Requirement For The Job Of Supreme Court Justice: Truth-Telling

In order for any court of law to function, there has to be the belief that taking an oath to tell the truth means that the truth is being spoken. Those taking the oath must believe that. The jury must believe that. The judge must believe that.

That belief is so important that we must not knowingly put a judge on any court who does not respect that taking an oath to tell the truth means telling the truth. Brett Kavanaugh has not told the truth under oath. For that reason alone, he should not sit on the Supreme Court of the United States

The September 28th editorial in The Boston Globe lists the times that Brett Kavanaugh has not told the truth to the Senate Judiciary Committee:

• In 2004, Kavanaugh said he was not involved in the handling of the controversial nomination of federal Judge William Pryor. That was a lie. E-mails later showed that he was involved.

• Kavanaugh was asked if he was involved with a scheme to steal Democratic staff e-mails related to judicial confirmations. He lied about it. E-mails showed that he was involved.

• In 2006, Kavanaugh was asked if he was involved in the controversial nomination of federal Judge Charles Pickering. He lied about that too and said he was not.

• In 2006, Kavanaugh was asked about his role in the nomination of William Haynes, the Pentagon general counsel involved in creating the Bush administration’s interrogation policies. He lied about that.

Then, on Thursday, under oath and with the nation watching, he made statements so preposterous that senators should view them as an insult to their intelligence.

• He said the term “devil’s triangle” in his yearbook entry referred to a drinking game. Google it. It doesn’t.

• He said the word “boof” referred to flatulence. Again, no.

• Then there was his assertion that his yearbook description of himself as a “Renate Alumnius” was meant only to signify his friendship with Renate Dolphin, a woman who attended another school and socialized with Kavanaugh. Other football players were described as “Renate Alumni.” We know what they intended to insinuate. You know what they meant to insinuate. Everyone knows. Senators may never be able to establish with forensic certainty that Kavanaugh’s entry was intended as a sexual boast, but they’re allowed to use common sense.

In addition to these examples, it has been verified on October 1, 2018 that Brett Kavanaugh lied about when he first learned of the accusation against him by Debbie Ramirez, a Yale classmate. He said under oath to the Judiciary Committee that he first learned of that accusation when it was reported in The New Yorker. Emails between Brett Kavanaugh and other Yale classmates show that he knew about the accusation and discussed it with others before the publishing of The New Yorker piece.

The Boston Globe concludes:

Put aside that allegation (by Christine Blasey Ford) for a moment, serious as it is. Forget about the FBI inquiry. You can believe that a Supreme Court nominee’s conduct in high school doesn’t matter anyway. You can believe that crass material in a yearbook shouldn’t be held against him as an adult. You can even believe that maybe he genuinely doesn’t remember the assault, which Ford says happened when he was very drunk.

Those are all separate questions from whether he’s been honest.

Unfortunately, the only way for senators to convince themselves that Kavanaugh hasn’t already been shown to be a habitual liar is to lie to themselves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s