"Rather than the deep substantive discussion that the moment demands, the treatment of Kavanaugh’s nomination has been dominated by aggrieved demands for civility..."

"... decency, and the earnest pinkie swears of the 1 percent. But the person who drove a stake in the heart of whatever remained of civility and decency is the same person who nominated Kavanaugh. This is Trump’s M.O.: to offer neither civility nor decency to anyone who isn’t wealthy and powerful, and then to demand it for himself and those with whom he chooses to associate. By these lights, tearing apart families seeking asylum is civil. Refusing service to Sarah Huckabee Sanders is not. Trashing the media and people of color is civil. Speaking ill of Judge Kavanaugh is not. So let’s be done with the civility of convenience, which we’ve learned only flows in a single direction and doesn’t apply if you are poor or brown or suffering.... Ask any law clerk at the Supreme Court to name the warmest, kindest justice on the bench and they will tell you Clarence Thomas is that guy. Every time. That’s not nothing, but it isn’t anything close to everything. Being lovely to people around you isn’t a proxy for judicial ideology and methodology. Let’s please respect Kavanaugh enough to stop talking about his mad carpooling skills... The state of Brett Kavanaugh’s niceness is not a constitutional question."

Writes Dahlia Lithwick in "No More Mr. Nice Justice/Brett Kavanaugh’s kindness and courtesy has no bearing on whether he should be confirmed to the Supreme Court" (Slate).

This gets my "civility bullshit" tag, and I agree with her about "the civility of convenience, which we’ve learned only flows in a single direction." But I laugh at her effort to put a one-way spin on that one-way flow. The larger idea of civility bullshit is that all sides use it when it serves their interest and — in the normal political discourse of the United States — it's only used to get your opponents to quiet down. It's not just used to shush the "poor or brown or suffering." It's used whenever it's useful, and no one is for civility as a neutral principle. It's bullshit. So, much as I agree with the first half of Lithwick's sentence — "So let’s be done with the civility of convenience, which we’ve learned only flows in a single direction" — I call bullshit on the second half — "and doesn’t apply if you are poor or brown or suffering."