The Democrats gave Kavanaugh a free pass on his role in facilitating torture and mass surveillance and in rigging the 2000 election for Bush (.. despite them having claimed since 2016 that election integrity is their holy of holies.)

They have said to American voters: torture, snooping and rigging presidential elections are okay, they don't matter. Just as they rehabilitated Dubya and reassured voters that wrecking Iraq and creating Isis doesn't matter.

It confirms again why liberals are co-authors with the Republicans in further debasing America.

I am of course in political agreement with the thesis of this writing, but London is in error when he says there is no evidence to suggest the validity of the accuser's claims. From the Wikipedia page "Christine Blasey Ford", the following sentence is published:

"As corroboration of her account, Ford provided The Post with the polygraph as well as session notes from her couples therapist written in 2012."

Why would someone tell her therapist that she was almost raped by someone who, in 2012, hadn't been nominated for the Supreme Court and had no immediate prospects for it on the horizon?

Granted, this isn't definitive proof, but it does, in my view, warrant more than simply taking a completely neutral stance. Even mentioning the claim without editorial comment seems more than fair and should not in any way violate the important Enlightenment principles in question here.

Yes, and why would anyone trust the denials of someone who metaphorically tried to assault millions of Americans in his judgements including trying to circumvent environmental regulations, notably nuclear, tried to strike down the Clean Air Act, tried to circumvent the separation of powers and extraterritorial jurisdiction in human rights abuse cases, denied workers rights to safety after a number died, actively worked against the Affordable Care Act, gave the president powers to control the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, attacked civil liberties, supported detention without trial and transferral to unknown countries of Guantanamo prisoners, and supported the legalising of semi-automatic weapons and surveillance devices. He also said that metadata collection was not a search, and, even if it were, no reasonable suspicion should be required.

Typically, he supported a prosecutor’s obligation to prove that a defendant knew his conduct was wrongful. The legal term is mens rea, Latin for “guilty mind. A legal slight of hand often used by executives breaking tax and securities law. Note, Kavanaugh did not support Mens Rea for workers, the homeless and intellectually disabled.

This is nothing to do with Me Too except that he still treats woman as though they should have no control over their bodies.

The fact that the Democrats don't want him on the supreme court still shouldn't prevent socialists or anybody with an ounce of humanity from trying to prevent this corrupt and dangerous man from taking up any position where he can influence America's law or make judgements that send the US even further back into repression.

Why would you accept any of her statements prima facie? In spite of what *seems* convincing, remember that these are major bourgeois parties slugging out over control of the state. It is correct to take no position on CBF's testimony.

But it is simply erroneous to say that there is no evidence at all in her favor. Again, one needn't believe a word of it, but two pieces of evidence have been reported, and for the purposes of a correct report those pieces should be included, sans comment if the author wishes.

EVEN IF the allegations against Kavanaugh are totally false, he should never be anywhere near the levers of power for his judicial philosophy. If he did commit these acts, as it seems like he could've, then these are additional reasons to dislike him. But the main reason he shouldn't be a justice is his views.

No I didn't.

Wait, are you saying the article opposes opposing Kavanaugh based on his judicial philosophy? What sentiment do you refer to

Yes, this is the succinct point of the article:

"The use of emotion and prejudice to weaken popular support for these rights,(presumption of innocence) divide the working class, and facilitate state repression, militarism and corporate exploitation is the historical tradition of right-wing politics. Basic democratic principles are always most vulnerable when the ruling class is able to play on moods of mass retribution against alleged perpetrators of crimes, particularly sexual violence, due to its inherent emotional appeal."

All the rest, the accusations, the post-pubescent behaviors, the violation of boundaries resulting in embarrassment, emotional or physical violation, abuse, pain, injury....all must be worked out among those involved and the courts.....or not. There are no and can be no solutions to inappropriate sexual behaviors within the construct of politics.

Your last sentence might as well be the definition of rape culture. What staggering blindness, to not view systemic sexual violence as a tool of political oppression in service of the hegemony.

