ONE Concern, Kavanaugh or Not - Regardless of Party We Should Affirm Serious Reform Instead of Confirming Soap Operas

After reading as many news reports as I can, I've come to the conclusion that the accusations against Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, are at least credible.  I don't get any joy out of that revelation, nor do I get any feeling of confidence about it.  I think they're credible, but I can't feel good about that analysis because even though I think these kinds of accusations should be considered serious and are meaningful enough to suggest lack of character, I'm not happy that we've come to the point where any nomination can be blocked at the 11th hour by claims no one can absolutely prove.

That disturbs me. It feels like we are confirming work-arounds to the rules instead of reforming our rules to encourage real analysis and debate or real advice and consent.

Had someone raised these claims when Kavanaugh was being confirmed for the DC Circuit on which he now sits, or - better yet - had they surfaced when he was serving at the White House during the George W. Bush administration, I'd feel less like these were time-bombs set to go off for news cycle purposes. This isn't someone who suddenly skyrocketed to fame this year.  Kavanaugh has had high-level executive and judicial branch appointments before.  Were these accusations forgotten until his third appointment process?  Were they just not worth raising when he worked in the day to day circle of the president of the United States? 

Better still - were these accusations not worth sharing within a week or two after Dr. Ford reportedly hired her lawyer in August?

I'm all for a full airing of the accusations, and I am (even as a conservative who leans Republican) ready to accept that the questions leave Kavanaugh as an uncomfortable nominee at best.  I'm willing to accept he's a nominee worth being dropped.  But I am very uncomfortable as well with a system in which we hold nominees hostage to last minute made-for-TV accusations that can neither be proven nor disproved completely less than a week before the final votes on confirmation.

This is insanity, and it's not really good for our republic.

We need a system that prevents one party from dashing for confirmation, and keeps the other party from stashing accusations until the last minute in order to do an end run around hearings.  Our confirmation hearing process must work for the people and not for partisan strategy.

I propose a system for Supreme Court confirmations that prevents either side from purposely stacking the deck.

First, require that presidents fully vet Supreme Court nominees within 21 days of the president's announcement of the nominee.  Presidents should not complain that the nominee's background, papers and writing require months of review that prevent them from being turned over to the Judiciary Committee in a timely way.  The nominee is the president's role in the process.  If you can't turn over relevant documents in time for the opposing party to review them, don't name that nominee until you know you can turn over the evidence.

Second, require that Supreme Court nominees must wait no less than 75 days for their confirmation hearing, and no less than 85 days until the Senate floor vote.  If papers are turned over within 21 days, the opposing party has 54 days to pore over them.  No excuses that they didn't have time to read them.  We know that members of the committee are limited to 21 members and ten of the minority party, but they have staff members and computers that can scan documents looking for key words or phrases. If you can't find it in 54 days, you probably won't in 154.

Third, throw down a gauntlet to the public.  Anyone who has an accusation against the nominee in which they claim the nominee did something unethical or illegal prior to the date he was nominated must come forward before the next to final day of a confirmation hearing that is advertised to end on a particular day.  Any pre-nomination accusation raised for the first time after 5 pm on the next to last day of a confirmation hearing will not be heard as evidence against the nominee. Simply put, a rule such as this puts the accusers on notice that they'd better raise their issue at the hearing.  That's what hearings are for - the pros and cons of the nomination. Under my set of rules, the accuser has had 75+ days to hire lawyers, public relations experts, polygraph operators, press secretaries, private investigators, security guards, or anyone else they need before raising their issues. Our republic can withstand accusations and drama, but there is no reason we can't demand it in a timely fashion.  Allowing accusations to pop up like the last kernal of popcorn days or even weeks after the hearing invites pre-scheduled delay.  Having a deadline after which all sides agree that the evidence taking is now closed with regard to accusations that are months or years old is a reasonable way to force those who wish to delay the process to make a claim by the deadline or accept that they've missed it. At that point, any claims serious enough to get some hearing should be forced to proceed as evidence for impeachment if the nominee has been confirmed or still holds an impeachable position elsewhere.

Of course this won't ever be adopted by the politicians and the press will never accept these ideas. The politicians, interest groups and lawyers will find some reason why these rules can't be put in place because it isn't in the Constitution, it makes the process too long, or the Court can't go on without a replacement. (Of course, these melodramas we have now have the same downsides.) And the press won't like the rules because pulling a big headline out of the hat on vote day sells papers, increases TV ratings, and exaggerates the importance of the pop star press.

Certainly these suggestions would take either changes in Senate rules, amendments to the Constitution, or at least a good faith agreement of the parties to enforce the rules.  And we know there isn't enough good faith in Washington to accomplish any of that.

But if we don't adopt some sane rules our nomination process is going to further deteriorate and we won't be able to tell the difference between, on the ONE hand, our government officials and their private school or Ivy League classmates, and on the other hand, the characters on the latest soap opera.  And that is a real shame that we don't have to or need to confirm.

What's your opinion?  How would you improve our confirmation process and make it more politician proof and ambush proof?