The politicization of the process for nominating and confirming justices of the Supreme Court reflects the divisive nature of U.S. politics in general. As the polarization between right and left has become more pronounced, the attention of both sides to the ideological balance on the nation's highest court has become more intense. With decisions on things like abortion and civil rights hanging in the balance (and the fact that the appointment is for life), the stakes could not be higher.
This tension has been on full display in the Senate hearings regarding Judge Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation as a justice. Democrats have waged a spirited, but heretofore unsuccessful, campaign to thwart that confirmation. The frustration on that side of the aisle has been palpable.
And now we have what appears to be a credible, albeit last minute, accusation that Trump's nominee sexually assaulted a girl when he was a teenager. Moreover, the previously anonymous accuser has raised the stakes still further by going public with her accusation and revealing that she had previously talked about the incident with a marriage counselor and had passed a professionally administered lie detector test (bolstering her credibility). https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?utm_term=.477677e64df7
Trump and his Republican allies are saying full steam ahead and are refusing to delay a vote on the nomination. Nevertheless, in the age of #MeToo, it would seem prudent to at least investigate the claim and show respect for a potential victim of the kind of behavior that movement has sought to address. What do you think?
This tension has been on full display in the Senate hearings regarding Judge Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation as a justice. Democrats have waged a spirited, but heretofore unsuccessful, campaign to thwart that confirmation. The frustration on that side of the aisle has been palpable.
And now we have what appears to be a credible, albeit last minute, accusation that Trump's nominee sexually assaulted a girl when he was a teenager. Moreover, the previously anonymous accuser has raised the stakes still further by going public with her accusation and revealing that she had previously talked about the incident with a marriage counselor and had passed a professionally administered lie detector test (bolstering her credibility). https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?utm_term=.477677e64df7
Trump and his Republican allies are saying full steam ahead and are refusing to delay a vote on the nomination. Nevertheless, in the age of #MeToo, it would seem prudent to at least investigate the claim and show respect for a potential victim of the kind of behavior that movement has sought to address. What do you think?
It is difficult for me to understand how it would be even possible to investigate an incident which allegedly occurred at a teenage party in the early '80s. Eye witness testimony has been proven in various criminology studies to be very unreliable, with conflicting versions emerging amongst eye witnesses even 24 hours following an incident.
ReplyDeleteThere is also the topic of repressed memories. About twenty years ago, the topic of implanted memories, allegedly brought to the forefront of the minds of patients receiving therapy came into play when hundreds of parents were falsely accused of having sexually molested their children.
Also, in the culture of the 1970s and '80s, successfully "scoring" young men on a "date" often took things just as far as they could sexually, right up to the point of rejection. Even this was weakened via adult libations and the occasional street pharmaceutical. I'm not saying that this was right or ethical behavior, but so many activities which are now recognized as being wrong, and career-enders, used to be common practice in dance bars and at parties, especially amongst teenagers. And, of course this time context is why such "he said-she said" allegations even have credibility in the first place. It's like stories of baby-boomer presidents having partaken of certain herbal delights back in the day.
If anyone had solid proof or a corroborating witness that could testify or prove that the act had been consummated, or that battery had been involved, or if judge Kavanaugh had demonstrated a pattern of this sort of behavior beyond this single allegation, who amongst us would not want him to be punished or to disappear into ignominy for his crimes?
I really blame Rush Limbaugh for polarizing America. It was he who schooled his conservative radio audience to no longer compromise. This was when bipartisan flexibility in the Congress began to dry up, and gridlock and radicalism became the inevitable result. Unfortunately, if taken to conclusion, this school of thought will lead to a second civil war.
One very minor point. Does anyone know if Judge Brett Kavanaugh is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice? I believe that point has somehow become misplaced.
BB
You make excellent points about the extreme difficulty an investigation of this nature would present for those tasked with performing it. Nevertheless, if anyone had a shot at conducting a "successful" investigation (one that would contribute to our ability to evaluate the claim), I would say that the FBI would be the most likely to do so.
DeleteDr. Ford has, after all, named other people as being present at the party (and at least one other male as having participated in the incident). Also, we have been told that she has spoken to several other people about the incident (both at the time and years later) which, if it's true, has the potential to enhance her credibility. Moreover, it may be instructive to investigate the culture of these schools during that time period relative to male/female socializing.
I completely agree with you about the polarization of America. Folks like Limbaugh have succeeded in demonizing anyone who disagrees with them and have further inflamed emotions on both sides with their incendiary rhetoric.
