The silver lining to the ugly Kavanaugh-Ford hearing

Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford agree on at least one thing.

It’s terribly wrong when two men and a woman, inebriated in a locked room at a house party, engage in sex acts without consent by all involved.

Whether that actually happened depends on who you believe.

Either way, neither defends that as appropriate behavior.

This is the silver lining in the ugly nomination process for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh and his “(I) believed he was going to rape me” accuser, Ford.

The sexual revolution in this country has gone too far.

Kavanaugh and Ford agree on that.

No boundaries

A man should not touch a woman’s private parts unless both have rings on their fingers and both consent to it.

Anything looser than that, and we’ve begun traveling a slippery slope from “he made me uncomfortable” to “he raped me.”

That’s why we need boundaries. We must talk with each other, and to listen to each other intimately.

Men and women are wired to desire each other. That’s in our nature, the way we were created.

When done right, physical touch is beautiful in every sense of that word.

When done wrong, we get Kavanaugh-Ford scenarios. And worse.

Who decides what’s “right” and “wrong” in today’s anything-goes society?

Young boys are by nature aggressive, touching, tasting and learning. Where are the parents to teach them boundaries, especially where young girls are concerned?

What are the boundaries, anyway?

This is the question no one is asking.

Loose morals vs. strict morals

We know what’s wrong when it happens, when a girl or woman feels uncomfortable or says no. Can we not learn from the mistakes of others and prevent harassment from happening in the first place?

No, we can’t, because we do not know what the boundaries are.

Your values are different than mine are. This is not a male vs. female question. This is “loose morals” vs. “strict morals.”

kavanaugh

If Kavanaugh and Ford attended the same party, either they were friends or they had mutual friends, which means Kavanaugh and Ford likely had similar moral values at the time.

If that locked-room incident happened, Kavanaugh crossed a moral line. But he (and Ford) crossed an earlier moral line by getting drunk first.

Why didn’t their parents prepare them for such scenarios by giving them a moral leg to stand on? (Parents do have the authority to tell their teenager he or she can’t go to a certain party. And parents should know who their friends are. That’s what good parents do.)

Second chances

Here’s another thing we don’t understand in this country: second chances.

If we are looking for perfect people to rule on the Supreme Court, we’ll never find them. If we’re looking for the perfect spouse or lover, we’ll never find that person, either.

Let’s assume that Kavanaugh is guilty of the harassment he’s being accused of 40 years ago. My question to him then is: Have you learned anything from that? Do you still do such things?

He’s married with two daughters. Has he earned their trust?

If he has, I have a question for you:

Does that count for anything?

I attended my school’s ninth-grade dinner dance, and never dated after that in high school. I wasn’t ready for relationship then; I was too naïve and immature, and I knew it.

I’ve had only one girlfriend, and I married her.

I haven’t left bits and pieces of myself with other women. For those of you who have: Could that come back to haunt you someday in the form of a harassment charge?

I’m not saying I’m completely innocent. Every man who’s ever lived, including me, has looked at a woman with desire.  Have I ever made someone uncomfortable? No one has told me so, but if I ever ran for public office, I might find out otherwise.

That’s the culture we live in today.

Innocence lost

Where is the innocence of life? Even our children lose this far too young.

 

“Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit ’em, but remember, it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”

That was the only time I ever heard Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it.

“Your father’s right,” she said. “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don’t eat up people’s gardens, don’t nest in corncribs, they don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”

Page 90, To Kill A Mockingbird, copyright 1960 by Harper Lee

 

Where are the mockingbirds today? Harper Lee wrote that in 1960, the year I was born. In the book, a mockingbird was killed, figuratively speaking.

We are still killing them today.

Are there any mockingbirds left?

Where is joy in life, pure joy, just the feeling of happiness to be alive? Who has it?

Anyone?

Are there still one or two mockingbirds hiding somewhere, just waiting to come out?

Too often we hurt each other, not just in harassment cases but in other ways too. A harsh word. Selfishness. Anger. Theft.

No boundaries. No rules. Little compassion. No respect.

And we wonder why abuse happens.

We’re looking for love in all the wrong places.

Innocence found?

The right place is a man and a woman who give each other a ring.

We’ve looked for love in many other places since time began, and we’ve never improved upon the most time-honored team ever formed.

This is the lesson from Kavanaugh and Ford.

Neither of them learned that as teenagers, apparently.

Both of them are paying a very heavy price because no one taught them to respect the opposite sex, and as a result to wait until marriage for physical expression.

Perhaps we’re turning this corner as a nation.

If we finally realize the promiscuity of 21st century America has gone too far, then maybe we’ll learn how to get along with each other again.

Let the mockingbird sing.

Slavery and the judiciary: Hamilton’s far-reaching views

One in a series on Alexander Hamilton, by Ron Chernow. So far, we have discussed these topics:

  • central government vs. states’ rights:

https://billcornishwordpresscom.wordpress.com/2017/07/18/hamilton-early-lessons-still-apply/

  • religion:

https://billcornishwordpresscom.wordpress.com/2017/07/24/hamilton-on-religion-belief-in-god-as-moral-authority/

  • politics:

https://billcornishwordpresscom.wordpress.com/2017/07/31/politics-continuing-what-hamilton-and-his-peers-started/

 

 

After last weekend’s events in Charlottesville, Va., I thought slavery would be a good topic this week.

Hamilton unequivocally opposed slavery, a position he never changed throughout his life.

