Would Brett Kavanaugh have survived a job interview in the private sector?

Brett Kavanaugh succeeded in making it through the Senate confirmation process, but how he would have fared if applying for a job in the private sector? Though both involve a vetting process, the Senate hearings were more concerned about ensuring a conservative voice was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court and less concerned about what kind of man Kavanaugh is.

A private employer, on the other hand, would want to know just what kind of man Kavanaugh is. We found out. The Senate just didn’t care.

As great an intellect as Kavanaugh is touted to be, there were plenty of indications of rough edges and bad behavior that would give a private employer cause to be leery.

Think of the owner of a company telling his managers he plans on hiring Kavanaugh. After talking about Kavanaugh’s education and work history, the owner hurries over allegations—all unsubstantiated, mind you—of Kavanaugh sexually assaulting a girl during his high school days and then exposing himself to a girl in college. And, by the way, he’s been known to have engaged in excessive drinking. And, oh yes, on occasion, he’s given to emotional outbursts, where he takes on the role of the victim.

Can you imagine how that scenario would play out?

The women in the room—and I would like to think, every man as well—would be staring at the owner in disbelief, jaws dropped, thinking, “And the reason for hiring this guy is—what?”

No one with any sense of leadership would dismiss those negative reactions because a good leader knows that, without buy-in, there’s too much risk in making that kind of hire. It’s either drop the idea of hiring the candidate or address everyone’s concerns—whatever that means.

Republican senators overlooked the darker side of Kavanaugh because they focused on how they project him voting once he’s on the Supreme Court.

His character was much less important.

It’s hard to know if Kavanaugh actually assaulted Dr. Christine Blasey Ford or exposed himself to Debbie Ramirez, but there was enough evidence about other matters to give everyone pause about what kind of man Kavanaugh. How many employers would gloss over stories about Kavanaugh’s excessive drinking? We all saw how he snarls and bristles and gets mouthy with people who ask hard questions. Not endearing qualities.

The Republicans tried to camouflage what they were doing by analogizing the situation to a criminal trial. Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty, they argued, and there’s no corroborating evidence.

Except the Senate hearing wasn’t a trial, and the presumption of evidence doesn’t apply to job interviews.

Job interviews focus on character issues—is this someone we can trust, do we feel safe around him, is he measured, honest?—but without the burden of proof.

I don’t care that Kavanaugh is a conservative. I care about the motivation behind confirming him. Of course, no one should be surprised by what happened.

For some number of years, party politics have been more important than what’s good for the nation. Approving Kavanaugh just elevated the level of divisiveness.

What was gained by pushing through an appointment filled with so much acrimony, except for more acrimony?

There are plenty of conservative judges out there without Kavanaugh’s baggage.

The Senate could have shown that character matters and moved on to nominate another conservative judge.

I’m not limiting my criticism to Republicans. Democrats acted badly during the hearings. Instead of asking pointed questions, they engaged in useless political theater and often looked silly. Really silly.

Somebody has got to break the cycle and start acting like an adult.

That means dropping the mind-numbing repeated rhetoric about the other side’s faults and taking principled positions that advance the nation’s interests, not the interests of the party.

Unless somebody breaks the cycle, the division will get worse. The problem is, it takes courage to break the cycle, and that’s in short supply in D.C.

_______________________________________

Jack D’Aurora writes for Considerthisbyjd.com

_____________________________________________________

Also published on Medium.

9
OCT

Jim Cowardin October 9, 2018

If a company treated me the way Justice Kavanaugh was treated, I would not work for them under any circumstances. Your comments continue the rubbish fire. What a shameful display by the Democrats. BTW, I won Wimbledon a few years ago. I can’t remember when. I played Rod Laver.
reply
- john Calhoun October 9, 2018
  
  Here. here!
  
  kudos on your win!
  reply
- jdaurora@behallaw.com October 10, 2018
  
  I think both sides acted badly.
  
  Your comment about memory merits a reply. From what I have read and heard from experts, it’s not unusual for sexual assault victims not to remember what are referred to, I think, as the collateral facts–date, place, etc., which is the basis for those who criticized Dr Blasey Ford. On the other hand, sexual abuse victims regularly remember in great detail everything related to the attack itself, and Dr. Blasey Ford did. She testified with specificity about being pushed into the room, Kavanaugh being on top of her, trying to pull off her clothes, putting his hand over his mouth.
  reply
- Robert W Test October 11, 2018
  
  Jack, you’re too optimistic about the probability of breaking the cycle of political partisanship.
  
