The Editors: It is time for the Kavanaugh nomination to be withdrawn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of his legal credentials and his reputation as a committed textualist, it is now clear that the nomination should be withdrawn.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

I am appalled by America's decision to regard this as a referendum on sexual harrassment. The Democrats will oppose any and all conservative nominees with delays, falsehoods and subterfuge-the latest of which is an appeal to the issue of "temperament" or that this is a "job interview". The allegations against Brett Kavanaugh have been over the top in their lack of believeability. Blasey Ford is NOT credible. Her selective claustrophobia is ludicrous. The fact that other "witnesses" do not corroborate her and the lynch mob determination to quash his nomination will be repeated with any one else but with the disadvantage that the right will feel defeated and NOT energized going into the November midterms. America you're run by hysterical liberal feminists!

Dante Inferno
2 months 2 weeks ago

So for the once great Jesuits – men ordained in the Holy Truth of Our Lord - the mere accusation is now sufficient on its face. Truth abandoned.

This woman is obviously confused and very troubled. She cannot recall how many cups of coffee she had yet she has crystal clear memory from a vague event over 30 years earlier?

She is lying. In violation of 8th Commandement - she is bearing false witness to destroy a great man – sent by Almighty God to give the people hope of once and for all ending the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent babies in abortion.

Make no mistake. This is all about abortion. Have to keep killing the babies.

The agents of satan are in epic meltdown going crazy trying to destroy this great man by any and all means possible.

So now this is the process the Jesuit editors advocate…

1. Make false accusations
2. Rile up public crowds to your side
3. Convict subject in court of public opinion based on feelings and NOT facts.
4. force the hand of authorities to “kill” Him (withdraw nomination).

Isn't this exactly what the Jews did to Our Lord 2,000 yrs ago?

Jesuits what a sorry lot you are. How far you have fallen.

How can you ever escape damnation?

Michael Song
2 months 2 weeks ago

For a moment, let's presume Dr. Ford's accusations are all lies. That still doesn't change the fact that Brett simply lied about certain common terminology and its definition. Boofing, Devil's Triangle are common terms to define certain acts. Yet he blatantly lied about what they meant. I am willing to clear his name on all accusations of sexual misconduct since as many of his supporters have stated there is no hard evidence. Yet I can not excuse his bold faced lies when referring to his yearbook and its contents. This is supposed to be a future Chief Justice on the Supreme Court?!?! If you guys don't think that is a lie, let me make a withdrawal (I promise it means I will put money INTO your account) from your bank accounts!

Mary Nasta
2 months 2 weeks ago

They are common now (not that many of us have heard of them) but not 36 years ago.

John Sharpe
2 months 2 weeks ago

She’s a liar...just like the Jesuits Phoneys

Bonnie Weissman
2 months 2 weeks ago

I could believe Dr. Ford (usually believe victims) if she had ANY corroborating evidence (such as people who were really there, etc.) or gave her rides. The 36 year span of silence is not a problem for me, but everything else is either nonexistent or too fuzzy. Secondly, she says she struggled with bad academics her first two years of college. But she got into UNC Chapel Hill (a VERY selective school) and I would think her last two years of HS would reflect difficulty as well if she was assaulted as she says. She scrubbed her social media prior to testimony, and has a connection into research of RU 486, the abortion pill. Her lawyer, Katz, also has a connection with Accuser 3(Swetnick), whose testimony is also full of holes (no corroboration from people she's named, plus she would have been 19 and a college girl) and she's three years older than the judge. Accuser 2 (Kimball) can't remember anything. At best, it's a case of mistaken identity with Dr. Ford. At worst, it's a left wing setup. It was Feinstein's last stand with her timing of revealing the letter. I had no problem with Judge Kavanaugh's temperment and emotion in his testimony. The man was protecting his name and family! He was first in his class in HS, Yale, and Yale Law, plus has a distinguished career. His female friends, colleagues, clerks, students, and even old girlfriends praise him to the skies! It's all a setup. Nobody of any quality will want to be nominated for these slots and the country as a whole will lose!

Michael Song
2 months 2 weeks ago

For a moment, let's presume Dr. Ford's accusations are all lies. That still doesn't change the fact that Brett simply lied about certain common terminology and its definition. Boofing, Devil's Triangle are common terms to define certain acts. Yet he blatantly lied about what they meant. I am willing to clear his name on all accusations of sexual misconduct since as many of his supporters have stated there is no hard evidence. Yet I can not excuse his bold faced lies when referring to his yearbook and its contents. This is supposed to be a future Chief Justice on the Supreme Court?!?! If you guys don't think that is a lie, let me make a withdrawal (I promise it means I will put money INTO your account) from your bank accounts!

