March 25, 2019
  • 10:00 am Chris Werthe: City should prioritize hiring veterans
  • 9:00 am Brett Haddock: In defense of social media
  • 7:30 am Democrats now outnumber Republicans in Santa Clarita
  • 7:30 am Bella Silverstein: Pull the plug on Facebook
  • 11:00 am The Master’s University remains on probation, lays off faculty

In the Trump era, when a week can feel like a lifetime, last week felt like an eternity.

It began with world leaders laughing at President Donald Trump in the U.N. General Assembly; was followed with reports his Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, considered implementing the 25th Amendment to remove him (later denied); then saw Trump freestyle an unwieldy eighty minute press conference that included musings about whether George Washington could survive today’s #MeToo era.

On Thursday, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford – the California professor who accused Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court, federal judge Brett Kavanaugh, of sexual assault – appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Her testimony was riveting, and she ably handled questioning by a female sex crimes prosecutor – fronting for the all-male panel of old white Republicans – as well as from a diverse mix of Democrats.  She was forthcoming, sympathetic and credible regardless of who asked the questions.

After a brief break, judge Kavanaugh entered the hearing room and sat down in the same chair.  He took a sip of water and then put Democrats on full blast, predicting that “What goes around comes around!”

Then the week devolved into a giant biker bar fight.

In America, judges are expected to be fair-minded and dispassionate neutral arbiters of justice.  Kavanaugh dropped that pretense and instead took a deep dive into the Trump-fueled culture war that permeates today’s politics. His wild speech veered from combative to arrogant and lashed out in a primal scream that was unbecoming of the lifetime appointment he seeks.

In one particularly alarming stretch, Kavanaugh raged, “This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election! Fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record! Revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in outside money by outside opposition groups. This is a circus!”

No sir, this is a reaping of what you sowed…

Kavanaugh’s attack was so unhinged that I find it mindboggling that anyone, but especially any woman, wouldn’t prefer Trump select someone else. After all, those on his short list hold similar views and with Democrats in the minority – elections do have consequences – conservatives will end up with a five to four advantage, quite possibly for decades to come.

Still, Thursday ended with President Trump saying the judge deserved confirmation and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell calling for a floor vote.  They planned to “plow through” despite a cloud of suspicion more dark and ominous than before Dr. Ford’s gripping testimony.

Just when I was ready to count out Congress, something surprising happened the next morning that indicates there might still be a few people of character left in politics. Two very brave survivors of sexual assault – Ana Maria Archila and Maria Gallagher – found and confronted Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) on his way to the hearing room. They forced Flake to listen to their heartbreaking pleas, and in so doing, the seemingly powerless captured the attention of the powerful.

As the father of two daughters, I’m not embarrassed to admit their stories made me tear-up.  When Flake returned to the hearing room he was clearly shaken, and after listening to Sen. Chris Coons (D-Delaware) make a final appeal for a one-week delay to allow the FBI to investigate, Flake sought out his across-the-aisle friend for a private chat in the anteroom.

Through his brave act of bipartisanship and decency, an FBI investigation was born.

Most of us knew guys like Brett Kavanaugh in high school.  One pal of mine – a doctor’s son who grew up with everything anyone could ever desire – was our Brett.  He routinely got stupid drunk and yes, behaved inappropriately with our female friends. He hit rock bottom in college, joined Alcoholics Anonymous and remarkably got his act together. He eventually graduated with honors and now, some three-plus decades later, he’s married, he’s a father and he has become a renowned cancer doctor.

The first time I’d seen this friend since high school was at his father’s funeral a few years ago, and after thanking me for coming, he apologized for his behavior, something he’s constantly been doing as he comes across people from his past.  He was sincere and remorseful because he needed to be.

Somewhere along the way, perhaps Judge Kavanaugh also made a conscious decision to change his destiny. I suspect the enviable support he’s shown the girls and women in his adult life is actually atonement for the havoc he wreaked in his youth. Still, given all of the people – friends, roommates and classmates – that have come forward to dispute the choir boy alibi he presented to the Judiciary Committee, he is clearly incapable of fully owning up to his past.

There’s now an FBI investigation underway and if he’s innocent, the FBI will clear him.  Still, getting hit with this karma boomerang must be incredibly frustrating, yet whatever frustration he feels cannot justify the dissembling explanations, righteous indignation and overt partisan petulance he unleashed on Thursday. Regardless of his many “I busted my butt” and “I went to Yale” pronouncements, he’s not entitled to anything.

