The Grand Illusion
There’s another aspect of the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh that the Senate Judiciary Committee isn’t even considering, and that’s the “prep school” culture that produced Kavanaugh, a culture that included in Kavanaugh’s time, and certainly in earlier years, overconsumption of alcohol and an concerted effort on the part of the preppies to get young women drunk in order to take advantage of them. The “antics” portrayed in the movie Animal House weren’t unknown on all too many Ivy League campuses [except for turning Cadillacs into monster cars, which didn’t happen, at least so far as I know].
Young women were regarded largely as prey by a good many preppies, no matter what Kavanaugh and other preppy-produced, but now “upstanding citizens”, may claim, and far too many fruit “punches” were heavily spiked in hopes of taking advantage of unwary young women. And many did end up highly intoxicated and at the mercy of unscrupulous young men, who were disproportionately products of prep schools.
Part of that prep school behavior may well have been also influenced by the belief on the part of graduates of exclusive prep schools that they were “superior” in education and background and that young women were supposed to defer to them.
That sort of behavior was one of the reasons why my alma matter actually abolished fraternities while I was an undergraduate, although that was only one of several rationales cited by the committee that made the recommendation to the College.
But for the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Republican Senate leadership to pretend that Kavanaugh’s behavior either didn’t exist or that it was an isolated instance is a denial of wide-spread male misbehavior at that time, behavior that still persists too widely on the undergraduate and even graduate student level. The Republican denials and avoidance of the issues that the accusations against Kavanaugh have again raised just illustrate how sexist the Republican Party leadership continues to be.
And, of course, it’s now been revealed that Kavanaugh, as a judge, admonished a pregnant teenager that she could not have an abortion and that she had to live with the consequences of her actions. So…why doesn’t Kavanaugh have to live with the consequences of his unwise actions as a teenager?
Or does his superior education and background mean that there are different rules for him and the rest of the male prep school products?
I think the hypocrisy we also see in Kavanaugh’s resistance to answering questions about his sexual proclivities, when he was the one who developed and pushed the most repellently graphic questions that the Starr investigation wanted to ask Bill Clinton, suggests it’s not just a class thing, at least in the strict sense.
I find these allegations disturbing, but I find it even more disturbing how Kavanaugh and the stolen Democratic emails has disappeared from the news.
They’re all part and parcel of what Kavanaugh is. He only sees what he wants to see. He “conveniently” forgets about the emails, about the fact that he was often drunk as a student,and about the fact that he’s minimized and victimized women… and that his legal “philosophy” would continue to do the same… and the Republicans are equally willing to dismiss all of it as well.
i’m not as bothered by the allegations of his youth as perhaps the majority of people. i frankly expect this level of classism (find it disappointing, but expect it) of the class of people that are likely to be S.Ct nominees, politics is the primary driver of who gets nominated, and Kavanugh is part of the club.
I am deeply disturbed by the allegations, (nay, evidence) of him lying under oath (the emails) and the lack of follow up from the Dems? Is it just more politicking from the Dems, to paint the Right as insensitive to women?
How does that play better than a judicial candidate that lied under oath, and violated the judicial code?
The sexual allegations seem to pack more political punch than all the evidence of lying and misleading under oath, possibly because the Republicans seem to believe that people don’t care about that, and because the threat that Kavanaugh poses to personal freedom seems theoretical and abstract to many people. But that’s just a guess on my part.
Part of the political punch coming because of the echoes of the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings, especially with the metoo zeitgeist.
The Christian Science Monitor article focuses on perhaps the main problem with Kavanaugh and Congress: “What Kavanaugh case means for ‘innocent until proven guilty'”.
There is no getting away from the fact that if one wishes for a benign society then rules/laws are needed and there is only relative “Freedom” possible.
If Congress had followed normal or previously agreed on procedures (specifically vetting of candidates by FBI when necessary) the media arguments would not have been necessary.
It is strange that six prior ‘investigations’ by the FBI brought out no evidence of anything against Kavanaugh. But, Congress is not a court of law.
What I’m finding utterly astonishing is the fact that the man apparently has lied under oath repeatedly both now and during his previous confirmation – about receiving hacked Democratic planning documents, for example – and nobody is calling him out about it. I guess lying to Congress is so common as to be ignorable, but salacious charges bring readership.
A number of males (and sometimes females) have behaved badly, sometimes even illegally.
That does not make weaponized unprovable allegations true.
Bad or illegal behavior is certainly not peculiar to prep schools, since gang-bangers behave even worse. _Perhaps_ the prep school misbehavior is accompanied by an entitlement mindset – that they’re entitled to take what they want, but so is the gang-banger’s; the only real difference is that the former think they’re respectable, although even the latter think their misdeeds earn them respect among their peers.
So the point escapes me, aside from the politicization of unprovables, and that bad behavior (proven, not merely alleged) is always bad regardless of who engages in it.
Allegations do not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to disqualify one for a position.
Judge Kavanaugh will never have his liberty taken away based on these allegations.
If he is not confirmed to the supreme court he will still be a federal judge.
He will still have a relatively affluent lifestyle.
Let 9 guilty go free lest we risk the liberty of 1 innocent
That is a sound bases for a criminal trial.
Bar 9 innocent from power lest 1 guilty gains.
As far as politicizing the issue.
There are many qualified individuals who could easily step in to the appointment with no allegations.
If Republicans are so worried about not getting their person in because it is so close to an election?
Well here is a quote “The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let’s give them a voice. Let’s let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter…” Mitch McConnell
Supreme court nominations have been politicized.
The road back will require healing and I can not see that happening in the short term.
This only just occurred to me but if these allegations against Kavanaugh carry enough weight to invalidate his eligibility to sit in the Supreme Court shouldn’t they also invalidate his eligibilty to practice as a judge or lawyer?
If that follows then for that matter shouldn’t they also call into question all the previous cases that Kavanaugh has sat on and the judgements he has made? Can you have a fair trial if you are tried before a judge who isn’t legitimately qualified for the position?
Yes.
Allegations aside: do we really want a professional who behaved under stress in the way that Kavanaugh behaved sitting on judgement on anything?