The Brett Kavanaugh Hearings: What Does Justice Look Like?

You must not distort justice; you must not show partiality; and you must not accept bribes, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of those who are in the right. Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, so that you may live and occupy the land that the LORD your God is giving you. (Deu 16:19-20)

You shall not render an unjust judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great: with justice you shall judge your neighbor. You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not profit by the blood of your neighbor: I am the LORD. (Lev 19:15-16)

Anyone who has spent time reading the Bible knows that justice is a big deal to God. Over and over again, He challenges Israel not to distort justice, and over and over again he condemns those in power who do, in fact, distort justice. Such sentiments are on virtually every page, especially the prophets. Of course, that leads one to some obvious questions: “What does justice look like? What does it mean to pervert justice?”

Now, in the Old Testament, perversion of justice almost always went hand in hand with idolatry: when rulers turned away from YHWH and started following after false gods, they soon became deaf and blind to any real sense of justice and began to render judgments that crushed the innocent and attacked anyone they felt was a threat to their power. Biblically speaking, injustice ultimately is an outgrowth of idolatry of some sort.

At the end of my book The Heresy of Ham, in which I not only warned about the dangers of young earth creationism, but also about the dangers of the growing ultra-fundamentalist mindset within Evangelicalism,  I wrote a few pages about my fear about how Christians on both the political Right and political Left were essentially guilty of political idolatry—they were more GOP than Christian; they were more Democrat than Christian—and the result was this growing tendency to cherry-pick verses in the Bible and then contorting them to justify their own pre-conceived political bias. Simply put, they were guilty of taking the Bible and re-shaping it to fit their own preferred political image. That is idolatrous, pure and simple. And in my book, I expressed concern that when Christians end up doing that, that could spell disaster for our country.

We as a country currently find ourselves in a situation that is putting all my fears on full display: the Brett Kavanaugh hearings. The flood of memes and commentary on social media, as well as the analysis on cable news of the actual hearings themselves, have been shocking to me. What has been shocking to me, though, has not been that people have strong opinions about this. What has been shocking to me has been the kinds of things upon which people are basing and forming their opinions. Article after article, writers are saying things like, “After hearing Ms. Ford’s testimony, I was convinced—she seemed so credible; her emotions seemed genuine,” but then, “After hearing Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony, though, I was convinced that he was credible too—he showed real emotion and seemed genuine.” Two days ago, during the Ford-Kavanaugh hearing, a constant refrain of countless news commentators echoed this very thing: it is all about how he/she comes off in front of the cameras; what is going to matter isn’t the actual truth, but can each person come off as credible?

Let’s cut to the chase: how Ms. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh appeared before the cameras is utterly irrelevant to the pursuit of justice. If you base your judgment on their emotion and whether or not you feel they are being genuine, then you are not practicing justice. What we are witnessing in this whole thing is not an exercise of justice—it is an exercise in putting forth an image to convince people based on emotion. That is not how justice works. In both the news commentary during the hearings and the articles over the past two days there is a clear admission that we as a country aren’t looking for actual truth so that we can administer justice. We are concerned with image, and people will be swayed to render their verdict based on which image seems to be more credible. That is what idolatry is. In our case, it is political idolatry–our political parties have become our false gods. And if that is the case—and sadly, I believe it is—that means that we are no longer a country who values justice. It means we are an idolatrous country who is willing to let images pervert true justice.

When justice is perverted, the sad fact is that most people don’t realize it. There is instead just an uneasy feeling throughout the country, people are on edge, tempers easily flair up, and there is a lot of arguing and slander thrown around. People are so certain in their own subjective feelings, but at the same time there is utter bafflement at what is going on around them: “I am so certain! How can anyone not see that I’m right?”

