Today's Paper Latest stories Obits Rex Nelson Wally Hall Traffic Newsletters Weather Puzzles

Aside from the prime-time hype and prolonged standing ovation, President Donald Trump's nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court was a sober and dignified occasion worthy of our nation's highest court and highest office--no small feat in our current political climate.

Whether or not the 53-year-old Kavanaugh--a Yale Law School graduate, former clerk for retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy and federal judge who has written over 300 opinions during his 12 years on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals--is worthy of our nation's highest court is now in the hands of the Senate.

Some of Trump's political opponents have vowed to block a vote on the Kavanaugh nomination before the 2018 midterms, much as President Barack Obama's 2016 nominee, Merrick Garland, was denied a Senate vote. As with the Garland nomination, we view any blockade as misguided and urge our elected officials to fulfill their constitutional "advice and consent" duties.

Moreover, we hope the Senate hearings on Kavanaugh, while vigorous and thorough, are absent the acrimony and personal attacks seen in previous nominations. The Senate owes the American people a probing but civil examination of the nominee.

As with all nomination hearings, we hope that decency and factual accuracy are the hallmarks of this debate. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has vowed to fight the Kavanaugh nomination "with everything I've got," claiming that with Kavanaugh on the bench, Trump will be one step closer to fulfilling his campaign promises to "undo women's reproductive freedom" and "undo the ACA."

Schumer's statements notwithstanding, during previous confirmation hearings Kavanaugh has said he believes Roe vs. Wade is "binding precedent of the court" and would not move to undo the landmark abortion case.

Yet as with previous and current justices--including Reagan nominees Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy and George H.W. Bush nominee David Souter--it's difficult to predict how individual jurists will rule once they assume the responsibility of deliberating on our nation's highest court.

Certainly, the Senate must consider whether Kavanaugh or any nominee has a record that demonstrates the right temperament and qualifications for the job. And we believe it is just as important that any potential jurist faithfully applies the laws of this land using objective principles--free of undue influence from the politics or passions of the day. Nothing is more fundamental to the survival of our democracy and this republic than the rule of law.

Editorial on 07/14/2018

Print Headline: Fair hearings, please

Sponsor Content


You must be signed in to post comments
  • mozarky2
    July 16, 2018 at 6:13 a.m.

    Kurt's really on fire today. Here's more:
    "The Normal/Elite disconnect was also in full effect regarding the new SCOTUS dude. The establishment decided it’s going to bork Brett by pointing out that he bought baseball tickets and apparently liked beer in college, like there’s not a significant portion of Americans who wouldn’t be thrilled to have their next justice be nicknamed “Kegmaster K.” And what’s the new fussiness about alcohol, or are they upset because he quaffs brewskis (RUSSIANS!) instead of guzzling chardonnay? The Dems weren’t so picky about partying in 2016 when Stumbles McMyTurn was staggering all over the map.

    Well, not in Wisconsin.

    Then the establishment attacked Brett’s family for looking like a normal family instead of a traveling freak show. The Kavanaugh kids didn’t have nose rings or teen tatts, and they presumably know which bathroom to use. This, to the establishment, is unforgiveable. To Normal Americans, this constant social warfare against people who don’t want to be sketchy mutants is just more inspiration for more militancy".

  • TimberTopper
    July 16, 2018 at 7:50 a.m.

    LOL@ mozzy, did you decide that your personal thoughts are worthless so you just post thoughts of others now? If that's your thinking you are correct!