Bill McGurn, in the WSJ, explains why the democrats are determined at any cost to destroy this man.
As malignant as were the campaigns against Supreme Court nominees Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, even they didnâ€™t face accusations as vile and unrelenting as the unsubstantiated charges against Brett Kavanaugh. Adding to the injustice is that the frenzy surrounding his nomination isnâ€™t really about him.
Itâ€™s about Roe v. Wade. The 1973 Supreme Court decision upended the laws of all 50 states on behalf of a constitutional right to abortion the Constitution somehow neglects to mention. Since then, the advocates of a living Constitution posit that while our Founding document is infinitely malleable, this one ruling is fixed and sacred.
Judge Kavanaughâ€™s great misfortune is to have been nominated at a moment when the party in opposition frets this fixed and sacred ruling could be overturned.
Never mind that Chief Justice John Roberts is unlikely to acquiesce to a move that would bring down the furies on his court. Or that itâ€™s not clear Judge Kavanaugh would be any different, having assured senators that he regards Roe as â€œsettledâ€ and â€œan important precedentâ€ whose central holding had been reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Or that overturning Roe still wouldnâ€™t make abortion illegal.
The problem is that even Roeâ€™s most ardent champions know it is devoid of legal and constitutional substance. So they know it is vulnerable to a closer look by any serious jurist, including those who are themselves pro-choice. No wonder Sen. Dianne Feinstein tweeted, â€œItâ€™s not enough for Brett Kavanaugh to say that Roe v. Wade is â€˜settled law.â€™ â€
Let me translate: Nothing personal, judge. But if you wonâ€™t declare that a decision laid down by seven unelected men in robes is untouchable, we have no choice but to do whatever it takes to keep you off the high court. This is what Democrats do when they see a possible fifth vote against Roe in play.
Itâ€™s what they did in 1987 when they transformed â€œBorkâ€ into a verb. Itâ€™s what they are now doing to Judge Kavanaugh. They do it with the eager help of a press that has abandoned even the pretense of objectivity, and institutions such as the American Bar Association and American Civil Liberties Union, which have betrayed their own principles in the effort to bring this man down.
In this cause, there is no room for fairness and decency. When CNNâ€™s Jake Tapper asked Sen. Mazie Hirono if Judge Kavanaugh deserved â€œthe same presumption of innocence as anyone elseâ€ about the sexual-assault accusations against him, the Hawaii Democrat gave the game away.
â€œI put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases,â€ she replied, noting he â€œvery much is against womenâ€™s reproductive choice.â€
Mr. Tapper understood instantly. â€œIt sounds to me like youâ€™re saying, because you donâ€™t trust him on policy and because you donâ€™t believe him when he says, for instance, that he does not have an opinion on Roe v. Wade, you donâ€™t believe him about this allegation about what happened at this party in 1982â€ he asked.