From the article:
"With the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, the nation is about to be consumed, again, by a debate about abortion. As I discussed on Monday, the pro-life movement seems to me to be in a bind. Ever since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade was rendered in 1973, the debate has become ever more dominated by the most extreme activists on both sides of the issue. Zero-sum debates, when the terms of debate are cast in categorical terms, and when the country is more or less evenly divided on the issue, can become a cancer on our political life.
So, it seems today. How to proceed?"
And he asks the 64 thousand dollar question:
"Where to find an opening for rational and ethical discussion?"
"First, the pro-life movement is at a crossroads. Many of us who believe Roe was wrongly decided and who want some legal protection for the unborn have watched in distress as the pro-life movement became an arm of the Republican Party."
"Now, the Republican Party has been taken over by President Donald Trump and pro-life conservatives have, like most other conservatives, declined to stand up to the president. As long as he gives them what they want, and they wanted Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court and a reversal of the Mexico City Policy, they have been willing to overlook the president's obvious flaws. The Susan B. Anthony List even hosted the president as their keynote speaker this year."
"...The tale on the Democratic side of the aisle is just as woeful. The power and influence of Emily's List, Planned Parenthood and NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) Pro-Choice America on Democratic Party politics is stunning and it is funny how leftists who complain about the influence of special interest
The whole article is worth reading, especially MSW's closing paragraph:
"... as dark as things are, there are some small steps that a conscientious Catholic can take, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum. The abortion issue will become more divisive before anything improves. The Kavanaugh confirmation fight will be ugly. But, when asked what she does at her Catholic Charities center in McAllen, Texas, Sr. Norma Pimentel says "I am restoring human dignity." That we can do. That we must do. The day we stop doing it is the day we surrender our baptismal vows."
SMW bats about .500 with that pair of columns (I also read the previous one to which he linked in the first paragraph of the one being featured here). That's pretty much been his average for me since I first ran across him, which I think was sometime during the first Obama presidential campaign.
ReplyDeleteHis premise strikes me as a little faulty. Here's why: he doesn't acknowledge the truth about Justice Kennedy. The truth about Justice Kennedy is that, with the exception of a handful of social issues, Kennedy was a pretty reliable conservative justice.
To be sure, those handful of cases were spectacularly important - surely the cases the define Kennedy's legacy on the court, and in one or two instances, decisions that altered, or declined to alter, the arc of history. But the whole point that MSW is seeking to make is that we have to stop obsessing over abortion, abortion, abortion 24x7, and make some room in the Catholic public square for the broader set of issues that come before the court that have some sort of intersection with Catholic social teaching.
Here's the point: replacing Kennedy with Kavanaugh, if that happens, would seem to alter the court's balance regarding abortion, and perhaps regarding LGBTQ rights (although I don't see any significant changes coming on that issue). But because Kennedy was a pretty reliable conservative on other issues, the balance of power on the court doesn't swing in a different direction with Kennedy's successor. If Kavanaugh is not strong on labor rights and privileges ... well, neither was Kennedy, and neither is Trump, and neither is the Republican Senate. We may not like the status quo, but there was basically no chance that the status quo was going to change with this opening. For those issues, this is the equivalent of replacing Souter with Sotomayor.
The issues at risk of changing are the ones where Kennedy went rogue. And that's basically abortion and LGBTQ rights. Therefore, that's where all the heat is going to be emanating from, and all the light is going to get sucked into a black hole, during the confirmation process.
And another thing.
ReplyDeleteThe notion that pro-life activists need to behave differently than, say, African American activists or labor-rights activists when it comes to party affiliation seems false.
If pro-life activists gave up on the Democratic Party, it's not because pro-life activists changed. It's because the Democratic Party changed. I don't fault pro-life activists for affiliating with the party that welcomed them. And it hasn't been a bad relationship for either party. Republicans wield power far beyond their numbers because of the loyalty of pro-life voters. And it seems that pro-life voters are about to get the Supreme Court they've been asking for. Democratic Party leaders have had something like 40 years to get this right, and they've not only declined, but have made a point, over and over and over again, of defecating all over pro-life voters. It shouldn't be a mystery why pro-life voters wouldn't want to be Democrats.
And JP bats about .500 with me. Although I will say his parts I agree with I agree with more vehemently than his parts with which I disagree. I do lean more toward MSW's side in that I don't think the Supreme Court can -- I said "can," not "will never try" -- to settle abortion as an issue in this country. Where I disagree with JP is in the suggestion that pro-lifers ever got anything more than a bag of nasty hot air for their support for separating children from their parents, their support for breaking up the G-7 and their support for that juvenile hissyfit you-know-who embarrassed us with this morning. And then it is on to Russia, like whom we should be more, according to what the pro-lifers support.
