Time to visit the past?

Time to visit the past?

supremecourtI originally was entertaining the notion of titling this article, something to have to do with the #MeToo movement along the lines that I believe that women, moreover, their demands on society may come harrowingly close to backfiring the hustling strides they have made since the 1970s.                          judicialwatch-3

But why mess up something that I believe for the most part has earned legitimate gains in pay, healthcare, and across the board within corporate America? Then I got a tip from the nations bulldogs, Judicial Watch and followed up on it. Which coincides deeply with my beliefs regarding our lopsided sexual assault claims that regardless of time, integrity or facts seem to be frustrating our system.

But, I am going to hold off on all of that hashtag rhetoric and would rather bring all of us up to snuff on what is alleged to be a two-party system – once referred to as Democrats and Republicans.

Is it 1992 all over again? The sexual assault allegations that surfaced Wednesday against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh — who is accused of attempting to rape a California professor when both were in high school in Maryland — coupled with the so-called “year of the woman” in politics, are creating an eerily similar feel to the state of affairs 27 years ago.

C’mon now! Doesn’t this represent to you just another partisan hold-up or deferment ploy? What does it take anymore? This man, Mr. Brett Kavanaugh has been waiting for well over a year now, and it’s time to sort him out with allegations of yesteryear?

The allegations from Palo Alto University professor Christine Blasey Ford come days before the Senate Judiciary Committee was set to vote on whether to advance Kavanaugh’s nomination to the full Senate. Now, they complicate what once looked like a certain path to confirmation, with talks of re-opening the hearings to allow both Ford and Kavanaugh to testify.

If that sounds familiar, it is.                 Hill

Almost the exact same series of events occurred in 1991 when law professor Anita Hill came forward to testify that then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas sexually harassed her when she was assisting Thomas at the Department of Education in 1981. The hearings were re-opened to allow Hill to testify, and the optics were striking — an all-male panel of senators questioned her for days about the workplace harassment she said she faced. A massive national dialogue around workplace sexual harassment soon opened.

I did check by the way and the article I am working from was written by a female, Emily C. Singer. It seems whatever I read, write, about or see works using the same sources I invariably come across Natalie Portman’s saying. And yes, try the Categories section, there is the article.

Thomas was ultimately confirmed by a slim margin. But the optics of the hearing and controversy around his confirmation led women to run, and win, in historic numbers a year later, in 1992. That year was dubbed the “year of the woman.” In 1992, the number of women elected to Congress increased dramatically, rising from 34 to 54, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Now, more than 25 years later, it’s possible that women will again witness a private woman testify against a Supreme Court nominee, this time with Ford’s allegations of teenage sexual assault. I am not sure I would dignify such hearings considering the well-crafted rubbish the Democrats have concocted this time.

Democratic strategists say the latest allegations against Kavanaugh will serve as another boost to female turnout, in an election year where Democratic women were already set to boost their ranks.


About J.Paul

Academia, Constitution, Musicianship, all around Caucasian male, straight, and professes Jesus Christ as the Lord of my life. Guitars -- Classical, Acoustic, A/E, Strat, a real bassist at heart, Les Paul Standard bass.
This entry was posted in Political Correctness. Bookmark the permalink.