Brett Kavanaugh's Opening Statement Was a Defiant Howl of Rage Against Democrats

Here is the code of ethics for U.S. federal judges. Yet, as the story by Slate illustrates, Brett Kavanaugh's unhinged performance perfectly illustrates why he has no business being on the bench.

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently

The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities. In performing the duties prescribed by law, the judge should adhere to the following standards:

(A) Adjudicative Responsibilities.

(1) A judge should be faithful to, and maintain professional competence in, the law and should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.

(2) A judge should hear and decide matters assigned, unless disqualified, and should maintain order and decorum in all judicial proceedings.

(3) A judge should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. A judge should require similar conduct of those subject to the judge’s control, including lawyers to the extent consistent with their role in the adversary process.

(4) A judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law. Except as set out below, a judge should not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications or consider other communications concerning a pending or impending matter that are made outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers. If a judge receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing on the substance of a matter, the judge should promptly notify the parties of the subject matter of the communication and allow the parties an opportunity to respond, if requested. A judge may:

(a) initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications as authorized by law;

(b) when circumstances require it, permit ex parte communication for scheduling, administrative, or emergency purposes, but only if the ex parte communication does not address substantive matters and the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural, substantive, or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication;

(c) obtain the written advice of a disinterested expert on the law, but only after giving advance notice to the parties of the person to be consulted and the subject matter of the advice and affording the parties reasonable opportunity to object and respond to the notice and to the advice received; or

(d) with the consent of the parties, confer separately with the parties and their counsel in an effort to mediate or settle pending matters.

(5) A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court.

(6) A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court. A judge should require similar restraint by court personnel subject to the judge’s direction and control. The prohibition on public comment on the merits does not extend to public statements made in the course of the judge’s official duties, to explanations of court procedures, or to scholarly presentations made for purposes of legal education.

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sat down in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday and declared war on the Democratic Party. His statement marked a total departure from what he submitted to the committee on Wednesday, veering into an openly political attack on his opponents. It was thoroughly partisan and utterly disgraceful, a Trumpian Hail Mary that exuded desperation, entitlement, and rage.

* * *
Kavanaugh denounced “Democratic members of this committee,” calling their behavior during his earlier hearings “an embarrassment.” He accused them of “lying in wait” to spring false accusations upon him when “it looked like I might actually get confirmed.” He described “this whole two-week effort” as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election.” He alleged that this effort was driven by “revenge on behalf of the Clintons”—a reference to his tenure as a prosecutor on Ken Starr’s team during the 1990s—“and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.” He insisted he was the victim of “grotesque character assassination.”

Indeed, that was the theme of Kavanaugh’s testimony: that he is the victim, that Democrats and Clinton allies are engaged in a conspiracy to destroy his nomination and reputation. He demanded sympathy, crying and yelling in turn. “I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process,” he said. “You may defeat me in the final vote, but you’ll never get me to quit.”

This remarkable performance was impassioned, entrancing, and absolutely inappropriate. Kavanaugh dropped any pretense of non-partisanship. He came out swinging as a Republican, as a man who loathes the Democratic Party just as much as the president who nominated him loathes it. He abandoned any effort to obtain Democratic votes and instead appealed directly to Republican senators: Don’t let these monsters stop me from getting what I deserve. Not even Clarence Thomas descended to this level of raw political fisticuffs when fighting Anita Hill’s allegations. If, after Thursday’s testimony, Kavanaugh is still confirmed to the Supreme Court, there will be no question whose bidding he will do on the bench.