From: Sheryl Nulph
Columbus
Much has been written, said, and argued about the nomination process for Judge Brett Kavanaugh. People for his nomination argue that the timing is suspicious. People against his nomination argue that the allegations are serious enough to be investigated, even if it did happen 30 years ago. Both sides have a point.
For me, serious questions regarding his nomination center, not on what may or may not have happened 30 years ago, but on what happened a week ago. I think a nominee for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the country should have qualities of impartiality, integrity and a temperament under pressure that I did not see demonstrated last week.
Last week, Judge Kavanaugh showed why he is not fit for the Supreme Court when he had a full blown meltdown with the entire world watching. He did nothing to hide his bias against the Democratic Party. He hurled conspiracy theories against the party and specific members within it. He did little to temper his rage and contempt during the questioning process, demonstrating rude, combative and belligerent behavior to senators who questioned him. Many will say Judge Kavanaugh has a right to the anger that resulted in his rant. Perhaps. However, his unrestrained anger and belligerent temperament were less than I would expect of a Supreme Court nominee.
Information has also been presented, in sworn statements from people who know him, that he was less than truthful in his description of his behavior during his high school and college years. Of course he drank in high school and college. He’s not the first, nor will he be the last. But why did he lie about it and try to present himself as some sort of saintly young man who only worked, studied, played sports and did community service? He was less than truthful while under sworn testimony.
I also have questions regarding his integrity. Text messages he sent to people he knew asking them to back him up on some of the allegations made against him can be interpreted as possible witness tampering. Someone in the position of being nominated for the Supreme Court should certainly be expected to refrain from any actions that might, even remotely, be construed as witness tampering. I want to be confident in the integrity of a Supreme Court nominee.
Regardless of whether they are man or woman, Republican or Democrat, should someone with an otherwise spotless track record be penalized for something that may or may not have happened 30 years ago? Maybe not. Should they be held accountable for actions demonstrated within the last month that have consequences for our country for a generation to come? Absolutely.
