THE SENATE'S THREE RING CIRCUS ACT
"An unconscionable, gross, and utter disregard for the institution of the Senate and for the dignity of the Chamber, if there is any such dignity left."
This is how I characterize the circus that was the opening of Judge Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings held before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 4, 2018.
From the very outset, the proceedings played out like a pay-per-view freak show. No sooner had Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) begun calling the meeting to order than the mockery of the confirmation process began. Immediately, Senator Kamala Harris in an out-of-order rant unbecoming of a grade school student council member much less a sitting senator, yelled at Grassley, demanding that he delay the proceedings due to the prior night's release of 42,000 pages of documents relating to the Judge.
Connecticut Democrat Senator Richard Blumenthal immediately followed with disruptors in the crowd joining in by yelling and screaming at the Republican members of the Committee.
The mood at the dais, which initially appeared to be somewhat relaxed, turned deathly somber as the Democrats continued their disorderly, staged rants, with contributions from Senator Cory Booker and Senator Mazie Hirono.
I have been watching legislative proceedings, both in the state and federal levels, for over two decades. Never have I seen a more despicable disregard for the decorum of the United States Senate, nor a greater disrespect for the conduct of the work of serving the American people, than what took place during these hearings.
Let's be perfectly clear. Like him or not, Judge Brett Kavanaugh is an extremely capable judge with an impeccable record of service to this country and to the American people. His pursuit of justice centers on an unmitigated regard for the written law and for the strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. I understand that there are many who wish that someone with such a strict interpretive philosophy of the Founding Documents and statutory language not be admitted entry to the Supreme Court of the United States. But such is not the standard by which a determination is made in considering a presidential nominee.
The Constitution of the United States is very clear on this matter. It is the President who has the authority to nominate members to judicial appointment, "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." Despite the efforts of the disruptors and Democrats in today's hearing, it is not up to the Senate to determine the philosophical make-up of the Supreme Court of the United States. That is up to the people of the United States through their election of the President; in this case, Donald J. Trump.
Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 76 spoke specifically to this point:
"To what purpose then require the cooperation of the Senate? I answer that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, asilentoperation. (emphasis added). It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of a favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connections, from personal attachment, or a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration."
Judge Kavanaugh's nomination is neither the result of a spirit of favoritism, of family connections, or of personal attachment; nor is Kavanaugh a man of unfit character selected from State prejudice. Rather, by all accounts, after review of decades of public work, of over 300 judicial opinions, and of more documents than were available for the last five judicial nominees combined, Judge Kavanaugh demonstrates himself to be an upstanding character of impeccable judgment and standing within his geographical and professional communities. If the Senate has any regard for its place in American governance or of the role afforded it by the Constitution of the United States, it would see no viable choice but to approve this nomination; and the Democrats, rather than making a mockery of themselves and of our political system, should acknowledge this.
Today's display of nonsensical, cheap, political comedy is quite simply the result of one thing, and one thing only: the squeals of pain and immaturity displayed by a political faction intent on keeping its most valuable legislative player, the Supreme Court of the United States, from being removed from the game of inappropriately legislating.
Over the past 100 years, the progressive-infested Supreme Court has single handedly cut down legislation and social norms to suit its agenda. It has done so under the guise of judicial interpretation, but always with an aim at undercutting the legislature's will, and in so doing, the will of the people of the United States. The fact that this oligarchical monopoly is coming to an end is the source of great angst amongst the liberals in the Senate, but ultimately, it is not in their hands to decide.
That decision fell upon the people of the United States, and they chose Donald J. Trump.
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
Dr. Gonzalez is an orthopedic surgeon and lawyer who served as State Representative for South Sarasota County in Florida for four years. He is the author of Heathcare Reform: The Truth, The Federalist Pages, and The Case for Free Market Healthcare.