Tag: Brett Kavanaugh

Posted on

a sobering but important read…

On August 5, 2010, Elena Kagan was confirmed as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. She was nominated by Pres. Obama, after previously serving in both his and Pres. Clinton’s administrations. Kagan was the first nominee with no experience as a judge since William Rehnquist in 1972. Ideologically, she is considered to be liberal. (She also hired current nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh when dean of Harvard Law School.)

In her confirmation process, a letter from Miguel Estrada was shared. Estrada commended Kagan for possessing a “formidable intellect” and “exemplary temperament.” Ideologically, Estrada is considered to be conservative. Estrada still believed a President has the prerogative to nominate judges who share his/her governing philosophies. Hence, different as they are, Estrada felt Kagan was “an impeccably qualified nominee.”

Move to today’s Supreme Court squabble, where many have referenced the former controversy surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas. Allow me to humbly suggest we should also look at what happened to Miguel Estrada — and to his family. He, too, was once nominated…

Having received a unanimous “well-qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, Estrada was nominated in 2001 by Pres. George W. Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. [According to Wikipedia] “Senate Democrats, claiming Estrada was a conservative ideologue with no experience as a judge, and unable to block his nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee after the Republican Party took control of the Senate in 2002, used a filibuster to prevent his nomination from being given a final confirmation vote by the full Senate.”

More from Wikipedia:

“… Leaked internal memos to Democratic Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin mention liberal interest groups’ desire to keep Estrada off the court partially because ‘he is Latino,’ and because of his potential to be a future Supreme Court nominee. A spokesman for Durbin said that ‘no one intended racist remarks against Estrada’ and that the memo only meant to highlight that Estrada was ‘politically dangerous’ because Democrats knew he would be an ‘attractive candidate’ that would be difficult to contest since he didn’t have any record…”

Estrada was nominated in May of 2001. After 28 months in political limbo — including seven failed cloture votes, six months of filibuster use, and continuous political posturing — Estrada withdrew his name from further consideration on September 4, 2003.

Summarizing the account… “Numerous judicial nominees prior to Estrada had been kept off the courts, when the Senate refused to let the nomination out of committee for a floor vote… but the Estrada filibuster was different in multiple ways. Estrada’s was the first filibuster ever to be successfully used against a judicial nominee who had clear support of the majority in the Senate. Estrada’s was the first filibuster of any court of appeals nominee. It was also the first filibuster that prevented a judicial nominee from joining a court.”

Oh, how sobering this is. Can we not admit that political motivations are in play? … from all sides? 

… with the Democrats on Estrada… the Republicans on Merrick Garland… 

And now — regardless of whether or not Dr. Christine Ford is telling the truth — can we not admit that both the Democrats and Republicans are still playing political games?

This is disturbing. 

But sadly, it gets worse.

During the confirmation process of Miguel Estrada, his wife, Laury, suffered a miscarriage. Then, a year after her husband’s name was both damaged and withdrawn, Laury passed away suddenly and unexpectedly. She died of an accidental overdose of alcohol and sleeping pills. Persons on all sides of the proverbial political aisle could not help but wonder how much the unprecedented stress of those 28 months painfully impacted their family.

What are we doing? Who will be maligned next?

Can we stop for a moment, recognizing that both sides are playing games, and as the watching public, we are fueling the fight when we justify the game playing by one??

At the onset of the Trump administration, Miguel Estrada was rumored to be a candidate for the nation’s next solicitor general. Estrada released a statement: “I have only respect and best wishes for those who agree to serve despite the deterioration of the confirmation process over the years, but everyone who knows me in this town knows that I would never accept a job that requires Senate confirmation…”

The deterioration of the process… that’s it.

Regardless of what happens this week and next with Ford, Kavanaugh, and seemingly, “As the Senate Turns,” I pray no one finds cause to celebrate. The process remains deteriorated… that is, until we quit taking sides, tolerating solely the games of one.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

a few more words on Kavanaugh & Ford

So allow me to humbly offer a few more words…

What I appreciate in the current #MeToo moment is the breakthrough of speaking truth to power, giving women an honored voice where for too long there has been a consistent none.

What concerns me in this moment is the breakdown of some key societal norms that have long been considered wise, such as being innocent until proven guilty and truth not discerned via gender, ethnicity, or other demographic.

