The Editors: It is time for the Kavanaugh nomination to be withdrawn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of his legal credentials and his reputation as a committed textualist, it is now clear that the nomination should be withdrawn.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

Michael, although you fail to mention above that even President Trump has said that Dr Ford’s testimony was credible, I am also beginning to wonder if this editorial was published too quickly, and even before the FBI investigation was requested by Sen Flake. Perhaps the better position on Thursday night would have been to endorse the non-partisan investigation. But if we are to the point where an investigation by the FBI is needed, perhaps we are past the point of no return. I am also troubled that the FBI and White House had Dr Ford’s letter quite some time ago, and elected to nothing with it. This also points to Republican partisan politics to hide something that should be investigated. But since Trump has been accused about 20 times, perhaps ignoring Dr Ford was to be expected.

JoAnne Rogers
2 months 2 weeks ago

This is disgusting. You have turned the corner. I will never support this organization again. You have tried and convicted a good man on the basis of political correctness. Your loss. Goodbye forever.

Robert Klein
2 months 2 weeks ago

First let me say I am catholic and I am a sinner but I am very concerned when people start judging our lord my master never did such things.

A Fielder
2 months 2 weeks ago

Except in the temple, the den of thieves, and on the numerous occasions when he railed against his own religious leaders, the brood of vipers, white washed tombs, hypocrites, etc.

Robert Klein
2 months 2 weeks ago

You are part of my faith and you attack a person of your faith a house divided against its self will fail I am not trying to tell you what is right or wrong but wait for the truth to come out pray that gods will be done

Robert Klein
2 months 2 weeks ago

I ask all Catholics to pray for a share in the cross pope Francis is carrying together we can ease his burden god bless all of you 😇🇺🇸

Terry Klima
2 months 2 weeks ago

" 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." So, a viable and highly qualified nominee should be disqualified simply on the basis of an unsubstantiated allegation and appearances? Having difficulty reconciling this sentiment with the Church's handling of many verifiable sexual assaults by religious swept under the rug.

Jim Francis
2 months 2 weeks ago

AMDG

It had to be on the top of every page we handed in at the Jesuit College Prep from which I graduated in the ‘60s. I learned more there than I did at the University of California. Far more. My “prep” now has a Social Justice Warrior program. Last year it was “kneeling for the National Anthem.” It used to teach boys/young men how to think. Now, it seems to just teach them what to think. A shame, really. A school founded in 1851, down the tubes, and proud of it. I see, in AmMag the same deterioration of thought and principle, and I pray for all of you.

Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

rose-ellen caminer
2 months 2 weeks ago

She was credible.He was credible.They both are adamant that their assertions are true.I'm baffled;one of them is lying .I can't tell who.These are not thugs or sociopaths but people whose adult lives are lived in full engagement with moral issues. How on earth can such a person maintain a lying narrative ,either as a practical matter[ how do they do it?] or as true -to -themselves- authentic- human beings? It totally baffles me. I thought the same thing about the Justice Thomas /Anita hill testimonies. Both sounded truthful and sincere. Both were socially conscientious people yet, like now one of them persisted in lying through their teeth,repeatedly. It just boggles my mind.

If he did it, he should be smart enough to know he could have admitted it and be forgiven.He could have acknowledged that as a 17 year old, he was learning the parameters of how to engage with others, including with women and sexually. He could have even admitted to some misogyny as it may still have pervaded the culture he was part 36 years ago .He could have said that he has grown up and learned from those errors. He could have said; he is not the same person as he was back during that sexual assault. His attitudes towards women towards has changed as he became an adult and as the times changed. He is no longer the ignoramus he was at 17!
I think his bad behavior when" sowing some oats" at seventeen, 36 years ago when the attitudes, in some enclaves may have been different regarding women, then they are today, would have been recognized as not defining his adulthood, by anyone with common sense.I don't think how he was at 17 disqualifies him for being a Justice today. Even if he engaged in a lot of wild, misogynistic behavior while a teen 36 years ago, We're not all born knowing the ropes of proper behavior with the opposite sex, [he was an only child] .But that he was able to grow up and learn from his errors and be sorry for any harm he caused any woman as an ignorant teenager, is what counts. You would think he knows this, So I am baffled; is he lying or telling the truth in his adamant denial?

