Magazine of Jesuits urges withdrawal of Kavanaugh nomination
NICOLE WINFIELD,Associated Press
1 hour 27 minutes ago
ROME (AP) — The magazine of the
Jesuit religious order in the United States has publicly withdrawn its
endorsement of Judge Brett Kavanaugh as Supreme Court justice following
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Jesuit-educated
Kavanaugh and the woman accusing him of sexually assaulting her decades
ago.
"If Senate Republicans proceed with his nomination, they will be prioritizing policy aims over a woman's report of an assault," the editors wrote. "Were he to be confirmed without this allegation being firmly disproved, it would hang over his future decisions on the Supreme Court for decades and further divide the country."
The reversal is significant given Kavanaugh has repeatedly cited his Catholic faith and Jesuit education in defending himself against Ford's accusations. In his opening statement Thursday, Kavanaugh twice referenced his years as a student at the Jesuit-run Georgeown Prep school in Maryland. Ford has accused a drunken Kavanaugh of assaulting her at a house party in the summer of 1982, when he was a student at the school. Kavanaugh has vigorously denied her claims.
America in July had endorsed Kavanaugh on the grounds that he might have provided the Supreme Court with the vote needed to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide. The Catholic Church firmly opposes abortion.
"Anyone who recognizes the humanity of the unborn should support the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh," the editors entitled their July 9 editorial, before Ford's accusation was made public.
In their new editorial, America's editors said they were still committed to finding a justice with
Kavanaugh's textualist approach to jurisprudence that is suspicious of the kind of judicial innovation that led to the Roe decision. But they said Kavanaugh was not the only candidate available.
"For the good of the country and the future credibility of the Supreme Court in a world that is finally learning to take reports of harassment, assault and abuse seriously, it is time to find a nominee whose confirmation will not repudiate that lesson," the editors wrote.
The magazine is not the only Jesuit institution to respond to the nomination.
The president of Georgetown
Prep, the Rev. James R. Van Dyke, has said the controversy over Ford's
accusations has compelled the school to "evaluate our school culture"
and redouble efforts to help students develop a healthy understanding of
masculinity.
"And it is a time to talk with them honestly and even bluntly about what respect for others, especially respect for women and other marginalized people means in very practical terms_in actions and in words," Van Dyke wrote to the school community Sept. 20.
34 comments:
How many of those who oppose Mr. Kavavaugh supported Bill Clinton who had multiple
women with credible accounts accusing him of sexual assault? If their argument is that these accusers did not have enough substantiation or corroboration, is that not the same for Ms. Ford (even more so)?
And of course everyone knows that teenagers in general, and drunken teenagers in particular, are fully equipped to show the utmost respect to all....
Can anyone tell me why society has become full of dumbasses?
History repeats itself, but always with an adaptation to the times and morals. Even about 100 years ago in some important parts of USA, if you did not like a black man for whatever reason, all you had to do was to accuse him of sexual harassment against a white woman. By the next day he would be hanged by the mob of public opinion. How little has changed, only now it is if you do not like a conservative man, accuse him of sexual misconduct. The mob of public opinion will destroy the man. Yesterday's display at the senate hearing showed how the mob is less interested in facts than in ad hominem attacks in order to destroy people they do not like.
I wonder if a civil war is brewing in USA, seeing that there is so much hatred between the liberals and conservatives, labels that point to irreconcilable world views.
“Can anyone tell me why society has become full of dumbasses?”
This has always been the case. But now the internet makes them louder.
AMEN!!
I would expect nothing less from the Jesuits, formerly a Catholic religous order.
I am contacting the IRS to have their tax exempt status reviewed because this advocacy is clearly a violation of the organiation's tax exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code (unless there is an exception for left-wing loon organization's of which I am not aware)
Jack here...
Victor, EXCELLENT PARALLEL. (I don’t think even Fr. MJK will disagree with this despite his affinity to America magazine.)
Thank you.
Why does anything affiliated with the Church need to take a stand on this? I mean, it is a judicial nomination of all things. Maybe that want to push Anita Hill?
That the ABA, which gave Judge Kavanaugh a top rating, has now called for an FBI investigation, tells us all we need to know—unless of course we just want to play politics instead of respecting the rule of law and basic norms of due process. Yesterday’s hearing was indeed a sham! And yes, I am righteously angry.
