Tag Archives: Supreme Court

More on Kavanaugh, the #Metoo Movement, and the eternal youth of white people

Kangaroo

The Judge Kavanaugh defense is a shameful farce on all fronts. First off, the preemptive strategy of selling him a great basketball coach and father to two daughters, surrounding him with young girls when they initially presented him was very suspect. They never did that for Judge Gorsuch. Also, it was very suspect that the Republicans had a signed testimony from 65 women who attests to Gorsuch’s good character in high school well-prepared prior to the allegations about him attempting to rape women ever surfaced. Why was there ever a need for such a document? Does Gorsuch have a similar document at the ready during his confirmation process?

The most common defense, which something Donald Trump has echoed, is that the women are liars, that they are confused or that they have an agenda. This is the oldest, most sexist defense of all. Tucker Carlson, in his most un-self-aware moment of television, even compared the whole unfolding fiasco to the Salem witch trials, to which, if I remember the play correctly, involved women being falsely accused and foregoing reason in favor of a moral panic. It is doubly ironic because at the moment, Republicans in Congress don’t even want to investigate the women’s allegations. So no investigations… they are simply all liars, and the poor judge is a victim of hysteria and political assassination. The Salem witch trials seem more thorough in comparison.

But what’s more disturbing is the now growing defense of letting boys be boys. The judge was seventeen at the time (and his accuser was 15). Boys will always be aggressive, and men should never be judged for their actions as children. Forget that the action in question was attempted rape. And as time passes, it would seem to be a pattern of organized attempted rapes and sexual harassment. CNN, in an effort to be non-partisan, has been parading women defending the action of boys, poor boys who are merely acting on their hormones. Besides, what happened was more than 36 years ago. If it did happen, it was far too long ago, and the good judge has grown to be quite the upstanding citizen, so upstanding that he’s earned the nomination to be the next Supreme Court judge.  But let me count the ways on how awful this defense is.

  1. Minority children are often never afforded the same courtesy of being young and immature. They are more often prosecuted as adults and described as menacing. Look at what happened to Trayvon Martin. He was shot for walking in his neighborhood. He wasn’t attempting to rape anyone. And closer to Donald Trump, look at the Central Park Five which he campaigned to be sent to prison despite being proven innocent of gang rape. They were 15 at the time. Being young and innocent is often a white privilege. Minority children are treated as grown men way too soon while white men are treated as men way too late. Want proof? Look at Don. Jr. He’s a grown man with kids, but he’s often talked about like a bumbling teenager.
  2. Saying that boys will be boys, that these things happen, and that groping is as innocent as snapping bras for teenagers is basically admitting to the fact that the judge probably did what he was accused of doing. If so, that would make him a liar, wouldn’t it? A teenage boy who sexually harassed women and attempted to rape them in his “youthful innocence” is far from the straight-laced Christian he is selling himself as. Also, that would make him someone who lied in front of Congress. People get disqualified applying for jobs when they openly lie in front of their potential employers.
  3. It is never okay to attempt rape at any age. It is not a teachable moment. And when the judge’s supporters say that the #Metoo movement makes every man a target, it doesn’t. It makes every rapist a target. It makes everyone with sexual harassment or assault in their past a target. I don’t have any sexual harassment in my past whatsoever. I’m not intimidated by the #Metoo movement at all. I have not come close to what the judge is being accused of doing. I’m sure a lot of men have nothing to fear from it as well.
  4. Consent is key and it should be within context. The women accusing Kavanaugh say that they never gave consent especially as minors. I would hate to live in a world where a minor consenting to sexual relations is judged as valid as consent from a grown adult, especially in a setting as a high school party filled with drugs and alcohol. That’s a horrible setting to assign a legally-binding consent. Now, contrast this with the way Kavanaugh treated the relations between President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, two consenting adults.
  5. The whole notion of restorative justice relies on the fact that the perpetrator of the crime admits to the crime and has reformed and is no longer a threat to society as a whole, making amends to those he/she has wronged in the process. When people say that the events took place long time ago and that the judge is now reformed, they ignore the fact that the judge has never admitted to anything. No confession, no apology, no restorative justice. How can there be justice when the very existence of a crime and yes, even victims, is simply denied? If anything, the whole fiasco reeks of a separate crime in itself, a cover-up.