His accounts of what the year book quotes mean, do make sense to me. They do read as immature adolescent silliness, childish actually; references to vomiting ,farting , and playing at being an adult by drinking . Not what more mature , sexually experienced and sexually focused teens would be saying.His explanation for the reference to Renate, also sounds credible; like she was their muse; the perfect woman he and his buddies lusted after, but was in reality just a friend who they treated with platonic respect; who they honored in the year book; their dream girl. His year book explanations sound credible.Excess drinking is subjective; was he getting his school work done? And doing sports? So it may have not been excess for him!

That he was having a nervous breakdown before the committee shows how upset he was, it shows his humanity; men do have feelings and emotions; he behaved like the unhinged stereotype of he emotional woman!So much for identity politics and stereotypes! God confounds us again?

Jim Lein
2 months 2 weeks ago

The answer I think is that neither one lied in their testimony. But he was blacked out from binge drinking (an all too common occurrence for boys at that age) and she was not. Thus she remembered and he didn't. And look at all the mess that has happened because he didn't say earlier that he didn't remember but that he was sorry if it did happen. The retired psychotherapist in me held out a faint hope that just maybe they might have been able to talk it through, maybe in the privacy of therapists office, before it got down to the stage of formal testimony. The Catholic in me is praying for them both.

Jim Lein
2 months 2 weeks ago

Call me a cock-eyed optimist, as the song goes, but I am praying and holding on to the thread-thin hope that just maybe it isn't too late for such a healing interaction between the two of them after the smoke clears. This would be much more important than a seat on a bench. This would be allowing a Jesus moment, responding to how he calls us to resolve difficulties and differences.

Tim O'Leary
2 months 2 weeks ago

The comments continue to pile on, yet they show some optimistic signs. There are now over 480, and the large majority are very offended by this abject call for withdrawal of an innocent man. Particularly gratifying are the many women who are not fooled by the #MeToo claim that an allegation is alone evidence of an abuse, and that an accused man is guilty until proven innocent. The most repeat commentators are leftwing Brookbank (> 24) and Fielder (> 17), lining up behind the Editors. Thanks to Helen, Katherin, Pamela, Carol, Lynn, Beth, Joanne, Karen, Kelly, Nancy, Antoinette, JoAnne and others for defending due process and for seeing the raw politics in the attempted destruction of a son before his mother, a husband before his wife, and a father before his daughters, based on uncorroborated or even refuted allegations of misbehavior of a teenager. From what I know, Brett Kavanaugh is a better man than I am, in his private life, in his service and in his courage to withstand this onslaught. I pray for him and his family to have the strength to persevere.

A Fielder
2 months 2 weeks ago

Tim, I must say that I have also noticed a great number of names commenting here that I have never seen before, some even admit that they do not subscribe, and have no idea that the magazine is thoroughly pro-life. I’m am not quite sure how that has happened all of a sudden. Just out of curiosity how many of these comments are yours?

J Cosgrove
2 months 2 weeks ago

Every once in a while an article on America gets highlighted or linked to on other sites. I'm sure that is the source of most of the comments. For example, this article was referenced by the Associated Press.

Janet Angelo
2 months 2 weeks ago

Of course it was.

Tim O'Leary
2 months 2 weeks ago

Fielder - when I did the count on you and Brookbank, I had 6 comments. Probably around 10 now.

J Cosgrove
2 months 2 weeks ago

Tim, people will choose what they use for news sources depending on their politics. So something well known to one person will often be unknown to others. This could be specific events or facts but most often takes the form of the argument used to defend one's position or the hiding or relative counter arguments.

