SCOTUS Hearing 2.0 Requires Analysis, Not Emotion

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, wields his gavel as Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, appears before the panel for the second day of his confirmation hearing, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Sept. 5, 2018. Kavanaugh touted the importance of an independent judiciary as his confirmation hearings began with strident Democratic criticism that he would be President Donald Trump's man on the high court. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

In a charged proceeding emotions need to be dispatched for pragmatism. Guess what Democrats rely upon?


The past couple of weeks before today’s climax in the Senate chambers of the sequel to the Supreme Court Hearings “Ford vs. Kavanaugh: Electric Boogaloo” have been filled with imbalanced thinking. So many have been relying on the emotional tug of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s claim of an attempted rape by high schooler Brett Kavanaugh that facts have become completely devalued in the process.


In the days leading up to this forum there has been a common refrain from those on the left. As senators have been taking to the airwaves to declare Kavanaugh “guilty” some, like myself, have stated there is an abject lack of firm evidence. Mentioning legal basics such as presumption of innocence, burden of proof, and/or facing your accuser frequently provokes a retort about how those do not apply, since no lawsuit is being argued. “It’s not a trial, it’s a job interview!” is the excuse offered.

This is almost immediately followed up with a demand for the FBI to step in — because a federal investigation is a normal process in job interviews, we are left to assume. A crime is being alleged, but the emotion-detectors say legal precedent has no place in the vetting of an individual, for the highest COURT in the country.

To further blast apart their narrative of convenience, should anyone give some false information during this “job interview” it does not mean their resume gets tossed into File Thirteen; it means they can be dropped off in the Grey-Bar Inn, for contempt. So yea, maybe legal standards apply here. And in looking over the testimony from Dr. Ford the application of facts should rise to the fore.

Most who sat through today’s posturing carnival were convinced that whatever your view was before — that Kavanaugh is guilty, or he is exonerated —  it would be confirmed after. The truth is that it would have taken something deeply significant to alter the views. Instead, while Ford’s testimony was at times gripping to behold, she brought nothing to further her claim of Kavanaugh’s involvement. In fact, when appraised objectively, there were numerous reasons to say her story is unraveling.


Early on Dr. Ford was asked if the letter she had written and had been submitted was accurate. Ford asked if she could see the letter. So she could read it — the letter she had written. This quixotic moment is a direct result of knowing she is under oath, needing to verify her own words were accurate on the record.

Another issue was related to one of her excuses made previously to justify stalling her appearance at this hearing. In a lengthy line of questioning Ford admitted to taking various trips, by plane. Some for work, some to exotic locales, but trips involving airline travel. She had stated emphatically she would have been unable to arrive at a scheduled hearing due to her fear of flying. She had said part of her trauma from the high school attack was an inability to fly due to fear of enclosed spaces. She backpedaled on this, saying vacations were not stressful, so her PTSD was not an issue. This made her look rather untrustworthy on her claims. For someone who hates confined spaces she managed to paint herself into a tight corner.

Entered into evidence today was her polygraph test. This had been widely touted in the media for weeks, but there are…issues. Primary being, only TWO significant questions about the episode were asked. Brett Kavanaugh’s name was never uttered. And her recollection of the participants is also compromised, as her opening statement differed from the polygraph. This now had Dr. Ford giving a fifth version of the amount of people in attendance at the party and the gender makeup.


Also not helping her cause was her primary witness offered was her friend, Leyland Keyser. Ford stated she was in attendance and would attest to the attack taking place. Keyser disputes being at the party, and when told her witness disagreed Ford explained Keyser’s memory was affected by concerns with health issues. So a question: Why would you bring her up as a witness if you discredit her…as a witness?

Ford’s own memory was a highlight regarding her testimony, due to the large gaps in her story of what happened (coupled with her accuracy). Her explanation was that the details germane to her charge were vividly intact in her hippocampus and reliably accurate. But then she displayed some striking issues with short-term memory.

When the subject of that polygraph test came up– for which she traveled to Maryland by airplane, mind you — she was asked about who had paid for it to be administered. Ford had no answer. She could not recall. Then there was an issue regarding the therapist notes she had turned over — which by her own admission were not accurate, and thereby rendered as impotent. These had been presented to the Washington Post in July, according to that paper’s article on Ford’s accusation. But the Doctor stated she was unclear if she had given them, or only told them of the contents. This was a notable event, only two months prior.


One very curious episode involved arrangements that had been offered to her by the committee. It was reported over a week ago that the committee, in a sign of appeasement, offered to fly staffers out to California in order to take the official statement from Dr. Ford. When she was asked about this particular offer she stated she was not aware of any such offer, and then her legal team cut her off and declared this information to be privileged. The committee was forbidden to ask a question regarding a function of the committee?

So was she never made aware of this offer by the committee? If that is the case it could indicate that this was never entertained by her representatives, and/or Democrats handling her, in a concerted effort to delay things. It was just one other detail that came up this morning that failed to clarify and only called more things into question.

The purpose of this hearing was to get answers and make a determination of the veracity of Ford’s accusation. Instead of clarifying her claims and making Kavanaugh’s responsibility more evident her story, for those interested in facts and corroboration, became less valid.

Those invested purely in emotional involvement and acquisition of power, the justifications are going to tough to come by.



Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos