There is nothing in Mr. Ganesh’s essay of real note except the lingering mephitic aroma of Kavanaugh pseudo-apologetics. The Democrats and their attempt to impugn the integrity of Party Boy Kavanaugh. Who has an uncanny resemblance to Bush The Younger, with a pronounced priapism, exacerbated by the ingestion of large amounts of alcohol. If I chose to I could have easily gone to Rich Lowry at the National Review, here by way of The Salt Lake Tribune.
Mr. Lowry’s inauspicious opening three paragraphs, in ‘defense’ of Kavanaugh, don’t even approach Mr. Ganesh ability to write with a certain panache.
Brett Kavanaugh gave high-profile testimony that very few people seem to have paid attention to in any detail.
The media is now engaged in a full-court press to establish that Kavanaugh drank to excess — when he admitted in his testimony that he drank to excess.
In his opening statement in the Senate hearing, Kavanaugh said, “Sometimes, I had too many beers.” This is obviously an acknowledgment of excessive drinking. He further allowed of himself and his friends, in a statement that covers a lot of misbehavior: “We sometimes did goofy or stupid things. I doubt we are alone in looking back in high school and cringing at some things.”
In sum Lowry presents Kavanaugh as the victim of ‘character assassination’. Lowry extemporizes on the Kavanaugh Party Line: ‘I’m the victim’ One Posh Boy defends another? The thought that Ms. Ford might have been right, has never crossed the mind of Lowry, on purely ideological grounds.
Read Kavanaugh’s maladroit self-apologetic and almost-but-not-quite mea culpa here:
Headline: I Am an Independent, Impartial Judge
Sub-headline: Yes, I was emotional last Thursday. I hope everyone can understand I was there as a son, husband and dad.
Going forward, you can count on me to be the same kind of judge and person I have been for my entire 28-year legal career: hardworking, even-keeled, open-minded, independent and dedicated to the Constitution and the public good. As a judge, I have always treated colleagues and litigants with the utmost respect. I have been known for my courtesy on and off the bench. I have not changed. I will continue to be the same kind of judge I have been for the last 12 years. And I will continue to contribute to our country as a coach, volunteer, and teacher. Every day I will try to be the best husband, dad, and friend I can be. I will remain optimistic, on the sunrise side of the mountain. I will continue to see the day that is coming, not the day that is gone.
I revere the Constitution. I believe that an independent and impartial judiciary is essential to our constitutional republic. If confirmed by the Senate to serve on the Supreme Court, I will keep an open mind in every case and always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the American rule of law.
Also read Prof. Robert Post’s essay at Politico here:
Headline: Brett Kavanaugh Cannot Have It Both Ways
Sub-headline: As the former dean of Yale Law School, I’m shocked by the judge’s partisan turn.
With calculation and skill, Kavanaugh stoked the fires of partisan rage and male entitlement. He had apparently concluded that the only way he could rally Republican support was by painting himself as the victim of a political hit job. He therefore offered a witches’ brew of vicious unfounded charges, alleging that Democratic members of the Senate Judicial Committee were pursuing a vendetta on behalf of the Clintons. If we expect judges to reach conclusions based solely on reliable evidence, Kavanaugh’s savage and bitter attack demonstrated exactly the opposite sensibility.
I was shell-shocked. This was not the Brett Kavanaugh I thought I knew. Having come so close to confirmation, Kavanaugh apparently cared more about his promotion than about preserving the dignity of the Supreme Court he aspired to join. Even if he sought to defend his honor as a husband and father, his unbalanced rantings about political persecution were so utterly inconsistent with the dispassionate temperament we expect from judges that one had to conclude that he had chosen ambition over professionalism.
See my comment on Prof. Post’s essay here:
The final paragraph of Mr. Ganesh’s essay that places Anthony Kennedy into a political category that resembles ‘political rationalism‘ , ‘centrism’ and other such descriptors, is a measure of the myopia of not just Mr. Ganesh, but nearly the whole of America’s political class. His husbanding of the Citizens United decision, as directed by John Roberts, demonstrates that Kennedy wasn’t just a fellow traveler of the Neo-Confederate /Originalist clique, no matter his vote on Gay Marriage, but a member of the Brotherhood!
The under-analysed figure in all this is the man Mr Kavanaugh is due to replace. Anthony Kennedy was the court’s swing vote. Neither predictably liberal nor conservative, he was hard for partisans to place. As he goes, something of value goes with him.