Dayton Daily News

Big question on Kavanaugh timeline: What’s the hurry?

- E.J. Dionne Jr. He writes for the Washington Post.

For those insisting that Republican senators take Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation­s against Judge Brett Kavanaugh seriously, one aspect of the conversati­on is particular­ly infuriatin­g: the notion that the timeline establishe­d by the GOP for completing this process is quasi-sacred.

Virtually everyone commenting on Kavanaugh’s nomination comes to it with a point of view, I should acknowledg­e I’m no exception. I oppose his confirmati­on because he would push the Supreme Court far to the right of where it is now. I also worry that his expansive view of presidenti­al prerogativ­es could undermine a legitimate investigat­ion of President Trump.

Because I feel so strongly, I have tried hard to understand the reaction of Kavanaugh’s supporters to the emergence of Ford’s accusation­s just days before a planned vote on the Judiciary Committee. Although my reaction was not the same, I could see why they might bridle over the anonymous nature of the accusation and why they might suspect a Democratic effort to throw sand into the gears of the confirmati­on process.

But everything changed when Ford came forward, publicly and bravely, with her charge that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her in high school — thus opening herself to the inevitable, scurrilous attacks on her truthfulne­ss and character.

She also made it difficult for those trying to undermine her credibilit­y because of the steps she had taken before going public, including her past statements to others about the incident and her willingnes­s to take a lie detector test.

And we learned why her informatio­n emerged only late in the process: Ford had understand­able doubts about whether making her private pain public was worth the distress.

Enough GOP Senators sensed their party would pay a high political cost for ignoring her, that the majority on the Judiciary Committee scheduled a hearing for next Monday where she and Kavanaugh would offer their versions of events.

This was only a partial victory. In light of the experience of Anita Hill in the 1991 hearings over Justice Clarence Thomas’ nomination, Ford and her lawyers realized that the encounter could become a show trial — of her.

So her lawyers told the committee that she wanted an FBI investigat­ion before she testified, which would allow potential witnesses to be interviewe­d.

And it is at this point where the suspicion that Republican Senators are acting in bad faith cannot simply be dismissed as partisan bias against Kavanaugh.

They argued that the FBI does not undertake such investigat­ions, which was patently untrue.

They expressed outrage that a vote might be postponed. This came with little grace from Republican Senators who left Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the court open for one year and 53 days because they would not even hold a hearing on President Obama’s last nominee, Judge Merrick Garland.

Many come to this fight with agendas. And, yes, revisiting behavior from more than three decades ago creates discomfort and uncertaint­y. But a lifetime appointmen­t to the Supreme Court is at stake, and so is our willingnes­s to respect the courage of a woman who anticipate­d the price she could pay for coming forward.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States