Republican Sen. Jeff Flake recently complained about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s strong defense of his innocence, saying: “We can’t have this [‘sharp and partisan’ response to rape allegations] on the court.”
He was referring to Kavanaugh’s defense of his honor against Democrat lies. But of course Kavanaugh’s defense wasn’t partisan at all. If Republicans had lied about him or accused him, with no evidence, of being a monster, Kavanaugh would have undoubtedly have refuted their baseless smears too, regardless of their party affiliation.
Flake is right, though, that Kavanaugh’s defense was sharp. But it was hardly sharper than Bill Clinton’s even after we had undeniable evidence that Bill was lying. Flake draws an entirely wrong conclusion—namely that someone who would allow others to lie about him and smear his good name without vigorously defending himself is the sort of person we want on the Supreme Court.
Do we really want justices who tolerate injustice and lies deciding what is constitutional? Wouldn’t we rather have people who are passionate about truth and who value living honorable lives?
The reality is that Flake, and Democrats’, objection to Kavanaugh’s defense of his reputation is just another excuse to ensure that the Supreme Court stay in Democrat hands despite the Democrats having lost power through elections to fairly ensure that outcome. Apparently Democrats think Barack Obama was misquoted, and really once said: “When we win elections there are consequences, but when Republicans win elections that’s just a mistake.”
Flake does raise a very good point, however. Obvious partisanship doesn’t belong on the Supreme Court. That means Flake must support the immediate impeachment of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
No less a source than Chris Cillizza has proclaimed that the Notorious RBG, as her solidly leftist fan base likes to call her, is the “face of the Trump resistance.” Given that Trump is a Republican and there is no record of Ginsburg condemning either Hillary Clinton or Obama, leading the “resistance” to a duly elected Republican president seems to be a bit on the partisan side.
We have plenty more to go on than just Cillizza’s word, however. He provides quotes from Ginsburg where she attacked Trump prior to the 2016 election, which would be considered by most people to be partisan.
“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” she said. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
Later on but still before the election, she said, referring to Trump: “He is a faker.” And “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.”
If a sitting Supreme Court judge repeating Hillary’s talking points about why Trump is bad isn’t partisan, then really nothing is. We can all imagine if Justice Antonin Scalia had uttered similar words about Obama in 2008. The howls from the media would be unending.
The bottom line is that Flake raises a good point, that judges shouldn’t be political hacks, but he applies it to exactly the wrong person.