Full Disclosure
That brings me to the topic of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings. But since we are living in such a hyper-partisan time, where our knee-jerk tendency is to try to pigeon-hole everyone along political lines, let me say a few things in full disclosure: (1) I’ve always leaned politically right, but have routinely been accused of being a secular liberal by those on the Ken Ham/Alex Jones far-right fringe; (2) I was disgusted by Donald Trump in the 2016 election and did not vote for him because I found him to be morally repugnant in his personal life and shockingly reckless in his rhetoric—in fact, in one of the debates, I got so angry with him that I took to Facebook and said I wanted to slap him and tell him to go to hell; (3) Trump’s volatile and inflammatory tweeting is horrible. That being said, (4) he won the election, fair and square, (5) I do not believe he colluded with Russia, and (6) aside from being a generally horrid human being, he hasn’t done anything illegal in office. On top of that, (7) I’ll be honest and give him credit for the booming economy, low unemployment, and yes, unprecedented progress with North Korea. Finally (and this is relevant to the Kavanaugh issue) (8) I thought the GOP was wrong to not even allow Merrick Garland to have a nomination hearing. Even though I did not like Barak Obama, presidents get to choose SCOTUS nominees and Congress is obligated to give them a hearing.

The Kavanaugh Hearings
What makes the recent allegations of sexual abuse by Christine Blasey-Ford against Brett Kavanaugh so volatile is that we are in the midst of the MeToo movement, and a lot of powerful men have recently been exposed for sexually abusing women. A lot of women have suffered sexual abuse of some form or another and have never gotten justice. And although the fact is that a lot of these men have finally been exposed and are now facing justice, the whole process is causing a lot of women who have suffered abuse in the past to relive their experiences. Tensions and emotions are high across the board, for both women and men, and like it or not, that provides fertile soil for the possibility that people in power can play upon the heightened tensions, emotions, and biases in society to pervert justice for their own ends.

When I was a kid, a childhood friend got beat up by two black kids—not to the point where he went to the hospital or anything, but your generally “getting beat up” that sometimes happens with kids. As a result of that, though, he started to voice suspicion of all black people. I remember thinking that was wrong. Just because he was beat up by two black kids, he couldn’t let his personal experience cause him to condemn all black people. Even though he was legitimately beat up, to condemn all black people because of his personal experience would be wrong and unjust.

I tell that brief story because I think the same applies to what we are witnessing with the Kavanaugh hearings—the abandonment of justice, due process, and the rule of law in favor of emotional appeals and uncorroborated allegations. And so, in what follows, I want to give a brief take on the Kavanaugh hearings and the recent sexual abuse allegations by Ms. Ford. I want to focus on three things: (1) what we actually know about both her allegation and the political timeline since she brought her allegation to Diane Feinstein, (2) questions I have about the allegation and the hearings, and (3) what I fear is really going on.

I write this post with a fair amount of hesitancy, because I know people who legitimately believe Ms. Ford’s allegations and genuinely believe Kavanaugh is guilty, while at the same time I have seen plenty of things on social media that strike me as dishonest, partisan hysteria motivated by political power. And so, my appeal to those whom I know who genuinely believe Kavanaugh is guilty is this: just listen to what I try to say—at the very least I hope you can come to the conclusion that even though you may still believe Kavanaugh is guilty, you can acknowledge that the way this whole thing has played out looks really suspicious. As for those people who are more interested in the politics of personal destruction—I have nothing to say to you.

What We Actually Know
So what do we actually know as factual in regard to Ms. Ford’s allegation? I am not going to go into minute detail. I am just going to focus on what I feel are the more major points.

