Reserve judgment
There is only one way to clear the air
Nothing is simple or straightforward in the matter of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
There are only questions, and questions upon questions.
But this much is certain: For Americans, including members of the press and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to decide what they think is true about what happened at a party many years ago based on politics or ideology is wrong.
There is a place for Supreme Court politics. There always will be. Liberal Democrats who believe in a “living Constitution” — one that is continually reinvented by judges in light of current conditions — have every right to vote against a jurist who is an originalist. This is especially true in light of balance on the court seemingly tipping with the appointment of Judge Kavanaugh.
A senator has this right. He or she may vote on jurisprudence, as well as character, though historically Supreme Court nominations have turned on character.
Mr. Kavanaugh, during his confirmation hearings, showed himself to be a first-rate legal thinker, if a conservative one. And by almost all accounts, personal and public, from women and men, he has shown himself, in his adult and professional life, to be a man of the highest character.
But now his character is at issue because of the accusation by Ms. Blasey Ford that Mr. Kavanaugh attempted to sexually assault her when Mr. Kavanaugh and Ms. Blasey Ford were both teenagers at an underage, drunken party.
And that is perhaps a key consideration here — both individuals were minors.
Ms. Blasey Ford has now said she wants to make her accusation in public. And so she will — next week. The confirmation hearings will essentially be re-opened. And she will be heard.
But some of those troubling questions must also be asked:
• Why was this accusation not brought out in the initial hearings, especially since Sen. Dianne Feinstein was in possession of it for many weeks?
• Did the senator raise the matter with the judge in their private meetings together?
• Why did Ms. Feinstein not turn this matter over to the FBI months ago?
• Is there, or should there be, some sort of agreed upon, informal statute of limitations for youthful offenses, sins and errors? And if so, should this include various forms of assault?
• How reliable is memory in cases like this? • Is there any way to corroborate the accuser’s story?
• If the story cannot be corroborated but some senators believe it anyway, is this a just reason to vote against Mr. Kavanaugh’s confirmation?
• Most men who abuse power and/or abuse women have a pattern of doing so — a track record, so to speak. Have multiple FBI background checks, for several important jobs, revealed any such pattern or record in Mr. Kavanaugh’s case?
• This accusation has been made within a larger context, not of bipartisan or transpartisan hearings, but highly partisan ones. One waited for the Democrats to find a smoking gun, even a small one, so desperate were they to defeat this man. Can we separate this context from this accusation, even if, for the person who made it, the accusation is 100 percent true?
If Ms. Blasey Ford’s story true, what does it say about the sort of young men who grow up to be men of power in America?
If it is not true, what does it say about what we sometimes do to decent and honorable people who brave public life in our country?
Both the accuser and the accused have said they are willing to testify under oath. This will happen, too. Both will be under oath when the Judiciary Committee reconvenes next Monday. Very possibly it will be a circus. And, in the end, many of these questions, and maybe new ones, will remain. But this — an open forum under oath — is the only way Americans, their leaders and the principals in the drama can walk through this jungle of accusation, recrimination and consequence, intended and unintended.
Let’s walk through it together, with as much goodwill and sense of fair play as we can muster. Let’s not prejudge. Let’s listen and watch and think.