Dear Senator Scott,
I support Supreme Court justices who have a broad pro-life outlook--not restricted just to the fetal stage of life--who can *with unimpeachable integrity* render decisions on the critical issues of our day. Legal training and ability is not enough; unimpeachable integrity is paramount. I would support conservative jurists Amy Coney Barrett and Thomas Hardiman for a seat on the Court.
For this reason I must vehemently oppose the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. It is mostly about his behavior in the past few weeks, not about what might or might not have happened 30+ years ago.
(1) He perjured himself under oath last week.
- He stated that he was admitted to Yale solely on the basis of his hard work and academic merit, and didn't have any connections to Yale. FACT: Kavanaugh was a legacy admission; his grandfather Everett Edward Kavanaugh was Yale Class of 1928.
- He testified that the "Devil's Triangle" was a drinking game and that "boofing" refers to flatulence. FACT: His roommate at Yale, James Roche, avers to the contrary that "'Boofing' and 'Devil’s Triangle' are sexual references. I know this because I heard Brett and his friends using these terms on multiple occasions."
- Kavanaugh stated that he had never been aggressive while drinking. FACTS:
- A drunken Kavanaugh started a bar fight on September 29, 1985 by throwing a drink in a patron's face.
- When he organized a Beach Week Ralph Club outing, Kavanaugh wrote in his own hand: "Warn the neighbors that we're loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us." [Emphasis mine]
- Multiple Yale friends have described him during his frequent drunken episodes as being "belligerent and aggressive" (Chad Ludington), "aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk" (James Roche, Yale 1987), "aggressive, and belligerent...He wasn’t beating people up, but there was an edge and an obnoxiousness" (Kenneth Appold, Yale 1987)
(2) Kavanaugh gave misleading and wild statements under oath last week.
- Kavanaugh stated that he could not have drunk to excess frequently because he was pursuing academics and athletics to get into Yale. Anyone who knows Ivy League athletes from the 1980s would classify the statement as highly misleading, and I say that as someone who came to know dozens of Princeton athletes when I attended that revered institution in the 1980s. Some athletes were truly studious and respectful, but roughly half were uproarious party animals every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday night. How many tales of Beer Pong did I listen to in Wilcox Hall?
- Kavanaugh offered an Infowars-worthy conspiracy theory--to wit, that he was under criticism because Democrats seek revenge for his role in the Clinton impeachment. How could this be serious? And how could he possibly expect his future opinions to not be under the cloud of partisanship?
- Kavanaugh responded to reasonable questions with defiance.
- His upbraiding of Sen. Klobuchar was despicable. He subsequently apologized, but he still refused to answer her question.
- He refused to acknowledge that Mark Judge's literary reference to a "Bart O'Kavanaugh" who puked and passed out drunk might be to himself; "you'd have to ask Mark Judge" was his defiant response.
(3) There is strong corroborating evidence about a very serious allegation from his time at Yale.
“I can corroborate Debbie’s account,” he said in an interview. “I believe her, because it matches the same story I heard thirty-five years ago, although the two of us have never talked.” Per the interview, Appold "recalled being told that, during a party in a first-floor common room in Lawrence Hall, Kavanaugh went over to Ramirez, who had been participating in a drinking game, 'and opened his pants, and pulled out his penis, and tried to put it in her face.' But she waved him away. Appold recalled hearing that Ramirez said something like, 'It’s not a real penis.'”
"He said that the remark made no sense to him at the time, and he understood it only after reading Ramirez’s allegation in The New Yorker and learning that people had been playing pranks with a fake plastic penis at the party."
In addition, Appold recounted the events six years later to a grad-school friend, Michael Wetstone, and Wetstone corroborates Appold's account.
(4) The FBI "investigation" is extremely incomplete.
It does not contain Appold's testimony about what happened at Yale. It does not contain the police report of the bar fight Kavanaugh started. It does not document that Kavanaugh lied under oath about his connections to Yale when he applied for admission. Why not? This looks like an exercise in giving the appearance of fairness and thoroughness while denying the substance. And that is a cynicism that I, as a voting citizen, cannot abide.
I understand that Democrats have not covered themselves in glory in their handling of the process. I also understand that Kavanaugh's emotion can readily be regarded as sincere; as a young man who frequently drank to the point of memory loss, it is not surprising that he now has no recollection of many things he did while severely intoxicated.
But why is the political fight relevant? The one and only thing I want you to care about, Senator Scott, is whether or not Kavanaugh is qualified to be a Supreme Court justice based on the factors of integrity, demeanor, and judicial reasoning ability. One out of three does not suffice.
If you care about maintaining respect for the Court as much as I think you do, please do not vote to confirm Kavanaugh to the Court. Instead, ask President Trump to nominate someone who has all three qualifications, such as Amy Coney Barrett or Thomas Hardiman.
Thanks for listening,