J Cosgrove
2 months 2 weeks ago

For example, this headline appeared this morning about this phenomenon People are being manipulated on this topic by the MSM. One way Fake News plays out.

Broadcasters grant only 4% of Brett Kavanaugh news coverage to judge's side of story:

Tim O'Leary
2 months 2 weeks ago

Cosgrove - you are right. Sites like CNN and MSNBC never bring up the definitive discrepancies in the accusers' accounts. Now that the FBI has been unleashed, they are suddenly concerned none of the stories will be corroborated, so they are going on judicial temperament and saying Kavanaugh's defense of himself and his family was too emotional. I wonder how Ginsburg or Sotomayor would have taken to accusations they were involved in gang rapes, were alcoholics? I notice so many of the accusers attack Kavanaugh or the Republicans for being white, or white males, or straight white males. They freely use racist sexist language. Such hypocrites.

J Brookbank
2 months 2 weeks ago

Tim, I anticipate that any other nominee to SCOTUS would have requested a follow up background check by the FBI were they accused of any crime or other disqualifying behavior. As officers of the court, that seems the appropriate response.

PS This is revisionist. The criticism of Kavanaugh's temperament began while Thursday's hearing was still underway and continued throughout the evening and into the morning, well before the FBI investigation was agreed upon and then began Saturday morning. Those who raised issues about his temperament during the hearing are, by and large, the sane people who requested the FBI investigation before the hearing.

maryanne kane
2 months 2 weeks ago

The Catholic Church is in no position to advocate for the abandonment of the core Constitutional principles upon which the United States was founded. Having been exposed as corrupt at its core, the Catholic Church keeps flailing and floundering and casting about for an issue to which it may attach so that it may virtue signal to those the Church cares most about: those with money.

If the Kavanaugh nomination is withdrawn, what will be affirmed is that anyone may say anything at anytime to anybody and cause the target's life, for all intents and purposes, to end. There is no principle in heaven or on earth that would support such a result.

Ann O'Reilly
2 months 2 weeks ago

To encourage someone to withdraw based on unproven allegations is to encourage the continued uncivil allegations and bullying in the future. Do you believe the next nominee will fair any better? Ask Clarence Thomas. When these tactics are successful they intensify and expand.
Would you ask a woman to withdraw her nomination to the Supreme Court based on 35 year old uncorroborated accusations from a man or would you require the man to prove (not just provide emotional testimony) the allegations prior to the call to withdraw? I pray for civility to return to our nation and our people.

John Sharpe
2 months 2 weeks ago

Or what if it was a man accusing Kavanaugh of the same behavior instead of a woman...do you think the Jesuits would object?

rose-ellen caminer
2 months 2 weeks ago

Yes it would be prudent i.e., for the common good, for Kavanaugh to withdraw , however an individual falsely accused has feelings and wants to clear his name and so has no ethical obligation to sacrifice himself to the common good. To do so is admirable , heroic, but one is not morally obligated to become a martyr.
We don't want to become a society that calls for innocent people to sacrifice themselves; to tarnish irrevocably their reputation before their families and before society, that expects innocent people to willingly disgrace themselves; as recusing himself would be tantamount to an admission of guilt , in order to satisfy the sensibilities of the aggrieved masses.We have not progressed this far to revert to the tactic of calling for the innocent to become a scapegoat for the good of the whole. That is not what democracy, equality and justice is about; the individual counts as much as the group.

J Cosgrove
2 months 2 weeks ago

The recommendation to withdraw is exactly what the Democrats want. The authors are extremely disingenuous. There will be no time to interview a new judge before the new congress begins and the authors know this so essentially are carrying the water for the Democrats. They also know that there will likely be a lot of Republicans who will then sit out the elections and provide a Democratic congress which will fight every appointment that Trump makes. That is what is happening now. Ruining a persons life is of no concern to the Democrats.