1. She claims that when she was 15 and Kavanaugh was 17, that he and Mark Judge sexually assaulted her in a bedroom at a party. She thought Kavanaugh might kill her and was trying to rape her, but she escaped when Judge jumped on them, and they all fell down.
2. She doesn’t remember the house or the specific time it happened.
3. She claims that she and four other people were at this party, and none of them corroborate her story. Her close friend claims she never has met Kavanaugh, doesn’t remember any such party, but that she believes Ms. Ford anyway.
4. We know that she brought her allegation to the attention of her congresswoman, and then Diane Feinstein, in July 2018, and that she obviously wanted the allegation to be considered as Kavanaugh was being considered for SCOTUS, but that she didn’t want her name to be known.
5. We know that Diane Feinstein didn’t bring the allegation to the FBI for almost two months, during the time they were doing their background check on Kavanaugh during the nomination process and could have looked into the allegation while protecting Ms. Ford’s anonymity.
6. We also know that during this time, Feinstein’s office was recommending Debra Katz to be Ms. Ford’s lawyer.
7. We know that somehow Ms. Ford’s name and allegation were leaked to the press after the Senate Judiciary Committee’s official hearing on Judge Kavanaugh was finished.
8. We know that there was an immediate demand for another hearing. When Senator Grassley announced there would be another hearing, the Democrats objected and demanded that there be another FBI investigation. In the second hearing, the Democrats continued to press for another FBI investigation, claiming it would only take a few more days, so what was the rush?
9. Then yesterday, after the committee voted 11-10 for Kavanaugh’s nomination to go to the Senate, they then requested for, and the White House granted, an extra week for the FBI to do a supplemental investigation. Immediately, Ms. Ford’s lawyers objected to there being any artificial timetable for the investigation or limit to the scope of the investigation.

All those things are irrefutable facts: That is what Ms. Ford claimed; that is the extent of her allegation; and that is a basic timetable of relevant events since she brought her allegation to Diane Feinstein. I am not passing judgment on the veracity of Ms. Ford’s allegation—I am just stating what we know to be factually true.

Questions I Have about the Allegation and the Hearings
Now, in a just society with the rule of law, mere allegation alone cannot be the basis for conviction or a declaration of guilt. There has to be something to corroborate the allegation. To be perfectly blunt, even if a perpetrator actually did commit a crime, if the person making the allegation cannot make a case and provide evidence to prove that case, then that perpetrator is going to get away with the crime. He will be declared “Not Guilty”—not “Innocent,” mind you, because our justice system does not determine innocence. It can only determine whether or not the allegation has made a case to prove guilt. Therefore, if you cannot prove guilt, a just society cannot inflict punishment on the accused.

Now someone might say, “Well, this is just a hearing and a job interview, not a criminal trial.” I’m sorry, but that does not give one license to accuse anyone of the most heinous of crimes and then attempt to try it in the court of public opinion without putting forth any evidence. It is really simple: if you make an accusation, you have to back it up with proof and facts. You still have to make a case—that is what justice is all about.

Furthermore, to attempt to arrive at a just decision, one also has to challenge the allegation to see if it holds up under scrutiny. In this case, though, that has been really difficult. As soon as Senator Grassley announced there would be an extra hearing, Democrats and many in the media started screaming how unfair it would be to have “old white men” question Ms. Ford. And so, because the GOP was concerned with image and how things would look, they brought in Rachel Mitchell to do their questioning for them. And, quite predictably, the Democrats and many in the media complained that this too was somehow patriarchal—some even accused Mitchell of being Aunt Lydia from The Handmaiden’s Tale.

During the hearing, Ms. Mitchell’s questioning of Ms. Ford turned out to be, by all accounts, rather tepid and tame. Simply put, everyone found it rather boring—what was the point? It didn’t really achieve anything. No one in their right might could ever come to the conclusion that the GOP senators or Ms. Mitchell denigrated or attempted to bully Ms. Ford. That is why everyone—both Republicans and Democrats—came away with the same conclusion about Ms. Ford’s testimony: she seemed credible.

And she did. But let’s be clear, a major reason she seemed credible is because for the most part, no one dared to question her about her allegation. There was no scrutiny. There was no attempt to test her allegation to see if it held water. And for true justice to work, allegations and accusations have to be tested. Regardless of whether or not Ms. Ford is telling the truth, the plain fact is that her allegation was never put to the test in that hearing. People’s conclusions about her allegation were based solely on how she came across—the image she portrayed when she testified. There literally was nothing else. Again, let’s assume she is telling the truth—the fact is that there is no proof of it. She hasn’t made a convincing case.

