Last Word: Brett Kavanaugh was cleared by the judicial process

Isaac Osborn, Contributing Writer

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.

Email This Story

In the BU Democrats’ First Word article, many similarities are drawn to the case of Justice Clarence Thomas and the case which has gripped the news recently, regarding Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The BU Democrats, however, duly acknowledged that the setting around the case has altered in many major ways since the 1991 confirmation of Justice Thomas: the presence of more women in power, technological advances and the #MeToo movement. The general argument of the article was apparently that although the cases are so similar they were being treated quite differently. It was said about how in Justice Thomas’ case he won the nomination by a measly 4 votes.

Yet the claims made by Anita Hill, although of course awful in nature, are not nearly as severe as the claims brought against Justice Kavanaugh by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. The supposition being posed is that while worse claims were being alleged, more leverage was being given to Justice Brett Kavanaugh than in Justice Clarence Thomas’ case. This is arguably not the case at all.

Many people expressed uncertainty over whether there would be enough votes to pass the Kavanaugh nomination. As it turned out, this nomination was the closest Supreme Court confirmation since Stanley Matthews in 1881.

The intensity of poor press and mudslinging did much to contribute to this, although, as reported by CNN, Kavanaugh was polled as historically unpopular, even before allegations came out against him.

One difference between the two cases brought up by the University Democrats was in the credibility of the accusers. It was said of Dr. Ford in the article that, “Doctor Ford has no clear, exploitable faults in credibility or character”, but a recent letter might suggests otherwise.

A letter by an ex-boyfriend of Dr. Ford details how she in fact purportedly lied about several hundreds of dollars charged to a credit card, had traveled around Hawaii in a propeller plane and lied about coaching a friend for a polygraph test, although denied.

The propeller plane claim is relevant is because Dr. Ford had initially expressed her grave fear of flying in order to give her testimony in front of the Senate.

It is also worth noting she admitted in her testimony to being what might be considered a frequent flyer, making yearly trips back to see family in mainland US. As for the letter, these accusations were uncorroborated, but worth noting this was a statement given under penalty of perjury.

Additionally, Monica McLean, the friend of Dr. Ford alleged to have been helped for the polygraph test, made some comments in a recent story.

According to The Wall Street Journal, she told FBI investigators that she felt pressured by Dr. Ford and her legal team to revise her statement about not having any recollection of the events described by Dr. Ford.

As for the conduct of her legal team, they neglected to turn over certain vital records, including psychiatrist records, polygraph records and communications with the Washington Post. This would certainly call into question the veracity of Dr. Ford.

The allegations brought forth by Dr. Ford are quite obviously horrific in nature, but at best they are accounts which have no corroborating evidence.
As written by the BU Democrats, “We have no conceivable way to prove Kavanaugh’s guilt unless the newly ordered investigation gives way to new evidence.” This is not what we saw. The FBI investigation did not reveal or provide any new material.

Everyone mentioned by Dr. Ford either has no recollection of the events or has denied them. The evidence was and isn’t clear and this should be taken into account.

In the First Word it is said the question of the matter does not lie in Kavanaugh’s guilt or innocence, but in the difference in how it is being handled. This is what is concerning and is even alluded to in the quotation, “Brett Kavanaugh exists to the public in a quantum position of both guilt and innocence.”
Kavanaugh’s name has been thoroughly besmirched by these allegations.

It seems there was a disregard of this by saying, “there are thousands just as qualified, without allegations against them,” with the implication being he should have been just tossed aside.

There are some counties in which the accused are in fact guilty until proven innocent, countries such as China, Japan, and Turkey to name a few. However, as we know in America the accused are innocent until proven otherwise.

As in the case of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, we should remember, he was and is due this right. To allow for mere allegations to tarnish anyone outright sets a dangerous precedent of mob rule.

On both sides, the foremost question should be of the particular evidence of a particular case, and upon this determine if their life is worth ruining.

Isaac is a freshman Digital Forensics major and a member of the BU Republicans.