Jack here...
BTW, it’s astonishing to me that America Magazine ever supported Kavanaugh in the first place given THEIR affinities.
God bless
Tax exemptions prevent 501c3 groups from engaging in partisan politics. The appointment of a SC Justice is non-partisan, so good luck with your wild goose chase.
Anonymous 2,
How did Diane Feinstein follows the norms and process regarding this process. She didn't, at all. She should be up on ethics charges. THis was a show trial worthy of Joseph Stalin. Evil acts were committed to achieve an evil result (preserve abortion at all costs).
The ABA? LOL, they are a left-wing organization that I have never been a member of during my 40 year legal career at a top international law firm.
a supreme court nominee is not entitled to due process. This is a job interview and the rules of courtroom evidence do not apply. Senator Lindsey Graham falsely asserted that Kavanaugh is Presumed Innocent. That is how it works in a court proceeding. This is not a court proceeding.
It doesn't have to be a court proceeding. A person who accuses another and who has NO corroborating evidence, whether witnesses, documentation or anything else, should not be called to publically testify about a criminal act committed against them unless and until the person can provide something credible to substantiate their allegation. A person testifying publically against another before a body such as the Senate should have something to back up their accusation. This is a part of what characterizes a civilized society.
Anonymous Kavanaugh,
Dead wrong. The Code states that non-profits cannot "campaign on behalf of or in opposition to
candidates for public office." A Supreme Court Justice is a public office.
Your statement on due process is silly since it exists both inside and outside of a courtroom. What you're saying about due process is that it doesn't apply when abortion droolers attack someone via smear or ambush and don't follow committee rules on bringing serious background matters on a candidate to the Committee. FYI, NONE of Ford's supposed witnesses backed her up, and Feinstein witheld from Ford that the Republicans offered to come to California since she also lied about her fear of flying as a dilatory tactic Feinstein ALSO got her a Dem operative attorney to represent her.
Sad
TJM:
Well then, I suppose you should dismiss the ABA’s original endorsement of Judge Kavanaugh. After all, nothing good can come out of a left wing organization, right?
This is a moment of truth for our Republic. We are unravelling at an accelerating pace. Time to call a halt. Let the professionals at the FBI do their job. Otherwise, I fear that we will indeed “reap the whirlwind” as Judge Kavanaugh says. Without the exoneration that would result from an FBI investigation that clears his name, this will continue to hang over him. For one thing, the question will always remain: “What are they so afraid of that they did not permit an FBI investigation?” Moreover, if the FBI does not investigate, others surely will, so this sham process in the Senate will not achieve anything in the long run.
At a deeper level, failure to order an FBI investigation represents yet another nail in the coffin of the rule of law and proper process. The rule of law, which is already under grievous assault, is the only thing that will protect us from the worse angels of our nature. Once again, in the words of Robert Bolt’s Thomas More:
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
We have been warned!
And now Pelosi is hoping for "divine intervention" to stop Kavanaugh. She says Trump and company don't take seriously charges of sexual abuse. Hmmm---is the same Nancy Pelosi who supports the ultimate form of abuse---abortion on demand? Just wondering---ya know, might be some hypocrisy here!!!!
I share TJM’s opinion of the ABA and have never been a member.
I don’t believe this lady’s accusation. And I don’t understand why everyone is acting like we should believe her. It’s also worth noting that she has a doctorate in psychology, which means she knows exactly how to manipulate people’s opinions. A passionate accusation unsupported by evidence is not more persuasive than a dispassionate accusation. Evidence doesn’t care about your feelings, and there is no evidence here that supports her: all the evidence contradicts her, actually.
From the IRS website: "Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office."
The justices of the SCOTUS do not serve in "elective public office." They reach that office through APPOINTMENT.
Nominees for the SCOTUS to not "campaign" for that position, either.
Lawyer, your move...
A serious consideration:
On next month's SCOTUS docket is Gamble vs US. No 17-646. This is what the rush to approve Kavanaugh is about. They need him seated for October to rule on that specific case. At stakes is the "separate sovereigns" exception to double jeopardy. If he (and the other 4 conservative judges) vote to overrule it, people given presidential pardons for federal crimes cannot be tried for that crime at the state level. Bam. Trump can pardon the lot of them and they have nothing to fear from state's attorneys.
We're all looking at the shiny coin and not seeing the bigger picture.
