Who says there's no unity in Washington, D.C.?
Last week, I sensed a great deal of unity as the Senate Judiciary Committee considered whether to give its recommendation to Judge Brett Kavanaugh before the full Senate votes on whether to confirm his appointment to the nine-member U.S. Supreme Court.
Republicans, Democrats and the public appeared to be unified in their disgust for the process.
"You're looking for a fair process? You came to the wrong town, at the wrong time my friend," an angry Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Kavanaugh on Thursday, after the Judiciary Committee heard first from Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who alleges Kavanaugh attacked her at a party when he was 17, and from the nominee, who defiantly spat out his unequivocal denials.
Both said they were "100 percent" sure of the integrity of their stories.
On Friday, as the committee's Republican majority marched onward toward a vote on its recommendation, Democrats staged a walkout from the hearing room. "What a railroad job," said Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii.
As a kid, I remember thinking the people voters send to the halls of Congress were among the best and the brightest in the nation. Last week, I didn't get that feeling at all.
There is undoubtedly a lot at stake in the nomination of any person for the U.S. Supreme Court. Confirmation by the Senate hands the nominee a lifetime appointment. This is no small matter. Kavanaugh is 53 years old. The last justice appointed to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, is 51. President Donald Trump's two appointees could conceivably have an influence over this country's government and constitutional interpretations for 25 or 30 years.
Of the 113 people who have served on the Supreme Court, the shortest term is 123 days (resignation for health reasons). The longest is Franklin D. Roosevelt's appointee William O. Douglas' service, at 36 years, six months and 26 days.
President Barack Obama's two appointees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, are 64 and 58, respectively. At the time of their nominations, they were 54 and 50, respectively.
This is why, from time to time, we're reminded that elections have consequences. And, I would suggest, that's a reason both parties ought to attempt to find presidential nominees who will represent their desired policies well, but who shade closer to the middle ground than to the outer fringes of party ideology. If we as Americans are serious about putting the rancorous division out of our politics, that goal is found in the middle, not at the edges.
From a practical perspective, too, is it better to stand firm on left- or right-wing ideology and lose or to seek people who search for reasonable, common ground and have a chance to win?
But, back to the dramatic hearings of last week. As I write, the committee has voted along predictable party lines to send Kavanaugh's nomination to the full Senate. The surprise was Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., a vote Republicans need, announcing his desire the full Senate delay its vote by not more than a week to give the FBI time to gather information about the allegations against Kavanaugh.
Some Republican hard-liners will view that as disloyal to the fundamental goal of swinging the highest court in the land to the right. But everything Kavanaugh has said suggests there is no reliable evidence he was even at the party where Ford claims she was assaulted. If one believes him, an investigation is nothing to fear.
It's conceivable, probable even, that some Democrats worked hard to find a way to delay the Kavanaugh confirmation process, potentially past the November election, as a tactic without concern for whether Kavanaugh actually did anything wrong. If that's true, Flake's proposal may seem to be handing them a victory. There is no Democratic support for a Kavanaugh nomination. No investigation will shift them away from believing Kavanaugh's accuser, although they would be the first to cry foul if the same level of evidence existed involving a Democratic nominee.
An evaluation of a nominee's past, however, ought to assign significant weight to what he's done over the decades of a career and in his personal life. No person who has worked for years earning professional acclaim and respect deserves to have that destroyed as soon as another person utters the phrase, "He assaulted me." None of us can afford to let unsubstantiated allegations become the nuclear bomb of public and professional lives.
For all of Thursday's drama, Ford's story remained unsubstantiated and unworthy of changing anyone's favorable vote to a "no."
Give Flake credit, though, for recognizing there was room to let the FBI do its work in adding valuable information. He found some middle ground in the midst of a process that desperately needs it.
The question remains whether the FBI examination, if it finds no credible evidence to verify Ford's accusation, will lead to a straight up-or-down vote on the Senate floor everyone will accept, even if they disagree with the outcome. I have my doubts. More likely, some on the losing side of the vote will simply maintain Kavanaugh got away with it, accepting that an accusation should be enough to ruin a person's reputation.
I hope we haven't reached a point where that's true.
Commentary on 10/01/2018