As a matter of principle, the American Civil Liberties Union does not endorse or oppose candidates for the Supreme Court or for political office; that is until Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. Following a tense session in which Kavanaugh vigorously denied Ford's allegation that he sexually assaulted her when they were in high school, the ACLU decided to break with tradition and formally oppose his nomination. Two other women have also accused the nominee of sexual assault or misconduct, and Kavanaugh has denied those claims as well.
“As a nonpartisan organization, the ACLU does not oppose Judge Kavanaugh based on predictions about how he would vote as a Justice,” ACLU President Susan Herman said in a statement last Saturday. “We oppose him in light of the credible allegations of sexual assault against him.”
It was a historic moment for the group, which has only opposed four Supreme Court nominees in its 98-year history. Opposing Kavanaugh's nomination, said Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, is about maintaining the integrity of the Supreme Court in an era when trust in the U.S. government is at an all time low.
“A lot of people have lost faith in the executive branch under the Trump Administration, a lot of people have lost faith in Congress being able to do anything, but up until now there’s been a lot of hope and a lot of faith put in the judicial branch,” Rose said Tuesday on Boston Public Radio. “If this nomination goes forward, despite the overwhelming evidence that it shouldn’t go forward, it’s going to be a real strike on the integrity of the court.”
Rose isn’t alone. Yesterday, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, whose former students include former President Barack Obama, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan and Chief Justice John Roberts, published an op-ed in the New York Times questioning how effective Kavanaugh would be on the court, given questions about his ability to remain nonpartisan during his confirmation hearings.
Kavanaugh's background includes working for former President George W. Bush, first on his legal team during the infamous Florida recount, and then as his staff secretary in the White House. Prior to that, Kavanaugh helped draft the Starr Report, which encouraged Congress to impeach former President Bill Clinton.
Some of Kavanaugh's supporters say the allegations have not been proven. Others argue that the delayed confirmation vote is a political tactic by Democrats to oppose President Trump's nominee.
In his opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday, Kavanaugh railed against members of the committee for investigating the allegations of sexual assault allegations made against him, taking particular aim at Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), whose office was contacted by Ford in July.
“This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars from outside left-wing opposition groups,” Kavanaugh said in his testimony.
Despite Kavanaugh’s claims, Rose says that Kavanaugh’s judicial record was already concerning to her, even before the sexual assault allegations surfaced. In particular, she pointed to one case last October, in which Kavanaugh tried to delay a 17-year-old migrant girl from obtaining an abortion, despite ceding that she had a constitutional right to one.
“If he gets on the U.S. Supreme Court that would become the law of the land, not to mention the fact that he’s ruled against restrictions against domestic spying, he’s ruled in favor of unchecked executive branch authority. There’s so many cases [we can look at],” Rose said.
“Brett Kavanaugh’s demeanor, the way he became unhinged, he was incredibly partisan, he was incredibly bullying," Rose said. "His lack of judicial temperament, I think, is of great concern for the ACLU for someone who is going to be in the trenches for a lifetime appointment, ruling on a whole range of civil rights and civil liberties. ... The totality of those facts and those circumstances convinced the ACLU that it was time to step forward and to mobilize our membership against this confirmation.”