C. Darrow:
Thank you for this information, That makes a lot of sense. As I wrote on another thread earlier this week:
“PC or not, having a conservative female Justice on the Court would have been far healthier for issues like abortion. So why didn’t President Trump do this? Doesn’t the question answer itself? Why does he do or not do anything? Answer—because he sees it to his own personal advantage.”
Finally, some sanity—it seems that there will now be a limited, one week FBI investigation into current credible allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. Thank you, Senator Jeff Flake and (presumably) Senators Collins and Murkowski for rising to this moment of national crisis and opting for the better angels of our nature.
In Henry Sire's book, "The Dictator Pope," reference is made four times to the allegation that Pope Francis approved using Peter's Pence funds to make a donation to the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign. I checked the sources in that book and it references Gianluigi Nuzzi's book (probably only available in Italian), "Merchants in the Temple." Price Waterhouse Cooper, according to Sire's book, was supposed to do an audit of Vatican finances and the Holy
Father had it stopped. 'Talk about IRS problems for the Church in the U.S. if this information could be accessed and confirmed . . .
Some of the same allegations contained in "The Dictator Pope" regarding the misappropriation of Peter's Pence funds to the 2016 Clinton campaign are recited in a 2017 article on OnePeterFive entitled, "Democrat Fingers in the Vatican Pie . ."
Also mentioned in the article is the possible connection between outside financial pressures on the IOR (Vatican Bank) which resulted in a shutdown of Vatican ATM's right before Benedict's abdication (but working again right after he resigned). 'Not the first time I've heard of that . .
Anonymous 2,
You continue to disregard Feinstein’s serious misconduct. I can now write you off as another Abortion drooling fake catholic where the ends justifies the means. By, by
TJM:
“You continue to disregard Feinstein’s serious misconduct. I can now write you off as another Abortion drooling fake catholic where the ends justifies the means.”
I genuinely feel sorry for you. Whatever the reason may be for your extreme views, aggressive reactions, and inability or unwillingness to stick to the point and instead to engage in distraction tactics, it can only be a sad one. I pray that you will find some healing and joy in your life.
I can’t imagine conservative justices overturning the separate sovereigns doctrine. It is a fundamental aspect of federalism, something conservatives still claim to care about.
(I encounter this rule quite often, and it would benefit many of my clients if the separate sovereign doctrine was overturned.)
Jack here...
To JJ @ 6:41,
Yes, always, ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY! Therein you will discover truth.
God bless
It is much more difficult to predict how a conservative justice will rule(Kennedy and Roberts, for example). When a liberal, progressive president nominates a judge for the High court, and that judge is confirmed, that president gets a justice who almost never veers in his or her decisions from the liberal, progressive philosophy. It is the conservative appointees, at least some of them, who turn out to be independent
in how they decide cases.
Anonymous 2
I think you should have referred to 'current allegations' rather than 'current credible allegations' since the purpose of an investigation is to establish credibility.
There was some coverage of the affair on British television, but I took the trouble to download six hours of the committee's enquiry, and found it quite fascinating. That appointments to the Supreme Court should be so overtly a party political issue is of course alien to our tradition. It used to be said that both Republicans and Democrats were to the right of the Conservative Party, but there is evidence of a clear right/left ideological divide in American politics these days.
Overall, I was unimpressed by the testimony of either of the antagonists (unlike the New York Times, whose opinion piece is probably the most biased article I have ever read in a serious newspaper). Ford did her best to play the reluctant witness, the ingénue who found it difficult to leaf through her papers and who frequently had to confer with her attorney, the coy smile subtly suggesting vulnerability - yet I couldn't help thinking 'underneath, this broad is as hard as nails.'
Kavanaugh also played the victim card, coming out all guns blazing but appearing hesitant and evasive when questioned. It was so - how can I put it? - unjudicial. And is this public 'emoting' an American trait? I cannot imagine a senior judge in England or Scotland blubbing in the way he did when he brought his family into it. It would have been better if he had spoken calmly, thoughtfully, in a dignified and measured way - in short, judiciously.
However, there was one moment which strongly suggested to me that his testimony was true. A lot was made over the contribution of alcohol to the alleged incident. Kavanaugh was asked if he had ever drunk so much that he could not remember, in the morning, the events of the night before. As students, a lot of us have been there. He could simply have said 'no', but he was not prepared to lie under oath. Had he said 'yes' his opponents would have made hay with it. So he (rather ineptly) tried to turn the question back on the questioner.