  I think of elected Republicans these days the way I used to think of pro-slavery Democrats before the Civil War and racist Jim-Crow supporting Democrats after the Civil War. We still have the same problem about race that we’ve had for some 350+ years.
  
  As long as states with a small population get two Senate votes while states with 20, 30 or 40 times that population get the same number of votes in the Senate, and disproportionate representation in the electoral college, nothing substantial is going to change.
  
  The nation’s founders were afraid of mob-rule trampling the rights of the minority. But the result has been that we’ve had to tolerate slavery, Jim Crow, the new Republican party and Donald Trump. We haven’t seen much change.
  reply
Daniel McCormick October 9, 2018

I agree, in this environment an employer would take the path of least resistance. The counter to this is that this is, was, and was designed to be a political process…needing confirmation from an elected/appointed body. Both sides positioned this politically based on (in part) to catering to their base with a thumb in the air toward the mid-term elections. Just like the last attempt to appoint (Garland) where the Senate provided their “advise and consent” and decided not to act. Can’t take the politics out of politics.
reply
John Calhoun October 9, 2018

your above commentary show why you could never be a judge. You do not have the temperament. Nor it seems you are not a leader. First, by the preponderance of the facts that could be gathered, his sworn testimony was supported not the accusers. Secondarily, all jobs within the Federal Government are subject to due process. As former head of IFPTE Local 7, my members and all other employees and yes, potential employees, know that due process across the board is what we strived to achieve and maintain. We relied on FLRB, our elected officials, the judiciary, and even the President to abide by.
True leaders (not managers) would explain what is best for the organization and the accomplishment of its mission when discussing hiring someone like Justice Kavanaugh. Fairness is what all subordinates ask of their leaders. let us be adult here, this was about the pro abortion lobby not wanting another Catholic on the high court. Plain and simple. The hogwash about drinking beer and getting in bar fights in college where no one gets hurt, hospitalized, incarcerated, or brutalized is what someone who judges fairly knows happens more often than not. 25+ years of level headed jurisprudence and more importantly balanced against lying accusers who just want to keep killing babies is a no brainer. Time to apply forgiveness and choose life and liberty.
reply
- jdaurora@behallaw.com October 10, 2018
  
  I don’t have the temperament to be judge? Gosh, that’s disappointing to hear. Same goes for your comment about me not being a leader. Okay, I’ll stick with being a business lawyer and part-time writer.
  reply
Steven Spring October 9, 2018

Justice Kavanaugh lost all credibility with me when he testified under oath that he never passed out from drinking, he only went to sleep, despite what his high school and college drinking buddies have said. Or that he never puked from drinking, he only has a “weak stomach.”

Yeah, right!!!
reply
- jdaurora@behallaw.com October 10, 2018
  
  You’ve got to remember, lawyers are trained to split hairs on making distinctions. It’s one thing to pass out, and it’s another to just fall asleep from too much drinking.
  reply
Kevin Bauman October 9, 2018

I don’t think I’ve ever agreed so completely with you on any previous blog.

Just one point: Although the presumption of innocence may be a legal criteria not applicable to a job interview, it is still something that I would hope applies to all of us out of a sense of fairness.

And yes, Kavanaugh blew his job interview by his behavior at the hearing, even if he were to be given the benefit of the doubt about the assault. I watched all 8.5 hours and kept thinking that Kavanaugh spoke as if he was coached by Trump on how to act badly.
reply
- jdaurora@behallaw.com October 10, 2018
  
  I agree. In all things, we should start from a neutral position–the presumption of innocence when it comes to judging someone. What bothered me is that I saw the talk about legal standards being used a camouflage for the Republicans refusal to at least acknowledge there there some issues in Kavanaugh’s background that merited more consideration.
  reply
Gary October 9, 2018

I struggled with the entire process. Perhaps Judge Kavanaugh did drink quite a bit in his younger days. I know as a graduate of THE Ohio University (The fountain of knowledge where many go to drink!), I would not want to be judged by those drinking habits thirty years later when there has never been any indication those behaviors continued in my adult life and career. This was not about his drinking or the false accusations of sexual misconduct. This was about preventing a conservative to SCOTUS.