What is interesting is that Kavanaugh recently admitted to being a virgin in high school in order to disprove the rape allegations. He is willing to say that he was a popular student and an athlete who never had a sexual encounter in high school rather than admit to being a tad too aggressive and admitting to mistakes. Instead of being weak and human, he chose to go to an even higher moral pedestal. Boys and girls, not only was he richer, smarter, and more popular than you, Jesus also loves him more. Of course, it is much, MUCH easier to admit to being a virgin in high school and taking on its stigma after so many years has passed, now that you have nothing much to lose from it. Compare that to admitting you were an attempted rape victim back then and taking on death threats.

I initially though that Kavanaugh will ultimately be confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, but the events of the past few days had me rethinking my initial prediction. I could still be correct, but there is a growing possibility that he would not survive this and that he could very well lose his district judge position. Here’s hoping that he does lose everything. The world is a dumpster fire at the moment, which is why I still think he could still become a Supreme Court judge, but I really wish in a few days, there would be one less rapist in a position of power.

After all of this is over, what would leave a bad taste in my mouth is how allegations of sexual misconduct is still treated pretty much the way it was in the past, even after the #Metoo movement. It’s very reminiscent of Saudi Arabia, where the victim faces a tremendous hurdle for proving a crime has been committed after overcoming the sometimes impossible hurdle of admitting a crime has been committed, and even then, both the victim and the accused face consequences. There is still victim blaming… what was she wearing, why was she there, what time was it, what was she drinking, etc. Ignoring the fact that biggest factor in being raped is to be in the midst of a person who happens to be rapist. We still haven’t learned anything.

Ugh. As I said, the world is a dumpster fire, and it still must suck to be a woman sometimes.

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

So Much for Justice

Narcissus

Judge Brett Kavanaugh should be disqualified simply for the fact that he can’t even appear intelligent in hiding his opinions. He repeatedly excused himself from answering questions by refusing to respond to hypotheticals, which I’m actually quite surprised that no one pointed out was the actual job of the Supreme Court. The highest court in the land is supposed to judge laws not only based on the facts of the case, but also on the precedent it would create, the hypotheticals.  This is why being a Supreme Court justice is a highly political position.  So for a nominee to refuse to answer whether a sitting president could be indicted on a crime based on the fact that the question is a hypothetical, seems like an abandonment of what a judge is required to do as well as a demonstration of disrespect to the hearing process.

I really admire Sen. Kamala Harris cornering him when he asked him whether he has discussed Robert Mueller’s investigation with any of Trump’s lawyers. His long equivocation in asking for specific lawyers’ names which eventually descended to an “I can’t recall” which the next day evolved into a “no,” is a glaring signal that this person is hiding things. Heck, the fact that there are documents hidden from members of the committee and public should disqualify him immediately. If it walks and talks like a shady and dishonest character, it probably is a shady and dishonest character.

And really, trying to explain to a room full of lawmakers repeatedly what a precedent means is amateur hour, not to mention condescending. It is Kavanaugh’s inartful attempt of wasting time.

As for the question of whether a sitting president could be indicted. Kavanaugh was part of the team that tried to bring down Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He asked the most personal and nonsensical questions regarding the affair. Back then, a president could not lie to save his reputation or his marriage, otherwise he should be impeached. Now that Trump is president, Kavanaugh is equivocating whether he could be indicted for more serious crimes. No one living in a democracy should allow for a president not to be indicted for crimes. That is what a democracy is. Obama should not be allowed to murder his chef the same way Trump should not be allowed to behead Stephen Miller without being prosecuted. Presidents are not kings; they are not above the law. The only question is whether it should be done while the president is in office or not, and whether Congress would impeach him and begin criminal prosecution.

