Bills
| 3.23.22

Should the House Launch an Impeachment Inquiry of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh? (H. Res. 560)

Do you support or oppose this bill?

What is H. Res. 560?

(Updated November 21, 2019)

This resolution would inquire as to whether the House of Representatives should impeach Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. It would call on the House Judiciary Committee to inquire as to whether the House should impeach Kavanaugh based on his alleged history of sexual assault; give the Judiciary Committee and any subcommittees or task forces designed by the Committee authority to take affidavits and depositions on this matter; and provide funding for the inquiry from the House’s applicable accounts.

As a simple resolution, this legislation wouldn’t advance beyond the House if passed.

Argument in favor

The House should investigate the multiple sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the possibility that he perjured himself during his confirmation hearing. If those allegations are proven to be true, his impeachment must also be given serious consideration.

Argument opposed

Justice Brett Kavanaugh already went through one of the most heavily scrutinized confirmation processes in U.S. history, endured false & frivolous allegations, and was confirmed by the Republican Senate which wouldn’t remove him in an impeachment hearing. Attempting to impeach him would be a waste of time.

Impact

The House; House Judiciary Committee; Supreme Court; and Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Cost of H. Res. 560

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

Additional Info

In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) introduced this resolution to call for an impeachment inquiry into Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh: 

“I believe Christine Blasey Ford. I believe Deborah Ramirez. It is our responsibility to collectively affirm the dignity and humanity of survivors. Sexual predators do not deserve a seat on the nation’s highest court and Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process set a dangerous precedent. We must demand justice for survivors and hold Kavanaugh accountable for his actions."

Some advocacy groups, including Demand Justice and Planned Parenthood, have also urged further investigation of the allegations against Kavanaugh.

However, some members of Democratic leadership have dismissed the idea of impeaching Kavanaugh. Speaking to Politico, Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) said, “Get real.” Durbin added, “We've got to get beyond this 'impeachment is the answer to every problem.’ It's not realistic."

Kavanaugh has denied all accusations of wrongdoing, maintaining that the accusations against him are politically motivated. In a September 24, 2018 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee chair, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) and ranking member, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), he wrote: 

“When I testified in front of the Senate three weeks ago, I explained my belief that fair process is foundational to justice and to our democracy. At that time, I sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee for more than 31 hours and answered questions under oath. I then answered more questions at a confidential session. The following week, I responded to more than 1,200 written questions, more than have been submitted to all previous Supreme Court nominees combined… There is now a frenzy to come up with something – anything – that will block this process and a vote on my confirmation from occurring. Such grotesque and obvious character assassination – if allowed to succeed – will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from service."

When Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) asked if her accusation was politically motivated during her September 27, 2018 testimony, Christine Blasey Ford responded, “No, and I’d like to reiterate that, again, I was trying to get the information to you while there was still a list of other, what looked like equally qualified, candidates.” In September 2019, Ford’s attorney, Debra Katz, said of Kavanaugh:

“We were always going to have a conservative [justice]... Elections have consequences, but he will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to , we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important. It is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) doesn’t believe the allegations against Kavanaugh. In a tweet, he called them "uncorroborated and unsubstantiated."  In September 2018, he questioned Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations on their merits: 

“This unsubstantiated allegation stands entirely at odds with everything we've heard about Judge Kavanaugh's character. But Democrats wouldn't let a few inconvenient things, like a complete lack of evidence or an accuser's request for confidentiality to get between them and a good smear."

Similarly, after the ’ September article, President Trump — who said “I am with him all the way” during Kavanaugh’s controversial confirmation hearings — defended Kavanaugh in a September 15, 2019 tweet and accused Democrats of slandering him and trying to “scare him into turning Liberal”: 

“Now the Radical Left Democrats and their Partner, the LameStream Media, are after Brett Kavanaugh again, talking loudly of their favorite word, impeachment. He is an innocent man who has been treated HORRIBLY. Such lies about him. They want to scare him into turning Liberal!”

In a follow-up tweet later the same day, President Trump encouraged Kavanaugh to start pursuing legal action and reiterated his claim that the accusations against him are attempts to influence his rulings on the bench: 

“Brett Kavanaugh should start suing people for libel, or the Justice Department should come to his rescue. The lies being told about him are unbelievable. False Accusations without recrimination. When does it stop? They are trying to influence his opinions. Can’t let that happen!”

This resolution has 14 Democratic cosponsors. Even if the House investigates and ultimately impeaches Kavanaugh, the Republican-controlled Senate won’t convict and remove him.


Of Note: neighbor

sworn statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 26, 2019. However, she retracted multiple claims in an October 1, 2019, interview with NBC News. 

