Should Brett Kavanaugh be convicted in a court of public opinion without any corroborating evidence of the charges against him?
I don’t know if Christine Ford’s accusation that Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh attempted to rape her when she was 15 and he 17 is true. And, unless someone invents a time machine or some other witnesses come forward, I probably will never know the actual truth.
Ms. Ford needs to be heard, but at the time of this writing, her story has more holes than a pistol range target, and the timing of its release and other factors certainly give it the appearance of a hit-job to delay the confirmation vote on Kavanaugh until after the upcoming mid-term elections.
The Democrats have been trying to find something to disgrace Kavanaugh since even before he was actually nominated, and to suggest that Senator Dianne Feinstein had such evidence in her possession for months and didn’t parade it down Pennsylvania Avenue is absurd. If she had any inkling that the story had legs, it would have gone straight to the New York Times and other friendly media outlets.
And I don’t buy the cover of the accuser wishing to remain anonymous, either, because she had no qualms about revealing her identity in a subsequent opinion piece. Rather a sudden change of heart, wouldn’t you think?
At best, it appears the release of the letter was perfectly timed to cause a delay in the confirmation process. Worst case scenario is that the entire story was fabricated and tucked away, to be used if no other salacious gossip could be pinned on Kavanaugh. A last-minute salvo to allow the Libs to keep control of the Court, throwing Ms. Ford under the bus to save the Republic.
The truth is Kavanaugh has been subjected to a type of scrutiny rarely seen in American politics, and to date, nothing has emerged that would seem to suggest that he is anything but uber-qualified for the position on the nation’s highest court. Hours upon hours of grilling by the Senate Judiciary Committee revealed no flaws in the man’s character. Not to mention the man had been completely vetted several times in the past prior to appointments on lower courts.
And what did all this digging and investigating find? Nothing; zilch. Only that the candidate was immensely qualified to do the job.
Now we find that some three decades ago, a woman, 15 years old at the time, who admits having been drinking, claims he attacked her, but she can’t remember the location of the attack, how she got to the location, or how she got home from the location. But she is absolutely certain Kavanaugh was the attacker. And can provide no corroborating evidence, which amazingly, her lawyer says she is not required to do. Yeah, I kinda think she does.
Even more amazing are the people who staunchly believe Ms. Ford’s story as the gospel truth, despite any supporting evidence. Their reasoning behind this runs from statements such as “All women must be believed,” to “I believe her because I once had a similar experience,” to “It’s obvious Kavanaugh is lying!” Did I mention she has presented absolutely no supporting evidence?
These same people say if there is a possibility Kavanaugh committed this deed at the age of 17, he should not be entitled to sit on the Supreme Court. He has been convicted in a court of public opinion, despite whatever good works he may have accomplished in a stellar career since that time.
In other words, Kavanaugh’s detractors say anyone merely accused of a crime at any point in their lives should be sentenced to life without parole, and never allowed to seek any public office. No one should have the opportunity to change their ways and become a valuable contributor to society. Innocent until proven guilty be damned. No such thing as rehabilitation. Absolutely no way for one to turn their life around.
Like several recent Democrat moves, that precedent, if held, will likely eliminate quite a number of Supreme Court nominees in the coming years. I expect those who support it now will regret that support later.
Michael Patrick Lewis says
The problem, Jerry, isn’t Kavanaugh so much, it’s the massive rush to get him appointed without hearing all the facts. Why the secret files? Why rush through the hearing without getting this woman’s story? You talk of due process, but where is this woman’s due process?
It’s a sham that he’s even been appointed by a president whose sole reason for appointing him is his opinions on whether a sitting president can pardon himself or be indicted, and it’s a shame that it takes a 35-year-old assault accusation to delay this process when Merrick Garland’s nomination was delayed fourteen months with absolutely NO justification whatsoever.
Jerry Newberry says
Thanks for reading! With regard the to “massive rush,” the process seemed to move at a snail’s pace until the allegation of sexual misconduct emerged, with Democrat Senators grandstanding and showboating, and protesters disrupting the hearing, despite having no real reason to object to the nomination, other than he was a conservative.
And “this woman” had over 30 years to be concerned about her rights under due process, but only became concerned when it appeared her side couldn’t prevent the confirmation. Even Sen. Feinstein was unconcerned about her due process for some two months after receiving her letter. No mention of any issue with Kavanaugh was found in any of his earlier confirmations.
Kavanaugh’s opinion about indicting a sitting president may have been one of the reasons for his nomination, but is hardly the “sole” reason. I am less concerned about that since the Constitution provides for the removal of a president if necessary, and nothing in Kavanaugh’s opinion prevents the prosecution of a president after his term in office ends.
I never really understood the reasoning behind the delay in Garland’s nomination, since it was a foregone conclusion that Hillary was going to win the presidency anyway.