I AM POSTING AGAIN BECAUSE I NOTICED NONE OF YOU KAVANAUGH SUPPORTERS CARED TO COMMENT ON THIS? I am actually curious as to how his statements regarding his yearbook are not lies? Do you really want a liar on the Supreme Court? I too am pro-life. I too want to see Roe v Wade overturned. Yet not at the expensive of our integrity as a nation. Yes I agree his name should not be tarnished for unsubstantiated accusations from 35+ years ago. Yes I agree many of us were immature and childish in our youth and can be granted grace for such actions. Yet I can not agree that it is okay that a nominee for the highest court in our great country blatantly lied.

Jim Lein
2 months 2 weeks ago

Check out the FOX news clip of Chris Wallace, when he responded to two other staffers who had berated Dr. Ford as unconvincing. He told them he is seeing things differently since his two daughters just now told him of how some boys mistreated girls when they were in high school. He now saw Ford in a new light and found her testimony credible, even courageous. He appeared woke.
After Ford's testimony, crisis lines across the country lit up with calls from women wanting to talk about their abuse by boys and men when they were younger. It is very difficult for a woman to talk about such abuse. And it is difficult for men and women to hear of this, to get woke.

Mary Nasta
2 months 2 weeks ago

Which still doesn't put Kavanaugh at the scene.

Bruce Olean
2 months 2 weeks ago

Editor of this craven opinion - so let the sleazy tactics of the left be given the edge despite the overwhelming evidence that they saw this man because of what he has stood for in his last several decades as a threat and you indirectly endorse the lies and stench they have put forth to bring down not only this nomination, but also the man whose fate, reputation, and future have been sacrificed in this battle with no winners. But your craven advice and fancy footwork have endorsed whatever future scurrilous tactics the left or whoever choose to employ. In the simplest of terms - though this is not a legal trial, our sacred but absolutely necessary principle of not having to prove yourself innocent of what may be a lie, a distortion, or even an error of which you are accused ( innocent till guilt is clearly established) is stood on its head. Jesuit sophistication parading as such while in reality succumbing to vile politicians who design to undo and attack what they choose to view as odious. Jesuit sophistry here has ennobled the lie of sacrificing an individual as a scapegoat because of what you choose to see as a higher good. I think you made God in his justice and truth vomit. Cowards and dissemblers and that is being charitable considering your position. Thank God I chose another Catholic college not of your order.

F C
2 months 2 weeks ago

Brett Kavanaugh claims he is innocent of abusing Dr Ford and expressed anger at the way the committee conducted affairs - perhaps he is, certainly more evidence is required before one can think him guilty . Interesting, however, that finding himself in this position did not motivate him to find a way to reach out to Dr Ford, even though he admitted his 10 year old daughter saw the need plainly enough, and to all women and men who have experienced sexual violence. All we got was about what was happening to him and how unfair it all was. About the scourge of sexual violence and the devastation it brings countless lives - whether #metoo or in Hollywood or in the Catholic Church - only a scant a word, if that.

This observation made me wonder whether Brett Kavanaugh is sufficiently well aware of the world around him and in charge of his own subjectivity to sit on Supreme Court.

F C
2 months 2 weeks ago

I would have thought that we in the Catholic Church would have been among the first to see that a key issue here is sexual abuse and the evils that grow from covering it up. Had Kavanaugh addressed this head on instead of harping on about the injustice of the mud being flung at him, he may have ended up turning in a truly impressive performance, and done much to reduce the impact of the charges laid against him. Instead, his ill-judged "poor me" performance played to the gallery of partisans, and into the hands of those who oppose him.

Andrew Strada
2 months 2 weeks ago

So it doesn't matter whether he actually did or did not do what he is accused of?

F C
2 months 2 weeks ago

Read my first sentence again. If you want to know whether Kavanaugh committed the abuse Ford claims or not, then push for formal charges and a criminal trial. For the purposes of appointment to the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh's unstable performance at before the committee revealed himself to be inadequate - only a partisan, or someone who did not understand the place of the Supreme Court in the US Constitution, or, I suspect, Kavanaugh himself, would think otherwise.

Kevin Karam
2 months 2 weeks ago

Editors, You hit the nail on the head:
"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."

The Judiciary should not be writing law, neither conservative nor progressive. They should be deciding cases.

Stanislaus Dundon
2 months 2 weeks ago

Jason Riley wrote (WSJ 10/3/18) commenting on the 9 page memo Rachel Mitchell sent to the senators a review of Dr. Ford's responses to her oficial interrogation.. Massive inconsistencies were exposed by Mitchell, who has decades of experience prosecuting sex crimes. She missed one I noted: She described how her attackers walked down the stairs after the attack while she was still locked in the bathroom. Ford is a woman who "sees" things she can't have seen. Not lying, just reporting imagined memories she is unable to distinguish from actual memories. Aquinas' treatise on prudence would suggest for a middle-term in an explanatory syllogism concluding to the unreliability of her accusation this very inability. That makes it extremely imprudent to accept her accounts. Jesuits are supposed to be prudent. The editors are not being prudent.

