Dumb-ocrats Miss Revealing Kavanaugh's Inner Man

From police procedurals in film and TV, to real life criminal cases, we have seen how law enforcement can secure convictions by planting evidence. What we saw Thursday during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh committed a sexual assault as a teenager was an official decision to withhold testimony that could corroborate or refute the charge against a member of the white male establishment. By refusing to subpoena Mark Judge, an alleged eyewitness to the assault, and other witnesses, such as the administrator of the polygraph test taken by Christine Blasey Ford, the all male Republican majority on the committee ensured that justice would be blind as well as deaf and dumb. 

On Friday a semblance of fair play returned to the committee. Though a party line vote sent Kavanaugh’s nomination to the full Senate for consideration, Arizona senator Jeff Flake said his aye vote would be contingent on the FBI doing an investigation of the charge, a request Democrats continually made Thursday. 

Mark Judge’s cooperation is not assured. Late Friday afternoon the president ordered a supplemental FBI probe to be completed within a week.

Meanwhile, what the divided nation is left to debate are the performances of Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford. Righteous indignation, even contempt, by the accused; anguish and trauma reluctantly displayed by the accuser. 

They were the star performers. But the senators also provided fascinating but not uplifting displays of statesmanship. Both sides grandstanded, though none as over the top as Republican Lindsey Graham. 

I’m most disappointed with the Democrats, or as I think we should henceforth call them, the Dumb-ocrats. With the whole world watching they allowed Kavanaugh to bulldoze them, to fire up his base while they failed to dig deeply into his psyche. 

The Dumb-ocrats kept asking him to call for an FBI investigation. The Dumb-ocrats kept asking if he was an excessive drinker, prone to blackouts. They kept asking if he sexulally assaulted women. Did they really think he’d surrender an “aha” moment and admit to being imperfect? 

Dumb-ocrats, rather, should have gently probed his character, his judicial reasoning, his family values. By exposing them they would have made it clear to any who had not already committed to his confirmation that Brett Kavanaugh was not the all-American judge, father and coach he tries to put across.

If the questions the Dumb-ocrats posed were insufficient, what should they have asked? I provided some in my last blog (http://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2018/09/nine-hours-of-she-said-he-said-leave.html), but a wider range of questions were submitted by New York Times readers from across the country (https://nyti.ms/2NNvgE7).

I liked the one from Lynda of Gulfport, FL: “Which actions in your life do you now regret taking but have learned from and have made you a better husband, father, teacher and judge? Have any of the mentors in your career been men you admired professionally, but that you had private concerns about with regard to their attitudes toward women in your workplace? As a father to two daughters, did you ever feel any responsibility to express a concern about the language used to describe women in any of your workplaces?”

I read somewhere the following question: Would you permit your daughters, when they are 15, to go to the type of parties you attended in high school? 

Answers to these questions were insight opportunities lost because of Dumb-ocratic obsession with trying to reveal a smoking gun. As the Trumpster would say, Sad.

Battle for Supreme Court Seat Pits Presumption of Innocence v. #MeToo Moments

The presumption of innocence is a foundation of our judicial system. How ironic then that a nominee for the highest court in the land is presumed guilty by many of sexual misconduct as a teenager on the disputed word of his accuser, the victim, a charge denied by the nominee. 

Of course, not everyone believes the victim. Absent a corroborating eyewitness, it is her word versus his to an incident from their youth some 35 years ago. 

The burden of proof beyond a shadow of doubt, it would seem, does not favor the victim. But we are not dealing with a court of law here. Rather, we are in the court of public opinion. In this era of #MeToo, a woman’s word of alleged sexual transgression deserves not just to be heard but to be accorded the respect she was denied during the alleged assault. 

Thirty-five years ago it was common for women to keep quiet, to not go to police after being abused, particularly if the attack was not consummated with sex. Donald Trump again exhibits his ignorance and disdain for women with his tweet questioning why Christine Blasey Ford did not go to the FBI back then to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape. Regrettably, we have come to expect such behavior from the misogynist-in-chief. 

The real tragedy here is the failure of Republican senators to show even a modicum of fealty to the advise and consent aspect of their constitutional authority. Without even listening to Blasey Ford on Thursday they have made up their minds she is mistaken. The Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill imbroglio 27 years ago provides precedent that the FBI investigates sexual misconduct allegations made against Supreme Court nominees. Yet Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley and his Republican brethren reject FBI involvement. 

