Due Process: A Treatise on Entitled Men

There is so much to say about the Kavanaugh confirmation process, and much of it has already been said elsewhere.  (A great example of “If you’re not mad, you’re not paying attention.”)  But something that stuck out to me was the image of a grown, white man ranting his “righteous” anger in front of the United States Senate about the end of due process in America.  Give me a fucking break.

The left-wing rag Merriam-Webster defines due process as:

1

: a course of formal proceedings (such as legal proceedings) carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles

— called also procedural due process

2

: a judicial requirement that enacted laws may not contain provisions that result in the unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of an individual

— called also substantive due process

But there seems to be some confusion about what due process is, particularly amongst white men.  They seem to believe due process is their right, and the right of their fellow white men, to get away with anything, their right to succeed in spite of any misstep, any exposed character flaw, any crime.  Of course he deserves this promotion—it’s simply due process.  Amazing how differently due process works for white men than it does for everyone else.  It’s leeway that simply does not exist for others.  

Where is due process for victims of sexual assault?  They can’t (and never have been able to) trust the course of formal proceedings to result in justice.  I don’t see Brett Kavanaugh crying about that.  I don’t see Brett Kavanaugh doing anything about that.  And one might argue that, as a federal judge, he is one of the few who actually can do something about that.

Where is due process for the thousands who are incarcerated because they can’t afford bail?  Where is due process for the unarmed African American men shot and killed by police officers?  Where is due process for their families? Yes, due process is failing many people in America.  But it is not failing white men.  So forgive me when I vomit at the sight of an overgrown prep-school jackass-turned-federal-judge crying about the end of due process in America.  

Serving on the Supreme Court is a privilege, not a right.  Brett Kavanaugh missing out on his dream job isn’t due process failing him—it’s an occurrence many ordinary Americans, disproportionately women, have had to swallow with grace.  “Your resume is very impressive, but this job may not be quite right for you.”  Brett Kavanaugh missing out on his dream job because he tried to rape a girl in high school isn’t due process failing him—it’s his past coming back to bite him.  The Supreme Court confirmation process hasn’t ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s life.  Brett Kavanaugh ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s life.

I believe Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape Christine Blasey Ford.  Regardless of that, I believe Brett Kavanaugh’s behavior yesterday disqualifies him serving on the Supreme Court.  He did away with any pretense that he is not a complete partisan.  He showed he has no composure under stress.  I seriously doubt his ability to remove his own prejudice in ruling on any case.  Rather, I strongly suspect his contempt for “the left” would steer him toward vindictiveness.  There is enough vindictiveness in politics.  Sexual abusers are well represented.  Surely we can do better than Brett Kavanaugh.

Give me your tired, your poor, and I'll take those babies away: A Treatise on the Border Situation.

If we cannot recognize both the cruelty of separating children from their parents at our border and who bears responsibility for this cruelty, I'm not sure we can claw our way back up this slippery slope.  Again I ask my friends and family who voted for Donald Trump: what are the limits of your tolerance for his actions?  Where do you draw the line?  If the tearing of children from their parents does not stir rage in you, what will?  That is not a rhetorical question.  How bad does it need to get?  Because that is what our president is testing.  The American president and his disciples ask—no, they condescendingly expect your partisan fervor to override your natural empathy for that instinctual panic of a child who cannot find her mother.  But the team conveniently provides an out for those of you (presumably good Christians) who hate what is happening to the poor children: they assure you they too, as parents and Christians, hate this abomination, but there is simply nothing they can do to stop it.  The blame falls squarely on their political enemies.  Republicans only control the presidency and both houses of Congress.  The buck stops somewhere else. 

If our president is such an expert negotiator (who, let's not forget, has all the power on his side), why does he need to use real-life, vulnerable children as pawns? This is the genius of Donald Trump, you say.  He’s effectively forcing a conversation.  Many methods are effective, even sanctioned by law.  But that does not make them all moral.  The ends do not justify the means.  This is not some brilliant move of brinksmanship to force Democrats to the table on illegal immigration.  This is only cruel.  Any fool can orchestrate inhumanity in an attempt to get his way.  The strategy is not only despicable, but shortsighted.  Who else has used this strategy?  How did that turn out?

We can even look at this “policy” specifically.  Who else in history has forcibly separated children from their parents?  Nazis come to mind.  Antebellum slave traders come to mind.  I’m no policy maker, but I’d think we could find better role models.  Though I guess we shouldn't be surprised.  Our president has expressed sympathy for Nazi demonstrators before our very eyes. Our attorney general, like his father and grandfather before him, is named after the president of the Confederacy and the man who oversaw the first attack on the Union. Still, emulating those who increase their power by degrading fellow humans seems at odds that old American fundamental “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”.  But maybe the founders really did just mean men, what with "original intent" and all.  Tough luck, women and children.*

Perhaps in the search for biblical justification, Sarah Huckabee Sanders alerted the president to the story of the judgment of Solomon, but he quickly got bored, heard the words "split the baby in half" and thought, "great idea."  Spoiler alert, Don: Solomon neither cuts the baby in two nor blames his murder of the child on the dispute of the mothers.  But in that movie, Republicans of Congress win best supporting actor in the role of the mother who is happy the baby dies.

*THANKS IVANKA