In my opinion, despite all of this, I think Kavanaugh will be installed as a Supreme Court Justice. Republicans have the votes and their opposition is far too weak to stop his confirmation. There are simply no heroes among the Republicans, and no strong leadership among the Democrats. I really hope I’m wrong, because if Trump became president through several criminal acts (collusion, campaign finance violation, etc.), why would he be allowed to nominate an arbiter who would ultimately decide whether he could be indicted for crimes in an office which he gained through criminal means. It’s a turducken of legal fucked-up-ness.

BTW: Why aren’t lawyers, professors, and everyone involved in law protesting this? This is a brazen attempt to co-opt the judicial branch into an arm of the Republican Party. I’m not so naïve to think that it hasn’t been co-opted by politics in the past, but this is so brazen and the consequences are so great that it’s a wonder why aren’t more people outraged that this whole process is even allowed to take place.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Dead Judge

Seoul_graffiti

So Judge Antonin Scalia passed away and the US presidential election got even more interesting. The current president still has eleven months to nominate a judge, and really, there’s no reason he shouldn’t. Whoever he nominates of course would be met with opposition from the people on the other side of the political spectrum, but to not nominate anyone would seem like an abdication of duty. It would be interesting to see the opposition and how the president could push the nomination through. Even Megatron, a robot that literally transforms into a gun, would face strong opposition from the right.

Judge Antonin Scalia, in my opinion, was one of the worst judges ever. Sure, there were a few times when he sounded reasonable and his writing style can be amusing, but all too often he was pro-torture, a champion of states’ rights (which in practice meant taking away people’s rights), and a pro-life nut. In many cases involving race, he refuses to recognize the disadvantage of being a colored minority in America. He was backwards when it comes to marriage equality, and has been described by Congressman Barney Frank as a homophobe. He was pro death penalty, even to those under 15 at the time of the crime. He was one of the judges which gave George Bush the presidency, which ironically led the US to Iraq, which led to his son being in Iraq. One of the worst decisions he made was the defense of the Citizens United decision and redefined personhood, free speech, and corruption.

Still, in his death, even some liberals lionized him and praised his brilliance. He was brilliant as a judge, but not as a human being regarding those judgments. It’s like praising Hitler for being a great leader in the most mechanical of senses, but a terrible human being. In the future, I’m hopeful that we’ll see him as being mostly on the wrong side of history.

As ghoulish as it is to look at the positive side of his passing, this is a good opportunity for Americans to finally tip the scales of the political leanings of their supreme court. In some ways, I’m a tad jealous of this. The Canadian Supreme Court has seven out of nine court judges appointed by conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The Chief Justice is a libertarian, but she’s currently 72 years old and the mandatory retirement age for judges is 75. The Harper-appointed judges are anywhere from 50 to 68 years-old. Granted, the Supreme Court of Canada hasn’t been as conservative as one would expect. In fact, it often went up against the Harper government that nominated most of its members. The court was against mandatory minimum sentences and protected safe injections sites among some of its more progressive decisions. There were often talks about the Harper government losing to the Supreme Court, especially when it comes to drug cases. But it’s not nearly as progressive as one would expect out of Canadians. (Or perhaps I’m being foolish here and looking at left and right politics in a branch of government designed to ignore such leanings. But that’s just being naïve, isn’t it?)

This is one of those rare cases where I look at the South Korean justice system and see what the Canadian and the US system could benefit from it. In South Korea, judges in the supreme court are not given a lifetime appointment. They’re only given four years. A four year appointment, in my opinion, might make them open to political sway, especially when considering their position after their appointment, much like politicians turning into political lobbyists. However, a lifetime appointment doesn’t insulate a judge from political forces either. Just look at Clarence Thomas. Perhaps a middle position would be wise. Instead of a lifetime or a near-lifetime appointment, maybe a ten-year appointment would be better. It would ensure the regular flow of new blood into the judicial system and not have political legacies continue long after they’re in fashion. Looking at Scalia, he was Reagan’s ghost, a two-term president who extended his influence far longer than his eight years. This seems to be counter to what a democracy should be.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Advertisements