Unfortunately, I feel we’ve lost our way somewhat. Our emotions have clouded our perspective.

How we feel is dictating our truth.

We have become biased. And most of us can’t see it in ourselves — only in others.

Every accuser deserves to be heard, friends. But every accuser does not deserve to be believed.

Again, allow me to reiterate my desire to humbly address this heartache; this is indeed a tough, multi-faceted subject. For those I’ve walked with who have severely struggled to recover from such trauma, I have grieved and cried with them… too often, gut-wrenchingly for years.

I have also walked and grieved and cried with numerous others — with no judgment whatsoever — who have lied.

I’m not really comfortable with the word “lied” in that sentence; sorry — it actually pains me to post it. In my experience, it hasn’t always been a boldface lie, but more a distortion of truth. Some women and men do distort truth… often sincerely, albeit knowingly or unknowingly. Having experienced that multiple times, it affects my current perspective.

The reality is that we often gauge our perception on whether a specific accuser is telling the truth based on our own experience.

Friends, with all due respect, that is an inaccurate gauge. 

We can’t tell whether Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh is telling the truth based on their gender or our experience. We can’t tell without any sworn testimony or collaborating evidence. I am sorry we can’t immediately tell; no doubt that is currently a most inconvenient truth for a watching nation with far too constant, breaking news. But what we know is not enough. We don’t know enough to base a belief on fact; we only know enough to base a belief on bias.

What we also know — that also greatly disheartens me — is that many of our elect are politically motivated. That’s on the left and right, friends. And if Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh are each sincere in their perspective — which is quite possible — our elected politicians are doing a disservice not only to us, but also, greatly to them. I  am highly disappointed with the political motivations that are obviously in play… and also, by our narrow vision that only allows us to see those unscrupulous motivations on one side…

Of course, the Democrats want to delay this.

Of course, the Republicans want to be done with it.

Both parties are clearly, politically motivated.

And so I find myself not trying to find compromise, so-to-speak, but rather, attempting to best discern what here is good and right and true. 

That’s hard. Really hard.

I get tempted to base my perception of truth on how I feel…

… on my own experience…

… on my political leanings…

… on my sobering frustration with the entire Senate Judiciary Committee…

But that is not enough to discern truth.

Hence, with this situation seemingly only feeding the divisiveness that partisans on both sides continue to fuel, the only wise thing I know is for each of us to pause, humble ourselves, and pray. Pray for truth to be revealed.

Join me. 

Will you?

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

Kavanaugh questions

With the latest developments in the Supreme Court confirmation process of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Senate leaders called for a public hearing next Monday. At the time of this posting, accuser Christine Blasey Ford has not accepted the Senate’s invitation; hence, the hearing may not happen.

But assuming it does, according to Senate rules, the question-asking of those testifying before a committee can be assigned to any individual. Recognizing that unpretentious, respectful, truth-seeking questions are most necessary, the Intramuralist has been assigned to the task before us. Under oath, I’d sincerely like to ask the following…

To the accuser…

  • Is this true?
  • Is any part of this exaggerated?
  • Why do you remember specifically what happened but do not remember where you where, when you were there, and why you were there?
  • Why did you edit your social media accounts to remove previously posted progressive ties?

To the accused…

  • Is this true?
  • Is there any angle or aspect which is partially true?
  • How well have you known your accuser?
  • Did any of your friends have a relationship with her?
  • How have you grown or changed emotionally and spiritually since high school?

To the Senate Judiciary Committee…

  • Who leaked this story?
  • Why?
  • Sen. Feinstein, why did you wait 7 weeks before sharing this information?
  • Why didn’t you ask Kavanaugh about it in committee or in a private, closed door session?
  • Did you intentionally withhold this information for political reasons?
  • Sen. Grassley, why did you immediately suggest the vote would go on as planned and not take time to listen to the accuser?
  • Do you not believe that every accuser has a right to be heard?
  • Are you intentionally rushing hearings for political reasons?
  • Democrats, since many of you admitted you would not vote to confirm Kavanaugh even before meeting him and hearing his testimony, how much of this is:
  1. an attempt to delay in hopes of getting closer or past the midterm elections, hoping to fan the flames of the #MeToo movement? Or…
  2. an attempt to damage Kavanaugh’s credibility as a future justice? 
  • Republicans, since many of you admitted you would vote to confirm Kavanaugh even before meeting him and hearing his testimony, how many of you are actually willing to sincerely listen to the accuser and consider her account as potentially true?
  • To all of you, what other motives are in play?
  • Do you recognize that your lack of objectivity is making many of us wish to support none of you?
  • And do you realize that your behavior is prompting many of us to lose respect for our government?

