In Support of Christine Blasey Ford

We have recently heard about the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, the judge that has been nominated to the Supreme Court by Donald Trump.  Christine Blasey Ford has accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault.    

It is being asked, mind you after the year of #metoo, why is Ford coming forward now.  Is this politically motivated?  Has she made it up?

I can tell you, it is very understandable that Ford has waited this long.  I am telling you as a man who has not experienced sexual assault, but as someone that has experienced a childhood full of personal degradation from the very people that are supposed to be your biggest protectors, my parents. 

In the 50’s and early 60’s, parents were given all the room they needed to raise their children, even if that meant there were clear signs of abuse.  Some of my abuse from my parents was even witnessed by family members and teachers, yet nothing was said to me or done to stop it.  (I must add, after rereading the blog post, there was one teacher that witnessed the degradation in her classroom after school hours.  It included my father hitting me more than once.  The next day, the teacher did approach me during the school day and asked if I was okay.  I said yes because I didn’t want to make things worse.  Maybe if I just keep my head down, this will pass.)  You take that as being your fault and that this is just normal life.  Everybody must go through this.  Your expression of outrage, pain and in the long run, depression is met with indifference.     

That indifference is the secondary society abuse that you receive.  It may not be direct physical abuse but is just as damaging to the soul.  Here you have been degraded to second class citizen in the family unit and now society (and the extended family) disregard your expressions and walk away from you.  Leaving you alone to deal with the problems on your own.

When overpowered by someone else, as I was by my parents, you believe that you did something to encourage the abuse.  You believe that nobody will believe you.

In Ford’s case, she was over powered by a man in one of the most degrading ways possible.  She was not in control of her own body.  She has also been quoted as saying she was in fear of her own life. 

Ford’s statement about her treatment would have been treated as mine.  Plus, at the time and certainly to this day, her gender makes a big difference. Woman are treated differently.  Their statements about abuse and assault are treated with indifference.  You shouldn’t have been in the room.  You must have done something that encouraged him.  You must have liked the attention. 

Does all that sound familiar?  You need only reread the preceding paragraphs about my own experiences to see there are not only parallels and similarities, but they are the same thing. 

All of this means you bury it.  But, even buried, it causes many problems in your life, even if you not be aware of it.  Afterall, isn’t that the lesson you learned from the society around you when you mentioned it? 

Then something changes.  Life comes down on you.  As a person that has been nurtured correctly by your parents or who has not had to bury deep and harsh trauma, you respond well.  You address the issues that you face, solve the problems and build a happy life.

But, if you have had trouble in your life and you are thinking of yourself as a second-class person, you don’t respond well. 

For me, it was facing all the responsibilities of being on my own.  Since my parents had taught me that I was unable of sustain my own life without them, I begin to fail at some of the most fundamental issues of life.  Yes, it was all the practical ones like managing my everyday life, but more importantly, it was personal relationships and not having a feeling of at least a small measure of happiness.

It sent me into hell.  In therapy, I had to dig into every pile of shit that I had pushed to the backroom of my mind and relive them.  Yes, relive.  Because, by reliving them you are given the opportunity to draw more life affirming conclusions that enable you learn to deal with the pressures of your life. 

For Ford, she went into therapy also.  This was before Kavanaugh.  She wasn’t waiting for him to be nominated to the Supreme Court, as if she knew some day he was going to be.  She went for personal reasons.  She wanted what I wanted and what every single person in this world wants, a small slice of happiness and peace.

Ford needed to relive the experience, as horrifying as that is, and draw a different conclusion.  That new conclusion is that Kavanaugh must be held responsible for his actions.

Now, I am here to tell you, Ford will still be held to some of the same societal indifference and degradation today as she would have been 30 years ago.  I know I am.  I have even given up explaining my childhood abuse to most people today because it is way to difficult to get past the first reaction most come up with, “Oh, every child has those same experiences, get over it.” 

For Ford, it is, why are you bringing it up now?  If you don’t understand the answer to that question, then you must be held as responsible as Kavanaugh.              

The Constitution is over rated

Every time we get into a discussion about rights, we argue over if it is allowed by the Constitution of the United States.  It has become our go to document on the rights of human beings.

But, think about these issues.  Rick Santorum thinks that we don’t have the right to privacy because the word privacy isn’t mentioned in the Constitution.  Also, don’t look to the Constitution to insure that you are innocent until proven guilty, it isn’t there.  While the Constitution outlines many ways that States can’t deny someone to vote such as by gender or race, the document doesn’t guarantee the right to vote.  As a final example, but not the end of the misconceptions, the words “separation of powers” can’t be found in the Constitution.

The Constitution may be a guide on our rights, but is not the final word.  If we were to only have those rights that are numerated in the document, we would limit ourselves.  Even if we made an attempt to list every right, it would still be an incomplete list.  Many of the people that helped write the Constitution were leery about adding the “Bill of Rights” because there were concerned that it would be seen as a complete list.  They didn’t see the document as the final say on our rights, which we retained, but limiting what the government could do.

Need an example?  Remember a few years ago when cities around the country were taking property and giving it to developers?  The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution, led by the strict constructionist, said that property could be taken and given to developers that would increase the tax base of the city.  In just a few short months, states past laws that made it illegal.  Even though the Constitution seemed to allow the taking of property, people across the country realized that we had more rights than listed in the old document and enacted laws that guaranteed those rights.  (This is happening again in our country.  Property is being taken by the states of Texas and Oklahoma for the pipeline.  Something the Republicans have wanted to do for a long time and that Obama was trying to protect until he reversed course.)