After Kavanaugh’s confirmation, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Chairman, Chuck Grassley (R-IA), referred Julie Swetnick and her attorney, Michael Avenatti, to the Dept. of Justice (DOJ) for criminal investigation for a potential conspiracy to provide materially false statements to Congress and obstruct a Congressional committee investigation (three separate crimes) in the course of considering Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination. Grassley said the obvious contradictions in Swetnick’s story and Avenatti’s publicization of her accusations of drug- and alcohol-fueled gang rapes in the 1980s necessitated a DOJ criminal investigation: 

“When a well-meaning citizen comes forward with information relevant to the committee’s work, I take it seriously. It takes courage to come forward, especially with allegations of sexual misconduct or personal trauma. I’m grateful for those who find that courage. But in the heat of partisan moments, some do try to knowingly mislead the committee. That’s unfair to my colleagues, the nominees and others providing information who are seeking the truth. It stifles our ability to work on legitimate lines of inquiry. It also wastes time and resources for destructive reasons. Thankfully, the law prohibits such false statements to Congress and obstruction of congressional committee investigations. For the law to work, we can’t just brush aside potential violations. I don’t take lightly making a referral of this nature, but ignoring this behavior will just invite more of it in the future.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee also referred a reporter, Judy Munro-Leighton, to the DOJ for criminal investigation in connection to false statements made to Judiciary Committee investigators and fabrication of evidence. 

Christine Blasey Ford, the first accuser to come forward, accused Kavanaugh of pinning her down, covering her mouth, and groping her at a house party in high school. Deborah Ramirez, whose accusations against Kavanuagh were first published in , accused him of putting his penis near her face while playing a drinking game at a party in the university’s Lawrence Hall in their first year at Yale.

Kavanaugh’s defenders point out thin evidence in both Ford’s and Ramirez’s accusations. In Ford’s case, the signed and sworn declarations from four people (her husband, Russell Ford, and three friends who said Ford mentioned the incident to them respectively in 2013, 2016, and 2017) that she sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee to corroborate her claim didn’t corroborate her allegations or the existence of the party that the incident was alleged to have occurred at. In two of the cases (her husband and the friend she told in 2016, Keith Koegler), Ford specifically named Brett Kavanaugh as her attacker. 

Koegler wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee expressing his belief in Ford’s accusation and raising his concerns about the Senate Judiciary Committee’s and FBI’s failure to interview him and at least seven others who had known about the alleged assault: 

“I believe, with every fiber of my being, that Christine Blasey Ford has testified truthfully about her assault by Brett Kavanaugh. I have the benefit of knowing Christine, but if you saw her testimony and you didn’t find her credible, you know nothing about sexual assault. The process by which the Senate Judiciary Committee has ‘investigated’ the facts relating to the assault has been a shameless effort to protect Judge Kavanaugh. The fact that the FBI did not interview either Christine or Judge Kavanaugh, by itself, renders absurd any assertion that the investigation was ‘thorough.’ There are a minimum of seven additional people, known to the White House, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the FBI who knew about the assault prior to the nomination, who were not interviewed. I am one of them.”

Future of Freedom Foundation founder and president Jacob Hornberger argues that Ford’s witness statements did, in fact, constitute corroborating evidence to support her accusation against Kavanaugh: 

“What is the corroborative evidence that shows that Christine Ford was telling the truth and that Brett Kavanaugh’s denial was false?... The corroborating evidence is what the law calls a ‘prior consistent statement.’ This is a statement that a person makes prior to the incident in question that is consistent with her version of the events. Prior consistent statements become especially pertinent when a witness in a case is accused of fabricating a story. In such a case, the law permits the person to show, as a way to corroborate her testimony, that she told others the same story long before she supposedly fabricated the story… [By this standard,] contrary to popular opinion, Christine Blasey Ford did provide corroborating evidence  to the U.S. Senate that buttressed her accusation against Brett Kavanaugh — powerful corroborating evidence in the form of prior consistent statements that were previously made to several different people and all of which statements were made long before Kavanaugh was even nominated.”

Leland Ingham Keyser, a friend of Ford’s who Ford says was also at the party, doesn’t recall ever attending a party with Kavanaugh present, either with or without Ford. However, Ford says it’s not surprising that Keyser wouldn’t remember the party as she didn’t disclose the assault at the time. In a September 2019 interview with the New York Times’ Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly — authors of the book on Kavanaugh that was excerpted for the September 2019 article detailing a new accusation against him — Keyser told the reporters “I don’t have any confidence in the story” advanced by Ford. She said, “Those facts together I don’t recollect, and it just doesn’t make any sense,” and that she spoke with many people who “wanted me to remember something different.” In the September interview, Keyser also said that she doesn’t remember many small gatherings like the one Ford described or hanging out much with Georgetown Prep students (which Kavanaugh was). She also maintained that, after reviewing pictures and maps, she didn’t even know who Kavanaugh was back then.

Finally, two others — Mark Judge, a friend of Kavanaugh’s who Ford alleges was in the bedroom during the assault, and Patrick J. Smyth, who Ford recalls as “PJ” and says was also at the party — have also issued statements saying they don’t recall the party in question.

