Is Kavanaugh guilty? Check his calendar.

https://blog.timesunion.com/hoffmanfiles/is-kavanaugh-guilty-check-his-calendar/44858/

By Rob Hoffman on September 27, 2018 at 5:30 AM

• 2
• More

If you had to, could you prove you weren’t at a party back in high school when somebody claims that you were, and then accuses you of having done something really awful while you were there? Many Americans now believe that Judge Brett Kavanaugh was at a party when he was in high school where he is being accused of committing a sexual assault against 15 year-old Christine Blasey Ford. Kavanaugh has stated unequivocally that he wasn’t at the party, and that he would never have done such a thing. He even offers proof. He claims he couldn’t have possibly been guilty of these alleged atrocities since the calendar that he apparently kept back in 1982 shows he did not have a party on the night in question. That seems pretty plausible to me since I graduated high school in 1982, and I also kept a calendar marking my activities. Here’s a sample:

Tuesday, May 3rd, 1982 — Things I’m going to be doing:

1. Go to school late
2. Learn to make ice cream in cooking class
3. Fantasize about the girl sitting in front of me in Government
4. Fantasize about the girl sitting behind me in English.
5. Fantasize about literally every girl who walks by me in the halls

I’m assuming that my calendar is not drastically different from every other 17 year old’s calendar in high school, except for the fact that what kind of uber-dork kept a calendar in high school? The Yale educated Kavanaugh knows that the only thing better than one alibi is two alibis. Recently in an interview broadcast on Fox, Kavanaugh put forth an interesting second defense against the charges that he sexually assaulted a 15 year-old girl when he was 17. Kavanaugh claimed that he was not only incapable of doing something so awful, but he was in fact a virgin in high school, and remained one for “many years after.” There are many philosophical questions to be explored regarding the saga of Judge Kavanaugh, and the alleged sexual assaults he may have committed back in high school or college, but I’m not sure anybody is interested in pursuing the idea of whether a virgin can commit a sexual assault. (Although if you are really asking, I’d say yes.)

How well does Mrs. Kavanaugh know her husband? How well do we really know anyone? (You Tube)

While every Supreme Court confirmation hearing since the failed appointment of Robert Bork in 1987 has been at least somewhat contentious, the attempt to steamroll Judge Brett Kavanaugh through the United States’ Senate has taken this once almost formality to an all new level of partisan politics. As any mediocre student of U.S. history could tell you, it is one of the responsibilities of the head of the Executive Branch of the United States’ government to appoint individuals to the Supreme Court. It then falls upon the upper house of Congress, the United States Senate, to “advise and consent,” regarding the president’s nominee. This plays itself out in a series of questions that are asked of the prospective candidate for the highest court in the land, which are administered under oath. Often character witnesses are also queried by the Senate Judiciary committee, and then the committee votes on the appointee. Once the prospective candidate for the court is approved by the committee, the entire body of the Senate votes, typically approving the president’s choice.

Historically, the vast majority of United States’ senators despite perhaps not agreeing philosophically with the president’s choice, typically voted to confirm the individual, adhering to the idea that the president’s success in getting elected meant that they should be given the opportunity to pick a candidate who reflects his political philosophy. This didn’t always endear them to the loyal opposition, but typically, talent, background, experience, and intelligence ruled the vote. John Adams put John Marshall on the Supreme Court to safeguard the legacy of the Federalist party. Joseph Story, the brilliant “Republican” justice was appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison to counteract John Marshall. (It didn’t work.) Andrew Jackson attempted to eradicate all vestiges of John Marshall by appointing Roger Taney, who ended up writing the worst decision in the history of the Supreme Court, the Dred Scott decision. The court has always been an exercise in political power, with the understanding that as long as the nominee is competent, the president should get his man.

