The Kavanaugh confirmation's biggest lessons

Contact Us

1629 K St. NW
Suite #300
Washington, DC 20006 
 
Phone:  (202) 270-7748
Email: contact@committeeforjustice.org

Support Our Mission

We are only able to accomplish our mission through your generous support.
Please consider making a donation today. 

Follow Us Online 

Copyright (c) 2019 by The Committee for Justice 

The Kavanaugh confirmation's biggest lessons

Though the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh will be best remembered for the drama of last-minute sexual assault allegations, it will also provide valuable lessons for the presidents and senators who will nominate and confirm future justices to the nation's highest court. Here are a few of the most important lessons, informed by my many years of closely observing the Supreme Court appointment process.

 

Offense is the best defense 

 

Over the last three decades, Senate Democrats have attempted to destroy three Supreme Court nominees: Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh. Judge Bork, blindsided by the demise of the nonpartisan tradition of judicial confirmations, did not go on the offensive when in 1987 Democrats accused him of favoring segregated lunch counters, artistic and literary censorship, and other horrible positions.

 

Schooled by Bork's defeat, Clarence Thomas launched a counterattack in 1991 when Anita Hill claimed he had sexually harassed her. After accusing senators of "a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks" who don't toe the liberal line, public opinion moved in Thomas's favor and he was confirmed to the Court.

 

Two weeks ago, Brett Kavanaugh summoned his inner Clarence Thomas, vehemently defending his integrity and attacking Democrat senators for their "grotesque and coordinated character assassination." Kavanaugh's impassioned testimony unified Republicans in the Senate and across the country and saved his nomination.

Judicial nominees preparing for Senate hearings are advised to be cautious, modest and deferential to senators.

 

But after Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation, that advice requires some rethinking. At very least, when responding to the politics of personal destruction, a nominee's best strategy is to go on the offensive.

 

Another president may well have hesitated to defend a nominee against assault allegations or may have withdrawn the nomination. Instead, Donald Trump proved that fighting back is also the best approach for a president defending his nominee.

 

Although recent campaigns of personal destruction have been limited to Republican Supreme Court nominees, the wisdom of fighting back would presumably apply equally to a Democrat nominee facing such an attack.

 

Thread the needle 

 

Justice Kavanaugh survived the assault allegations only because Senate Republicans were unified – with the exception of Lisa Murkowski – and there were no real vulnerabilities in his record that Democrats could exploit to pry away moderate Republicans.

 

That was possible because President Trump managed to thread the needle with a nominee whose record appealed to Republicans of all stripes and excited the GOP base, while simultaneously providing little meaningful ammunition to opponents who would inevitably seek to portray the nominee as hostile to women, minorities, workers and the like.

 

Some of the people on Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees would not have met the latter condition.  Judge Amy Coney Barrett likely would have run into trouble on the issue of abortion, for example.  Many others on the list would have satisfied the base without exciting it, if only because they were not as well known.

 

Threading this needle is no easy feat, yet President Trump has done it twice with Justice Neil Gorsuch and now Kavanaugh. Future GOP presidents would be wise to study and copy Trump's selection process.

 

Think before you play to the base 

 

When Gorsuch was nominated last year, logic suggested that Senate Democrats not filibuster his nomination because Republicans likely would respond with the "nuclear option," permanently eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. That would leave Democrats with no leverage for the next high court vacancy, when the stakes presumably would be higher and the GOP unity needed to pull off the nuclear option might be absent.

 

That's exactly what happened. When faced with the higher stakes of replacing moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy (Gorsuch replaced another conservative, Justice Antonin Scalia), Democrats were left largely defenseless. They couldn't use the threat of a filibuster to encourage the selection of a less conservative nominee or an actual filibuster to try to defeat Kavanaugh, even though assault allegations and a narrower GOP margin might have precluded the nuclear option...

 

Read more of Committee for Justice Curt Levey's op-ed in Fox News.

 

Follow us on Twitter: @CmteForJustice

 

 

 

SHARE
TWEET
SHARE
LIKE THIS POST
Please reload

The Latest...
Please reload

Related Posts
Please reload