Robert Lewis
2 months 2 weeks ago

The evidence IS coming in that Kavanaugh has perjured himself before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and my fear is that it will CONTINUE to come in, even after his appointment to the nation's highest court has been rammed through by the Republicans. What will THAT do to the standing of the Supreme Court in the estimation of most Americans?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/yale-roommate-says-kavanaugh-li…

I. vetter
2 months 2 weeks ago

The reason every other major organization, other than WH and Republicans, are calling for his withdrawal. The FBI’s hands were tied by Trump (another of his lies when he said he was giving them free rein) and her testimony has been mischaracterised so much that Trump’s followers are believing him. And this made-up letter/lie by some ex-boyfriend produced after the fact. This sounds like something Kavanaugh’s group dreamed up in their nightly beer sessions similar to one where they tried to blame one of their friends — who thankfully did not take the bait. These men are wealthy. The bait could be significant.

Paul McGranaghan
2 months 2 weeks ago

What a strange place the USA must be, where being 'convincing' is equated with telling the truth. Marlon Brando was convincing, but he wasn't actually in the Mafia. Still, now that American Catholics are keen to disbar people from office on an allegation, we all look forward to seeing absolutely every single one of those corrupt clerics out of a job by the end of the year.

J Cosgrove
2 months 2 weeks ago

Yes, America is now a very strange place. Nothing like when I was young. Two factors are involved from my perspective, decline in religion with politics replacing it as one's religion. Second, the instantaneous and universal dissemination of opinion. There are probably others

But if you go about life and ignore politics, life is very much the same as always. My niece who is a great young lady with two kids was unaware of the tax changes in the last year. It just wasn't on her radar scope. People can have great fun with each other if politics is not discussed.

Connie Atkinson
2 months 2 weeks ago

Wow, now right there we have moral relativism where it is more important to not upset people than it is to establish the truth before ruining a man’s life. The preponderance of evidence favours the judge because there is no evidence and the special attorney said this is a case that would never have enough merit to make it to trial. Standing up for the sanctity of life means one does not judge against a man based on unsubstantiated accusations, even if the majority thinks otherwise, no matter how “compelling” the women sounds. Perhaps it is time to have a discussion about changing our culture so that girls do not wait 36 years to come forward.

Connie Atkinson
2 months 2 weeks ago

Wow, now right there we have moral relativism where it is more important to not upset people than it is to establish the truth before ruining a man’s life. The preponderance of evidence favours the judge because there is no evidence and the special attorney said this is a case that would never have enough merit to make it to trial. Standing up for the sanctity of life means one does not judge against a man based on unsubstantiated accusations, even if the majority thinks otherwise, no matter how “compelling” the women sounds. Perhaps it is time to have a discussion about changing our culture so that girls do not wait 36 years to come forward.

Barry Sullivan
2 months 2 weeks ago

I am dismayed by the highly partisan, contentious nature of some (not all) of the arguments in this forum. I found a quote in the October 1, 2018, issue of America that captures where I would hope readers of this particular magazine go when debating issues of the day: "The rock of Catholicism is creating a community of trust and love and respect for on another" (Patricia Weitzel-O'Neill, executive director of the Roche Center for Catholic Education, Boston College).

K Byrne
2 months 2 weeks ago

Quite right Mr. Sullivan. However, trust is earned though trustworthy action. Respect is earned by quality of action/thought. I believe the anonymous authors of the America editorial -- and its lack of trustworthy basis and its low quality of action/thought -- set the tone for the community's reactions. The faceless editors basically placed the gravamen of their argument in the principle that if there is a fuss, you should withdraw and retreat to "keep the peace." This was the proposed result even where there is a concerted effort to engage in a smear. Can't respect that conclusion, as much as we might love the faceless America editors as children of God. Can't trust the proposition in editorial either because it bows to the evils being purveyed by those willing to start a political knife fight. A more principled polite discussion would have surely ensued if, instead of jelly-belly obeisance to loud mouth agitators who want to declare the death of due process, the faceless America editors had insisted on a principled result grounded in high level thought and sound rationale -- maybe with a passing reference to the importance of the Constitution as well. Yeah, the same Constitution that hundreds of thousands gave up their lives to defend. I guess the anonymous editors reaped what they sowed.

F C
2 months 2 weeks ago

Despite the florid instability and unsuitability of the candidate, it seems like rabid partisanship will triumph after all. And no less so on a specifically Catholic news media site!