DeleteWhich is not to say there is anything to be said for NARAL. Because there isn't.
Tom, "...juvenile hissyfit..." , which one was that? There's been so many I lost count. I didn't see anything on the news sites, but then they've been busy having their own hissyfits.
DeleteAnd speaking of media hosting their own hissyfits, how about this ugly little item, found on the Huffington site. Sometimes they're just as bad as Fox News, but they swing the other direction. The idea that someone can't be a good dad to daughters unless he is pro-choice is offensive.
Delete"Democratic Party leaders... have made a point, over and over and over again, of defecating all over pro-life voters." Jim, you are right. My grandmother, who was a dedicated FDR Democrat, wouldn't recognize the party now.
DeleteIf RvW is overturned, all that does is deflect the issue to the states. And, no matter what happens there, abortions WILL NOT STOP! The well-to-do women will always be able to travel to a site that offers abortion services. The other women will revert to the back alley abortion mills that were comment prior to RvW. But the anti-abortionists (I refuse to call them Pro-Life) will be able to wash their hands and exclaim: well, we did what we could! Fie on those who we have not convinced/denied abortion services: the fault is ALL theirs, now. And how about the men who are 50% culpable in these cases? "Boys will be boys" no matter their age???
DeleteYou missed the outburst at the NATO meeting, where he reeled off statistics that were all wrong to the last decimal point, including the % of spending on defense in the U.S.A., with which he is supposed to have some acquaintance -- followed by alleging that Angela Merkel is in thrall to the evil genius who will give him his new marching orders in a lovefest on this coming Monday?
ReplyDeleteTom, I missed that, but it doesn't surprise me.
DeleteHe began today (Thursday) happily pounding his chest and claiming to have thought up the idea of burden-sharing. But he still hasn't uttered an honest number.
DeleteI agree, overall, that the Democratic Party has become increasingly hostile to pro-life voters and candidates to its increasing detriment.
ReplyDeleteTwo minor points:
1. I would not lump Planned Parenthood in with NARAL, Emily's List, and Pro-Choice America. Planned Parenthood offers many more services (yes, bad birth control among them) than any of the other groups, which exist strictly as PACs.
2. Cheering for having an abortion. This may not be what it looks like to pro-lifers. I seen tears, recriminations, relief, and many other responses from women who have had abortions, but never cheers. My guess is that what is being cheered is not a dead fetus, but the right to an abortion that is unfettered by anyone else's morality test, and the fact that safe abortion procedures have survived since 1972.
In addition, Kamala Harris was on the NewsHour yesterday talking about the fact that Roe represents more than abortion to its supporters. I'm not sure I agree with her, but I think understanding that is key to anyone who wants to "dialogue."
"... the fact that Roe represents more than abortion to its supporters." I'm beginning to think it is an article of their creed.
DeleteWhose creed? The Democrats? Wasn't clear on whom you meant, Katherine.
DeleteRoe is seen by many women as the end-point in a series of laws--the laws that made rape within marriage a crime, that strengthened domestic violence laws, that upheld Title 9, that made gender discrimination largely illegal.
When I listened to Harris, I felt that the next step from Roe was euthanasia. This is probably not something Harris meant to convey, but if the government has no right to tell us what we can do with our bodies, then isn't unfettered right to euthanasia the next step?
I find making Roe about more than abortion troubling.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI guess it seems like the creed of some feminists (not all) maybe the ones you would call third wave.
DeleteJean, Your point 1 is especially worth keeping in mind. PP doesn't charge or charges a pittance for medical procedures that need to be done but that hospitals do not like to be bothered with at less than mansion-mortgage prices.
DeleteWhich doesn't make their abortions good, but does make their demonization unChristian unless it is accompanied by the $$$ for the otherwise unavailable services.
I don't get Third Wave Feminists or what they're aggrieved about; they seem to be all over the place.
DeleteI don't think they really understand the First Wave (suffragists) or Second Wave ("the problem that has no name," i.e., pushing women into pigeon holes made by men). In fact, some of the Millennial women seem quite condescending to older women, until you can sit them down, insist that they stop admiring Instagram photos of themselves in their underwear, reset their little brains.
