Kavanaugh, Garland, McConnell, and the Presumption of Innocence
What hypocrisy!
Today Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) sealed the deal on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation as a Justice of the Supreme Court. She echoed the talking point of the Kavanaugh supporters: he is innocent until proven guilty. Senator Collins knows better, and acknowledged herself that this was not a criminal trial. Kavanaugh has no constitutional right to a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. But the American people do have a right to expect a Supreme Court Justice who is beyond reproach — or at a bare minimum, one who doesn’t perjure himself while snarling and angrily hurling partisan conspiracy theories during the confirmation hearings. So much for judicial temperament. Yet Republicans treated him like a persecuted innocent falsely accused of invented crimes, and apologized to him profusely. Apparently Kavanaugh’s personal comfort is more important than the integrity of the Supreme Court.
I suggest we apply this same standard to Obama’s 2016 nomination of Merrick Garland. Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did not even allow Garland the benefit of a single hearing.
By the McConnell-Kavanaugh standard of criminal defense:
Garland was never arraigned or informed of his criminal charges and accusers. He was not indicted and not allowed the right to counsel. He had no opportunity to respond to charges, refute claims, and indeed got no trial. And yes, he was essentially guilty from the beginning, with no right to “prove his innocence” or even to an appeal. But Garland didn’t throw a entitled fit or accuse Republicans of a conspiracy.
Hmmmmm, I don’t remember Republicans agonizing over Garland’s mistreatment. But I did see McConnell express his outrage for the terrible treatment of Kavanaugh and the “obstructionism” of the Democrats. I did see him insist that Kavanaugh must be speedily confirmed as the Supreme Court’s begins it new October term. Yet when Garland was nominated, McConnell proudly claimed he had no problem with the Supreme Court having only eight members for more than a year. What hypocrisy.