Like many, I do believe something happened to Ford, but her accusations were false. As a sexual assault investigator, not once could a victim not remember key details. In fact, it was their vivid recollection of the events that led to the convictions of the offender. There was the comparison of men who had been abused by clergy thirty plus years ago and how everyone believes them. The big difference is the details the abused survivors were able to recall, even thirty plus years later. And when you add in the fact that none of her witnesses could corroborate her account, it reinforced she was not being truthful.

What I saw in Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony was that of a man who was having his life, family, and career destroyed by those who hated him because of his political views and the man who appointed him. If this were truly a job interview, a Human Resources attorney would have a field day with those conducting the interview.

But you are correct about our elected representatives. When I think of those in Congress and I am reminded of an old joke. Do you know what a shame is? A busload of members of the House and Senate going off a cliff and there was an empty seat.
reply
- jdaurora@behallaw.com October 10, 2018
  
  I’m getting two different messages from you. One, sexual assault victims always remember all the detail, no matter the span of time. Two, no one corroborated Dr. Blasey Ford’s story, which means she wasn’t credible. In response, let me offer this. First, read my reply to Jim Cowardin’s comment about Dr. Blasey Ford’s testimony. Second, I remember Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh not recollecting the event. No surprise there. I also seem to recall Dr. Ford offering the names of other witnesses who were not interviewed. Altogether, I’m reticent to agree she wasn’t truthful.
  
  I commend you for your work as a sexual assault investigator. Happy to have you as a reader.
  reply
Mosedale October 9, 2018

Far too many items for me to spend time answering with the exception of one. You are not surprised by the motivation of which he was confirmed. Fair statement and biased in the same breath. Were there no concerns with the motivation as to why this letter was held and then leaked. How about the motivation behind first being concerned with Kavanaugh being a sexual predator and when that didn’t work a heavy drinker and when that didn’t work it was his temperament. What was the motivation behind Senator Reid when he leveraged the rules or vote so his party could get a bill or candidate passed without limitations? Only to have it blow up in their faces. What was the motivation in hiding what Senator Kennedy did to that young lady years ago? IT’S ALL ABOUT POWER! No longer is it viable for all parties to work together for the common good of society. Nope, they pick sides, pay for protests, violence and distortion of facts all in the name of power.
reply
- jdaurora@behallaw.com October 10, 2018
  
  I’m not going to argue with anything you’ve said. At the same time, the points you raise are not relevant to the extent that the bad behavior of one party is not justification for subsequent bad behavior. I agree with you that at the heart of it all is power. Uggh.
  reply
Bruce October 9, 2018

Well, we don’t run FBI background checks for one. Two, the job market is very tight making his hire more likely than ever in the past decade. Third, as an employer, I would give any applicant some benefit of doubt, regardless of gender, from past alleged trespasses as long as it is not a recent health or safety threat (but we do not hire felons).

On balance, I suspect he is probably more guilty than he says and less guilty than she says. In conclusion, I would hire him, more based on his previous body of work and not judge him (or her) on something that may or may not have happened 30 years ago. He/she who brings no baggage to the table may toss the first stone.
reply
Mark Palmer October 9, 2018

