
3 weeks ago

Thank you! Beautifully stated!! Our country's politics is so corrupt and to have the church join in is frightening.

David Coleman
3 weeks ago

I today will never go to my Catholic Church again. Ruining a mans life with no evidence is wrong. None of us were there, ,yet we judge. This man is pro life and that is what its all about.I guess the Church and its people changed. People any detective would tell u nobody is a sex offender and just stops for 40yrs not one

Helen McCaffrey
3 weeks ago

Emmett Till, Richard Jewell, Gary Condit, Father Pagano shall I continue - Would you side with their accusers too?

Tim O'Leary
3 weeks ago

This article has generated the most comments in the shortest time I have ever seen. I did an analysis of these comments below at 5pm Fri.
75% are against the Editors and defenders of Kavanaugh. They are the most vehement. I have never seen so much anger against the Editors.
They have badly miscalculated on what fairness and justice means in this case.

George Roose
3 weeks ago

You have no conception of what JUSTICE is!

Tim O'Leary
3 weeks ago

George - public humiliation of an innocent man is not justice. I am guessing you think it is.

George Roose
3 weeks ago

Tim,
I have maybe misunderstood your initial comment. The point I was trying to make was that these editors have no concept of what justice is. It is truly a sad state of our current church, another sign of the end-times, ie There will be great turmoil throughout the world, great signs on the earth, in the skies, and the seas, to paraphrase

Tim ODonnell
3 weeks ago

If every one were truly looking out for the good of each other I would agree with you. I have become cynical. So if the man being considered were your son and you knew him to be a truly good Christian and then a colleague completely destroys him with accusations would you still feel the same way

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