The temperament of Brett Kavanaugh

At this point, even to those who haven't followed the sexual harassment accusations against Brett Kavanaugh from the beginning are finally realizing that there is nothing there.  Either he never did anything at all to Christine Ford (which is by an extreme margin the most likely scenario) or he did do something but it is not supported by anyone other than Christine Ford, even her close friend and others who should have been able to corroborate it if it was true.

So the final argument against Brett Kavanaugh is that he doesn't have the temperament to be a Supreme Court justice, as demonstrated by his behavior when defending himself.  The actual arguments that should be put forth by those who oppose him is that he is not competent or doesn't adhere to the Constitution or has shown unfairness in his past decisions on the circuit court.  All those arguments would fall flat because they are clearly not true.

Regarding temperament, Brett Kavanaugh displayed frustration and temper at the way he and his family have been most unfairly treated.  He talked back to some accusers, I mean senators, and raised his voice and vehemently denied all the accusations against him.  He notably did not display animus toward Christine Ford, who, through benefit of the doubt, may actually believe she was assaulted and that Brett Kavanaugh was the one who did it – even if that belief comes from memories that were recreated during psychotherapy or hypnosis.

If a judge is faced with a situation where he is personally affected, he has the option and duty to recuse himself.  Brett Kavanaugh did not have that option in this case.  He is not in the role of the judge; rather, he is the defendant.  And assuming he is innocent, he has been viciously and despicably accused not only by Christine Ford, but by others of doing things that would disqualify him not only from serving on the Supreme Court, but from working almost anywhere else except in prison.  Honestly, who wouldn't display some righteous anger if placed in that position?

Those who oppose him also like to say it's just a job interview.  I love a good analogy as much as the next person, probably more, but this analogy stinks.  Sometimes an analogy sheds light from another angle and helps us see more clearly.  This analogy obscures and deceives.  Just a job interview?

Where the job is an advancement in a large organization where you have worked for years with dignity and competence.

Where the executive position for which you are recommended suddenly brings half the board members to immediately oppose you in every way they can and call you evil.

Where the job interview lasts several weeks or months and is a public spectacle.

Where half the board members lie in wait to spring surprise accusations rather than show they are interested in knowing the truth.

Where opposing board members welcome the most vile accusations and act as if they have merit even when reason dictates otherwise.

Where opposing board members put forth the ridiculous and offensive argument that you, as the accused, must prove that you are innocent.

Where if you fail to secure the position, your life and your family are turned upside-down and ruined.

This is not just a job interview.  It never was just a job interview, and it became much more and much worse than a case of the Senate performing its role to advise and consent on the president's nomination.  The opposing and unworthy senators made sure of that.