Editorial: Nation deserves examination of Kavanaugh, not puffery or partisan jousting

No simple question has a simple answer. That much, if nothing else, is clear from the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to be a U.S. Supreme Court justice.

So, we learned that Kavanaugh knows a lot about the Federalist Papers, but we didn’t learn much about what he thinks about them and which one he uses as a guiding post for his personal judicial perspective.

Kavanaugh’s dodge on the Federalist Paper’s question is reflective, unfortunately, of the irrelevance of these hearings that should be providing the Senate and the American people, with the kind of information they need to know to understand both the nominee’s qualifications for the life-time appointment and his views on the administration of justice – particularly concerning critical issues before the nation today.

In fact, Kavanaugh’s views on the powers of the presidency, are of utmost importance. Revelations of the last few days coming from Bob Woodward’s new book and a startling column in The New York Times expose an unhinged, impulsive chief executive and senior staffers dashing about seemingly in a panic to protect President Donald Trump from himself along with protecting the nation and the world from Trump’s selfish irrationality.

Kavanaugh’s scholarly writing, particularly a 2009 article from the Minnesota Law Review, leaves the impression that a president, while in office, is immune from criminal investigation and prosecution; cannot be compelled to respond to civil litigation, demands for discovery or depositions. Some analysts have viewed the article as suggesting that Trump could close down Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

In the article, Kavanaugh states bluntly, “I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office.”

That’s quite a departure from the uniquely American notion that our leaders are not royalty, but are, in fact, “ordinary” citizens.

During the years of presidential-initiated escalating war in Vietnam along with the abuses of executive power revealed in the Watergate scandal, the nation became growingly concerned with the “imperial presidency.” Increased caution as well as the enactment of some limits on presidential authority were the result.

Addressing presidential abuses of power, Kavanaugh seems to indicate, can be left to congress. “No single prosecutor, judge or jury should be able to accomplish what the Constitution assigns to the Congress,” says Kavanaugh. It is worth noting that he was a lawyer working with Special Counsel Kenneth Starr during the wide-ranging investigation into President Bill Clinton that resulted in impeachment charges against the president.

How Kavanaugh answers these questions about presidential power may, or may not, have an impact on his qualification for office or the way the Senate votes on his confirmation.

But the American people deserve hearings that go beyond partisan jousting and elaborate dancing around the issues to avoid addressing them.

The nation deserves a true examination of the nominee that reveals his judicial temperament and approach to the law.