Something is over rated if it is seen as being more than it is.  The Constitution of the United States is a great document, one that every country should adopt.  But, it is not the final word on our rights, it is just the base.  We have plenty more than listed and we should work with legislatures to ensure those rights.

-----

Supreme Court Justices should keep an open mind

I guess it gets down to just not caring about appearances.  Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court justices, dined with some very powerful people just the other night.  That, in itself is not worth a blog post. It just happens that these people will be the lead lawyers in the challenge to the Affordable Health Care Act before the Supreme Court in March.  That matters.

Judges at all levels should at the very least look like they have not formed an opinion before a case is argued in their court. Judges at the federal level are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate to keep them out of politics and party positions. If they did belong to a party, it might affect their judgment on cases that come before their court. When nominated, the prospective judge comes before the Senate Judiciary committee to seek approval. At that hearing, it is expected to hear them say that they can’t comment on issues that might come before the court. That might indicate that they are not approaching each case with an open mind. There are many other situations that they should avoid that might prejudice their opinion about issues.

So why is it okay for Scalia and Thomas to have dinner with the lead challengers to the Affordable Health Care Act? This wasn’t just a dinner with some friends. It was a banquet for the Federalist Society. It is an organization that advocates for conservative ideas in government. The dinner was sponsor by two law firms, Bancroft PLLC and Jones Day. Both will be representing conservative interests in their challenge before the Supreme Court. Scalia and Thomas are the featured quests.

Scalia and Thomas have long histories of supporting conservative ideas. This is, of course, their right as citizens of the United States. But, when they are the featured quests at a dinner that wants to get rid of the Affordable Health Care Act, it is no longer just a personal opinion. It is an appearance of already forming an opinion.

This is not in the best interest of our community.

-----

Don't exclude a voice

It is a curious thing when one side or the other say that they are adamantly opposed to something, then turn around and use the issue to support their action. It doesn’t matter if it is the left, the right or what seems to be the lonesome middle, everyone does it.

In the book, “The Nine”, Jeffery Toobin documents such an incident. The book is about one of the longest reins of a single group of Supreme Court Justices in history. It covers the years from the late 70’s to the 90’s. On July 1, 1991, George H. W. Bush announces from the summer White House in Kennebunkport, Maine that he is nominating Clearance Thomas to the Supreme Court. Thomas is to replace Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to set on the court. Yet, in the announcement, Bush claims that the fact that Thomas, “is a black and a minority has nothing to do with this” nomination.

Many years later the country would debate if nominees had enough experience as a judge, it any at all, to be a Supreme Court Justice. Yet, Thomas had served as a judge for only a year. Again, many justice nominations later, the country would debate that if it was important for nominees to have experience as an appeals judge. Again, Thomas never served on any appeals court nor argued a single case in front of an appeals court. The country would debate the value of a justice that has not been published – as in writing a book, an article or a legal brief of any magnitude. Yet, Thomas did none of those things and was nominated for the court.

It also caused a bit of trouble in another way that made many Republicans uncomfortable at the time, and may still. Thomas and other stalwart members of the Grand Old Party didn’t believe in preferential treatment because of race. Yet, this nominee and soon to become justice, was selected for nomination because of the color of his skin.

The truth is, in politics we make these same choices every day. If the intention is to exclude a race because the group is unqualified in its entirety, then it is an act of evil. It is a decision that has no basis in fact nor has any virtue at all.

But, if someone was selected, in part, as a sincere attempt to broaden the voices of opinion then it is a sound and valuable process. Regardless if we want to admit it, all races bring a different perspective to any opinion. The various lives that all Americans live may lead us to a common opinion. But, the many paths that were followed may provide a road map for the great diversity of individuals. To not consider the background and the race of an individual given the same ideologies is to deny the wisdom that comes from this American Experience.

Politics and the resulting community that comes from it is not an exact science. It is not like math that always gives the same result for the same variants. Community is a social science. Most of the time we are not making black and white decisions. (Perhaps a curious choice of words given the discussion.) Community deals in shades of grey. A discipline more akin to soft logic then the cold realities of 2 plus 2 equals four.

While there are absolutes that are common to all, communities survive because we consider all of the voices, not because we deny any one of the voices.

-----

Senator Graham did the right thing

There doesn’t seem to be much that the Responsible Community and Senator Lindsay Graham from South Carolina have in common. But, just this week, Senator Graham voted to support the nomination of Elena Kagen to the Supreme Court of the United States. In a statement released later, the senator said that he has a constitutional obligation to honor President Obama’s choice, so long as she is qualified.

"I could give you 100 reasons on why I could vote 'no.' No one spent more time trying to beat President Obama than I did, except maybe Sen. McCain," Graham said. "But I understood we lost."

For as long as there is a Supreme Court, the country will debate what makes a good supreme court justice. But the fundamentals are simple, under our constitution the president nominates the candidate, the senate provides advise and consent if they know the law. The senator admitted in the statement that President Obama won fair and square and that he could find no fault in her knowledge of the law.

This is clearly a politician that is supporting appropriate policy that the Responsible Community wrote about in a previous blog post. (Voters should make choices based on policy not personalities or parties) Politicians and other public officials should be supported for the policies that they propose or support. Personalities and parties often fail or have it wrong. But, if the specific policy they support will do good, it doesn’t matter who proposes it. In this case, the Constitution is clear and Senator Graham did the right thing.