Tim O'Leary
2 months 2 weeks ago

Rose-ellen - it would be catastrophic for our nation if Kavanaugh withdrew while maintaining his innocence and no damning evidence surfacing. It would embolden partisans across the political spectrum to attempt to destroy future candidates by manufacturing unsubstantiated charges. It would greatly diminish the US Senate and the Judicial system. And, it would greatly hamper any truly abused people coming forward since their allegations would be seen as no better or worse than unsubstantiated claims. I am amazed the priests on this Editorial board do not see this. They have been exposed as more politically motivated than at any time in their past. Their credibility is now shot. For the good of the Jesuit order, we need to see some resignations from this editorial board. I would also like to see if the editors were unanimous in this decision, or who counselled against it. Was Fr. Martin in on the decision (he is "Editor at large")? At the very least, Fr. Matt Malone needs to explain the decision in his resignation speech.

A Fielder
2 months 2 weeks ago

I wonder if Mitch McConnell is thinking to himself, “I told you so.” He warned President Trump before the nomination that Kavanaugh would be hard to confirm. Looks like he was right.

sandra bo
2 months 2 weeks ago

Your decision to publicly un-endorse Kavenaugh before the FBI completes it's discovery, based on a he said - she said dog and pony show is despicable. How about waiting for the FBI's new revelations? It's not whether you agree or disagree in a story. Believe in God or believe in the tooth fairy. Believe an accuser? - NO - Believe the evidence. Hopefully the FBI will dig very, very deep and the truth will be come known. But, regardless, I find your peremptory decision to be based on whether women are to be believed or disbelieved in the future to be a disservice to women, Judge Kavenaugh, the American people, and your own credibility.

Joe Fahey
2 months 2 weeks ago

This is pure cowardice. The Catholic Church demands that people not reach conclusions about accusations against its priests until they are fully corroborated. I guess now the Jesuit editors of this publication are OK with throwing priests under the bus until the priests themselves can prove themselves innocent.
The smear campaign against Judge Kavanaugh is solely about preserving abortion and other pet issues of the Left. Eighteen minutes after President Trump announced his nomination of Kavanaugh, Sen. Schumer announced that the Dems were going to oppose the nomination by any means necessary. The smear is "any means."
Presumably, the editors agree with Schumer that there is no presumption of innocence for Kavanaugh. I thank goodness these editors are in no place to judge me.

Michael Barberi
2 months 2 weeks ago

The criteria the Editors are using for Kavanaugh's withdrawal, namely "for the good of the country" sounds very similar to the moral criteria "for the good of the Church" used by Bishops, et al, in the sexual abuse scandal. In the Church's case "for the good of the Church" was used to protect the reputation of the Church despite the sexual abusive crimes by clergy and the rights of minors and adults pressured into having sex with clergy.

I don't think the Editors considered the irony here, and I don't think they equated 'for the good of the country' with 'for the good of the Church'. However, in both cases these moral reasons are imprudent and acts of injustice. In other words, no one should sacrifice their integrity for the good of the country when they believe they are innocent, and no crime or immoral sexual acton by clergy should be ignored for the good of the Church's reputation.

The Editor's call for Kavanaugh's withdrawal is premature and irresponsible for the many reasons mentioned by most of the 550 posted comments here. The Editors should rethink the underlining basis for their argument.

J Brookbank
2 months 2 weeks ago

Michael, i agree 100% there are parallels btwn this situation and the sexual abuse crusis in the church.

Tim O'Leary
2 months 2 weeks ago

Brookbank - if you mean that in both cases, some priests are falsely accused, and that due process requires allegations be substantiated, and that innocence needs to be disproved, you are correct. Dr. Ford's accusation would not meet the substantiated threshold for any child abuse, for many reasons already cited, especially the political motivation. As the Philadelphia Grand Jury showed, even their definition of substantiated was less than 50% correct, after a full investigation. (http://archphila.org/HHHIC/hhhic.php).