Actually, if he had been that drunk he would hardly have been capable of rape. You are no doubt familiar with the expression 'brewer's droop'.
It turns out Gianluigi Nuzzi’s books are available in English. I plan to order and read “Merchants in the Temple” and “Ratzinger was Afraid”.
John Nolan:
Thank you for those observations! As I think you know, although I have lived in the United States for almost four decades, I have still retained many of my English/British sensibilities. I suppose that these sensibilities partly inform my perceptions of and attitudes towards the inauthenticity and theatrics of our politicians and the associated debasement of our public discourse.
The Kavanaugh hearings were a new low point in my view—an embarrassing, demeaning, and dangerous experience that I wish the country had been spared—but my hope is that the decision to call for a limited FBI investigation may have pulled us back from the very edge of the cliff, at least for now. Incidentally, I only used the word “credible” because “current credible allegations” was the language the Senate Judiciary Committee used in its terms if reference when calling for the supplemental investigation.
One reason I found the Kavanaugh hearings so distressing is that none of us has any business “investigating” such allegations or evaluating the “credibility” of witnesses. Under the rule of law this is a job for the professionals and, in a criminal trial, for the jury (which is why I watched not one minute of the OJ Simpson trials, which may be when all this dreadful public voyeurism started). “Trial by media” or “trial by politicians” does not sit well with me.
As for the effects of drinking, in Macbeth the Bard brilliantly captured the essence of this particular experience, as he did so much of life. In the appropriately bawdy words of the Porter to Macduff:
Macd. Was it so late, friend, ere you went to bed,
That you do lie so late?
Port. Faith, sir, we were carousing till the second cock; and drink, 4
sir, is a great provoker of three things.
Macd. What three things does drink especially provoke?
Port. Marry, sir, nose-painting, sleep and urine. Lechery, sir, it provokes, and unprovokes; it provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance; therefore, much drink may be said to be an equivocator with lechery: it makes him, and it mars him; it sets him on, and it takes him off; it persuades him, and disheartens him; makes him stand to, and not stand to; in conclusion, equivocates him in a sleep, and, giving him the lie, leaves him.
Anonymous 2
Quite! Another apposite quotation, from Julius Caesar:
'O judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason!'
Ironically, Shakespeare puts this into the mouth of Mark Antony at the moment he is cynically playing on the emotions of the crowd in order to achieve the very end he pretends to deprecate.
Incidentally, 'inauthenticity and theatrics' apply equally to politicians on this side of the pond, with some notable exceptions; we too have 'trial by media' and 'guilt by accusation'.
There are also plans to televise criminal trials - justice reduced to entertainment - and if we still had hanging, no doubt there would be calls for executions to be televised as well.
John Nolan:
Thank you for the additional quotation. I would like to think that a renewed familiarity with the classical literary and philosophical Western canon (supplemented with some modern additions such as Orwell and his ilk to aid an appreciation of contemporary relevance) and the resulting wise insights into human nature, would afford us some protection against the wiles and manipulations of the hidden (and not so hidden) persuaders and manipulators who currently infest and control our world.
Regarding the inauthenticity, theatrics, and manipulations of British (Western? Non-Western?) politicians, I do not for one moment doubt that the political, social, and cultural rot that makes these things possible is widespread throughout the West (and beyond?). And, of course, this sort of rot has always been a problem, as the quote from Julius Caesar so aptly illustrates and as even a passing familiarity with the ancients verifies. But I suspect that we moderns, with our “wonderful” technologies, social media, and associated “hubris” (always a bad trait with unfortunate consequences, again as the ancients instruct us) “take the biscuit” (weevils and all) as the expression goes.
I don’t have any solutions for putting Humpty Dumpty back together again (Humpty Dumpty’s parlous condition also reflects and includes our own brokenness) other than long-term and painstaking education together with true religion. But first we have to recognize the problem and then we have to develop the will to do something about it. The road back to virtue is, I fear, a long and hard one. But I remain hopeful and will continue to endeavor to do my little part in my small corner of the world, which is all any of us can do I suppose!
That’s probably more than you (and others) wanted to hear but I needed to say it.
Post a Comment