Quick March

The sorry Kabuki-esque nature of this week’s Supreme Court confirmation process has generated plenty of heat but relatively little light. We have seen this movie before, and once should have been enough. Does it have to happen again when the next Supreme Court vacancy occurs? The process has to be standardized, by legislation or some other means. Clearly, we can’t completely remove partisan politics from what goes on, but there are ways to make it fair, or at least fair-er. So I’m going to try an idea.

To start with, there should be a series of deadlines, with the clock starting as soon as there is a vacancy on the Court -- a deadline for the President to make a nomination – with one or two backups in case the first choice falls out. All three would be subject to background checks by the FBI. There is another deadline for the Senate Judiciary Committee to open hearings for the nominee. As part of that, there is a deadline for receiving information about the nominee from other sources to be turned over to the FBI – this, to discourage last-minute bomb-throwing – a “speak now or forever hold your peace” provision for this process. All government records relating to the nominee would have to be made available to the committee in a timely manner. The ommittee would only question the nominee during the hearings. Others with information would face questioning by the FBI.

The committee would have its own deadline for taking a vote, and the full Senate would have a deadline for yea-ing or naying the nominee. If it’s nay, the Judiciary Committee moves on to the second choice, and if necessary, the third.

Under this timeline, there would be no more Merrick Garland situations. The Judiciary Committee, even if the majority were from an opposing party to the President, could not hold things over until a new President took office.

I’m sure you can see the flaws in this. Suppose a vacancy occurs in an outgoing President’s last days before a new President is inaugurated? I know that’s a problem. But it would be more the timing governing the process and less the party politics. It’s certainly not a perfect scheme – but then, how’s the current one working for us?

To Tell the Truth

When I first heard about the attempted rape allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, it was eye-roll time for me. “Oh, God, not another one of those things!” and more than a little skepticism followed when I heard it was about drunken behavior at a high school party three decades ago where the participants were minors. I attended upscale, all-male institutions myself right through college, and the concept of a privileged young man feeling entitled to take advantage of a young woman after the consumption of copious amounts of alcohol was not exactly new. This case is NOT Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill 2.0. Nevertheless, out came the historic video clips, and we cable news junkies had to live through that all over again.

Did what happened to Christine Blasey Ford qualify as a #metoo? In those cases, the downfall of highly placed men has come after the establishment of a pattern of bad behavior. In this particular case, there is no such pattern, at least not yet. But Dr. Ford has a point.  We need an investigation to get to the truth, or very close to it,  before she testifies to the Senate committee. She says he did it; Judge Kavanaugh says he didn’t. Both can’t be right. I am not trying to minimize the damage done to Dr. Ford as a teen and what she is going through now. It’s awful. But the simple question remains: Did he do it?

 As for disturbing patterns, though, there already appears to be one in Kavanaugh’s case -- questions about his relationship with the truth, which have come up during his confirmation hearing. We all may have different evaluations of the behavioral excesses of a drunken teenage boy, but veracity certainly does have a bearing on whether this man is qualified for the Supreme Court.

It’s the timing that stinks more than anything here. The Republicans wouldn’t even consider President Obama’s pick of Merrick Garland to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, choosing instead to wait till after a new President took office. There should be a similar delay now until a new Congress is seated. This is a fairness no-brainer.

A Bloodless Coup

Are they heroes or cowards? That’s the question being asked about the writer of the anonymous New York Times op-ed piece and those in the Trump administration who make up what is called in the piece the “Resistance.” These are the self-styled “adults in the room” who believe they’re holding things together in the White House in the face of the President’s ever-loosening grasp on reality.

Personally, I’m way past trying to judge the writer or the writer’s like-minded colleagues. The ship is taking on water and these folks are throwing things over the side to keep it from sinking. They’re doing it largely because those whose job it is to do it won’t. As for the New York Times, I’m confident the paper would not have allowed the publication of an anonymous op-ed unless it came from someone high up. At the time I am writing this, we don’t know who it is.

You’d have to be living in a cave not to notice the confluence of events in recent days. The funeral of John McCain was a deep expression of yearning, within government and without, for a restoration of balance and a recovery of the loss of national pride. Then there is the Bob Woodward book, revealing the chaos in the White House, and, as if to confirm it, the Times op-ed piece.

The revelations we’re being presented with are not surprises. It’s all been going on for many months, like the earthquakes warning us that the volcano is about to erupt. Some are trying to put a lid on the crater. But now, the hot lava is starting to flow, and those in the way of the stream will be compelled to figure out their next steps. And forgive me for the metaphor mixes here.

I don’t believe President Trump would resign voluntarily. The one absolute power it seems that nobody around him can thwart is the pardon. Whether he could pardon himself is a question, but he may need it for others, possibly even members of his own family. He has warned that if he is ousted, the stock market will crash and there will be violence in the streets. I believe the exact opposite is true. The Dow will soar like a rocket, and there will be parties in the streets, as stability returns.

So then, the Resistance: heroes or cowards? I don’t know, but somehow, for the moment at least, I’m sorta glad they are there.