Brian Brady
2 months 2 weeks ago

Jesuits, heal thyselves

If Mrs Ford's testimony was true, The Society of Jesus has a BIG problem in its American high schools

Janet Angelo
2 months 2 weeks ago

I have a question about the yearbooks. What Jesuit high school allows boys to print things in their yearbooks such as these obvious references to sex and girls they think are easy? What an indictment of that school. Where was the yearbook faculty moderator? 14 boys had Renate alumnus printed in the yearbook?

bcbc31@hotmail.com
2 months 2 weeks ago

It is extremely unfortunate that people (largely on the left) ignore the facts in this incident--ALL--which point to this being a coordinated smear campaign against a man with a flawless record. All other allegations made against him have already been proven false (some of them so ridiculous they should never even have seen the light of day), and the most credible--Christine Blasey Ford--has no evidence this incident occurred. In fact, any circumstantial evidence which has been discovered so far actually contradicts her. Three witnesses she herself put forward deny such a party even occurring and her own friend denies even knowing Kavanaugh. She can't remember *any* concrete facts about the incident other than she is aboslutely sure it was Kavanaugh. I have been dealing with both victims, suspects, and liars for over 20 years as a law enforcement officer, and I am an expert interrogator. I can tell you, even with a 36 year old allegation, that discrepancy makes no sense. Further, I keep hearing so-call "experts" saying she sounded credible. I am sorry, but I don't agree. She was scared during the testimony, yes, but I noticed several behavioral indicators which demonstrated to me and others in my field that she was unsure about what she was saying when recounting her story. She was clearly going off of a prepared statement/talking points (no doubt prepared by her lawyers), and when asked questions deviating from that, she had a hard time keeping things straight. This was more than mere nervousness in my opinion. Now, apparently, this whole incident came about from a "recovered" memory during a therapy session in 2012. Whether hypnosis was used or not, this type of memory itself is not admissable in a court of law for very serious reasons. Case law has shown in several instances that these types of "recovered" memories brought on by psychological techniques can lead to altered/concocted memories that the affiant actually believes occurred (which could be how she passed a polygraph--if those results were to be believed anyway which I am skeptical about). My point is, people are innocent until proven guilty for a reason. But even beyond that, there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE indicating this allegation is true, while several pieces exist now indicating it is false. So with that knowledge, why are you retracting your endorsement of this man? You cannot give in to the mob mentality of ridiculous ideology such as we *must* believe all women when they point fingers, regardless of the lack of evidence. I am telling you, people (including women) report false claims ALL THE TIME. And anyone claiming this does not happen often has no idea what they are talking about because many of these false claims do not get recorded by law enforcement agencies because--although against the law to file a false police report--many agencies decide not to go after these people. Bottom line is this: The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the accuser. This isn't the Salem witch trials, and all established facts say Judge Kavanaugh is a good, hard working, family man with an outstanding record. Remember that when you decide to get on your high horse and echo with the mob "we believe her." ... I believe the evidence.

John Maloof
2 months 2 weeks ago

Diane Feinstein has stated, "The last thing we need on the Supreme Court is another Catholic". I take her at her word. With the Democrats anything goes. Lying, cheating, breaking the rules, throwing out unsubstantiated claims are all acceptable in the world of stop the Catholic.

