RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an-independent-impartial-judge-1538695822

I was deeply honored to stand at the White House July 9 with my wife, Ashley, and my daughters, Margaret and Liza, to accept President Trump’s nomination to succeed my former boss and mentor, Justice Anthony Kennedy, on the Supreme Court. My mom, Martha—one of the first women to serve as a Maryland prosecutor and trial judge, and my inspiration to become a lawyer—sat in the audience with my dad, Ed.

That night, I told the American people who I am and what I believe. I talked about my 28-year career as a lawyer, almost all of which has been in public service. I talked about my 12 years as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, often called the second most important court in the country, and my five years of service in the White House for President George W. Bush. I talked about my long record of advancing and promoting women, including as a judge—a majority of my 48 law clerks have been women—and as a longtime coach of girls’ basketball teams.

As I explained that night, a good judge must be an umpire—a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no political party, litigant or policy. As Justice Kennedy has stated, judges do not make decisions to reach a preferred result. Judges make decisions because the law and the Constitution compel the result. Over the past 12 years, I have ruled sometimes for the prosecution and sometimes for criminal defendants, sometimes for workers and sometimes for businesses, sometimes for environmentalists and sometimes for coal miners. In each case, I have followed the law. I do not decide cases based on personal or policy preferences. I am not a pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant judge. I am not a pro-prosecution or pro-defense judge. I am a pro-law judge.

As Justice Kennedy showed us, a judge must be independent, not swayed by public pressure. Our independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our constitutional republic. The Supreme Court is the last line of defense for the separation of powers, and for the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.

At last count more than 1,700 law professors have signed an open letter complaining that Judge Brett Kavanaugh “displayed a lack of judicial temperament” in responding to uncorroborated sexual assault accusations against him. In his 12 years on the federal bench, Judge Kavanaugh has produced ample evidence of his judicial temperament. If anyone’s temperament should be of concern to these professors, it’s that of their students, enthralled by identity politics and victim ideology.

Immediately after President Trump nominated Judge Kavanaugh in July, hundreds of Yale law students, alumni and faculty signed a petition claiming the nomination presented an “emergency . . . for our safety.” When Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations became public in September, Yale law students convened a town hall to combat a “culture” on campus “that privileges power and prestige over safety and wellness, [and] that precludes many of us from flourishing in this space.”

When the New Yorker published its own uncorroborated account of lewd conduct purportedly committed by Mr. Kavanaugh as a Yale freshman, Yale law-school alumnae organized an open letter supporting “all women who have faced sexual assault, not only at Yale, but across the country.” Thirty-one Yale law professors canceled classes to facilitate student protests against Judge Kavanaugh, both in New Haven and on Capitol Hill. The Office of Student Affairs put out a plate of cookies to let students “know we are thinking of you.”

Not to be outdone, Harvard law students walked out of their classes the day after the New Yorker article appeared, wearing pink buttons declaring “I Believe Christine Blasey Ford.” America must “stand by these survivors,” the president of the Harvard Black Law Students Association told the crowd. The dean of students announced, “We are supporting our students as they grapple with these issues.” Whether she provided cookies is unknown.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/kavanaugh-and-the-senates-honor-1538695662

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has scheduled a Senate vote for Friday morning to close debate and move Brett Kavanaugh toward a final confirmation vote on Saturday, and it’s about time. The undecided Senators have had their extra week for an FBI probe, the review has turned up nothing to support the assault accusations against him, and now Senators should vote to put a worthy judge on the Supreme Court.

Democrats are complaining that the FBI report is incomplete, but then no report would satisfy them unless it found evidence that apparently doesn’t exist. “The most notable part of this report is what’s not in it,” said Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. She thinks accusations that have no corroboration are credible because the FBI can’t prove that something didn’t happen.

***

The FBI was always likely to turn up little new evidence because Christine Blasey Ford recalls so little about the assault she says took place 36 years ago. The witnesses she says were there, including her best friend, say they don’t recall the party or refute that it happened. There are no corroborating witnesses and no incriminating evidence, and Ms. Ford’s story about key details also keeps changing.

The best summary of her case is in the memo by Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona prosecutor who specializes in sexual-assault cases and was invited to question Ms. Ford by Judiciary Republicans. “A ‘he said, she-said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that,” Ms. Mitchell wrote. “I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”