Political Correctness to the Extreme

The question is, should Governor Northam of Virginia resign because he possibly either put on blackface or a KKK robe for a picture that found its way into his medical school yearbook (which he first admitted and then denied), or because he now admits that he blacked his face as part of a Michael Jackson costume in a dance contest when he was in the Army?  Both of which he has appropriately apologized for.

All leadership elements of the Democratic party nationally and in Virginia are calling on him to resign.  This is part of the Party’s zero tolerance towards aberrant behavior, whether it involves sexual harassment or other offensive behavior.

But as applied in this case, is their action the correct one?  We are talking about actions that Mr. Northam took as a young man 35 years ago.  To do what he did in the early 80s showed at a minimum an extreme lack of good judgment and sensitivity.  But given the state and the peer group he grew up in, the victimless nature of the offense, and his impeccable actions on social and racial matters as an adult in the years since, should he be hounded out of office for this offensive and juvenile behavior?  I would say, no.  People do grow up; they do adopt a larger worldview.

That the Democratic party has reacted as they have is in large part I think because they have aggressively accused the Republicans for not disciplining its members for inappropriate behavior.  And so they feel they have to have this zero tolerance policy or else the Republicans will lambast them for hypocrisy.  

Given the way the voting public reacts to sound bites these days, rather than reasoned argument, there is reason to fear the impact of such a charge.  But that does not relieve Democrats of the responsibility to act conscionably.  Is this just?

Or are they worried about a charge of hypocrisy relating to their stand against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh for actions he was accused of as a college student?  Certainly such a charge would be made by the Republicans if Democrats accepted the governor’s apology for his young adult behavior, but I don’t think that the actions that are in question here are in any way comparable to the seriousness of those that Kavanaugh stood accused of.

Date rape, whether a single instance or repeated behavior as some of his accusers claimed, is criminal behavior.  It is forcibly violating a woman’s person.  This cannot be compared to the “innocent” albeit offensive and inappropriate behavior of Mr. Northam.  The comparable behavior would be if Mr. Northam had abused a person of color in some way, or if he gave a racism-tinged speech, but those are not the facts.

The Democratic Party should stand firmly for what they believe.  They should not treat their own differently than Republicans.  But they should not treat their own more strictly because they fear being called hypocrites by the Republicans.  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Unfortunately, at this point there is no way out.  For the Democratic leadership to back down now without some new evidence would indeed appear to be hypocritical.  And for Governor Northam to continue to refuse to resign hurts his own reputation. For the good of all concerned, he must resign.

Collins' Tragic Error on the Kavanaugh Vote

Part of the tragic error of Senator Collin’s thought process is that the issue and the hearing was not part of a criminal process concerning the guilt or innocence of Judge Kavanaugh.  It was about whether he should become a Supreme Court Justice.  

Therefore the maxim “innocent until proven guilty” is not relevant.  The fact that Ms. Ford’s accusations were not corroborated (in this brief, woefully inadequate, investigation) is not relevant.  If she was a credible witness, which most agree she was, then that at a minimum raised a doubt about whether Kavanaugh in fact did assault her.  Her charge was only refuted by Kavanaugh himself and his friends.  

That measure of doubt should have been enough to keep him off the Supreme Court.  The image of the Supreme Court is of critical importance to its effectiveness in our system of government.  That she felt that the FBI investigation had been adequate is hard to understand. Then there is the matter of Kavanaugh's apparently lying under oath about the extent of his drinking and his decidedly unjudicial demeanor at the hearing.

All together this should have resulted in Senator Collins deciding that regardless his credentials and his other qualities, he should not be elevated to the Supreme Court.

Then there is the Senator’s confidence in Kavanaugh’s judicial thinking.  Senator Collins explained carefully that from her conversations with him she was confidant that he would not overturn Roe v Wade.  He felt that the case was settled precedent.  She also felt he would not throw out Obamacare.

How foolish of Senator Collins!  How many times have lawyers/judges used legal double speak in recent times to make Senators feel like they were mild-mannered men who would do no harm to the public good, who honored the Constitution and precedent.  And yet once on the bench, they showed their true colors and consistently voted their ideological bias; they did not judge a case based on its facts and they did not honor precedent.

It is true that it has at times been important in the past to overturn precedent, such as the case of Brown v Board of Education that declared segregated schooling unconstitutional; separate was not equal.  This was necessitated by progressive changes in society’s attitudes towards people of color and what defined the common good.

The court voted as it did not because of the justices own ideological preferences but because of the change they saw in the country and the need to lead the country to a more just future.  If Roe is overturned, it will instead be precisely because of the ideological preferences of the justices and a vocal minority of the populace.  Surveys show consistently that the vast majority of Americans support a woman’s right to choose.

The future of our democracy will in many ways be impacted negatively by Senator Collins’ vote.  That she was so full of herself that she gave the speech she gave was not an indication of a woman of strength and intelligence, although it sounded like that, but rather an indication of her weakness and her inability to truly understand what her role was in this moment.  Senator Murkowski on the other hand understood the moment.

Why Judge Kavanaugh Is Not Qualified to Sit on the Supreme Court

There is no question that Judge Kavanaugh has all the paper credentials one could ask for.  His education and years on the bench clearly make him qualified in that sense for his appointment.

However he is not qualified in terms of the judicial temperament requisite of a judge, especially a justice of the Supreme Court.  The essence of justice, as embodied by the classic symbol of the blindfolded statue of justice holding the scales, is that a judge will decide a case on its merits, free of any bias regarding the particular matter before him.  Will he thus vote with the “liberals” on the court some times and other times with the “conservatives,” depending on the merits of the case?

One way of looking at this question is whether the judge will respect precedent, an extremely important element of judicial stability and impartiality.  Or will he be more of a political judge than a judicial judge?  

In discussing this issue, I certainly am aware that all justices come to the bench with their particular views of the appropriate role of government.  That is inescapable.  And it is true of both the “liberal” and the “conservative” justices.  But within that framework, a judge must be able to decide a case based on its merits, not on some foreordained, ideological view of the world.

From his opinions, it is clear that he, like some of the other current “conservative” justices on the Supreme Court, is not a conservative of the old school.  He does not respect precedent if he disagrees with it and is extremely biased as to how the law should be applied to a case.  

In short, regardless of the facts, he is against government/court intrusion into business matters and the executive branch while he is in favor of government/court intrusion into the lives of individual citizens to enforce his view of morality.  The facts of the case are irrelevant; he is social conservative and ideologically strict.

The justice he replaces, Justice Kennedy, was on the other hand definitely a conservative of the old school.  He was against government/court intrusion whether it was against business interests and executive power or in the private lives of individual citizens.  Thus Justice Kennedy could both vote recently in favor of American Express and Trump’s travel ban but be the lead justice in the decisions to decriminalize homosexuality and approve gay marriage.

The focus of the confirmation hearing should be on Judge Kavanaugh’s judicial temperament, not how well he is respected and his solid paper credentials.  The fact that there are some other justices currently on the Court who do not have the requisite temperament is irrelevant.  Better late than never.