A justice must comport oneself with dispassion, and by slamming the confirmation process as a “political hit job” rooted in revenge by “the Clintons” and sparring with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Michigan) over whether she ever drank to the point of blacking out, Americans and our senators are correct to question whether Kavanaugh’s temperament fits the Supreme Court.

To me, he sounded like a liar on topics big and small, and while a pattern of deception certainly does not make anyone guilty of sexual assault, he is clearly incapable of confessing human error. In contrast, after seeing the pain in Dr. Ford’s face, listening to the emotional burden she’s carried through her life, I believe her when she says she’s “one hundred percent certain” that Kavanaugh was her attacker.

For the good of the country and the integrity of the Supreme Court, Trump needs to pick someone else. If the FBI can’t clear Judge Kavanaugh of these accusations, he should be removed from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Those are two more victories for decency that America deserves.

Sign up for our Newsletter


Summary
John Zaring | The Rational Center: A Victory for Decency  
Article Name
John Zaring | The Rational Center: A Victory for Decency  
Description
Columnist John Zaring argues that another nominee should be selected to replace Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
Author
Publisher Name
The Santa Clarita Valley Proclaimer
John Zaring

John Zaring has lived with his family in the Santa Clarita Valley since 2000. He describes his politics as center-left, as in “the rational center,” and while initially a college Republican, has been a Democrat since 1992. The LA County Democratic Party named him the 37th Assembly District Democrat of the Year in 2010.

RELATED ARTICLES

5 COMMENTS

  1. Steven Weitzel Posted on October 1, 2018 at 10:45 pm

    This disjointed screed is devoid of any facts but since this is the “Opinion” section I guess that’s fair. And, further, when one proclaims to be the “Rational Center” yet uses no facts in the process of reaching their opinion I believe that makes one an ideologue.

    The writer can claim Christine Blasey Ford is a “credible” witness despite the fact that there is not a single corroborating witness, she is not sure when or where the assault happened, she struggled to name Kavanaugh as the assailant, she has no memory of key details of the event like how she got home, who invited her, how she got there etc., and the four friends she named as witnesses all deny it ever happened not to mention she took 37 years to finally speak out.

    The writer can criticize Kavanaugh for the “rage” he displayed at the hearing despite the fact he was being slandered and smeared in the most vile fashion in front of his wife, children and the world’s stage and even if he is found to be innocent by the FBI the writer stills thinks that “getting hit with this karma boomerang must be incredibly frustrating, yet whatever frustration he feels cannot justify the dissembling explanations, righteous indignation and overt partisan petulance he unleashed on Thursday” is just fine. In other words to bad he was falsely accused and found guilty before he could prove his innocence.

    But what is most troubling about this piece is the reference to a high school friend who he claims was his schools’ “Bret” who got drunk and behaved inappropriately with “our female friends”. I went to the same high school as the writer, was in the same class as the writer, know who the writer is referring to and was a much closer friend to this person (and continue to be) than the writer and this person never behaved inappropriately with our female friends. Also, the writer should check his facts as this person isn’t a “father” as he states.

    Although the writer didn’t mention the person by name the description is thorough enough that many could easily determine who he is smearing and slandering which is a shame. It’s even more of a shame as even if what the writer claims was true what purpose does it serve in supporting his opinion of Kavanaugh? If it’s to say that because he supposedly knows someone like Bret Kavanaugh then most likely Kavanaugh is guilty just shows the lack of logic that goes into forming his opinions.

    It is a farce to title this piece “A Victory in Decency”. I am certain rational people will see this as a victory of deceit if these smears prevent Kavanaugh from being confirmed to the Supreme Court and false smears continue to go unchecked.