And at this point is where another problematic scenario plays out. Time and time again, both with the Democrats and in the media, the question comes up: “Of course she is credible. Of course she is telling the truth. Of course Kavanaugh is guilty—Why would she come forward if it didn’t really happen?” And the temptation is to attempt to answer that question: “Perhaps this could be the case, or that could be the reason, etc.” And as soon as you try to answer that question that is posed to you, immediately the response is something like this, “How dare you question her! This is why women don’t come forward! They are not believed! We must always believe the survivors!”

Do you see what is happening? It starts with an assumption that the allegation is true, and therefore an assumption of guilt; it then asks what other reason could there be for her allegation if it isn’t true; and it turns any attempt to answer that question into an attack on the accuser. It essentially prevents anyone from doing what is required in order to achieve justice—namely, question and test the allegation for its veracity. If you want justice, that is something you simply cannot do, because the fact is that women, as well as men, sometimes lie; they sometimes are mistaken; there are a whole host of possibilities at play. That is why we have the justice system we have—it is set up to test accusations and allegations to make sure they can prove guilt. We do not presume guilt; we presume innocence. And therefore, it shocked me to hear US Senators say in public that Kavanaugh had to prove his innocence. No—that is not justice, pure and simple.

In any case, after watching Ms. Ford’s testimony, I had a few questions that I think are relevant:

1. Last week, Ms. Ford’s lawyers objected to the hearing because they claimed she was afraid to fly, and that fear stemmed from the time of the alleged sexual assault when she was 15. But then we learned that she routinely flies everywhere, around the world, in fact. Why would they claim she was afraid to fly, when in fact she routinely flies?
2. We also learned that Ms. Ford had no idea that Senator Grassley had offered to send investigators to her in California, so that she wouldn’t have to fly—her lawyers never told her that was offered. Why didn’t they?
3. When Ms. Mitchell asked Ms. Ford about her reaction to the fact that her friend said she never recalled such a party that Ms. Ford described, Ms. Ford’s response was, “My friend has health issues, I hope she gets better.” What does that have to do with anything?
4. In regard to the whole process, if the Democrats wanted Ms. Ford’s allegations to be investigated by the FBI, and if they wanted to respect her request for anonymity, why didn’t they give the information to the FBI during the previous six weeks, when they were, in fact, conducting an investigation of Kavanaugh? That seems odd to me.
5. How did the information of the allegation of Ms. Ford leak?
6. What are we to make of the fact that during the time Kavanaugh was meeting with all the senators during the nomination process, Diane Feinstein not only had the information of the allegation, and not only did not give it to the FBI, but was, in fact, advising Ms. Ford on what lawyer to get?
7. I also noticed that the Democratic senators routinely said, “This isn’t a criminal trial,” and that all they really wanted was that Kavanaugh withdraw his nomination. I’m sorry, but if what Ms. Ford is alleging is true—and if it is true that Kavanaugh waved his penis in the face of a girl in college; and if it is true that as a high schooler he helped coordinate a teenage gang rape ring—I would not only want him not to be on SCOTUS, I would want criminal charges brought and him to end up in a prison cell next to Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein. The charges leveled against him warrant something much more than just a withdrawal of a nomination. And yet, the Democrats are not pushing for that, and neither Ms. Ford nor the other two women have filed actual criminal charges. Why not?

I feel that all of those are legitimate questions. They are not “attacking the victim,” but are rather legitimate questions to test the veracity of the allegations. And given the fact that there simply is no corroborating evidence, that the way the allegation has come to light is rather mysterious and questionable, and the odd fact that no criminal charges have been made against Kavanaugh for what would clearly be horrific crimes—all of that simply does not lend credibility to Ms. Ford’s allegations. If we want real justice, all of those things have to be taken into consideration. If we want real justice, we cannot ignore all that and conclude that Kavanaugh must be guilty and Ms. Ford is telling the truth because Ms. Ford came across well on TV, and why else would she come forward if it wasn’t true?

Such reasoning is the equivalent of saying, “I can tell a person is innocent or guilty just by looking at ‘em.” And that should never be the basis for justice.