Jack. The Constitution gives no guidance on any criteria for the Senate to look to in deciding the matter of confirmation. The common wording used by the media requires a finding that he/she is “fit to serve”. If “fit” is defined as a function of education, experience, and temperment, Kavanaugh is/was “fit” by any reasonable measure. Questions as to his “fitness” arose in the 11th hour In an attempt by Senate Democrats to block confirmation. The “liberal left” in their appeal to the Democrats, made wild claims that if Kavanaugh joined the highest court, abortion would be banned, people would be dying in the streets, and the president would gain immunity from investigation and prosecution. Let’s take a look at the facts about the Justice Kavanaugh.
Prior to confirmation, Kavanaugh served on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. He’s not some right-wing extremist who would overturn legal precedents, despite what the Democrats claim. In fact he wouldn’t have been confirmed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, WITH THE SUPPORT OF DEMOCRAT SENATORS, were this the case. Kavanaugh’s history is judging cases based on the evidence and dedicated to following the Constitution as it is written. He is an opponent of legislating from the bench to support his ideological views.
When he accepted President Trump’s nomination to the Supreme Court in televised remarks, Kavanaugh made this crystal clear, saying: “A judge must be independent and must interpret the law, not make the law. A judge must interpret statutes as written, and a judge must interpret the Constitution as written, informed by history and tradition and precedent.” Lower court judges are supposed to follow Supreme Court precedent, whether or not they personally agree with the decision. When judges ignore precedent, it is easy to infer that they are acting on their own political biases. Is there any evidence that Kavanaugh did so while on the D.C. Circuit Court? NO.
Kavanaugh has been a consistent follower of precedent while he has been on the D.C. Circuit Court. The appellate court is widely acknowledged to be the nation’s second highest court, just below the Supreme Court. Yes, the Supreme Court can overrule its own precedent, but Kavanaugh has co-authored a 942-page book on precedent, titled “Law of Judicial Precedent.” The book seeks to describe rules when courts should follow precedent, and it makes clear that jettisoning precedent is not something that Kavanaugh takes lightly. For those on the left who insist that Kavanaugh is dangerous because he supposedly won’t follow precedent when it comes to Roe v Wade – the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide – it seems clear that his critics haven’t read the book he co-authored on precedent. You claim “Republican senators overlooked the darker side of Kavanaugh because they focused on how they project him voting once he’s on the Supreme Court”. Projecting how Kavanaugh would vote once on the Supreme Court (ex. on Roe v. Wade) was the SOLE REASON the Democratic senators fabricated an atmosphere of doubt over Kavanaugh’s character.

You comment “it’s hard to know if Kavanaugh actually assaulted Dr. Christine Blasey Ford or exposed himself to Debbie Ramirez. There was no corroborating evidence of any kind supporting the claims of Dr. Blasey Ford or Ms. Ramirez, so I choose to believe those claims were false. As to your suggestion that there was evidence “about other matters to give everyone pause about” Kavanaugh (“excessive drinking”, he “snarls and bristles and gets mouthy with people who ask hard questions”). The claimed excessive drinking, IF true, was MANY years ago. And there is no evidence at all suggesting Kavanaugh has been impaired by alcohol during any portion of his legal career, and in particular while serving on the D.C. Circuit. And I was surprised at how well Kavanaugh held it all together when his character was challenged over and over – never to recover – by unproven claims and innuendo. Neither have any relevance to Kavanaugh’s “fitness” to serve on the Supreme Court.

So….back to your initial question….”Would Kavanaugh have survived a job interview in the private sector?”. I own a business in the private sector. I hold job interviews and decide who is “fit” to serve my company in a specific role for the betterment of the company. When a prospective employee comes before me with the same “fitness” for the job opening I am trying to fill, as Kavanaugh did for service as a Supreme Court Justice, I always say “How soon can you start”!!
reply
- jdaurora@behallaw.com October 10, 2018
  
  I don’t disagree about Kavanaugh’s qualifications as a judge. Certainly his background checked all the blocks. I’m not clear in my own mind how the Senate confirmation should work. True, the president gets to choose between a conservative and liberal candidate, but is the Senate to be concerned only with a candidate’s basic qualifications and overlook character issues? I don’t think so. But here’s the problem. The process was compromised because it seems the Democrats weren’t to going approve any conservative, no matter what, and it appeared to the average person that Kavanaugh’s background was just camouflage for the Democrats’ real agenda.
  
  Here’s where you and I disagree. The matter of sexual assault is only starting to get the attention it deserves. Up until a few years ago, it’s been a problem that powerful men could cover up–at the expense of women. It arose in the Kavanaugh hearings. I think Dr. Blasey Ford testified credibly. (See my reply to Jim Cowardin’s comment.) What should have be done in this situation? I don’t have the answer, but I know that the way the Republican senators handled it wasn’t right. Something as serious as sexual assault allegations should have been the subject of greater discussion. Instead, the Republicans did there level best to criticize and minimize Dr. Blasey Ford.
  