Tim O'Leary
2 months 2 weeks ago

Now nearly 600 comments, vast majority outraged at the craven capitulation of this Jesuit Journal's Editorial board. The timing of this editorial is suspicious, since it follows exactly what Sen. Schumer called for the day before Ford and Kavanaugh testified. Schumer: “I strongly believe Judge Kavanaugh should withdraw from consideration." Thanks to the many courageous women who have rejected the guilty-for-being-a-white-man thesis of Sen. Hirono & the most extreme part of the #MeToo mob. Some new questions: Why did Feinstein's office recommend Dr. Ford lawyer up, with a former lawyer of Julie Swetnick (Debra Katz), long before Swetnick came forward and long before the Republican cmte members were informed of an allegation? Was Katz working for the Democrats or Ford? Who is paying travel expenses? Why did Katz not present to her 'client' the offer by Sen. Grassley to go to her for an interview? Did Katz leak the name of Ford to the media? This wreaks with opportunities for collusion. The FBI needs to investigate the Feinstein office - after Kavanaugh is nominated.

Stanley Kopacz
2 months 2 weeks ago

The real tragedy of this whole thing is that it distracts from what a corporate toady Kavanaugh will be. His record shows the expected strong biases. Corporations can do no wrong. Cops can do no wrong. Anti-climate change reduction. We can expect more decisions in favor of corporations and less for consumers. The corporate elite is always right. If they stop this scumbag from becoming a justice, there's a whole list of them waiting in the wings.

Stuart Meisenzahl
2 months 2 weeks ago

Tim
You are right on the money...."the Katz out of the bag". The entire time scenario was set up the minute Feinstein's office referred Ms Ford to Katz. Note also that it was Katz's statement that Ms Ford had to wait until Thursday because she had to drive/fear of flying....rebutted at the hearing.
Standard practice: outsource the leak/disclosure to a law firm , followed by the assertion of atty /Client Priv. to cover the source of that leak . Same practice was used when DNC hired a law firm to hire Fusion GPS for the "dossier debacle"....outsource the dirty tricks.

Michael Barberi
2 months 2 weeks ago

Tim,
I would not be surprised that Dr. Ford's attorneys did not tell Dr. Ford that the Senate Judiciary Committee offered to travel to her to conduct the interview. That was clear from Dr. Ford's testimony. She had no idea that the Senate Committee made such an offer. If her attorneys did not tell Dr. Ford about the Senate's offer, her attorneys may face disbarment by the ABA. I would not be surprised if the FBI might also investigate the question 'who leaked Dr. Ford's letter to the press'. Was it Feinstein and her staff, another Democrat, Dr. Ford, Dr. Ford's attorneys, someone else?

The Democrats are now switching their strategy of obstruct, mislead and resist to Kavanaugh's beer drinking in high school and college and his temperament. Are we really going to use beer drinking and getting drunk a few times in high school and college as the litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee? Most of the public see right through this smear campaign.

This FBI investigation may backfire on the Democrats. On the other hand, if there is credible evidence corroborating Dr. Ford's allegations, Kavanaugh may not gain sufficient votes. At this point, we have affidavits from the 3-4 witnesses under penalty of felony that do not corroborate Dr. Ford's allegations. Only time will tell.

Sam Zeng
2 months 2 weeks ago

Thou shalt not bear false witness and the Christian society is built on the doctrine of presumed innocent until proving guilty. This is just a he said/she said situation, I am just troubled and confused that the Jesuit Editor rushed to abandon Kavanaugh, same way they abandoned the Chinese Underground Church. Lord hear my prayer and bring justice back to our Church.

Sam Zeng
2 months 2 weeks ago

"but Judge Kavanaugh is not the only such nominee available"!? then how about the Only Lost Sheep?! The Shepherd left the 99 sheep to find that only lost sheep. Lord hear our prayer and let's be merciful like the Father.

KATHERIN MARSH
2 months 2 weeks ago

The Editors are going after the Lost Sheep. They are not Kavanaugh, they are Ford and other similarly confused women.

KATHERIN MARSH
2 months 2 weeks ago

Kavanaugh is not the lost sheep. He is still the presumptive nominee to the Supreme Court. Although powerful women have used strategies reminiscent of Mean Girl, High School bullying techniques, Kavanaugh has not lost his way. These techniques have misdirected many victimized women. What happens to their voices after this mess by powerful women politicos?

