In weighing charges of sexual abuse by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Sen. Susan Collins emphasized presumption of innocence. But innocence of proven criminality, requisite for virtually any employment, is not entitlement to a U.S. Supreme Court seat.

Collins required corroborating evidence of Kavanaugh’s abuse, but required none to believe Blasey Ford was attacked, despite Ford’s friend not having asked about her sudden departure and questions of Ford’s character. She then asks Congress to believe, with no corroboration, the virtual impossibility that Ford, face to face, misidentified her attacker. Ford knew Kavanaugh, and she was indebted to Kavanaugh’s mother, a judge, who had allowed refinancing of Ford’s parents’ home to avert foreclosure.

Contrary to Collins’ single criterion, unemployed, sound judgment must be based on all relevant evidence. Neither the Judiciary Committee nor FBI interviewed anyone who claimed evidence corroborating Ford’s, or other victims’, allegations. Collins ignored ample testimony that young Kavanaugh was often drunk and blacked out, as at such a party, so might not have remembered attacking Ford.

Collins did not weigh Kavanaugh’ federal bench record of pro-corporate bias.

Nor did Collins address Kavanaugh’s anger when his expectation that the juvenile delinquency of his privileged youth should receive a pass proved unwarranted. He lied under oath, displayed raw partisanship, blamed political conspiracies, and evaded answering questions, especially those asked by women.

Kavanaugh’s lack of judicial temperament turned former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, a lifelong Republican, against confirmation.

None of this registered on Collins. Party loyalty did.

“Moderation” does not excuse bad judgment.

William H. Slavick
Portland


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.