My sense is that they see Roe as the apex of the feminist movement. That all other advances toward legal equality for women will crumble with Roe. Maybe I'm naive, but I really don't sense that the fellas on here who are unhappy about Roe see it as a wedge by which they can eventually move women back to non-voting baby machines and housework drudges.
Jim, Tom, Stanley, please correct me if I'm wrong so I can come by your house with my protest sign and pussy hat.
Jean, Can't speak for Jim or Stanley, but my wife would kill me if I tried to move women back to non-voting baby machines. I thought that ended with WWII.
DeleteAh yes. The fifties. Those commercials with lovely women in high heels and sparkly dresses, swirling about the kitchen, lovingly caressing their shiny labor saving devices. I didn't see many of those ladies on my block of row houses. Some, like my mother, worked in factories, or mills, as they were called. No subservience, I think we're all in this together. But, these days, how many do.
DeleteYeah, I don't get the fear that men want to make Stepford Wives out of women. One story told about my maternal grandmother was that she redacted the "obey" part out of their (Presbyterian) wedding vows. Apparently Granddad was fine with that.
DeleteJean - if I had wanted a clingy little wifey who promised to obey, I would have married someone else. But I can't imagine being married to someone who aspires to housewife and homemaker (not that there is anything wrong with people who do). That said, on my wife's more stressful professional days, I don't think it sounds that bad to her, in a grass-is-greener sort of way. As it is, she's constantly stressed about the state of the house re: vacuuming, dusting, etc. It just seems to me that whichever way you slice it, it's stacked against adult women. Nobody can allay all the social pressures they feel. Meanwhile, men just wander around in our haze, hoping it continues to work out somehow.
DeleteWell, like I was sayin', the demise of Roe (unlikely as that is) does not mean that the men who might support its demise want women to lose their legal rights to self-determination.
DeleteBut that seems to be the view of some liberal female legislators who think Roe is a corner stone of female liberation, and that you can't possibly be a feminist if you have reservations about abortion.
"...you can't possibly be a feminist if you have reservations about abortion." And there, in a nutshell, is the Democratic party's problem. If they make room for pro-life potential Democrats, they will be perceived as throwing women under the bus. And since there are more women than potential pro-life Democrats, it's a do- the- math thing. But they end up throwing pro-life feminists under the bus.
DeleteHowever, the Democratic party includes some pacifists who don't recognize a just-war theory, and some people with rather hawkish proclivities. And everything between. If these can coexist, at least for mutual goals, why can't people who are in different places along the choice spectrum?
Katgerine, I can only assume that people somehow feel more passionate about abortion than the other issues you mention--or they've been persuaded by leaders of their factions that there is no middle ground. As long as otherwise normal people refuse to accept a difference of opinion, I don't see anything changing.
DeleteSorry, "Katgerine."
DeleteOne other thought:
ReplyDeleteIf I'm keeping count correctly, Kavanaugh would be the sixth justice who is Catholic, and/or who has received a Catholic education. The others are Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor and Gorsuch (who grew up Catholic and attended Catholic schools but now attends an Episcopal church). I'd need to look into the specifics of their educational backgrounds, but all of them have a Catholic heritage, and several of them practice actively today.
What's more, all of them are extremely bright, are the beneficiaries of elite educations, and were extraordinarily accomplished in the legal profession even before ascending to the Supreme Court.
I point this out, not to dispute MSW's dismay at the court's uneven application of Catholic social principles, but to suggest that this is the best and brightest, at least in the legal profession, that the Catholic Church in the United States has produced in our time. Setting aside the question (and it is monumental) of whether it is a justice's proper role to apply Catholic social teaching, or any other given set of principles, to Supreme Court jurisprudence, it just seems to me that the Catholic church could hardly wish for a more influential set of disciples.
So why aren't critics like MSW satisfied with what this court - and it's hardly an exaggeration to call it a "Catholic court" - decides? Perhaps there are gaps in their Catholic formation. Perhaps there is something about the way that legal cream rises to the top that leaves behind attorneys who are more open to the application of social principles. Or perhaps there just isn't a strong connection between Catholic social principles and what the Supreme Court does. I don't mean that there is no connection between the issues that come before the court and Catholic social teaching; obviously, there is a lot of overlap there. But it may be that Catholic justices put on their "justice hat" without reference to Catholic social principles when they decide cases. I think Justice Scalia referred to that idea when he famously remarked that there is no Catholic way to cook a hamburger. (Perhaps the Little Flower would disagree?)
Oh, Jim, Matthew 7:21.
