Brett M. Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court this past weekend, reportedly by one of the slimmest margins in our history, and after what was arguably the most odious confirmation process in our history.
Kavanaugh is indeed "the Justice who almost wasn't." His nomination process centered around an individual who insisted that the Supreme Court nominee had exposed himself to her at a raucous party when they were in high school and gave rise to a dark circus that nearly torpedoed his nomination. Although she ultimately voted to confirm Kavanaugh, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said that Christine Blasey Ford's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee led her to question whether Kavanaugh should withdraw from consideration.
Kavanaugh was sworn in on Saturday, just hours after the Senate voted to approve President Donald Trump's nominee to the nation's highest court. The alacrity with which the swearing-in followed confirmation was likely due to concerns over Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) or some other leftist operative introducing evidence that Kavanaugh was somehow complicit in the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby.
Advertisement - story continues below
The term "Borked" came into common usage (at least in political circles) following the landmark defeat of President Ronald Reagan's Supreme Court nominee, Robert H. Bork, in 1987. This was a "landmark" because it was the first instance in which the left employed the politics of personal destruction to defeat a Supreme Court nominee. Bork's nomination was defeated in the Senate, and the Supreme Court vacancy was ultimately filled by Anthony Kennedy.
The political left turned up the heat during the confirmation process for Clarence Thomas, who was nominated by President George H. W. Bush in 1991 to fill Thurgood Marshall's seat on the Supreme Court. Thomas's confirmation hearings were punctuated by accusations that Thomas had sexually harassed attorney Anita Hill, his subordinate at the Department of Education and the EEOC.
The allegations against Thomas, as with those against Kavanaugh, were patently feeble, and bordered on the ridiculous. During the proceedings, Anita Hill was trotted out, repeatedly claiming in hushed, demure tones to have been traumatized by what turned out to be distasteful workplace quips on Thomas's part that weren't even directed at her, and which could not be corroborated.
This time the effort failed, and Thomas was confirmed by the Senate.
Advertisement - story continues below
The borderline criminality of Democrat leaders during Kavanaugh's confirmation process cannot be understated. On Oct. 9, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh underscored the amorality of the left's deportment in cases such as these, and the culture that embraces and employs said amorality on a daily basis.
Limbaugh stated that the political left, spearheaded by the efforts of the Democratic Party, has imposed upon the nation a set of dubious values, which they get to define. Anyone who does not summarily and wholly subscribe to them is persona non grata, and is thus subject to any and every ignominy the left at large can throw at them. In their estimation, Brett Kavanaugh was not only undeserving of a seat on the Court, he was undeserving of basic constitutional protections like the presumption of innocence, because he had been branded as an enemy of leftist orthodoxy.
Of course, this process is not reserved for conservative Supreme Court nominees. Anyone and everyone in America, from President Trump, to his cabinet members, to a tradesman in a diner wearing a "Make America Great Again" baseball cap, is deserving of calumny, harassment and even personal injury if their political views are found to be divergent. Each and every one of President Trump's supporters has been called the vilest names by some of the most prominent Democrats, and those supporters effectively represent a majority of the electorate.
So I will ask again, as I have asked before: If this vociferous but tiny minority is intent upon perverting the Constitution and playing the system in order to nullify the liberties of the majority of Americans and usher in their degenerative socialist Utopia, why then does that majority remain reticent in declaring who these people really are, and acknowledging the danger they represent?
Those on the political left are not merely a political faction with a curious take on how we ought to do things. They are not offering viable, assimilable public policy or economic solutions. Finally, as those who insist upon imposing their dubious values upon the rest of us, which by demonstration routinely supersede the Constitution, it is they who have forfeited their protections under that Constitution.