Terry Kane
2 months 2 weeks ago

I am so disappointed in this publication's ethics. Judge Brett Kavanaugh has a stellar reputation for over twenty years, with no blemishes; then there is an accusation with no corroboration whatsoever and America Magazine withdraws its endorsement. What happened to the American tradition of presumption of innocence? Perhaps you might want to consider a name change to UnAmerica Magazine.

Judge Kavanaugh was so proud of the Catholic education he earned at Georgetown Prep and the Jesuits who taught him there - yet you guys let him down in his hour of need. This act of your withdrawal is stunning. How can you defend the abandoning of someone who has a life long record of befriending and defending women just because someone makes an allegation which cannot be proven. In addition to that lack of proof, the witnesses she claims were there all cannot recall any such event. You are not making this choice to abandon Judge Kavanaugh for any logical reason other than cowardice. Are you afraid those who support abortion will abandon you and your faith? Wake up - those people hate your faith already, and they probably only put up with you because they claim to believe in diversity, so to get rid of Catholics would reveal their actual feelings. Sadly, I feel sorry for you.

The founder of the order, St. Ignatius of Loyola, would be ashamed of this action which you have taken. He had soldierly ideals but you have let those strong feelings fade away in favor of no ideals at all, only political correctness remains. Is this what Jesuits have let themselves become? How can you not stand for honor, loyalty and faith? Some may believe this act shows your virtuousness , but it actually shows the lack of virtue. A Jesuit magazine should show strength in times of pressure, a belief in the dignity of a man who has made you proud and a commitment to a faithful Catholic family man. You should be ashamed.

You cannot seriously take the word of an accuser who: shows up thirty-some-odd years later with absolutely no corroboration; cannot give the date, or location of her alleged assault; admits to leaving her best friend alone at a party with three boys - two of whom were allegedly drunken would-be rapists; told untruths about when she "remembered" her alleged assailant, when and why she had two front doors installed in her home. There are other flaws in the accuser's story, but the point is that there are holes in her story big enough to drive a Buick through. Coming across as vulnerable and unhappy is not proof of accuracy and it cannot be a substitute for evidence or corroboration.
Catholics used to hold certain ideals and would stand for the them, not change course to keep up with the mob. Please rethink your decision to abandon your endorsement of Judge Kavanaugh.

Hilary Sterne
2 months 2 weeks ago

Judge Kavanaugh has lied repeatedly under oath and now it appears he has been tampering with witnesses. Whether you believe Blasey Ford and the other accusers or not, he is not fit to serve on the country’s highest court.

Stuart Meisenzahl
2 months 2 weeks ago

Hilary
Nice of you to weigh in with yet more unsubstantiated allegations. I suggest you promptly document your basis for these new allegations of yours or withdraw them.
I quote your Linked In business profile: ".Writer........[I] will take your ideas and spin a storey that will resonate with your clients."

Tim O'Leary
2 months 2 weeks ago

Stuart - that is a Hilarious LinkedIn byline by stern Hilary - Notice the veteran sex crimes investigator, Rachel Mitchell, who questioned Christine Blasey Ford, has written an assessment of Ford’s claims, outlining the many holes in her memory. In particular, she cannot remember if she gave the Washington Post the therapists notes. She has a memory gap of a few weeks ago! https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/rachel-mitchell-christin…

Terry Kane
2 months 2 weeks ago

Hilary - I doubt if you can substantiate your assertion about lying under oath, but please prove me wrong. What do you mean about him tampering with witnesses? The judge has been on the DC Court of Appeals for decades and many of his rulings were adopted by the Supreme Court. He has been held in the highest esteem by all his colleagues, legal scholars and the ABA, but because of some scurrilous accusations you feel he is unfit. Are you a Democrat senator, or just a Democrat?

Hilary Sterne
2 months 2 weeks ago

Thank you to the editors of America for doing the right thing and rescinding your endorsement.

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