  2. Steven Weitzel Posted on October 2, 2018 at 8:34 am

    This disjointed screed is devoid of any facts but since this is the “Opinion” section I guess that’s fair. And, further, when one proclaims to be the “Rational Center” yet uses no facts in the process of reaching their opinion I believe that makes one an ideologue.
    The writer can claim Christine Blasey Ford is a “credible” witness despite the fact that there is not a single corroborating witness, she is not sure when or where the assault happened, she struggled to name Kavanaugh as the assailant, she has no memory of key details of the event like how she got home, who invited her, how she got there etc., and the four friends she named as witnesses all deny it ever happened not to mention she took 37 years to finally speak out.
    The writer can criticize Kavanaugh for the “rage” he displayed at the hearing despite the fact he was being slandered and smeared in the most vile fashion in front of his wife, children and the world’s stage and even if he is found to be innocent by the FBI the writer stills thinks that “getting hit with this karma boomerang must be incredibly frustrating, yet whatever frustration he feels cannot justify the dissembling explanations, righteous indignation and overt partisan petulance he unleashed on Thursday” is just fine. In other words to bad he was falsely accused and found guilty before he could prove his innocence.
    But what is most troubling about this piece is the reference to a high school friend who he claims was his schools’ “Bret” who got drunk and behaved inappropriately with “our female friends”. I went to the same high school as the writer, was in the same class as the writer, know who the writer is referring to and was a much closer friend to this person (and continue to be) than the writer and this person never behaved inappropriately with our female friends. Also, the writer should check his facts as this person isn’t a “father” as he states.
    Although the writer didn’t mention the person by name the description is thorough enough that many could easily determine who he is smearing and slandering which is a shame. It’s even more of a shame as even if what the writer claims was true what purpose does it serve in supporting his opinion of Kavanaugh? If it’s to say that because he supposedly knows someone like Bret Kavanaugh then most likely Kavanaugh is guilty just shows the lack of logic that goes into forming his opinions.
    It is a farce to title this piece “A Victory in Decency”. I am certain rational people will see this as a victory of deceit if these smears prevent Kavanaugh from being confirmed to the Supreme Court and false smears continue to go unchecked.

  3. John Zaring Posted on October 4, 2018 at 1:18 pm

    Steve, I laughed heartily at your belief that you were a “closer friend” than I was … really? One, it isn’t true, and two, it doesn’t even matter.

    While I apologize for getting ‘him being a dad’ wrong, I saw our friend over a decade ago and quite frankly, I wasn’t take notes at his father’s funeral. If you were so close to him and his family, why weren’t you there? More importantly, I did not slander or smear him or anyone … and I certainly never accused him of being an alleged rapist, like Kavanaugh. Our MUTUAL friend remains unnamed and will stay that way — unless you blabber it out — and this wasn’t about HIM anyway.

    The point of including this anecdote in my column was to demonstrate how a person who had a very real drinking problem in their high school days can get help and conquer it, and then go on to accomplish wonderful things in their adult life. Kavanaugh — who this column IS ABOUT — has made no such accommodation to his truth. He’s been living in denial and still is, and that’s a real problem when you are asking to be elevated to the Supreme Court, the highest court in our land, nine fellow Americans who are expected to be fair-minded and apolitical.

    Steve, I long ago had to block you from seeing my political posts on Facebook because you can’t control yourself and despite repeated requests, you almost always ended up insulting my friends (not only our mutual friends, but plenty of people you don’t know, at all). That’s why you are blocked on Facebook from my political posts, and you know it. Apparently now, frustrated by that reality, you’ve taken to following me here, to blast the columns I’ve written for a media outlet in a community that you DO NOT EVEN LIVE IN!

    Dude, do you have a Google alert on my name?!

    Your weird obsession with my political opinions is unhealthy and borderline stalker-ish. I never comment on your Facebook rants, and never will. And quite frankly, I’d appreciate it if you would start to focus on your own life instead of mine.

  4. Steven Weitzel Posted on October 6, 2018 at 5:46 pm

    John, putting your superfluous rhetoric, petty retorts and false victimizations aside what part of using a supposed “friend” who you claimed “behaved inappropriately with our female friends” (from high school) as an anecdote to a article on Bret Kavanaugh, a man being accused of sexual assault and gang rape do you not see as completely wrong? “Behaved inappropriately” leaves a lot to the imagination in this context wouldn’t you say? Not to mention it isn’t true but throwing that in does make your “anecdote” more aligned with Kavanaugh’s vilification. If you don’t see what’s wrong with this then you are more lost than I imagined. Clearly your article isn’t about our friend. It’s about trying to infer Kavanaugh is guilty as charged despite zero corroborating evidence. Thankfully, the FBI cleared this man of the vile accusations leveled against him and common sense prevailed in the Senate to put this most qualified man on the Supreme Court.

  5. Peg Hurley Posted on October 11, 2018 at 4:45 pm

    Note to Steven Weitzel: You clearly know nothing about how women process sexual terror. Furthermore, your personal attacks on the writer and references to mutually known people about whom NO ONE gives a fig reveal pettiness and a strange obsession.

Comments are closed.

LEAVE A COMMENT
%d bloggers like this: