Oct 7, 2018 6 min read

The process of filling a Supreme Court vacancy should be fairly straightforward; the president nominates a candidate, the Senate Judiciary Committee examines the candidate’s judicial qualifications and either confirms or does not confirm the nomination and generally passes it to the Senate for a confirmation vote. This is the Senate’s “advise and consent” duty. This process is not intended to be a court proceeding, nor is it intended to be a political melodrama. If a senator has an objection, his or her recourse is to vote no without theatrics.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court 84 days ago. In the first 70 or so days of examination, his judicial record was scrutinized in minute detail and absolutely nothing was found amiss.

On Sept. 27, this nation was subjected to a public exhibition of political debauchery unparalleled in its history.

The Democrats are desperate to prevent Kavanaugh from becoming a Supreme Court justice. This desperation stems not from the person of Kavanaugh, but, rather, from their understanding that they cannot achieve their ideological goals through laws passed by elected legislators as required by the Constitution so they must achieve those goals through the courts. They see the appointment of a judge who believes in the Constitution and the rule of law, as Kavanaugh does, as a serious impediment to that plan.

Failing to impeach Kavanaugh on judicial qualification, the Democrats resorted to the same playbook they regularly pull out when reason and logic fail them, that being personal attack, slander and character assassination.

The Democrats on the Senate committee sought to turn it into a pseudo-court of law and to conduct a trial with witnesses, prosecutors and lawyers. This is very dangerous.

First and foremost, in our legal and moral system, there is a foundational presumption of innocence. It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove guilt, not on the accused to prove innocence. That was certainly not the case in this instance. We heard the Democrats and their supporters say over and over that “the woman must be believed.” Why? They, as accuser, can be factually wrong, misguided, have faulty memory or be motivated by malice or personal gain as easily as anyone else.

Secondly, in a court of law, there are standards of evidence. How strong must evidence be to meet the burden of proof? Must it be reasonable suspicion? Preponderance of evidence? Clear and convincing? Or must it be beyond a reasonable doubt? What is the standard here? Who determines that standard?

Thirdly, different types of evidence may or may not be acceptable. Evidence must pass very specific standards. Hearsay evidence is generally not permitted. Evidence must be relevant. Evidence requires corroboration or validation. To be accepted, evidence must be established to be true. Evidence may be excluded if it is prejudicial to the defendant. How is any of this considered in this hearing?

Fourthly, in a trial, there is a trier of the case, a judge, to impartially rule on the above and maintain order.

Quite obviously, none of the above was present in the hearings, even though it assumed the nature of a trial. Most egregiously missing was the presumption of innocence.

Witnesses presented testimony that can best be described as uncorroborated. They made statements for which there is no independent substantiation, no witness, no physical evidence, and in many cases, is inconsistent. In a court of law, it is hard to imagine this being accepted. Why should it be given weight here?

The Democrats’ main witness, Christine Blasey Ford, misrepresented herself, her credentials and material facts. Ford is not a “research psychologist,” as she stated. She is not even a psychologist. She has a doctorate in psychology but has never passed the exam to become a psychologist. She claimed a “fear of flying” to delay the hearings. It was clearly demonstrated that she was a regular and frequent flyer with no problems. Her claim that she revealed her alleged rape to her marriage counselor in 2012 while discussing problems about a second front door proved equally fallacious. She took out building permits for said door in 2008 and pictures show the door in place in 2011. She didn’t even live in the house. The house actually appears to have been rented out and used by a business, thus requiring the second door, not because of her fears. Provably, she is a liar. Why should she be believed in anything?

The Democrats would have the world believe that their cause is defending women and battling sexual harassment. While those are noble and worthy causes, they are certainly not what the Democrats are fighting about. Consider, for example, Sen. Dianne Feinstein had Ford’s allegations for many weeks without disclosing them. She could have had the FBI investigate the allegations. She could have held closed-door hearings. However, truth was not the objective. Political grandstanding was. She didn’t care one bit about Ford. She threw her under the bus in a New York minute. Ford was a tool, a political weapon.

If the Democrats cared about women’s rights and sexual misconduct, they would be equally outraged over their party vice chairman, Rep. Keith Ellison. He is credibly accused of physical and emotional abuse. Not one word about him, of course.

For the Democrats, this fight is all about raw power, it is about overturning the 2016 election. It is all about their fear that if President Trump appoints a constitutional Supreme Court justice, they will lose power for years to come.

This battle is about the future direction of our country. Will we continue to be a nation governed by our Constitution and laws or will we become an authoritarian socialism where the central government makes its own laws through unelected judges and administrators? Will we be a government of the people, as the Republicans advocate, or will the government own the people, as the Democrats would like?

Dave Ball is vice chairman of the Washington County Republican Party and a Peters Township councilman.