And to those of us watching…

  • Why do we allow our partisan leanings to sway our perception of truth?
  • Are tribal lines more important than truth?
  • Where have we not believed the accuser because we liked the person she accused?
  • Why do we respond differently to whether the accused is Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Keith Ellison or Kavanaugh?

And more…

  • In the #MeToo movement, should the accuser always be believed?
  • On whom rests the burden of proof?
  • Do we recognize that for the accuser who is telling the truth, it takes tremendous courage to speak up even after many years?
  • Is it possible that Ford is telling the truth, but got the person wrong?
  • Could Ford and Kavanaugh both be telling what they believe to be true?
  • Does evidence matter?
  • Do witnesses matter?
  • Does a non-criminal scenario this old matter?
  • And can we admit that the only two people in the entire world who have some semblance of the truth are Christine Ford and Brett Kavanaugh? … and that none of us… none of the rest of us… can specifically discern what happened?

We weren’t there.

(I’m not the question-asker either.)

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

throwing the stone

“… They kept at him, badgering him. He straightened up and said, ‘The sinless one among you, go first: Throw the stone.’”

Like many, this semi-humble current events observer listened to much of the Senate confirmation hearings for current Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh.

Like many, also, this semi-humble current events observer eventually turned the hearings off.

While there did exist moments which were seemingly productive, insightful and indicative of both sincere praise and authentic concern, too many moments were partisan, disrespectful, and disappointing.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) seemed to sense something similar. While she is one who has expressed valid concern with Kavanaugh sitting on the high court, after multiple interruptions and disruptions, her opening statement on Wednesday included an actual apology to the nominee, saying, “I’m sorry for the circumstances, but we’ll get through it.” She was then immediately mocked by many on Twitter… for having the audacity to apologize.

How disappointing.

The confirmation process has become partisan.

Attack ads begin immediately. Senators make up their minds before meeting the nominee. Parties hold closed-door strategy sessions, hoping to derail the process. They focus on ensuring their tribe sticks together, as opposed to sincerely vetting and evaluating a potential, future judge. Maybe the tribe can disrupt the process; better yet, perhaps they can discredit the candidate going forward. It’s evident with some of the harsher opposition to Kavanaugh now, just as it was evident in 2016, when Pres. Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland was ignored.

That’s just it. Both parties do it.

And what’s sadly unfortunate, is that many of us suggest it’s ok. Wait…

It’s ok for one of them.

Why?

Because they threw the stone first.

Question: since when did any stone throwing become acceptable behavior?

As the summer of 2018 came to a close, one of the most bittersweet, beautiful occurrences was the gathering to celebrate the life and faith of Sen. John McCain. It was amazing on so many levels… hearing from his family… hearing from both political rivals and friends… being inspired by both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

John McCain was a statesman. In fact, as I learned more from tuning into the multiple memorial services, few seemed as fierce as either friend or foe. But McCain still advocated for respect.

In some of the late Senator’s last words delivered on the Senate floor a year before his death, McCain shared the following:  [emphasis mine]

“… Our deliberations today — not just our debates, but the exercise of all our responsibilities — authorizing government policies, appropriating the funds to implement them, exercising our advice and consent role — are often lively and interesting. They can be sincere and principled. But they are more partisan, more tribal more of the time than any other time I remember. Our deliberations can still be important and useful, but I think we’d all agree they haven’t been overburdened by greatness lately. And right now they aren’t producing much for the American people.

Both sides have let this happen. Let’s leave the history of who shot first to the historians. I suspect they’ll find we all conspired in our decline — either by deliberate actions or neglect. We’ve all played some role in it…”

Who shot first?

Who threw the first stone?

It doesn’t matter… we’ve all played some role in it.

We, my friends, can do better. 

Respectfully…

AR