Different Takes: Kavanaugh’s Confirmation Process Is A Test To See If We’ve Learned Anything At All In The Past Year

The Washington Post: Do We Really ‘Believe Women’? How The Kavanaugh Accusation Will Put A Slogan To The Test.
Can you say you believe women when it’s deeply inconvenient for you to do so? When your decision to believe her could hinder you from getting other things you want? A few weeks ago, a reader emailed me saying he really missed seeing Matt Lauer and Charlie Rose on television. The reader was angry at all the women who had accused them of harassment. He was inclined to disbelieve these women, in fact, with a rationale mostly related to his own sense of nuisance: His mornings were more pleasant when Matt Lauer was on the air. What about when it’s not Matt Lauer — when it’s a Supreme Court nominee? What about when the nominee’s confirmation vote is scheduled for Thursday in the Senate Judiciary Committee? What about when you’re a Republican senator, and you think the accused man can be the kind of justice that America desperately needs, and all you have to do to get him on the bench is to decide that this particular woman is lying? (Monica Hesse, 9/17)

Boston Globe: Kavanaugh’s Little Lies Are Catching Up With Him
Before the latest explosive development in his nomination process, Brett Kavanaugh already had a track record for telling little lies. ... During the ongoing confirmation hearing process, Kavanaugh told senators he considers Roe v. Wade settled law. But in e-mails he wrote during the Bush administration, Kavanaugh left the door open to reaching the opposite conclusion. In other words, what he wanted the public to know about his thinking as he underwent Supreme Court vetting was different from his private legal analysis. During previous judicial confirmation hearings, Kavanaugh also said “no” when asked if he received documents stolen from the Senate Judiciary Committee. But based on e-mails provided to Congress, Kavanaugh did see the stolen documents. (Joan Vennochi, 9/17)

Bloomberg: Brett Kavanaugh Vote: Don't Rush On Supreme Court Confirmation
Most Republicans would wish to speed the process along — partly because, after November, their Senate majority isn’t guaranteed. They may rightfully complain that the accusation should have been made and examined earlier. Nonetheless, it’s in their interests now to pause. Rushing Kavanaugh on to the court under these circumstances would unleash a righteous fury that would likely hurt Republicans most. Far more important, it might gravely damage the court, the Senate, the White House and the nation — by telling women, not for the first time, that they are second-class citizens. (9/17)

The New York Times: Boys Will Be Supreme Court Justices
There is a small, dark part of me that thinks it would be fitting if Republicans shove Kavanaugh through despite the allegations against him. Anyone Trump nominates is going to threaten Roe v. Wade. Kavanaugh would at least make plain the power dynamics behind forced pregnancy. We would lose Roe because a president who boasted of sexual assault, elected against the wishes of the majority of female voters, was able to give a lifetime Supreme Court appointment to an ex-frat boy credibly accused of attempted rape. Kavanaugh, helped by an all-male Republican caucus on the Judiciary Committee, would join Clarence Thomas, whose confirmation hearing helped make the phrase “sexual harassment” a household term. They and three other men would likely vote against the court’s three women. The brute imposition of patriarchy would be undeniable. (Michelle Goldberg, 9/17)

St. Louis Post Dispatch: Assault Allegation Against Kavanaugh Merits Slow-Walking Confirmation
A newly emerged accusation of attempted sexual assault by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh deserves a full airing before the confirmation process advances. If these allegations prove credible, it means Senate Republicans are about to confirm yet another justice whose respect for women and their right to control their own bodies is in serious question. (9/17)