What I Fear is Really Going On
At this point, what I am about to say obviously is not “the facts,” but simply my suspicions. To the point, if Justice Kennedy’s seat was not seen as the “swing vote” on SCOTUS, I highly doubt any of this would have come up. If the GOP had not refused to even give Merrick Garland a hearing as Barak Obama’s SCOTUS pick, I doubt any of this would have come up. If the Democrats were not afraid that abortion rights might be affected with Kavanaugh on SCOTUS, I doubt any of this would have come up. And if Donald Trump had not been the one who nominated Kavanaugh, I doubt any of this would have come up.

Simply put, I fear that what we are witnessing is not an attempt at justice. What we are witnessing is sleazy politics. I have been told so much by numerous people on the Left that this really is about getting revenge for the GOP’s blocking of Merrick Garland. Numerous Democrat leaders have effectively said they believe Kavanaugh is guilty because of his judicial philosophy. And I’ve seen numerous online articles that argue that of course Kavanaugh is guilty of assault, because Trump would only nominate people like him.

I’m sorry, that is not what justice looks like.

Yes, when the GOP blocked Garland, the Democrats rightly cried foul and the GOP lemmings just parroted the GOP party-line, refusing to acknowledge that it was a sleazy political move. It clearly was. And sadly, the tables have now turned, and I fear it is the Democrat lemmings who are just repeating the Democrat talking-points, refusing to acknowledge that all this simply does not add up.

Unfortunately, in this day and age of instant information, 24/7 news coverage, and social media, we the people are pressured to broadcast our verdict based on our subjective feelings, personal experiences, and whether or not we feel the accuser and accused put forth the “right image” on our TV screens.

None of that is what justice looks like. All of that is a recipe for the worst kind of perversion of justice and manipulation of people’s emotions, biases, and fears.

What Would Justice Look Like?
So what is my take on all this? Simple: Ms. Ford has made a serious allegation, but there is no corroborating evidence. She has not convinced me that Kavanaugh is guilty. Even if he really did what she is alleging, a sense of justice impels me to conclude that as of yet she has not made a convincing case. That’s it.

But what would justice look like in this case? Again, it should be pretty straightforward and simple: Ms. Ford, Ms. Ramirez, and Ms. Swetnick should file criminal charges, and if there is enough evidence, Kavanaugh should be put on trial and be convicted of these sex crimes.

As of yet, though, no criminal charges have been filed. They have just been splashed in the media. That is not the proper way to have justice.

Justice would have looked like Dianne Feinstein alerting the FBI to investigate this when it could have been done respecting Ms. Ford’s anonymity.

But of course, that did not happen.

If the FBI comes back from the supplemental investigation with new information and corroboration of Ms. Ford’s allegations, then justice would look like the withdrawal of Kavanaugh’s nomination, the beginning of criminal charges, and possibly Kavanaugh ending up in prison. But if the FBI comes back from their supplemental investigation and there is no evidence corroborating Ms. Ford’s claims, then justice would look like a full affirmative vote for Kavanaugh in the Senate.

I personally don’t think anything new will be found. I also do not think that the Democrats will be satisfied. I am certain that social media will blow up with cries of how there wasn’t enough time, and how everything is unfair. If and when that happens, I hope more people will start saying enough is enough. Still, if something damning is found, though, then I will agree with the Democrats and condemn any Republican who continues to support Kavanaugh. We’ll have to wait and see either way.

But of one thing I am absolutely certain in all of this: We are no longer a just society, our politicians are not interested in justice, and we have allowed ourselves to be manipulated by malevolent forces that have convinced us that the way to pursue justice is to base our verdicts on subjective feelings, personal biases, and party affiliation.

No…that is a lie from the pit of hell. That is why everything seems to hellish now.

The way of peace they do not know, and there is no justice in their paths. Their roads they have made crooked; no one who walks in them knows peace. Therefore, justice is far from us, and righteousness does not reach us; we wait for light, and lo! there is darkness; and for brightness, but we walk in gloom. (Isa 59:8-9)

Justice is turned back, and righteousness stands at a distance; for truth stumbles in the public square, and uprightness cannot enter. Truth is lacking, and whoever turns from evil is despoiled. The LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no justice. (Isa 59:14-15)