Thoughts on Kavanaugh

This is derived from my response to another person's post on Facebook. I have no idea whether Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed by the Senate, and I will not speculate on the outcome.

I hear four valid issues in the Kavanaugh matter:

• Our society's obvious and shameful history of consistently tolerating sexual assault,
• The fitness of Kavanaugh as an individual to be on the Supreme Court,
• Fair treatment of anyone — not Kavanaugh specifically, but including him — accused to have committed a felony by another person where there is little or no directly substantiating evidence, and
• Using a person's behavior at ages 15-20, whether prosecuted (and convicted) or not, as a reason to deny him or her something in adulthood.

All four points are serious and worthy of debate individually.

Meanwhile there are people unconditionally opposed to Kavanaugh, and there are people unconditionally supportive of Kavanaugh. From what I can tell, most of the time an unconditional position arises from what those particular people think of Roe v Wade (one way or the other). I think it's possible to separate the Roe v Wade discussion from the four points I've outlined above, but it's not possible for some folks to separate them.

I am reminded of National Lampoon's Animal House, released 40 years ago. There's a scene when one of the fraternity brothers says, "The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests. We did." Then the character winks as if it's ok. I am also reminded of things I saw happen at my almost-all-male university during undergrad school. Women have a right to be mad.

I did stupid and regrettable things in my younger years. Although no felonies were involved and certainly no sexual assault, I would not want any of those moments to be dredged up if, for example, I were to stand for public office. In that sense I have a general empathy with people in Kavanaugh's situation, but my general empathy has limits.

As to Kavanaugh's fitness to be a top-ranking jurist, it seems to me that more than sufficient questions have been raised about him aside from the allegations of assault. Furthermore his behavior under pressure was poor. Even Clarence Thomas did better. There are many other conservatives whom the Republicans could put on the Supreme Court. They should have nominated someone else to begin with. Perhaps that will yet happen. Another nominee won't address the concerns of some about Roe v Wade, but that's inevitable in the status quo.