Mary Gillespie
2 months 1 week ago

Kavanaugh demonstrated quite clearly why he should not be confirmed. And President Trump and every GOP Senator demonstrated quite clearly why they failed Anita Hill and now fail Dr. Blazey-Ford. Disgusting hubris and misogyny.

K Byrne
2 months 1 week ago

Today and yesterday's confirmation proceedings show that what is disgusting is your colleagues' willingness to act like children, act uncivilly, engage in civil unrest, attempt to tamper with witnesses, to say the least. Please read Senator Collins' speech for a review of the true situation rather than mouthing the empty hate we have witnessed over the last two weeks. You might find intelligent analysis refreshing.

J Cosgrove
2 months 1 week ago

Anita Hill followed Clarence Thomas to another job after the so called incident. Also every liberal woman who worked with Thomas on the EEOC testified to the high character of Justice Thomas.

AM Garcia
2 months 1 week ago

Thanks to the Jesuits for doing all they could. But, this is bleak.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh is 53.
Justice Neil Gorsuch is 51.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85.
Justice Stephen Gerald Breyer is 80.

J Cosgrove
2 months 1 week ago

The first two were trained by Jesuits.The last two were not. Granted they were trained by the Jesuits of old. You want to see a real food fight, wait till the replacement of Ginsburgh and Breyer come up if there is a Republican president. This was just a dress rehearsal.

K Byrne
2 months 1 week ago

Judge Kavanaugh was today approved by the US Senate as an associate Justice on the US Supreme Court. The approval was accompanied by massive demonstrations outside the Capitol and the Supreme Court building. Protestors disrupted the vote by shouting epithets during the vote, such as a woman shouting “Coward” when Senator Flake voted to approve the nomination. All this was reminiscent of the civil disruptions in pre-WWII Germany by the Nazis.
There was one difference in the reaction to the fascist tactics in both situations. Germany acceded to the violence. That did not happen in the Kavanaugh nomination process. But please do not think that the latter was not subject to intense professional, calculated agitation. As Senator Susan Collins noted in her speech announcing her vote in favor of the nomination:
“The President nominated Brett Kavanaugh on July 9th. Within moments of that announcement, special interest groups raced to be the first to oppose him, including one organization that didn’t even bother to fill in the Judge’s name on its pre-written press release – they simply wrote that they opposed “Donald Trump’s nomination of XX to the Supreme Court of the United States.” A number of Senators joined the race to announce their opposition, but they were beaten to the punch by one of our colleagues who actually announced opposition before the nominee’s identity was even known.”
Senator Collins, and 49 colleagues, had the good judgement, strength, principles and moral courage to stand up in the face of the fascist agitation. Unfortunately, the anonymous Editors of America did not.
The fact that the anonymous Editors chose to withdraw their support is shocking, disappointing and worthy as a point of their reflection and discernment on moral courage, principled action and whether their “theology” has morphed into their politics . The about face was justified by Fr. Malone, who wrote
“The editorial decision to withdraw support for Judge Kavanaugh was based on the fact that he no longer had the confidence of a significant part of the U.S. citizenry. That lack of confidence would be damaging to the authority of the court in the years ahead if he were confirmed.
This is shocking only because it is not true. Re-read the original anonymous Editors’ editorial. The real reason was, as stated:
“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….
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 is a pure reflection of the “progressive left.” In the anonymous Editors’ rush to push the progressive narrative, they came out of the closet with the following “political theology:”
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.
Senator Collins, who is in a better position than the anonymous Editors to judge, disagreed and stated a resolution that more closely reflects the ideals of the American Constitution rather than the fascist progressive Left’s mantra in its war on men. She stated, and you should internalize this, the following:
“Some argue that because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest court, the public interest requires that doubts be resolved against the nominee. Others see the public interest as embodied in our long-established tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence. In cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee.
Mr. President, I understand both viewpoints. This debate is complicated further by the fact that the Senate confirmation process is not a trial. But certain fundamental legal principles—about due process, the presumption of innocence, and fairness—do bear on my thinking, and I cannot abandon them. (Emphasis added).
In evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness, tempting though it may be. We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy.
Senator Collins did not abandon American fundamental constitutional principles. Unfortunately, the anonymous editors did, as did Fr. Malone. Shame on you all. You have shown yourselves weak, prevaricating, sops to fascist tactics and not very discerning of principled action.
Perhaps your hero is Pontius Pilate. He too bent to the expressed wishes crowd. And everyone knows -- and you certainly should -- that the Sanhedrin was behind the crowd’s vociferous agitation for Barabbas because they hated Christ. While your anonymous Editors and Fr. Malone emulated Pilate, you should also know that George Soros – that noted advocate of abortion – emulated the Sanhedrin’s behind the scenes agitation and financing.
Judge Kavanaugh and your readers deserve an apology for the disappointing performance of America. I would be surprised, however, if that were to ever materialize.

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