What is this? Democracy dies in....silence?
Thursday afternoon, CNN’s Wolf dedicated a segment with host Wolf Blitzer and Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic wondering why the current eight Supreme Court justices have remained silent and not opined on the three-decades-old sexual misconduct allegation against nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Perhaps more insane than anything Biskupic or Blitzer said was this CNN chyron that’s fit for a straightjacket: “Supreme Turmoil; How Justices Feel About Partisan Confirmation Battles.”
“There are eight people who have not weighed in on the scandal and the partisan politics swirling around Brett Kavanaugh's nomination — the Supreme Court Justices....Joan, let’s talk a little bit about these eight Supreme Court justices. What’s stopping them? Can they speak out? Would it be appropriate,” Blitzer wondered at the top of the segment.
Biskupic responded by pointing out what should be obvious, which was that “[t]hey might, but in this case, they’re not going to.” She noted that they didn’t sound off (read: defend) Merrick Garland in 2016, “[s]o I wouldn't expect a single one of them to speak out publicly” even though “[t]hey all have their personal views about the process, as you know.”
“They don't like that it's become more politicized. Chief Justice John Roberts has said that it taints the Court. But, you know, they all — a group of them have personal connections to Brett Kavanaugh, so there's some differences among them that I think are worth exploring that we're not going to hear from them publicly, but that we know,” Biskupic added.
She elaborated on Roberts’s ties to Kavanaugh in both Bush administrations, seeing what Clarence Thomas thinks about the Kavanaugh controversy, how Neil Gorsuch is also an alum of Georgetown Prep, Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s feminist viewpoints that’d align with Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, and Elena Kagan having experience with judicial confirmations.
“And they're all being silent, at least for now. Joan Biskupic, thank you very much for that analysis. Very good analysis indeed,” Blitzer concluded.
But again, Supreme Court justices aren’t going to comment as per the Court’s strict desire to maintain impartiality and not become involved in the country’s day-to-day political fights. So what’s the point of CNN covering this? Oh, that’s right. They’re often in the business of gossip, not news.
To see the relevant transcript from CNN’s Wolf on September 20, click “expand.”
CNN’s Wolf
September 20, 2018
1:50 p.m. [TEASE][ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Supreme Turmoil; How Justices Feel About Partisan Confirmation Battles]
WOLF BLITZER: Alright, coming up, there's more news we're following. How do the current justices on the U.S. Supreme court feel about this rather contentious confirmation battle that is now underway and more importantly, how do they move past this whole issue? We're going to discuss that.
(....)
1:55 p.m. Eastern
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Supreme Turmoil; Supreme Court Justices Silent About Kavanaugh Scandal]
BLITZER: There are eight people who have not weighed in on the scandal and the partisan politics swirling around Brett Kavanaugh's nomination — the Supreme Court Justices. Let's bring in our CNN Supreme Court analyst, Joan Biskupic. Joan, let’s talk a little bit about these eight Supreme Court justices. What’s stopping them? Can they speak out? Would it be appropriate?
JOAN BISKUPIC: They might, but in this case, they're not going to. They didn't speak out during the whole Merrick Garland episode, you know, back in 2016. So I wouldn't expect a single one of them to speak out publicly. They all have their personal views about the process, as you know. They don't like that it's become more politicized. Chief Justice John Roberts has said that it taints the Court. But, you know, they all — a group of them have personal connections to Brett Kavanaugh, so there's some differences among them that I think are worth exploring that we're not going to hear from them publicly, but that we know.
BLITZER: Well, tell us about them.
BISKUPIC: For example, the Chief has spoken about how, you know, if people see an individual get on the Court through a very political process, people will necessarily think of the new justice as political. But — so he doesn't like this, but at the same time, he has a very deep relationship with Brett Kavanaugh. They knew each other back in the solicitor general's office, in the early 1990s. Brett Kavanaugh had a hand in his appointment, getting on to the D.C. Circuit and he also had a hand in his appointment to the Supreme Court, when Kavanaugh worked for George W. Bush. So they have a connection there and I'm sure the Chief is interested in Kavanaugh as a new colleague and then take two other people from —
BLITZER: You're talking about John Roberts, the chief justice.
BISKUPIC: Yes, the current chief and then take Clarence Thomas. He can't help but feel a real personal identity to what's going on with Brett Kavanaugh now, because that happened to him and Neil Gorsuch, who also was an old-time friend of his, who went to Georgetown Prep, and just think of all that's been dredged up about Georgetown Prep. On the other side, you have Ruth Bader Ginsburg, someone who's spoken out a lot about the importance of the Me Too movement and charges being explored. So as much as she doesn't like all of these politics around it, she has an interest in perhaps hearing from Christine Blasey Ford and then, finally, Elena Kagan, who worked behind the scenes both at a White House and with the Senate Judiciary Committee during other confirmation hearings and she also was once someone whose documents were sought for a confirmation and her documents were turned over in a way that Brett Kavanaugh's weren't. So they all have these kind of personal political interests, at the same time that they don't want confirmations politicized.
BLITZER: And they're all being silent, at least for now.
BISKUPIC: Yes, yes.
BLITZER: Joan Biskupic, thank you very much for that analysis. Very good analysis indeed.