DeleteA bunch of them went to Yale Law, and W. F. Buckley exposed Yale as a hotbed of godlessness back in 19, about, 56. All of them were vetted by the Federalist Society, which was set up as a conservative alternative to the American Bar Association back in the days when everything that was nonpartisan was being declared liberal by the grifters and grafters. (That was when the "mainstream media," which always skews 70-30 or 80-20 percent in endorsing Republicans in presidential elections, became "liberal.") Eventually, the Federalist Society turned into a fraternity connecting good, little conservatives with tunnel vision to judge jobs when Republicans hold the Senate. Religion has nothing to do with it.
Ideally, of course, the justices don't legislate from the bench, but practice constitutional exegesis; leaving actual legislation to Congress. However we have only to look at Scriptural exegesis to know that different scholars can consider the same text and come up with widely different interpretation.
DeleteFor many people the presidential election was really about SCOTUS appointments. Ironic that to elect the "best and brightest" conservative jurists they elected the least bright, possibly most flawed, president in our history; who doesn't have a clue about conservatism as an intellectual philosophy.
"Ironic that to elect the "best and brightest" conservative jurists they elected the least bright, possibly most flawed, president in our history; who doesn't have a clue about conservatism as an intellectual philosophy."
DeleteWell, he's the guy they've been given to work with. They're trying to make the best of it.
I'm sure I've shared this with the class before: my point of view regarding the Trump presidency is that it consists of a coalition between two parties, the Republican Party and the Trump Party. It's a coalition of convenience. Either will jettison the other if or when the other is no longer needed - although it's difficult to foresee the circumstances when they no longer need one another.
Sooner or later, the Trump Party's head ego will retire (or, conceivably, be sentenced to a stretch in the pokey). When that happens, the Trump Party members could be set adrift, and be ripe for picking up by another party, including the Democratic Party, if the Democrats wish that to happen. At one time, those voters were the core of the Democratic Party - the white working man. Tariffs, Americans jobs protection, pro-life views - these are Trump Party planks that were, within our living memory, Democratic Party planks. But it seems extremely doubtful to me that Democrats want the Trump Party members. The aspects of the Trump presidency that evoke the most visceral reaction from Democrats - the denigration and mistreatment of immigrants along the southern border, the so-called Muslim Ban, the pro-life judges - are all Trump Party positions, much more so than Republican Party positions (now that Evangelicals have largely joined the Trump Party, the rump Republican Party is largely libertarian). And the Democrats have moved on to whatever they are now - some mixture of identity politics, nascent socialism and an addiction to money from rich donors.
"...an addiction to money from rich donors." Both parties have that problem. I suppose a reversal of Citizens United is too much to hope for.
Delete"nascent socialism"??!!! The D power structure has made it abundantly clear that it prefers incompetence to anything that has touched or been touched to a Bernie campaign sign.
DeleteTom, that is so pre-Alexandria.
Deletehttp://thehill.com/homenews/house/396412-new-dem-star-to-rattle-dc-establishment
The ruination of SCOTUS has become the hegemony of the conservative Catholic majority. https://www.sightmagazine.com.au/9811-essay-catholic-heavy-supreme-court-moves-right-as-the-church-moves-left
DeleteJim, One snowflake does not make a blizzard. One grain of sand does not make a beach. One beer does not make a day. And one unusual primary does not make a wave. We will see what we will see, but Maxine Waters got elected and Hillary Clinton got nominated. And so it goes.
DeleteJim and Tom: Oh, Jim, Matthew 7:21.
ReplyDeleteThe WaPo published a personal profile of Kavanagh.
https://wapo.st/2unV90Z?tid=ss_mail&utm_term=.3a9c4898c195
The Steinfels know rich/powerful Catholics in NYC. Jim knows some in Chicago. I know some in DC. Tom, were you once based in DC as a journalist?
Kavanaugh grew up in a upper middle-to-rich and powerful subset of Catholics in the DC area. I am quite familiar with his background and the people in it. It is centered around Blessed Sacrament, located on Chevy Chase Circle, where DC meets Maryland. Chevy Chase/Blessed Sacrament is home to rich/powerful Catholics from both parties, and to Catholic media types - including E.J. Dionne and Chris Matthews. Dionne has a critique of Kavanaugh's judicial opinions in today's WaPo.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kavanaugh-is-qualified-and-likable-so-was-merrick-garland/2018/07/11/9b528b44-8541-11e8-8553-a3ce89036c78_story.html?utm_term=.7e318a7885ee
Kavanaugh went to Georgetown Prep (Jesuit, obviously), as did Gorsuch. We know many GP families, as many of our own friends' sons, and most of our own sons' friends from their Catholic elementary school, went there. We chose other schools - two went to a Catholic diocesan high school, and the youngest to a small Episcopal high school, as we did not feel the diocesan high school was very "christian" even though it was Catholic.
