Former WSJ and now NYT opinion editor Bari Weiss was on Stephanie Ruhle’s show to discuss whether or not attempting rape disqualifies a person for the SC.
WEISS: By all accounts -- and by the way, Harvey Weinstein, Nate -- we could go through them. The ones that have stuck, there's been a pattern. By all accounts, other than this instance, Brett Kavanaugh has a reputation as being a prince of a man, frankly, other than this. Now, I believe her. I believe what she's saying. I'm just saying, in the end of the day, it is one word against another. [...]
WEISS: What about the deeper, moral, cultural, like, the ethical question here? Let's say he did this exactly as she said. Should the fact that a 17 year old, presumably very drunk kid, did this, should this be disqualifying? That's the question at the end of the day, isn't it?
RUHLE: Wait, hold on. We're not talking about should he be disqualified to be a dog catcher. We're talking about to be a Supreme Court justice.
WEISS: I'm aware.
Hold on again, we aren’t talking about nominating a 17 year old kid, we’re talking about nominating a 53 year old man, who denies that he attempted to rape a 15 year old.
He has neither admitted it, now has asked for forgiveness from the alleged victim.
Given his denials, it is quite curios that every right-wing defender is rushing to add: “Well if he did it, it’s all so long ago, and he was a drunk 17 year old, that it just doesn’t matter”. It’s almost as if they know all too well that the allegation is believable and want to immunize themselves for the moment when we find out it is.
To her credit, Ruhle challenges Weiss and asks her and demands we consider shifting our norms and stop excusing such behavior.
RUHLE: What if someone was chosen who doesn't think this is acceptable? What if women like you and I and every other woman we know can say we've had similar-ish things happen and we've accepted it? What if this is the moment to finally say, you know what, let's actually take a stand, and not say, this is life, people get drunk, yikes, and actually move in another direction and say this does disqualify you. Let's find another pick.
WEISS: Yes. I'm just saying -- what's striking to me is that -- I guess I'm thinking of it today from the perspective of, let's all think about our worst instance that's happened to us in this world and imagine it paraded out in front of the country. And that most men we know -- It's a horrible reality. I'm just saying -- I'm interested in the deeper cultural thing, it's a disgusting reality about our broken sexual culture.
— www.mediamatters.org/...
Conservatives are all for individual responsibility when a poor or black/brown kid sells weed. That kid definitely deserves to have the book thrown at him/her and to be locked up for ever. He/she should have known better.
But when a “nice”, “well-dressed”, “educated” man makes a terrible “mistake”, such as attempting to rape a 15 year old, well, then we really must look at our “broken sexual culture” and do our best to see this “prince of a man” for his admirable qualities.
Isn’t that word, “prince”, revealing? Prince Kavanaugh of Bethesda is, after all, entitled to get away with a few things that common serfs cannot. It’s the divine right of kings, and it’s as American as apple pie.
You see, we shouldn’t be interested in whether or not Brett Kavanaugh was at this party, or whether he assaulted a 15 year old. Those are all unknowable things. Ms. Weiss has already cast doubt on memory as “capricious” and said it’s “he said, she said”. So facts are unknowable and we should focus not on the individual responsibility for actions, but on our “broken sexual culture”.
And this focus on “broken sexual culture” isn’t meant to improve it, it’s purely brought up to excuse Brett Kavanaugh. Because if Ms. Weiss was interested in fixing our “broken sexual culture”, she would ask what the impact of denying Brett Kavanaugh the nomination would be. But what she does is the exact opposite, she invokes societal ills not to correct them, but purely to excuse an extremely privileged man and foam the runway for his landing on the Supreme Court.
What a crock of bullshit the right wing argument is.
And it is a co-ordinated right-wing argument. There’s nothing original about what Weiss is saying. She is parroting exactly what her former colleagues at the WSJ have written today.
The vagaries of memory are well known, all the more so when they emerge in the cauldron of a therapy session to rescue a marriage. Experts know that human beings can come to believe firmly over the years that something happened when it never did or is based on partial truth. Mistaken identity is also possible. [...]
It would also be a serious injustice to a man who has by all accounts other than Ms. Ford’s led a life of respect for women and the law. Every #MeToo miscreant is a repeat offender. The accusation against Mr. Kavanaugh is behavior manifested nowhere else in his life. — www.wsj.com/...
Just like Bari Weiss, the WSJ starts out by questioning Dr. Blasley’s memory. To spice it up, they throw in a reference to “therapy” and “rescue a marriage”. The purpose is to cast doubt on the veracity of her story, but it’s too costly to call her a liar, so they pretend she’s just a confused woman going through a break-up. And we all know how crazy they are right? Why, they even suffer from “mistaken identity”.
Then they move on to the standard line, that this is Kavanaugh’s single infraction (remember, he still hasn’t admitted it), and ever nice public school boy gets one attempted rape pass on the way to the Supreme Court.
Is there a more despicable line of argument? We are supposed to believe that the institution of the Supreme Court and respect for the rule of law will be well served by a rush to elevate a man with a cloud of sexual assault surrounding him?
Of course, this is all about the politics and about stealing Supreme Court seats for 30-40 years. The WSJ’s editors admit as much:
GOP Senators should understand that the political cost of defeating Mr. Kavanaugh will likely include the loss of the Senate. Democrats are already motivated to vote against Donald Trump, and if Republicans panic now their own voters will rightly be furious. They would be letting Democrats get away with the same dirty trick they tried and failed to pull off against Clarence Thomas. — www.wsj.com/...
This is doubly revealing. After all the evidence we’ve seen over the years that corroborate Anita Hill, the WSJ insists on calling her testimony at Clarence Thomas’s hearings a dirty trick.
Let this be a lesson for Democrats. If Kavanaugh is confirmed and it is later revealed that he did in fact assault Dr. Blasey, we can expect the WSJ to call us dirty tricksters 27 years from now, in 2045.
I’ll let Anita Hill have the last word, go read her whole op-ed:
In 1991, the Senate Judiciary Committee had an opportunity to demonstrate its appreciation for both the seriousness of sexual harassment claims and the need for public confidence in the character of a nominee to the Supreme Court. It failed on both counts. — www.nytimes.com/...
— @subirgrewal