Thomas Jipping reminds us that the smears against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, while reprehensible, are just the latest of the inconsistent, partisan means by which Democrats have evaluated judicial nominees:
Partisan double standards, ignoring what really matters, smears, turning basic notions of fairness on their head — that is what it means to use “whatever means necessary.” Schumer is keeping his promise of opposing Kavanaugh with everything he has. It won’t be enough.
Jipping describes how Democratic standards for judicial nominees of Republican and Democratic Presidents differ, and how what really matters to them about Judge Kavanaugh is not his judicial record, character, or legal philosophy but that he was nominated by President Trump:
In 2009, Schumer said that a judicial record is the “best way to evaluate a nominee” and even more important than the confirmation hearing. Senator Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) agreed that “looking at what kind of judge a nominee has been means we do not have to speculate about what kind of a Justice” he will be. Neither one of them is interested in Kavanaugh’s judicial record today. . . .
Schumer and Leahy have said that the American Bar Association’s rating is the “gold standard” for evaluating nominees. The ABA unanimously rated Kavanaugh well qualified which means, the ABA explains, that he meets “the very highest standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.” That no longer matters either.
No, the only thing that matters to liberals is preventing Trump’s nominee from joining the Supreme Court. To pursue that political goal, Senate Democrats picked up the script from the beginning of the previous Republican presidency. Within days of President George W. Bush taking office in 2001, Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (S.D.) vowed to use “whatever means necessary” to defeat his judicial nominees.
Democrats' "whatever means necessary" strategy is turning more ridiculous by the day. Today, Senate Judiciary Ranking Member Senator Dianne Feinstein said that she could not be certain whether Dr. Christine Blasey Ford would appear to testify at the hearing on Thursday. A hearing that Chairman Chuck Grassley rescheduled from Monday at Dr. Ford's request. The stated reason is because Chairman Grassley has not given into the demands of Dr. Ford's attorneys to run the hearing exactly as Dr. Ford desires, but it is looking more like Dr. Ford is simply unwilling to testify:
NEW: Sen. Feinstein, D-Ca, just told me "I have no way of knowing" if Dr. Ford is actually going to show up to Kavanaugh hearing Thursday - if outside counsel is asking the questions— Peter Doocy (@pdoocy) September 25, 2018
And last night, protesters interrupted Senator Ted Cruz's dinner with his wife and chased him from the restaurant because of his support for Judge Kavanaugh. This would be the most bizarre twist in what has been a very strange week and a half, if it were not increasingly common for Republicans and conservatives not to be welcome in public spaces.
Chasing a Cuban-American Senator you disagree with out of a restaurant while chanting “fascists not welcome” under the banner of “smash racism” might have just taken us over our irony quota for 2018. https://t.co/datsJcZxMj— Senator Hatch Office (@senorrinhatch) September 25, 2018
So this is where we are. There are two completely unsubstantiated allegations of past sexual misconduct against Judge Kavanaugh. While the accusers are willing to take their stories to a sympathetic press, they seem unwilling to testify in a situation where they are sworn to tell the truth and will be questioned. A promised third accusation appears to have crumbled and may have been a prank all along (this may actually be the most bizarre twist).
And in the midst of this increasingly ridiculous circus, a good man is being smeared as part of the Democrats' partisan game. The Democrats' have temporarily won the battle for a short delay but may very well be losing the war for the respect of the American people (and their votes).