We know some of the faculty at Prep, and we know some of the people quoted in the article linked to above. If he is really involved heavily with Catholic Charities, then one hopes its head, Msgr. John Enzler, can influence him a bit. Fr. Enzler has the job he has because he is exceptionally good at getting support from the rich and powerful Catholics in the DC-MD area, many of whom are members of Blessed Sacrament and live in Chevy Chase - a Catholic enclave in a heavily Jewish part of the county and state. Fr. Enzler served as pastor there on his way to Catholic Charities. He is a friendly affable guy, smart, and very much a diplomat, but he is also a social justice Catholic. (he was once pastor of our long ago Catholic parish). Kellyanne C is not mentioned in the article. Given where she lives in DC, she could easily go to Blessed Sacrament. I don't know where her kids ended up in school. They attended parochial school in New Jersey, and the gossip in DC was that they were having a hard time getting their kids accepted to the more "exclusive" schools in the DC area. I don't know if they were looking only at "exclusive" Catholic schools or not. Blessed Sacrament is a parochial school, but, because of the make-up of the congregation, it is considered "exclusive". Most of its graduates go to the "exclusive" Catholic high schools. Based on my personal experience with the Catholic groups he has always been surrounded by, I would say there are more conservatives than liberals, even though our county and state are deep blue. But, not as conservative as the rich/powerful Catholics in the Virginia suburbs (Arlington Diocese, not DC). Scalia was one of those. His parish in Virginia has the TM and attracted very conservative Catholics, politically and liturgically. It is also Rick Santorum's parish, and has many members of Opus Dei as well.
One hopes that some of Catholicism's social justice teachings got through to him Gorsuch attends an Episcopal church - not a parish that broke away because of the gay bishop in New Hampshire, but one that remained as "mainline" Episcopal. So, how "conservative" will these men lean, given the makeup of their close friends and fellow parishoners? Will the inner circle ever prompt these two men to think beyond the standard conservative plot line in Supreme Court cases?
OK, done with my gossip for the day.
Anne, we need more! Can't you go get your hair done somewhere around Blessed Sacrament, and report back? :-)
DeleteAnne, interesting. I guess my takeaway thought from all of this is that they could have done a lot worse.
DeleteAnne C, Thanks for the Washington area Catholic taxonomy. I still suspect the Federalist Society will have more influence than social teachings from Leo to Francis. You don't join that outfit unless you are working toward a lifetime appointment where you can tell other people what to do, and liberals can't do anything about it. Unless you join to give the secret handshake to Federalist judges you have cases before.
DeleteYou have to be planning to go places. And protecting widows and orphans is not one of them.
Jim, I've been considering joining their Centering Prayer group.....
ReplyDeleteWhat I am wondering now - I know Virginia Catholics too, a lot of them. Most are very conservative politically but not as much into the Latin mass etc favored by Catholic trads. The Arlington Diocese is still VERY conservative in Catholic terms. Some northern Virginia suburban (NoVa) Catholics drive into DC to attend Holy Trinity, a Jesuit parish in Georgetown because they can't deal with their own parishes too conservative.
So - Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are conservatives with Catholic, Jesuit backgrounds. Both live in Maryland, but one is no longer Catholic. The politicos like Scalia - not just conservative, but uber conservative - mostly live in Virginia. Almost ALL of the parishes in the Arlington Diocese are uber-conservative as far as Catholicism goes. More parishes ban girls as altar servers than permit them. Many refuse to offer wine at communion. Etc. Scalia, Santorum and others went beyond, going to the parish with the Latin Mass, communion on the tongue, women with covered hair, etc.
So, if there is a range of conservative politically Catholics, with some more open to the church's social justice teachings than others, is it a "good" sign that both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh received their Catholic educations in the DC Diocese, from Jesuits, instead of in the Arlington Diocese? Will this have any influence on how they consider SC cases beyond abortion? Didn't you go to a Jesuit school too, Jim? I am an alum of two Jesuit universities. But religion/theology was not part of my graduate studies at Georgetown. It could have been any university, and most of my classmates in the grad school were not Catholic, even though most of our professors were (including Jesuits).