Finally, what qualifies one to be a Supreme Court Justice? Is ideology a legitimate component of defining who is/isn't qualified? How would one characterize the educational and experiential credentials that would be appropriate for such a position? What about honesty and temperament? And would your characterizations of the appropriate background be the same as the 100 senators who are required to pass judgment on such things? Is it possible to really be prepared for a position at this level?
I don't have the answers to all of the questions I just asked, but it does seem to me that the standards for this job interview should be much higher than we might expect for most other jobs. After all, we are talking about someone who will be contributing to decisions that will impact the entire nation and will be for life!
By the way, it's good to know you're still out there - hadn't heard from you in a while.
DeleteThanks. Thing is, after nearly 20 years of commenting, I get a sense of deja vu almost every time there is a new post or entry on the regular sites. Once I resolve philosophical issues in my own mind, I generally don't have the missionary zeal to win arguments or convince others. It has been my opinion for some time that the perennially argumentative types are generally seeking resonation with others, and in some cases, self-validation. That is wishful thinking in environments where freedom of opinion and free speech prevail.
DeleteThese days, I am more appalled by the new political radicalism emerging from the right. Obviously, there are some trends which have been ongoing over the past decades which require remedy or reversal. However, the alt.right is pushing for ludicrous "reforms" that diminish our standing in the world community, our communal stewardship of planet Earth, and our humanity as a nation. What I see suddenly evolving around us is worse than the neocon influences in the early part of the new millennium.
I appreciate what you are doing here, and the opportunity to comment on the many ways that partisan politics is negatively affecting our real time, present lives. After all, that is where we must live, extracting for ourselves and our families and friends what we need for mental, physical, social, spiritual, and emotional health.
BB
Thank you for taking the time to comment. Like you, I'm not interested in winning arguments. I do, however, like to provoke thought and engender more appreciation for different perspectives/opinions.
DeleteI am very concerned that many of our fellow citizens (like our former church culture) have cut themselves off from anyone who might have a different view and are living in self-reinforcing bubbles. I've said it before - liberals watch MSNBC and conservatives watch FOX, and never the twain shall meet. Talk about being divorced from reality!
I also share your concern that this hyper-partisanship might someday lead to another civil war. The folks on the other side don't just have a different view - they're stupid, evil, degenerate or unpatriotic.
I believe that the genius of the American system is that it forces compromise - the founders saw this as a good thing. By forcing both sides to meet in the middle, we avoid the pitfalls inherent in the extremes. Again, thanks for contributing.
I have no intention to disturb the flow of well grounded thoughts. Perhaps only a few additions from my perspective.
ReplyDeleteI hear about a new radicalism from the right. Could this trend be a reaction to greater trends affecting the status quo of the American empire and its descend from unipolar power to power among others? (Political and economical) Rapid societal and demographic shift. An Obama presidency that philosophically meant a radical shift from long established policies that used to define America.
For many it is all too fast and to much.
The neocons were philosophically recognizable as one of the radical threads in Americas tapestry. Unfortunately they unleashed (economic) forces that politics was unable to restrain. (clinton lifted the rules on banks)
Unleashed capitalism and the forces of globalization in an increasingly international level playingfield increased the divide between the haves and have nots who remained unprotected against the unbridled force of the market while nothing trickles down.
Leaders just emerge on the larger waves and act more like symptoms than the solution. Therefore perceived to be part of the system they seem to be unable to direct toward a just society.
Nck
nck, thanks for taking the time to comment. Thirty years ago I was a registered Republican and considered myself to be fairly conservative (although I've always had what many would consider to be liberal views on environmental and some cultural issues). I've been an independent voter now for many years. I don't know what one would call the ideology of the current Republican party, but I certainly don't recognize it as being anything like the party of Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole.
Delete1)
ReplyDeleteOn yes Miller. Change is constant.
Early 1900 hundreds had its ideological reaction versus industrialisation. Reform movements wanted to "restore" "small scale America." versus corporatism. The great contra offensive of rural agricultural small city america versus new industrial big city america. Industrial society as a threat to the values of the American republic. The fusion of Jeffersons"agrarian myth" with the "frontier myth" came to an end ......As long as America was able to renew itself through conquest the soul of America was safeguarded!
Nostalgia and the loss of the myth of agrarian paradise at the end of the 19th century.
