The right-wing have used every dirty trick in the book to stack the Supreme Court with ideological rubber stampers, or just plain idiots. When Mitch McConnell managed to block even a hearing of Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, for over a year, he showed exactly what a farce the whole Supreme Court charade has become. Looking back I seem to recall Garland was a rather bland moderate, not a judge to dramatically defend us against the corporate shills. But the radical right demand more obvious toadies.
(A brief reminder at HuffingtonPost.com)
I don't know whether it's the answer, I haven't researched all the pros and cons, but Supreme Court term limits might be worth considering.
Brett Kavanaugh was a handpicked conservative hack handed to Trump on a silver platter by stanky partisan think tanks, someone predetermined to spend decades serving the interests of the monied class. After preventing a hearing for dozens of months, the conservatives bent over backwards to rush Kavanaugh's confirmation. What's the rush? The rush is getting their toadie in before Democrats can attempt to advocate for a more reasonable judge. I thought he was a non-starter because of his obvious conflicts of interest, that being his interests are in conflict with justice for U.S. citizens. When one of your chief defenders is Lindsey Graham you must be a class A asshole. Graham's political history should be the subject of an F.B.I. investigation, if only we could trust their integrity.
(A brief reminder at DemocracyNow.org)
Dr. Ford's allegations have brought her no small amount of misery and a life-long potential threat of wing-nut retaliation, for simply asking that Kavanaugh's suitability for the Supreme Court be fully considered. She isn't asking that he be put in jail or even lose his current job. But Kavanaugh and his supporters would have us think he's the victim in this scenario.
I don't know how this will turn out, I suspect he'll be shoved through, and if he isn't no doubt the next pick will be worse than him. Sigh.
(Briahna Gray & Camille Baker at The Intercept.com)
"How should we judge someone who, during his testimony, repeatedly misrepresented facts and dissembled when pressed for detail? Should we understand these moments as lies, or as misinterpretations rooted in substandard analytical rigor? And given the importance of the position at hand, which is worse?"