Earl Warren, the Republican governor of California who carried out the relocation of Japanese-Americans during World War Two, was appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower to be a voice of moderation on the court after years of New Deal activism. Warren would turn out to be nothing of the sort, and he became the greatest legal champion of African-American civil rights, as well as a fighter for the rights of the accused, and the downtrodden. “Ike” was not pleased. (Getty Images)

This polite political understanding between the legislative and executive branches came to a grinding “Bork,” when the Democrats who controlled the Senate in 1987 derailed the nomination of the man who served as the high executioner for Richard Nixon’s so-called “Saturday Massacre” during those halcyon days of the “Watergate scandal.” Ted Kennedy led the democratic opposition to Ronald Reagan’s choice to replace moderate Justice Lewis Powell. Bork was voted down by all but two Democrats in the Senate, they were however joined by six Republicans. Reagan then chose Judge Douglas Ginsburg, who as it would turn out, smoked pot in college, and so had to withdraw from consideration. (Yes, you read that correctly. A person who smoked pot in college was considered ill-suited to serve on the Supreme Court. The times have changed just a bit haven’t they. Here’s a question, do you think there was more evidence that Ginsburg smoked pot in college or that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted three different women?)

While not every proposed nominee to the Supreme Court since the Robert Bork proceedings has been drilled in the harsh partisan fashion that Brett Kavanaugh has, the process has become much more of a political sideshow. However, much of the acrimony surrounding Kavanaugh’s nomination has more to do with a man who never even had a hearing, much less a vote, Judge Merrick Garland. When Associate Justice Antonin Scalia passed away from a heart attack back in 2016, President Obama, as was his right to do, nominated a moderate justice who had been approved 97–0 by the Senate for his seat on the Federal Appeal’s Court, Merrick Garland. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell decided that Garland would not get a hearing much less an up or down vote. McConnell proudly told President Obama he would never get to replace Scalia. Democrats lost their mind, and with Trump’s victory in 2016, Justice Neil Gorsuch ended up replacing Scalia. The retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy has Liberals scrambling over how to prevent Trump from filling his seat. As a result of all of this acrimony, Republicans feel that the letter released at the last-minute by the Democratic Senator from California, Dianne Feinstein, charging Kavanaugh with sexual assault while in high school is a desperate effort to get the pound of flesh that they feel they are owed over the Merrick Garland fiasco. Democrats feel that the Republicans can go suck an egg.

If you recognize this man, you either really know your Supreme Court history, or you were smoking “doobies” with the dude pictured above while listening to the Strawberry AlarmClock as you were chilling in your dorm. (Getty Images)

The Kavanaugh spectacle is such a political tsunami, it’s hard to separate the politics from the questions that are actually worth pondering. The questions that are worth debating as I see it are as follows:

1. Does character count regarding those who would be appointed to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court of the United States?
2. Does an unreported accusation of sexual assault preclude you from being appointed to the Supreme Court?
3. Should the fact that the alleged attack occurred in high school over 35 years ago even be considered worthy of a discussion in a situation such as this?
4. Should anybody be held accountable for their behavior while they were teenagers?
5. Whom do we believe?

Does character count?

Short answer, yes. Longer answer, hell yes! When you’re appointing somebody to a lifetime position that may actually impact your everyday life more intimately than the other two branches of government combined, then it would be comforting to know that the individual isn’t a sexual deviant. It is a bit amusing to see the so-called “value-voters” twist themselves into a philosophical pretzel in order to try to explain away the alleged behavior of Brett Kavanaugh. In other words, “He didn’t do it, but if he did, it’s no big deal.” Of course they’ve had a healthy amount of practice in defending the “Orange Menace,” so it’s kind of a seamless transition.

Are the charges enough to derail Judge Kavanaugh?

Certainly if Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted three women, than there doesn’t seem to be any doubt that he should not be on the highest court in the land. His supporters have suggested, including the president, that if the attack was so bad, why wasn’t it reported? Well, Trump’s own FBI will tell you that no violent crime is more underreported than sexual assault. Women compare going through the process of legally accusing somebody of committing an act of sexual assault as feeling as if they’ve now been emotionally sexually assaulted as well due to the trauma involved in going to trial. As a president who has allegedly sexually assaulted women, (By his own account) you would think he would understand this. So many women have suffered this form of attack, that it’s mind numbingly horrifying to hear a female Republican operative come on television to say that it’s no big deal. Hmmm, I wonder if their daughters reported this type of incident to them that they’d be just as forgiving?

Is the fact that the alleged attack happened over 35 years ago while both parties were in high school count as a disqualifier?

Many crimes are subject to the statute of limitations if they take place a long time ago. Usually murder and rape are not covered under this law. However, the court of public opinion is another story. Should the actions of a person in high school define them and limit their opportunities for the rest of their life? As a society, we claim that we believe in forgiveness and rehabilitation. We love to see people succeed when they’ve been given another chance. Does Brett Kavanaugh deserve the same consideration? I’m not so sure. We are talking about a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. Is it worth it to allow Judge Kavanaugh to achieve a seat on this vaunted bench when there may be doubts about his past actions and activities? For the record, he was 17 and the alleged victim was 15. That’s statutory rape in pretty much every state in the union. Those who are spouting the “boys will be boys” defense not only risk insulting every young man who emerged from their adolescent years without performing a sexual assault, but again I can’t help but wonder if they would be so kay sera sera regarding their own daughters in high school if they were ever sexually assaulted.

The second African-American to sit on the high court was sworn in under a shadow of impropriety back in 1991. Clarence Thomas was reported to have behaved in a boorish and unprofessional manner before he was nominated to the Supreme Court, as well as being a serial sexual harasser according to Prof. Anita Hill, a lawyer who worked for Thomas, and then testified against him at his confirmation hearing. The Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee eviscerated her, and Thomas sits on the court to this day. Will this line of attack work again against Professor Christine Blasey Ford? You don’t know? #Metoo. (Getty Images)

Should we forever be held accountable for the mistakes we made in adolescence?

Let’s be honest. If I showed every single person over the age of 25 a running film of themselves between the ages of 14–19, they’d most likely beg to have the film turned off. Honestly who could stand to watch themselves behave as they did as a teenager? Most research today on the adolescent brain indicates that the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that controls reason and logic is not developed in humans until at least the age of 25. While a healthy dose of forgiveness is most likely something we could all use from time-to-time, it doesn’t mean that all is forgiven. Mistakes in judgement, in addition to foolish and often hurtful behavior, even if it is being fueled by alcohol and drug use, shouldn’t prevent you from holding a job and making a life for yourself, but your life isn’t “destroyed” simply because you don’t get to sit on the Supreme Court, and those individuals should be held to a higher standard.

So who do you believe?

This is what we will be asking of ourselves and others after the questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee wraps up sometime on Thursday, September 27th. At this juncture, we don’t know anything about Prof. Ford, however, we are learning more about Judge Kavanaugh, and it’s not reassuring. The fact that his story has changed several times, and that his buddy who allegedly witnessed the alleged sexual assault refuses to testify under oath doesn’t help make his claims of innocence more compelling. On the other hand, Prof. Ford will be under intense scrutiny and questioning in front of the committee, and if she comes off as anything less than an honest victim, Judge Kavanaugh will most likely be sworn in as our next Supreme Court Justice.

Somebody is lying, or mistaken? Sadly the majority of the American people have most likely made up their mind without even hearing from either party. Welcome to American tribalism. (You Tube)

I began writing this blog on Tuesday. By the time I post this on Thursday morning, at least three women are now charging Judge Kavanaugh with sexually deviant behavior. Are they all lying? Are they exaggerating? Was it as bad as they claim? Are they simply smearing a good man whose politics may not put him in the political mainstream of most Americans? On the other hand, is Brett Kavanaugh lying? Is he a rich party-boy who did what he wanted during nights of drunken excess, fueled by his teenage lust and bravado? Is he a good man who did things as a teenager that now “make him cringe” as he himself stated earlier this week? Should we take a deep breath and let the FBI do a proper investigation? Would anybody believe their findings? Is there an end in sight to this partisan bickering and lack of trust and faith in our institutions? It does not appear so.