Even if I had had an ounce of sympathy for Kavanaugh his Clarence Thomas-like angry white guy routine would have dead ended that. When are Republicans going to get it that simply because Dems run a woman doesn’t mean any woman will do, that having a woman prosecutor doesn’t necessarily make anything better, and angry black guy doesn’t mean angry white guy will work as well.
 There’s two historical precedents here. Clarence Thomas: especially after the lynch comment, played right into one. Kavanaugh played more into the Charlottesville and “how dare you challenge the privilege I’m entitled to” white side to history. Thomas was playing on being lynched, Kavanaugh more like, “What do you MEAN I don’t necessarily have a right to lynch all those I loathe and claim are conspiring against me?” That’s why smearing it all with a coating of rancid conspiracy theory frosting made it far worse. Generally justices haven’t veered into this territory before being placed on the court while in front of Congress; instead they at TRY least to provide the appearance of being able to be impartial. This was basically a rant that provided Congress with a “Why I SHOULDN’T be a Supreme Court justice” focus.
 How can a party that had masters of framing like Ailes, Atwater and Rove be so damn blind and deaf sometimes, so grossly insensitive? Perhaps their radical ideology creates rage about specks they think they see in the eyes of those they disagree with but a blindness to the loaded semi’s worth of planks in theirs?
 Of course that doesn’t matter to their incredible shrinking base, but it does matter to the rest of America.
 What I’m about to type may seem insensitive to the MeToo movement, but I do admit I have a problem with the current focus of the attempts to kack Kavanaugh. Not that I have a problem with women speaking out about rape and attempted rape: especially regarding any high profile appointment. No, my problem with it is it NEVER should have gotten this far.
      1. No president should get any appointment to a legally crucial position who has announced in advance that president should be immune to the rule of law: especially one who so aggressively pursued a president from the other side of the aisle in the past. How politically convenient. How much like a presidential con artist demanding he be allowed to pick his own judge in advance just in case it’s discovered he robbed a bank.
       2. No president should get to appoint a nominee who has announced in advance he is in favor of a policy that hands a huge amount of power (unitary executive) over to he or she who appoints them. It’s called quid pro quo.
       3. Judges should decide on a case by case basis, not announce long in advance such things, nor go on an extremely partisan one sided conspiracy tear when being interviewed for the position. That’s like any potential employee telling those deciding if he should be hired he hates many of them and will work against them when he gets the position. That’s not a “judge.” That’s an enforcer of political correctness.
       4. He obviously doesn’t want to have the FBI look into the accusations regarding past behavior.
       5. A White House that does a massive dump of documents at the last moment on a nominee while still holding back most far more shouldn’t get that appointment.
 There’s so much wrong with this nomination it should already have been rejected LONG before Dr. Ford told Ms. Feinstein to go ahead and tell her story. Despite conspiracy talking points: exactly how Feinstein should have handled it. It’s Dr. Ford’s story to tell: or not.
 There are plenty of right wing judges to choose from. I swear the Federalist Society alone must have a huge toxic waste dump where they grow them: probably like the pods in The Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I suppose if he said, in advance, he would not rule due to conflict of interest etc in such cases that might look better, not that I would believe him. He seems to have no interest in even doing what any true, impartial, justice would do.
  The reasons for this specific candidate are so bloody obvious: with making his benefactor Trump immune to any rule of law right up front. That after his rather fanatical, extreme, pursuit of “rule of law” with Clinton.
 And the rhetoric is so downright desperate it’s idiotic. His life isn’t “ruined.” No one is “destroyed.” He’d still be a judge, just not the highest court. Keep pushing, however, in the future, that could change. The more you push, the more he protests, the worse he looks. Otherwise, if the nomination fails at best in a year or two he’d be but a distant memory. The ever short long term memory of too damn many Americans will move on to, “Kavanaugh… who?”
 Maybe if Trump wanted an easier path to getting a right wing dominated court he shouldn’t have put forth such a self serving, ethically compromised, the opposite of impartial, nominee?
 It’s not that I don’t want justice for Dr. Ford, it’s not I don’t believe her, it’s not even that I find him more or less credible. It’s more that I find it a damn shame that it got this far when there were so many reasons to say no. It makes me wonder if an un-prosecuted Jeffrey Dahmer was still alive, while he might not get a job at a slaughterhouse if accusations were revealed, as long as he promised to vote the Reich way he too might be considered for the Court: no matter what his past or… tastes.

                                                    -30-
Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 40 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks, and into the unseen cracks and crevasses, that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.
©Copyright 2018
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
all right reserved