Please withdraw, Kavanaugh

by Erik Dolson

Brett Kavanaugh has shown the world that he is not a man of judicial temperament. He’s just a jerk of prep school privilege, enraged to the point of tears that his inherited entitlement is not making past bad actions disappear.

Those actions probably occurred under the influence of alcohol and youthful hormones. Is there proof? Yes, in his own hand on his high school yearbook page. His own calendar. Kavanaugh’s  explanations about what he wrote are laughable evasions.

Now, Kavanaugh’s hurt outrage, his snottiness in response to reasonable questions about his drinking, his obvious willingness to lie, and his lack of respect demonstrate that he is unfit for our nation’s highest court.

Kavanaugh should withdraw his name before the FBI investigation is complete, sparing his family further pain and our country additional turmoil. There are many conservative jurists, men and women, who would serve honorably. This is a  tremendous opportunity for Trump to name another woman to the high court.

Bookmark the permalink.

About Erik Dolson

Erik Dolson is a writer living in Oregon

7 Responses to Please withdraw, Kavanaugh

  1. Tom Cantrell says:

    Eric, surely you did not write this article. How in the world could anyone pass judgement on what this man did 36 years ago with out the opportunity you and I enjoy every single day? Guilt should be proven not assumed.

    Why pronounce some one guilty until the proof is provided?

    If he feels he is not guilty he should not run from the truth. I know I would not run if I knew I were right. Snotty? The man has been accused of drugging and raping child as young as 15 years old.

    I am sure that you and I would be more than Snotty if we were accused of the same.

    Lets demand the truth and strive for excellence but give everyone the opportunity to prove their truth before condemning them.

    Come on Eric, you have better judgement than this. Please do not tell me you are repeating the accusations of others because you believe them….

    If reasonable proof is provided I will be the first one to join you at the tar and feather party.

    Well, I will go back to the cave to the rest of the deplorable’s now….

    • Erik Dolson says:

      Tom, I haven’t turned one away yet, but that’s not a guarantee. Ah. I see why you ask. A comment you made earlier did not get posted, and I don’t know why. I think it came at the same time you began following. I will see if I can fix that. Okay, it’s done and your comment is up. Here is my response:

      Of course I wrote the article, and referring to yourself as a “deplorable” is either grandstanding or misdirection. I’ve never used the term and don’t believe it’s accurate. That someone else did years ago is a great battle cry, I suppose, but irrelevant in this discussion.

      On to the subject of Kavanaugh. Proof is required in a court of law, but the hearing where he melted down was not a court of law. It was a job interview and Kavanaugh’s behavior in that interview disqualfied him from the Supreme Court in my opinion. I never used the term “guilty.”

      You could say that’s splitting hairs, since it’s clear that I do not think Kavanaugh told the truth to the Senate Committee, but it’s actually important. Guilt has a higher standard.

      I was not alone, by the way. This is the opinion of the former Dean of Yale Law School, where Kavanaugh got his degree. The American Bar Association is reopening its rating recommendation. In the days after I wrote my article, over 2,000 professors of law across the nation expressed the same opinion: completely aside from what happened 36 years ago, they felt Kavanaugh failed his job interview, as did many who initially supported his nomination. These law professors know far more about this process than I do, and far more than you do. I’m willing to defer to their opinion.

      He was snotty and unprofessional in his response to a senator who asked a reasonable question about his drinking. In fact, he later apologized for that. Are you saying his apology is unjustified? No, I don’t believe you would be snotty if we were accused of the same, and I don’t believe the situation would come up. You are a better man than Kavanaugh.

      As to giving every one the opportunity to prove their truth, Kavanaugh’s lies to the committee about what he wrote on his calendar and yearbook were not believable. Others have come forward and said (not testified: this was not a trial) that Kavanaugh lied about his drinking in high school and college. Again, in a job interview, that’s all we need to show him the door, and I don’t believe he would have received a high security clearance.

      You asked me to assure you that I am not “repeating the accusation of others because I believe them…” In fact, I do believe them. I do believe Dr. Ford’s statements and I believe Kavanaugh did exactly what Dr. Ford said he did, and I think there is evidence in his own hand on his calendar and character witness on his page in the yearbook.

      But again, that’s not the primary problem for me. I believe he lied to the Senate committee because his answers, when he was not evading, were not believable to my ears.

      By the way: I do not object to Kavanaugh because he is a conservative. I believe many conservatives would have made great supreme court justices, and I believe it could be a good thing to have a court that leans a bit conservative for the next decade or so, especially if Republicans lose the House and the Senate. While that’s not likely to happen, having a drag on the momentum of change is a good thing.

      This is all moot at this point because in all likelihood, Kavanaugh will be confirmed a Supreme Court Justice tomorrow.

      I’m ready to move on.

      I apologize for the delay in getting your post published. While I know that many will believe it was intentional, that is not the case. I would actually have preferred to have this discussion when you signed on as a follower a couple of days ago. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

  2. Tom Cantrell says:

    Are you still posting comments on your blog??

  3. Tom Cantrell says:

    All good points but where is the proof? It is not 2000 professors who where not in the room. I think you are saying proof is not required because it is not a court of law. Is that correct?

    The FBI had full access to the records that were provided and submittal to the record and they could not confirm the accused was guilty, or the probability of being involved. Do you the think the FBI did not review the submitted documents and testimonies?

