The Polarization of Brett Kavanaugh: A Scrutiny of His Reputation and Impact

Brett Kavanaugh, a long-time Republican party appointee, has been the subject of intense scrutiny and, at times, knee-jerk polarization. His appointment to the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) was hailed by some and viewed with suspicion by others, due to his past actions and the manner in which his nomination process was handled.

Why is a long-time Republican party hack who almost certainly lied to the Senate when appointed to the bench and then lied more while being elevated to the SCOTUS polarizing? I have no idea. However, the polarization may be less about his political leanings and more about the broader issues of political polarization and judicial nomination processes.

Understanding the Context of Judicial Nomination

While certain aspects of his behavior and testimony during confirmation hearings have certainly garnered significant attention, I see him as less of a polarizing figure in today's landscape, despite some commentary on his behavior in decisions on the DC Circuit. Rather, he has become a latest example of the ongoing issue of judicial nomination and the politicization that it fosters.

The nomination process for judicial positions, especially for positions as impactful as the Supreme Court, has been deeply criticized. It has become a manifestation of the growing political polarization in the United States, where ideological divisions are not merely tolerated but are embraced.

Personal Character and Judicial Integrity

Brett Kavanaugh has been characterized as a deeply religious individual who exhibits behaviors that are often seen as immature and inappropriate. He is perceived as someone who, due to blinding obedience and piety, cannot recognize his narcissism. This character trait is reminiscent of Shakespeare's Malvolio, a Puritan from Twelfth Night, who is so blinded by his religious adherence that he cannot recognize the flaws within himself.

The important question to consider is whether such behavior is suitable for a judicial position, particularly on a high court like the Supreme Court. A judge must be able to separate personal feelings and biases from the law. The behavior and remarks made by Kavanaugh during the confirmation process and subsequent testimonies are a clear indication that he may struggle with this separation.

Misguided Defense and Hypocrisy

The way Brett Kavanaugh was defended by his supporters, such as Lindsey Graham, has been criticized as deeply misguided. It appears as though these individuals have surrendered all intuitive understanding of human beings, which are essential for making objective judgments. Instead of acknowledging the troubling behavior, they chose to engage in self-indulgent justifications, which at best, can be seen as an exercise in denial.

The irony of this situation is compounded by the fact that the so-called "Piety Posse" did not hesitate to attack Michael Cohen, a known lawyer, for actions that Kavanaugh himself could not admit to. This hypocrisy is disappointing, as it demonstrates a lack of consistency in moral standards among those in power.

As Hamlet so poignantly puts it, "We are arrant knaves all trust none of us." This statement encapsulates the disillusionment with the character of the individuals involved and the system they operate within.

Conclusion

Brett Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court has been characterized by intense polarizing debates. While his behavior during the confirmation process and subsequent testimonies have certainly contributed to this polarization, the larger issue lies in the politicization of judicial nominations and the failure of those in power to uphold judicial integrity and objectivity.

As our society continues to grapple with these issues, it is crucial to prioritize the objective and ethical standards required in the judiciary. The integrity of the legal system depends on the willingness of individuals and institutions to adhere to these principles, even in the face of political pressure and personal biases.