What Is Dr Ford Doing Now That She Has Lost Her Claim Agains Kavanaugh
As I write this, I accept no idea what will happen with Gauge Brett Kavanaugh'due south Supreme Court nomination. But I practice accept a few observations on what's happened so far:
"Believe the women" is bunk, and nobody really means it anyway. Nosotros heard that mantra in 2 of the well-nigh famous fake-rape cases of recent years, the Knuckles lacrosse case and the University of Virginia/Rolling Stone case. In the erstwhile, the prosecutor who believed the woman in question wound upwardly losing his law license; in the latter, Rolling Rock wound up facing millions in damages. In both cases, stereotypes about "privileged" athletes and fraternity brothers encouraged many people to believe stories that were rather shaky, and to shame those who expressed doubts as rape-enablers.
Only there was no rape; it was all made up.
Nosotros're now hearing the same kinds of things from opponents of Judge Kavanaugh. But a story is true or not based on its facts, non on who the accuser, or the accused, happens to be. To know what happened here, we need facts, not stereotypes.
People believe what they desire to believe
And then there'due south the case of Keith Ellison, deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He's accused by a quondam girlfriend of domestic violence and abuse, but only v% of Democrats in Minnesota believe the charges, co-ordinate to a poll past the Star Tribune and Minnesota Public Radio, despite evidence of a doctor's note that includes her allegation of concrete corruption. Ellison, meanwhile, says the woman, Karen Monahan, is lying, and warns that there may be more false accusations to come up. Believe the women? Not and so much.
People believe what they desire to believe, at least until the evidence is overwhelming. (And sometimes even then.) And calls to "believe the women" tend to be pretty opportunistic — something that Juanita Broaddrick, who defendant Pecker Clinton 2 decades ago of rape to no effect, has been noting on Twitter.
The Supreme Court is besides powerful. Confirmation fights are then contentious because the Supreme Court is in many ways the most powerful office of our government. It's the but one whose rulings can't be overturned by an election, and it'south closely divided. The makeup of the Supreme Court is then important that it plays a major role in elections for the presidency and for the Senate. This is a profound distortion of our constitutional scheme, one that'due south bad for the court and for the country.
More than:Hypocritical politically motivated feminism is killing #MeToo. Just ask Keith Ellison.
Make the Supreme Court lots bigger. It's not a priesthood, it should represent America.
Trump plays it safe with Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh'due south gold-plated resume
We've become too tribal. For decades, the consensus favored bringing Americans together, across divides like race and religion. Merely things don't work that mode now. Every bit Andrew Sullivan writes: "Afterward a while, the crudest trigger points of tribalism — your race, your faith (or lack of information technology), your gender, your sexual orientation — dominate the public space." He underscored his bespeak with this from Quillette founder Claire Lehmann: "The Woke Left has a moral hierarchy with white men at the lesser. The Alt Right has a moral bureaucracy that puts white men at the summit."
Politicians, as I've noted here before, probably know that tribalism is bad for the larger gild. But it benefits their political positions, and we no longer have potent enough societal norms to control it. If we don't develop such norms, the result will be bad.
Social media make things worse. In that location are some nice things about the immediate interaction made possible by sites like Facebook and Twitter. But social media — peculiarly Twitter, where most of the political/journalistic types hang out — tin can be destructive, too. Ideas and one-half-broiled theories spread like wildfire, amplified past algorithms that emphasize "appointment," which requite more attention to the ideas that people love or hate the near.
Maybe cameras and good government don't go together. Watching senators posture during the Kavanaugh hearings this month, a young man law professor observed that he was now convinced having cameras in federal courtrooms was a bad idea. He may well exist right. At whatever rate, having cameras in the Senate certainly hasn't improved the quality of senatorial work.
Theatrics have not improved our government
Perhaps we should only get rid of confirmation hearings entirely. Though people take the practice for granted now, information technology'south actually of relatively contempo vintage. The first hearings involved the confirmation of Justice Louis Brandeis in 1916, and information technology happened because anti-Semites were reluctant to approve a Jewish associate justice.
For many decades later on that, hearings were held but the nominee didn't accept questions. The showtime time a nominee took questions from senators was Potter Stewart in 1959, and that was because of concerns by segregationists.
It'southward difficult to argue that either the Senate or the Supreme Court has improved since. Possibly we should eliminate the theatrics.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a Academy of Tennessee police professor and the author of "The New Schoolhouse: How the Information Age Volition Relieve American Educational activity from Itself," is a member of Usa TODAY's Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @instapundit.
Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/24/kavanaugh-ford-supreme-court-facts-not-tribalism-stereotypes-column/1404258002/
0 Response to "What Is Dr Ford Doing Now That She Has Lost Her Claim Agains Kavanaugh"
Publicar un comentario