  I understand your thought about hiring Kavanaugh without regard for what happened over 30 years ago. But I wonder if the women in your office would be so quick to dismiss a candidate’s background when it includes talk about sexual assault. Would the women in your office say, “No problem,” or would they say, “Mark, we’ve got to talk about this.”
  reply
  - Mark Palmer October 22, 2018
    
    Jack. I am pleased the topic of sexual assault and the “me too” movement have surfaced in the past few years. But that societal issue is very separate from the process of confirming a Supreme Court justice nominee, especially when the allegations against the nominee, not proven or even corroborated in any manner, happened 30 years ago when the nominee was in high school and college!!! I had no problem with the allegations that surfaced at the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Those allegations (again not proven) were relevant because the alleged “bad acts” of Justice Thomas supposedly happened within a few years prior to the confirmation process. Justice Kavanaugh’s reputation (or at a minimum his own perception of his reputation) is irreparably damaged. On the other hand, apparently the leadership of the Committee offered to Dr. Blasey Ford’s attorneys the opportunity to have her interviewed by the Committee in private (out of the public eye). Her attorneys rejected that offer (I would guess at the urging of the Democratic senators on the Committee) and instead subjected her to unnecessary grandstanding questioning by senators on both sides of the aisle. I blame the Democratic senators for creating the frenzy, from which Dr. Blasey Ford herself will never recover. Do you really believe the Democratic senators cared one bit about Dr. Blazey Ford personally???
    reply
    - jdaurora@behallaw.com October 22, 2018
      
      Your comments, Mark, are more attuned to my prior blog. To some degree, I agree with you regarding the timing of the allegations made against Thomas and Kavanaugh. Regarding Kavanaugh’s reputation being damaged, let’s remember, he’s now a member of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Dr. Blasey-Ford was mocked on national TV by the president. AS for the Dems, I’ave already said they acted like juveniles.
      reply
      - Mark Palmer October 22, 2018
        
        Yes, we are in agreement on much more than we disagree. As for the confirmation process, I have no doubt that there will be even more political game-playing for the next nominee….and that will come from both sides of the aisle no matter who controls the House and the Senate. It is tragic!!
Bill Lyons October 9, 2018

Would a company hire someone who would reflect badly on the company? This is what has happened with the confirmation of Kavanaugh. The level of trust in the Supreme Court has just gone down several notches.
reply
Daniel Lackner October 9, 2018

If I were nominated to the Supreme Court (and it will never happen, to be clear), I would insist on 60 votes or more to be confirmed. If I only got 55, I would refuse the appointment. Being confirmed with 50 votes is like having an asterisk next to your name for the most home runs in a season. Yes, you may have had the most, but the * indicates that you were using performance enhancing drugs when you hit them.

It is a hollow accomplishment in either case.
reply
- jdaurora@behallaw.com October 10, 2018
  
  Love the idea of the asterisk. Ah, those memories of Sammy Sosa and Mark McGuire hitting home runs like there was no tomorrow. Don’t they have an asterisk next to their names?
  reply
Harvey Hook October 9, 2018

Jack, I read this more thoroughly than I did the first time when I responded to you directly.

I don’t have any skin in this game. I’m an independent who voted for neither Trump nor Clinton in the last presidential election. I chose the write-in route and voted for Dr. John M. Perkins, 88 year old Civil Rights Leader from Jackson, Mississippi.

You got it right. The Senate simply did not care; Democrats or Republicans. And while you frame this as a job interview, it was not. It was theater and politics and childish and selfish behavior on display. The Dems did nothing but Bork Kavanaugh and the Reps were determined to get their man through. The Dems were hell-bent to keep Kavanaugh off the court in hopes of a far more liberal candidate and the Reps were determined to have a conservative voice prevail.

As far as “rough edges and bad behavior” – there was no proof. If rumors were to be entered as evidence in this job interview senario……there’s a boatload of U.S. Presidents who would have been disqualified. And while we are at it, let’s line up all committee Senators and business owners hosting this job interview and put them through 7 FBI background checks, high school year book flatulence posts and stories of college drinking. As far as Dr. Ford’s allegations, there was no corroborating evidence, let alone much, if any, ability to recall the simplest of details. Two of the Dem Senators should have recused themselves from the process based upon openly public and biased statements made against the candidate.

As far as his demeanor and temperament, I would hope he would bristle and become angry after dealing with the death threats made against his family. I also wish I would have seen Dr. Ford bristle a bit as well.
After all, she faced death threats as well, and according to her had been sexually assaulted by him. Where was her anger and rage? I would have expected it and applauded it. His demeanor is what I would expect of a person who genuinely loves his family.