In Ramirez’s case, Kavanaugh’s defenders say her claims aren’t credible because she herself acknowledges that she was heavily intoxicated at the time of the event. However, Kavanaugh’s former roommate, James Roche, expressed support for her: 

“Although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and … he became belligerent and aggressive when he was very drunk. Based on my time with Debbie, I believe her to be unusually honest and straightforward and I cannot imagine her making this up. Based on my time with Brett, I believe that he and his social circle were capable of the actions that Debbie described.”

In September 2019, the detailed a third sexual misconduct allegation against Kavanaugh. After that report, detailing a third sexual assault allegation against Kavanaugh as described in reporters Robin Pogrebin’s and Kate Kelly’s book , was published, 2020 Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Kamala Harris (D-CA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Julián Castro (D-TX) expressed support for Kavanauagh’s impeachment. In a September 17, 2019 tweet, Sen. Harris said, “I said it last year and I’ll say it again: the process that resulted in the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh was a sham.” Similarly, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) tweeted, “The revelations [in the ] confirm what we already knew. During his hearing, Kavanaugh faced credible accusations and likely lied to Congress. I support any appropriate constitutional mechanism to hold him accountable." 

However, it’s important to note that a day after the article’s publication, the editors added an important additional paragraph and an editor’s note to the article, both of which significantly undercut the accusation. In the new passage, the article observed, “The female student declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the episode.” In the editor’s note, the editors noted the earlier omission of this fact. The ’s Daniel Chaitin said that the note “sinks” the entire accusation.

Some also believe that Kavanaugh may have perjured himself during his confirmation hearing. In a September 15, 2019 article, Tara Golshan argued that he may have perjured himself on a number of issues during his confirmation hearing, including: 

  • Deborah Ramirez’s accusation that he exposed himself to her at Yale: In his testimony, Kavanaugh said he learned of Ramirez’s claim through the original story. However, two of his friends, Kerry Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, discussed the accusations with him via text (in a series of texts before the story’s publication, Yarasavage wrote that she had been in contact with “Brett’s guy” and also with him, as he wanted her to go on the record to refute Ramirez. Yarasavage also said that she turned over a photo to Kavanaugh and his team). 
  • His involvement in the nomination of 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge William Pryor: During Pryor’s nomination hearings in 2004, Kavanaugh was working in the Bush administration’s White House counsel office. During his own confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh said, “No, I was not involved in handling [Pryor’s] nomination.” However, the ’s Seung Min Kim reported that he was included in several emails referencing the Pryor nomination in 2002 and 2003. In one email exchange, he was included in a conversation about a conference call to “coordinate plans and efforts” around Pryor.
  • His drinking: During his confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh said that while he enjoys beer and perhaps sometimes has drank “too many,” he has never drunk to the point of passing out, blacking out, or even causing slight lapses in memory. However, multiple friends and past roommates have disputed this assertion. One of his former classmates, Chad Ludington, said he would grow “belligerent and aggressive” as a drunk, and another Yale classmate, Liz Swisher, told CNN that he had lied about his college drinking habits.
  • His yearbook: During testimony about the sexual assault allegations at his confirmation hearing, Democrats asked Kavanaugh to define several lines in his Georgetown Prep yearbook that seemed to reference sexual activities. His former classmates told the ’ David Enrich that he gave incorrect definitions for “boofed” and “Devil’s Triangle.”

Impeachment and removal of a federal judge, including a Supreme Court justice, is very similar to a presidential impeachment. A majority of the House must approve an indictment to impeach and a two-thirds supermajority of the Senate must convict the judge or justice in order for them to lose their office.

The five most recent cases in which judges were impeached date from 1986 to the present. In each case, the judges were impeached in cases of clear criminal wrongdoing:

  • 1986: Harry Claiborne was impeached and removed two years after receiving a two-year prison sentence for falsifying income tax returns.
  • 1989: Alcee Hastings — who has since become a member of Florida’s congressional delegation — was removed for receiving a $150,000 bribe to reduce mob members’ prison sentences.
  • 1989: Walter Nixon was removed three years after receiving a five-year prison sentence for perjury.
  • 2009: Samuel Kent was impeached after pleading guilty to obstruction of justice and being sentenced to 33 months in prison for lying about his sexual abuse of female employees.
  • 2010: G. Thomas Porteous was impeached and removed after the Dept. of Justice (DOJ), citing concerns about statutes of limitations, declined to press charges against him for accepting bribes from lawyers with cases before him.

A Supreme Court justice has only been impeached once, in 1805, when the House impeached Justice Samuel Chase for partisan campaigning while serving on the court. However, the Senate didn’t reach the two-thirds supermajority required to convict him.


Media:

Summary by Lorelei Yang

(Photo Credit: "Kava-nope" by Mobilus In Mobili via Flickr / Creative Commons)