Tensions Over the Kavanaugh Nomination: What’s Right

Max Goldenberg, Maroon-News Staff

Christine Blasey Ford is being used. That seems like it should be obvious at this stage. The sudden airing of a three-decade-old allegation at the midnight hour before a Supreme Court appointment, the shady circumstances surrounding Senator Diane Feinstein’s airing of her claims to Congress and the inherent nature of an allegation that would take years to factually confirm as true make it painfully apparent that the nature or truth of Christine Blasey’s story matter profoundly little to those seeking to use her to block Kavanaugh’s nomination  and with it, so to is trampled the concept of intergovernmental justice.

Blasey’s allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh is a very serious one, particularly in the wake of the recent #MeToo movement. While the movement was an undeniable cultural victory for America as a whole, calling out a great number of exploitative scumbags like Harvey Weinstein, it has had some negative consequences, above and beyond the most important being the rise of a rabid media and public environment clamoring for the concept of guilty until proven innocent, or, in other words, that accused individuals must prove their innocence instead of a court proving their guilt. Nowhere has this been more apparent than the Kavanaugh case  and due to the fact that Feinstein and her political subfaction are aggressively opposed to granting him a court hearing until an FBI investigation is conducted, Kavanaugh hasn’t even had the chance to defend himself before a court of law.

Ignoring the fact that an FBI response to Kavanaugh’s case would break protocol due to lack of a federal crime, the Kavanaugh case has been handled with the judicial equivalent of a filibuster, preventing Kavanaugh from being able to defend himself with evidence and subjecting him to an absurdly extended waiting period, where the only court he is able to consult with is the court of public opinion.

Ultimately, are Blasey’s accusations true? The problem with answering that outside a court of law is that saying “maybe” makes you look sympathetic to rapists, especially if the accusations are true. But if they turn out to be misremembered, it’s not going to be held against you in the modern political environment if you said “yes”  even though Kavanaugh is a father and a husband himself.

No matter what the truth of the situation is, this is a profoundly ugly part of American politics and culture, either in the form of wanton sexual abuse or in the trampling of both victims and parliamentary protocol for political ends. The fact that Christine Blasey could be a victim of a very serious crime has been completely supplanted by the fact that the allegation is dirt against Kavanaugh, and endless political maneuvering with intentionally ridiculous demands ensure that neither Kavanaugh nor Blasey see the fair and just court that they should have a right to as American citizens.

Regardless of your opinions of Kavanaugh, and despite the fact that most media outlets are treating allegations as sentencing, passing judgment before a serious trial commences is deeply unethical and goes against what we stand for  or should stand for — as a nation. Blasey’s experience should not be reduced to a vicious attempt at borking, or her trial delayed until the opportunity to appoint Kavanaugh has long since passed. Ultimately, we need to remember that believing a victim is not the same thing as claiming the accused is guilty, and that fair, just and speedy trials are the cornerstone of what justice has to mean as a unified and democratic nation. The mere fact that our political system could oversee an intentional obstruction of justice for political ends is an abomination, and if, as Feinstein’s faction claims, this blatant corruption is necessary for the progress of justice, the question must be asked — what kind of justice are we progressing towards?

Contact Max Goldenberg at [email protected]