 

The memories of his West Indian childhood left Hamilton with a settled antipathy to slavery … He had expressed an unwavering belief in the genetic equality of blacks and whites – unlike (Thomas) Jefferson, for instance, who regarded blacks as innately inferior – that was enlightened for his day. And he knew this from his personal boyhood experience. (p. 210)

 

Hamilton claimed Nevis in the British West Indies as his birthplace. “British authorities colonized Nevis with vagabonds, criminals and other riffraff swept from the London streets to work as indentured servants or overseers.” (p. 8)

Hamilton rarely talked about his childhood with anyone. He was illegitimate. He was raised in “the insecure middle rung of West Indian life, squeezed between plantation aristocrats above and street rabble and unruly slaves below.” (p.8)

hamilton mug

Nevis, in the Caribbean, was (and still is) a producer of sugar cane, which required slaves in Hamilton’s day. “The eight thousand captive blacks easily dwarfed in number the one thousand whites …” (p. 19) Hamilton saw slave-auction blocks and frequent public whippings. “The Caribbean sugar economy was a system of inimitable savagery …” (p. 19), which made a huge impression on Hamilton as a child.

As an adult helping to form the nascent United States of America, Hamilton continued to oppose slavery. However, because slavery was deeply ingrained in the South, he and other abolitionists had no chance to write their views into the Constitution.

 

… the American Revolution had been premised on a tacit bargain that regional conflicts would be subordinated to the need for unity among the states. This understanding dictated that slavery would remain a taboo subject. (p. 122)

 

Southern leaders would not compromise on this issue. Indeed, they “wondered how their human property would be counted for congressional-apportionment purposes.”

 

Northern states finally agreed that five slaves would be counted as equivalent to three free whites, the infamous “federal ratio” that survived for another eighty years. … Without the federal ratio, Hamilton glumly concluded, “no union could possibly have been formed.” Indeed, the whole superstructure erected in Philadelphia rested on that unstable, undemocratic foundation. (p. 239)

 

When Jefferson moved into the brand-new White House as U.S. president in 1801, he continued to own slaves. Indeed, for more than 50 years of owning and running Monticello, he bought and sold human beings. He never freed even one until his death, when he emancipated only five slaves – all of them relatives of his mistress, Sally Hemings.

 

… the majority of the six hundred workers who erected the White House and the Capitol were slaves whose wages were garnisheed by their masters. (p. 635-6)

 

It took another half-century, long after Hamilton’s death in 1804, for a Civil War to be fought over slavery.

While the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, passed by Congress on Jan. 31, 1865, abolished slavery legally, the fight for equality for minority groups, including blacks, continues today. White supremacists, who rallied in Charlottesville on Saturday over the fate of a monument of Robert E. Lee, a Confederate general, have no place in the United States, legally or morally.

Confederate Monuments Protest
Rescue personnel help injured people after a car ran into a large group of protesters after a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Va., on Aug. 12, 2017. (The Associated Press)

All humans, regardless of race or ethnic background, are created equal in the eyes of God – and U.S. law. As a white male, I am ashamed that some of my race and gender refuse to acknowledge this.

White supremacists do not speak for all white males – not even close. I hope the man who drove a car into a crowd of peaceful protesters who were opposing the supremacists’ rally, killing one and injuring 19, gets prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I hope that kind of anger and hatred never appears in this country again.

The authority of the judiciary

As a lawyer, Hamilton preferred cases that established Constitutional law, preferring precedence-setting cases to those that benefited only one individual – even if that meant he passed up lucrative cases filed by wealthy landowners to take a case of someone whom Hamilton felt was being wronged.

One such case was Rutgers v. Waddington, held in the New York City Mayor’s Court in 1784.

Following the Revolutionary War, New York’s legislature enacted a series of laws that stripped British Tories of their property and privilege. One such law passed by the legislature in 1783 was the Trespass Act. It gave patriots the legal right to sue anyone who had occupied, damaged or destroyed homes they had left behind British lines during the war. This law served the foundation for the case.

The plaintiff, Elizabeth Rutgers, owned a large brewery and alehouse that she was forced to abandon during the British occupation of New York City. Under the then recently enacted Trespass Act, Rutgers demanded rent in the sum of 8,000 pounds from Joshua Waddington, who had been running the brewery since it was abandoned.

Hamilton defended Waddington, the British man managing the brewery, claiming the Trespass Act violated the 1783 peace treaty ratified by Congress.

Chief Justice James Duane handed down a split verdict that entitled Rutgers to rent only from the time before the British occupation, and the two parties agreed to the amount of 800 pounds. This case set a precedent for Congress’ legal authority over the states. Duane wrote in his ruling that “no state in this union can alter or abridge, in a single point, the federal articles or the treaty.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutgers_v._Waddington

 

Hamilton expounded the all-important doctrine of judicial review – the notion that high courts had a right to scrutinize laws and if necessary declare them void. (p. 198)

 

This was a radical argument because at the time, the country “still lacked a federal judiciary.” (p. 198) State legislatures set the law of the land. Rutgers’ lawyers defended this position, while Hamilton defended the British Tory – which cost him huge political points among his opponents.

But the judge’s ruling defended the law of nations over states’ rights.

At about the same time as this case, Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay were writing 85 essays defending the U.S. Constitution called The Federalist Papers. Hamilton wrote six of those essays on the judiciary.

 

In number 78, Hamilton introduced an essential concept, never made explicit in the Constitution: that the Supreme Court should be able to review and overturn legislation as unconstitutional. … “no legislative act … contrary to the constitution can be valid …” (p. 259)

 

This is why appointments to the politically divided U.S. Supreme Court have caused large debates in recent years. Top Court rulings do establish law by either upholding or overturning it. We can thank Alexander Hamilton for first promoting this idea.