    The calendar you site as evidence is posted on the web for the whole world to review. I have looked at it multiple times and I see nothing that indicates a lie with the evidence submitted to the committee to date. Google the calendar and tell me what I am missing. I would like to believe that this guy is a stooge or dis-honest but I can not see it.

    On the subject of him being rude to the questioners, Kamala Harris, as real as others, were more than rude when asking questions. They were quick to cut him off and ask another question before allowing Kavanaugh to complete his answer. Kalama is free to dis-agree but at least allow him to answer. Ford on the other hand was questioned by a female, who was a prosecutor and it was done in mono tone and with complete respect. No “got you questions” like Kalama who warned Kavanaugh to think before he answered a question of accusation, because she already knew the answer. Did we ever hear Kalama’s truth that she already knew? Nope.

    The Bar Association may re-opening it’s evaluation but I would challenge anyone in this world not to be angry and/or furious at the accusations of being a alcohol slipping, drug inducting serial rapist.

    Would you be calm and demure? I would not be.

    Regardless if he had been calm, it would have been said that he was calm and deliberate because he was guilty. It is a no win situation and no amount of proof, or lack of proof will resolve this issue.

    The sad truth is that America is divided and it will not get better. Truth or proof is not the elixir it is the poison…

    • Erik Dolson says:

      We may be looking at different parts of the elephant, which seems to be widespread these days.

      As to the 2,000 law professors, they did not need to be in the room. The hearing was televised and widely reported. No, in this instance I am not saying proof was not rquired because it is not a court of law. In this instance (the 2,000 law professors,) I am saying that it was Kavanaugh’s behavior in the hearing that disqualifies him, not the decades-old, high-school assault.

      As to the FBI investigation, Republicans say it exonerates Kavanaugh, Dems say it doesn’t. Not able to read it, I have no opinion.

      As to the calendar, I find Kavanaugh’s testimony as to what was on it to be a silly evasion and not believable, comarable to Clinton’s “Depends on what the meaning of “is,” is.” Senators did cut Kavanaugh off when he seemed not to be answering in a forthright manner the questions asked, but I’m not defending anybody sitting up there.

      I wan’t talking about Kamala Harris when referring to Kavanaugh’s inappropriate behavior. I was mostly referring to his response to Sen. Amy Klobuchar which was petulant, disrespectful, and showed a lack of judicial restraint. Disqualifier, in my opinion.

      As to the Bar Association reopening the hearing, Republcians on the committee were the ones who said that the ABA rating was the “Gold Standard” when it went in Kavanaugh’s favor. Use the standard when it goes one way, but not the other? “Judicial restraint’ is an important characteristic in a Supreme Court Justice. Kavanaugh’s threat, “what goes around comes around,” was so far out of bounds that it was an immediate disqualifier, in my opinion, and members of the bar and others familiar with his history also have those concerns.

      No, everyone would not react the way Kavanaugh did in that hearing. Without evidence, I think some of it was coached and some was real. Can’t prove it and it doesn’t matter. But I have seen you in some stresssful confrontations. You do not back down, ever, in my experience. But not once have I seen you shout, cry, pound the table, threaten others not involved, or act like Kavanaugh did at that hearing. I have heard you take ownership and acknowledge mistakes. But as I said, I believe you are a better man than he is.

      Your statement that “if (Kavanaugh) had been calm, it would have been said that he was calm and deliberate because he was guilty” is your opinion, not a fact. You have no evidence to back that up and it’s not true, at least in my case. Had Kavanaugh acted like an honest man, like a supreme court justice, and not a perp trying to overcome accusations with outrage, I would have accepted his other qualifications and said, reluctantly, that he should be confirmed. My reluctance would have been based on other issues, but those also go to character.

      As it is, he was confirmed, he is now on the court, for better or worse. Time will tell. I am ready to move on.

      As you say, truth or proof is not the elixer it could be, should be, possibly once was. We can save the discussion as to who is responsible for that for another day. Better yet, perhaps some day we can instead have a discussion on what truth, what proof we can each accept, so that we can focus on our common values rather than what divides us.

  4. Tom Cantrell says:

    I am really hope that an in depth investigation is done on this matter. I can not see how the truth could not be flushed out with the number of claims that have come forward. I would prefer truth over winning.

    • Erik Dolson says:

      Tom, I don’t know which would be best for the country. I also would prefer truth over winning, but I fear you and I are in the minority, and that regardless of which way the truth falls, the other side will scream it was rigged and colored by falsehoods.

      So maybe we have to agree on what constitutes truth and where we, together, are willing to find it. After 25 years in the business, both my eductaion and work history have proven to me that facts can be used to distort the truth.

      I fear the Democrats have done huge damage to the cause of women who have suffered abuse by using these allegations at this time for political purpose. Though I do believe the allegations are true, I think Dems have clouded the discussion we need to have as a society about the hypocrisy regarding acceptable behavior. However, maybe I’m wrong about that and we don’t get to choose when we face these issues. Here we are.

      Lest I be accused of swapping stripes, Republicans are not blameless in this sordid episode, either. But as I said, I willing to move from this now. Republicans have won this, and while I don’t know how that victory will play out in the future, I want to talk of other things.

Leave a Reply to Erik Dolson Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *