The #Me Too phenomenon has dramatically empowered women in America and around the world. In a very short period of time, the movement has greatly affected the way men and women relate to each other. Unfortunately, when change occurs rapidly, there can be dire unforeseen consequences. One of these is reflected in the controversy affecting Judge Brett Kavanaugh, nominee to be the next Supreme Court Justice.
Most people seem to thing that Kavanaugh has led a righteous life (even if you disagree with his stance on social issues) as a judge, a teacher and a family man.
Many women have written to the Senate Judiciary Committee indicating that he was a nice fellow even when he was a young man, at the time of the alleged sexual abuse. These plaudits were inspired by an accusation that Kavanaugh sexually attacked a young woman of 15 years, while he was a young man of 17. The alleged encounter happened several decades ago.
I respect the right of any woman to take action against sexual abuse, regardless of the passage of time. I also believe that Kavanaugh has the right to defend himself and not be prosecuted by the court of public opinion. Unfortunately, the aforementioned court has a much lower bar than a traditional trial jury, and it has been particularly aggressive with Kavenaugh encouraged by Senate Democrats. So Kavanaugh’s life could be ruined without any court proceedings for a moment that may or may not have happened many years ago.
Reasonable doubt is supposed to protect the accused from frivolous prosecution and questionable allegations. It’s not always perfect and many defendants who were guilty over the years were set free because of reasonable doubt.
In the case of Kavanaugh, reasonable doubt and political gain is painted all over the allegations. The accuser has waited 30 something years to cry foul, just as the accused is about to be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice. The allegations were known, but not made public until the 11th hour of the Senate confirmation hearings. A highly partisan female senator, Diane Feinstein (D-CA) either directly or indirectly convinced the accused to go public. Directly by indicating that an age old interlude by high school students should disqualify a Supreme Court Justice nominee, or indirectly by encouraging the press to badger the accuser.
I don’t know whether an alleged singular moment in Kavanaugh’s life that happened when he was a child should disqualify him to become a Supreme Court Justice. I don’t know if the accuser is lying or she is confused about what happened and with whom it occurred many years ago.
What I do know is that if the accused will not testify, the questionable circumstances, the denials by a man with outstanding credentials and integrity, the age of the accused when it may have occurred and the passage of time should be enough to satisfy senators that Brett Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court.