(SOME RELIGIONS EVEN SPAWNED FROM THAT MINDSET placing emphasis on just that THE RESTORATION OF AGRICULTURAL BLISS for a thousand years)
But the frontier never was what the mythmakers had made of it in hindsight. The simple battle between forces of good and evil, the brave little pioneer. NO, in reality there were the corporations, the railroad, mining, transport industry. That was reality.
Reaction
1) Total rejection (of the business world of the immigrant)
2) Alexander Hamiltonian acceptance of the new but subject to the old (THROUGH GOVERNMENT)
3) Accept the new to realize the social and cultural ideals of small town america
Looking backward by Edward Bellamy 1887. (about the psycological universe of the protestant citizens as carier of the reform movement since 1880. Orderly, decent, culturally and socially homogenous.
Bellamy and the National Movement.
Populism.
1891 People's Party or the populist movement.
It started with farmers feeling the effects of America's entrance on the WORLD MARKET. Prices slid. Deflation. A result of economic liberalism that favored INDUSTRY.
Reaction
"an evil conspiracy of the '" One percent" ...The Populist rallied behind William Jennings Bryan 1896.
Populist ideology worked for the restoration of a world that did not know worker - immigrants. To restore "the olden values".
The republicans fought William Jennings Bryan and the Democrats withdrew to rural America.
The Populist movement died and reincarnated in the Progressive movement as the only coherent ideological alternative for an industrial order that had never succeeded to legitimize its existence......Now it was the Rising Middle Class and Upper Class, the new middle class that wanted reform for they were convinced to know how to rule the industrial society but had no power to proof it. (SOUNDS LIKE A FAMILIAR CONSTITUENCY)
Ambition. Self confidence. "Idea men" went around to gather intelligence on how to rule the new industrialized society. They were the rising middle class seeking power. The goal was to EDUCATE America. To democratize it. (ordinary middle class people would be rulers (gods). The goals of the Progressive movement was ethic renewal.
To eredicate party politics "the primary " was introduced so outsiders could oust a "party man".
Theodore Roosevelt and the progressive movement. Brought it to the federal level. (a hero of a certain someone) A nation should be larger than the sum of individual pursuants of self interest.
Roosevelt versus extreme conservative Democrat candidate. Roosevelt adopted ideas of the Progressives. Pure Food and drug law and Meat Packing act 1906. Regulation, protection of consumers. Roosevelt the first EDUCATOR of the Progressives. The first MODERN President. Inspired perhaps by Herbert Croly The Promise of American life. 1909. New Nationalism. Republicans shocked moved Taft forward.
Wilson profited from this fight between the Republicans. "The new Freedom" To restore small town america by restoring sovereignty at the grass roots led from the top.
2)
ReplyDeleteTHE 1920's. TRIUMPH of the reaction.
Coolidge and Harding.No alcohol, no immigration., bible fudamentalism. 1924 National Origins Act 1915 KKK, 1925 John Scopes trial and evolution.
HUGE PARADOX of the cultural reactionaries fighting against the downward slide of morals and FAVORING THE VERY MECHANISM THAT HAD CAUSED it (or at least the massive change in american
society INDUSTRIAL capitalism. (SOUNDS FAMILIAR, the Unseen hand as a tool of religious conservatism?)
Behind this historic fair occured the revolution of mass production and consumption goods. Godfearing citizins could buy a car now even if there was the danger of their youngsters necking and petting in that very same product of capitalism and mass consumerism that changed society beyond recognition and paradoxically away from the "small town values."
My point. 1880- 1920 - 1950. Fascinating period for understanding the current divide in America.
nck
When you think deeply enough about it, it becomes so obvious that the Industrial Revolution exacerbated and accelerated the Holocene Extinction, and in so many ways. Still, I am not one of those who believes that returning to a "Little House on the Prairie" existence is the solution. I believe that the problems we face as a planet are of such magnitude that they require global solutions, or at least global cooperation. That is extremely difficult when you have a president who insists on opening issues by pissing people off (note the skillful shift from intellectual approach to blue collar "man on the street") just to gain the advantage. That is a common practice in some niches of the business world, but it will never function equally and fairly in matters which require global cooperation. Twentieth century wars have been started by very similar people.
ReplyDeleteYesterdays speech at the UN was horrifying. Though it was GWB who signed the "The Hague invasion act".
ReplyDeleteGWB, Cheney and Rumsfeld will never travel outside the USA again for fear of an international arrest warrant. Although I do know of some who are internationalist but content in the comfort of their natural habitat.
Ivanka though is learning extremely rapidly. Perhaps a nice under secretary one day or an ambassador to the chech republic when shes wrinkled a bit.
Nck