Why Brett Kavanaugh got sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice-Kyle Sutton

THIS IS NOT AN OPINION PIECE, I AM NOT ARGUING IF I SUPPORT HIS CONFIRMATION OR NOT, I AM SIMPLY DEVELOPING SOME REASONS AS TO WHY HE GOT CONFIRMED.

Brett Kavanaugh was elected to the supreme court on October 6. This created much outrage in American society, specifically the in the liberal community. This is with good reason, Christine Blasey Ford made a compelling testimony which evoked emotion in those watching, she crafted her testimony and argument to appeal to the empathy of those who witnessed her story. Her expertly spoken recount of her abuse is a reason that the vote was so close, 50-48.
The reasons that he did end up getting his war are those in the very foundation of our country, the current political system we have today, and previous aggression by Democrats.

This country's legal system has one major goal. To not let anyone not guilty feel the punishments for crimes they did not commit. This is seen through the procedures that must be taken in order to imprison someone in a court of law. The key in this is the term, "innocent until proven guilty." Christine Blasey Ford was trying to prove Kavanaugh guilty of attempted rape and sexual assault. And proving someone guilty, especially in a heavy right handed room, is very difficult and she needed a flawless compelling testimony. While it was successful in putting doubt on Kavanaugh's character, it was not enough to prove Kavanaugh guilty of sexual assault. There were three major flaws in Ford's testimony. One, her account of who attended the party changed multiple times she was interviewed. She at one point claimed there four boys who attempted to assault her to her therapist in 2012, she later on a polygraph said there were four boys and a couple of girls at the party, two boys assaulted her, and she then revised her story once again saying there may have been more people at the party, and an individual named PJ, who she previously stated was involved, and doesn't know of the assault. This gives doubt to her testimony because she clearly is unable to remember the account in full. Could it still have been Brett Kavanaugh? Of course, but his discredits her testimony to an extent. However, her inability to remember other details of the party or day the assault occurred also discredits her testimony. While she reasons this was because her hippocampus only clung to significant emotional parts of her brain, she still wasn't able to correlate any of the claims she had brought up. Finally, she claims not to have mentioned Kavanaugh's name to her therapist, whereas her  husband contradicts this claim. This once again puts her memory into question and adds more doubt to Kavanaugh's guilt. While Kavanaugh could have been lying when he said he didn't attempt to rape her, it is still one word against another, and since Blasey Ford wasn't able to correlate any of her information, Kavanaugh can not be seen as guilty. However, even if Blasey Ford would've been able to have a more effective testimony, it largely wouldn't have mattered. 

Due to the partisan two party system dominating the senate, and the practice of voting with the party causes, only one democrat to vote for the confirmation of Kavanaugh where there clearly was doubt in Ford's testimony, and he is an experienced judge who is well within the qualifications to be a supreme court justice. And no republicans could find any reason to vote against him. Should there have been little to no reasonable doubt in the matter of the assault, what is to say that the republicans wouldn't have done the same practice of shutting down the other party and all voted yes anyways? This practice is why when congress and the president do not share a party, things rarely get done because each party will falter to let the other party gain any ground. The votes should never be 100% of one party coting one way and nearly 100% of a party voting the other way. This begs the question, why isn't there a failsafe from letting one party dominate the judicial branch because they have more people? Both parties should have to agree to some extent for a good faithful judge to be appointed. And the source of this problem was because of something that happened when the Democrats had control of the Senate in 2013.

 

The original rule was the senate needed 60 out of 100 votes for a judge to be confirmed, this was true until the democrats controlled the senate. They took down this rule and changed it to a simple majority. The irony is that Kavanaugh, who will likely repeal Roe v. Wade is on the supreme court due to the Democrats own foolishness. So rather than blaming sexism in Republicans or Kavanaugh himself. Blame the system that haunts America, a principle it was started on, and the uncalled aggression of one's own party.

Kyle Sutton