Anne - yep, Loyola University of Chicago, BBA, 1984. Undergrads in those days needed three theology courses to graduate. To be sure, a theology course wasn't the same as Catholic indoctrination. But if you went into a course like that with the heart of a believer, it could be spiritually enriching. And there were plenty of other spiritual supports available for those who chose to try them. And there was something about the ethos of the place that was a little different, in a good way, than the state college I went to (University of Illinois Chicago, MBA, 1996, or was it 1997? I'd have to go find the diploma to say for sure).
DeleteVast majority of the undergrad students at Loyola were Catholic, too. So there was that immersed-in-the-Catholic-culture aspect of being a student. The Catholic subculture was thinning out by the early 1980s but it was still a thing. It was thicker at Loyola than anywhere I had lived previously. I really came to appreciate it.
I agree with you that there is a range of conservative Catholics. As Catholicism per se goes, I'm not very conservative - truly Catholic conservatives (those who are conservative about their Catholicism, as opposed to political conservatives who also happen to be Catholic) wouldn't consider me one of them. I'm all about the reforms and teachings of Vatican II, and my involvement in liturgical music, which is considerably longer than my time in the diaconate, has always leaned toward evangelizing the new music based on the contemporary, popular forms. Which is kind of strange because I've always detested pop music as a product.
Jim, it seems they lightened up a bit when you were an undergrad. ;)
DeleteAs undergrads, we had to take 12 credit hours of religion/theology AND 12 credit hours of Philosophy.
I saw a breaking-news headline a bit earlier today to the effect that Kavanaugh's personal finances are kind of a mess. I don't know yet what the import of that is going to be, but it's a problem for Republicans. All the Trump administration had to do to not screw this up was pick from their alleged deep bench someone who is impeccably qualified and confirmable. A judge who is in hock to his friends sounds a little peccable to me. But I didn't have much faith that the Trump Administration would be able to general their way through this without losing a few divisions.
ReplyDeleteBad personal finances makes one a security risk in DoD. Maybe it's an asset for one in Kavanaugh's position. Corporations have lots of money. Judge needs money. Here come da judge.
DeleteIt always puzzles me how people's personal finances can be a mess when they've been a professional success and never had to worry about layoffs, downsizings, etc. Bad financial decisions, I guess. We had a guy at my former place of employment who was fairly high up the ladder, but ended up losing his job because his gambling habit and attendant financial problems were spilling over into work.
DeleteMy personal feeling is that it would be too bad if Kavanaugh's financial issues ended up costing him his confirmation. Because just about everybody else on the short list would be a worse choice.
Katherine,
DeleteThere's a whole REELZ series on celebrities gone broke, including Nicholas Cage and Johnny Depp. It's a glitch between the ears, of course. I think buddhists call it a hungry soul, trying to fill a bottomless pit inside themselves that can't be filled, at least with stuff.
The kernel of it seemed to consist of the following, not wholly unknown in the DC culture, as I understand it:
Delete* He has no money
* But no doubt in part because he's hobnbobbing with people with piles of the stuff, he tried to live a wealthy lifestyle in some respects, e.g. spending thousands of dollars on ballgame tickets
* So some friends bailed him out.
There is no shame in being poor, as Tevye may nearly have said once. But champagne tastes on a beer budget has never been anything but a problem. It doesn't reflect well on the judge's, er, judgment.
"But no doubt in part because he's hobnobbing with people with piles of the stuff, he tried to live a wealthy lifestyle in some respects, e.g. spending thousands of dollars on ballgame tickets"
DeleteYeah, that is the excuse his character witnesses -- both of them -- gave for Scott Pruitt's Velcro hands. Investigators will be turning up souvenirs from his stint in Washington for the rest of his life.
Ballgame tickets seem to be Kavanaugh's downfall and salvation -- buying them for buddies and then getting paid back all at once, in huge amounts both ways. I used to go to ballgames for a buck -- 60 cents for the bleachers, 30 cents round trip from Evanston and 10 cents for the scorecard. I know prices have changed, but if you can't see a ballgame for about half of a round of carrying doubles at the golf course, the ballgame ain't worth seeing.
After reading the WaPo story, it seems to me that Mr. Kavanaugh was not in serious financial trouble, nor is he now.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-piled-up-credit-card-debt-by-purchasing-nationals-tickets-white-house-says/2018/07/11/8e3ad7d6-8460-11e8-9e80-403a221946a7_story.html?utm_term=.a7e7b10dbbe7