It’s unfortunate politics has become the rule of the day in Washington, DC. I was embarrassed by both sides of the aisle. I don’t believe another candidate by another name would have made any difference. So while the backdrop of this discussion is a “job interview,” it certainly was not, just a job interview.

I still buy what Rodney King was selling after the LA riots years ago, “Can’t we all just get along.” That message is continued in the present day writings of Dr. John M. Perkins in his books, “Let Justice Roll Down” and “One Blood.”
reply
- Miriam Rafferty October 9, 2018
  
  I agree with the content of the message of Harvey Hook and I would add that any decent employer would not zone in on an accusation of sexual assault and gang rape that happened during his high school years.while staring at a 53 year that has stellar character references during his professional life as a white house secretary and circuit judge. He would have also had the opportunity to attach numerous character references that would have included those that he worked with in Washington, along with people in his community past and present. Maybe you were unaware of these since the mainstream media avoided them.
  
  This accusation was in the hands of the Democrats back in July and could have been handled more discreetly and very early on to protect her identity. Its obvious that it was all a delay tactic because they did not want a conservative on the bench because it would tip the scales 5 to 4. Chuck Schumer admitted after Kavanaugh’s name was announced that he would do whatever it took to keep him from getting confirmed. My guess is that he would have said the same thing had Trump appointed some other conservative judge.
  
  As for his temper during this hearing, I would call it righteous indignation. He was not only defending himself, he was defending his family and the justice system. Remember Jesus in the temple?
  
  On the topic of acting like an adult, I can think of Susan Collins, a total moderate and a woman. Her speech was principled,eloquent, ethical, intelligent, indisputable and based on fact and evidence. There is hope.
  reply
  - jdaurora@behallaw.com October 10, 2018
    
    May I ask that you read my replies to the comments made by Harvey Hook and Jim Cowardin.
    reply
- jdaurora@behallaw.com October 10, 2018
  
  I think the subject of proof is more complicated than you suggest, for two reasons. First, I think Dr. Blasey Ford was credible. (Read my reply to Jim Cowardin’s comment.) Second, neither the Senate nor the president was interested in ferreting out what actually happened. If they were, we would have heard from more witnesses, and the FBI would have interviewed more witnesses than it did.
  
  I’m not sure where you’re going with the idea that lots of other politicians should be disqualified. No question about that, but what’s that got to do with this situation? I’m not inclined to use the bad behavior of others as an excuse for the bad behavior we just witnessed in the Senate hearings.
  
  I disagree with you about Kavanaugh’s temperament. Righteous indignation is one thing. Getting mouthy in response to questions and blaming a left wing conspiracy is another. He showed, I think, a lack of composure and a partisan attitude that was inappropriate for a judge.
  
  One last thing: I’m wondering why you would have preferred that Dr. Blasey Ford “bristle a bit.” Do you remember what her opening words were? “I am terrified.” And what did she get for rising about her fear? She was mocked by the president.
  
  I agree with you that we should all be embarrassed by both sides. It’s only when one side breaks the cycle will we see change.
  reply
Charlie Rodenfels October 10, 2018

Jack, while I always find time to get around to read your Blogs…..this is one blog you made it difficult for me to read….since you started off with a really opinionated/misdirected premise: “the Senate hearings were more concerned about ensuring a conservative voice was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court and less concerned about what kind of man Kavanaugh is”.
Please read up on the purpose of the US Senate and their specific responsibility in reviewing/confirming the US President’s Supreme Court nomination. History will show, almost every US President who has had the privilege/responsibility of nominating a Supreme Court Justice has selected an individual that has some common values and perspective of the sitting President. It’s no secret….no surprise….that Judge Kavanaugh has conservative opinions, it just wasn’t excepted by the Democrats who have collectively decided not to endorse/accept ANYTHING accomplished by our current President of The United States.
The balance of your blog is a good effort to try to prop up a totally false/week premise. Having interviewed and hired hundreds and hundreds of professionals during my 40 year career, I can assure you, if I ever met someone with the professional accomplishments, character and integrity of Brett Kavanaugh (in the Architectural profession) I would have never let him/her out of the interview process without getting their commitment to join our team. I would not have ANY interest what that individual did in High School (I’d never have a career if that was of concern) and I would dismiss ANY unsubstantiated claims of ANY kind. As an attorney….I’m sure you can appreciate that.
In conclusion, Brett Kavanaugh was “dead on arrival” when the 10 Democratic Senate Judicial Committee members said they would not vote for Judge Kavanaugh the moment his name was announced……before the “Job Interview”. The entire process made me feel very sorry and very sad for a group of people who appear lost, angry beyond comprehension and self-destructive. I continue to pray for “tolerance” which was once the Democratic party’s mantra.
I’d love to help you focus one of your future blogs on something more meaningful. How about the fact that the US has 4million fewer people on food stamps in the past 22 months? US unemployment is the lowest it’s been for ALL Americans in 49 years? I love America and would welcome a blog celebrating the accomplishments of our government/country.
reply
- jdaurora@behallaw.com October 10, 2018
  