Blasey Ford alleges Mark Judge witnessed the attack and by his actions precipitated her ability to free herself from Kavanaugh’s grasp. Judge says he will not testify. But why does the Judiciary Committee not force his testimony? Why is he not subpoenaed? We are, after all, trying to find an untainted justice to pass judgment on the rest of us 325 million Americans.

Both Kavanaugh and Judge, through speeches and writings, have admitted to excessive drinking while in high school. They admit to a code of silence to any indiscretion they might have perpetrated. Is their clouded alcoholic memories and adherence to a code of silence to be believed more than a young woman’s traumatized recall of an horrific incident she subsequently related to friends and mental health professionals?    

Brett Kavanaugh presents as a wholesome suburban dad, coaching his children’s basketball teams. The facade has been shattered by Judge and Kavanaugh’s own actions and words. His Georgetown Prep high school conduct mirrors that of others who have attended privileged private schools. Not the conduct of fictionalized Dead Poets Society New England students. But more like that of real life St. Paul’s School of Concord, NH, students who made rape a right of passage (https://nyti.ms/1WD4MRc). Kavanaugh has already spoken in public about his excessive drinking in high school and beyond. 

There is, of course, an understandable reason Republicans want to expeditiously approve Kavanaugh’s nomination. The sooner he gets confirmed the sooner a more pronounced rightward tilt emerges on the Supreme Court which begins its next term October 1. 

Moreover, as we have seen over the last day, the longer the Kavanaugh saga plays out the more likely other women will come forward with tales of alleged youthful indiscretions that cannot simply be explained as the typical behavior of teenage boys (https://nyti.ms/2zr9eOX). Someone should ask the 11 male Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, as well as GOP Senate leaders Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn, if their adolescent behavior included illegal underage drinking, including drinking to excess.

There are some who believe Republicans want a quick vote because they fear a blue wave of voting in November might cost them majority status in the Senate and the ability to confirm Trump nominations. But that’s a red herring argument. Even if a blue wave happened the GOP would retain control until new senators are sworn in next January, leaving sufficient lame duck time for Republicans to approve Kavanaugh or any other candidate Trump sends their way. 

One could argue that rushing Kavanaugh through the confirmation process under a #MeToo cloud is a riskier strategy as it could inflame and energize women and men to elect Democrats who would not blindly rubber-stamp Trump’s predilections. 

The battle over the timing of Blasey Ford’s appearance before the panel is another manifestation of male dominance over women. There likely would be no tangible difference in the end result given Republican intransigence to listen with an open mind. At stake, however, is the integrity of a third branch of our government. But Republicans already have shown their lust for power exceeds moral standards. They embraced for president a known philanderer and misogynist. To retain a Senate seat in Alabama they supported an accused sexual predator. 

In case it has not been raised to your level of consciousness, the vote on Kavanaugh has once again placed two GOP women senators in the spotlight. Like their “no” votes on the repeal of Obamacare, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska are said to represent the moral backbone of their party. Will they place country first or party first? 

Even before Blasey Ford stepped forward Collins and Murkowski pinned their support of Kavanaugh to their belief he would not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion. Kavanaugh evaded providing a direct binding commitment to that position. The Blasey Ford allegation raises further questions about his probity to issues affecting women’s rights and equality. How will they vote, especially in light of the extreme pressure they face when next they seek re-election? Regardless of how they vote they will face pressure from the left or from the right.  

But is there no Obamacare-vote-male-equivalent to John McCain among male GOP senators? Will Jeff Flake finally cast a vote that parallels his outspoken anti-Trump rhetoric? Or Ben Sasse? or Bob Corker? Words alone are not sufficient. Action is needed to salvage the soul of the Republican party. 

The solidarity of Democrats in opposition to Kavanaugh also cannot be assured. Barring a smoking gun result from Blasey Ford’s testimony, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and nine others in vulnerable states might reason it would be wiser to vote for Kavanaugh than risk alienating conservatives in their states. After all, some Trump nominee will be seated. Why risk an election over a fait accompli?

The answer goes beyond state borders. As the party that professes its belief in women’s rights, Democrats cannot afford to have any candidate, anywhere, waver in support of this foundational tenet. Women’s rights are as central to Democrats as support for the Affordable Care Act, defense of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and voting rights. 

Barring Kavanaugh’s convincing exoneration of the allegations against him, any less than complete rejection of his confirmation would be an inexcusable capitulation by Democrats.