  May I ask that you read my replies to the comments made by Harvey Hook, Mark Palmer and Jim Cowardin. In those replies, I think I covered all the ground you wrote about.
  reply
Jim Cowardin October 10, 2018

Jack, You are an attorney. If you are going to ruin someone’s life and reputation, I would think you would apply the basic tenants of the law. The timing and so many other things about this point to politics at its worst. The psychology of her story and accusations is a very slippery slope. I just cannot for the life of me understand how any thinking person would give this whole happening any credence. She may be in agony, and that is very unfortunate. But to bring it to such a boil and enrage people to the point of threatening senators and driving them out of public places is absolutely against American ideals. Shame on the Democrats. Somebody may get hurt.
reply
- jdaurora@behallaw.com October 11, 2018
  
  I don’t think the science on the subject of an victim’s memory is questionable as you suggest. That point aside, here’s where you and I disagree. You give priority to protecting to Kavanaugh’s reputation. I want to know the whole story. For years, we’ve been minimizing and suppressing what women have suffered. It’s time to turn the corner and start listening.
  reply
Robert W Test October 12, 2018

Jack — Some amazing responses and your replies were top notch.

However, …… comparing a candidate for an ordinary job (either in government or in the private sector) to a candidate for the Supreme Court is absurd. If I’m hiring a gardener, an auto mechanic or a software engineer I probably won’t get any letters from women claiming sexual assault by the job candidate. Kavenaugh’s past should have been properly, thoroughly and carefully investigated. It wasn’t. He was treated like the Catholic Church has treated priests accused of sexual assaults. How dare people accuse a priest or a candidate for the Supreme Court of impropriety.

Both sides employed political tactics. But the worst tactic received no mention in the discussion here. The Republicans imposed a deadline on the appointment. Nothing required that deadline. The court has shown it can operate with eight justices.

The necessary and sufficient conditions a candidate must meet for an appointment to the Supreme Court are incommensurate to the conditions for any other job. Somewhere around nine tenths of all Supreme Court decisions are 9-0, 8-1, and 7-3. Very few are 5-4. The really difficult cases where the justices are in disagreement are rare. Kavenaugh meets all the criteria for serving well on a lower court. The Supreme Court is different and nobody here seemed to take that difference seriously. Indeed most see no difference in the criteria for hiring a gardener and the criteria for serving on the court.

One final point. Several people have referred to the possibility of Kavenaugh’s life being ruined without saying even a single word about the criteria to distinguished a ruined life from an ordinary life. I think Senator Cruz indicated that Kavenaugh’s life is ruined because he will no longer be allowed to coach a girls soccer team.

I think the criteria for a ruined life are a bit more extreme than that and I fail to see any probability of Kavenaugh’s life being ruined if he had been rejected or even if he were to be impeached and removed from federal office.
reply
- jdaurora@behallaw.com October 14, 2018
  
  Your comment about whether, in fact, Kavanaugh’s life was ruined reminds me of how a national columnist (I can’t remember who it was) characterized the situation. If we’re going to talk about ruined lives, let’s compare how things shook out. Kavanaugh is now a Supreme Court justice. Dr. Blasey Ford was mocked by President Trump in a televised event.
  
  Thanks for joining the conversation, Robert.
  reply

Subscribe to Comments

Blog

Would Brett Kavanaugh have survived a job interview in the private sector?

Related Posts

Comments

Add a Comment