"There are no and can be no solutions to inappropriate sexual behaviors within the construct of politics." What? Care to clarify? What does that even mean? That makes no sense, it's just words. Look, I think the allegations are a story, not as big as it's being made to be, but it nevertheless is a story. If Kavanaugh did the things alleged against him, he shouldn't be on the court. If he didn't, his judicial philosophy should disqualify him. The only reason he should be the court is if his philosophy were different. But even if his philosophy were pristine, we can't have someone who's a sexual predator on the court. Just cuz it happened long ago doesn't mean it should be excused. But since we don't have proof, good evidence, but no PROOF, his judicial philosophy is the most important here.

an elegant, brilliant critique of a major political crisis among the elites ! but a crisis, as comrade Martin writes, that will rock us hard, if we do not understand it well --

Great to have read this classic ariticle comrade Eric London. I am intrigued over what is happening as per Brett Kavanaugh! US' duopoly is totally dissociated from the vey basic interests of the working class, youth, students and all oppressed in the US and internationally. It is not an accident but the real fruit of current crisis of American capitalism/imperialism.
As per any social phenomenon including so called sexual aggression, interpretation is linked to the very dynamism of the social ensemble as it is happening. In fhis case what happened three decades ago between Kavanaugh and Blasey is reinterpreted on the anvil of the current socio-cultural ensemble which is dominated by movements like #Me Too that is definitely anti-working class.
Thanks to the revolutionary triumvirate, ICFI/SEP/IYSSE, facts pertaining to anti-working class activty by the bourgeoisie with the support of the pseudo left are retrieved by delving into the crux of the matter apparently solid due to the conspiracy of the bourgeoisie media. I admire your intellectual acumen in handling very serious counter-productive dynamics of the capitalism/imperialism at the behest of the United States.

"There are some who, though uncomfortable with the abrogation of the presumption of innocence that is characteristic of the Democrats’ treatment of the sexual assault allegations, are eager to seize on any opportunity to keep Kavanaugh off the court."

That is, "anything" (so long as "the ends" serve the material interests of the ruling class) goes.

Just as with the "lesser evil" argument, "the ends justify the means" argument compares two things relative to one another.

"It is naive, however, to expect from this abstract “principle” an answer to the practical question: what may we, and what may we not do?" -Their Morals and Ours

Deliberately left out from both arguments is any objectively based absolute.

"Bourgeois evolutionism halts impotently at the threshold of historical society because it does not wish to acknowledge the driving force in the evolution of social forms: the class struggle." -Their Morals and Ours

That would ground the argument in terms of the living experience of the movement of the working class.

"These criteria do not, of course, give a ready answer to the question as to what is permissible and what is not permissible in each separate case. There can be no such automatic answers. Problems of revolutionary morality are fused with the problems of revolutionary strategy and tactics. The living experience of the movement under the clarification of theory provides the correct answer to these problems." -Their Morals and Ours

Such as the "summary of experience" gained by the Paris Commune.

"[Where] democracy, introduced as fully and consistently as is generally conceivable, is transformed from bourgeois democracy into proletarian democracy; from the state (i.e., a special force for the suppression of a particular class) into something which is no longer really a state." -The State and the Revolution

Where the immediate end of proletarian democracy becomes the means for socialism.

"Dialectic materialism does not know dualism between means and end. The end flows naturally from the historical movement. Organically the means are subordinated to the end. The immediate end becomes the means for a further end." -Their Morals and Ours

I believe this is the third article in a row that takes justified umbrage at the failure of either but especially the Democratic party to test Kavanaugh not on his sexual and drinking habits as a young man but on the grave matters of state in which he has been involved and that might come before him as a Supreme; yet another article in other words that does not seem to have a clue that American politics on that level are like a football game, a game where one party seeks to gain territory; a forever to and fro if regarded generationally that has no real or only the rarest of concern for the well being of the American people; much less the working class. Only something like a French Revolution will alter this miserable state of affairs.

1] It inculcates territorial conquest as life’s chief objective; [2] it promotes the star system - i.e. is anti-democratic; [3] the acceptance of of the fact that most players can be traded illustrates the nature of the wage slave system on which capitalism depends; [4] at the same time, the sport insists on creating a spurious team spirit and loyalties; [5] the teams - frequently endowed with tax breaks and subsidies from the cities where they are located - create spurious loyalties with the team and individual players is illustrated here in Seattle by the fact of half the population wearse Seahawk colors and do-dads or shirts on game-day; [7] in other words, professional sports are the deepest form of anchoring obfuscating ideologies and circuses in the consciousness of the population - and here am I, on weekends still checking the scores of Werder Bremen, the first team to win, and it appears forever, my childhood loyalty! Oh yes, and fabled Arsenal, the Gunners!

Eric London has a clue I assure you.

Indeed, sir! But it is precisely because of the full awareness of Marxists to the degraded (now more than ever) nature of bourgeois politics that leads us to refuse to accept the "game", as it is, on the terms in which it is presented to us, but rather to work to build the political consciousness of the working class on a completely principled basis so that it is adequate to the tasks posed when the unendurable contradictions of the system drive this class into mass struggle.

We have frequently emphasized the importance of the political independence of the working class. This is expressed in the slogan, "Build an independent working class movement! No support to the Democrats
and Republicans, the bought-and-paid-for representatives of the
corporations!"

Playing the "game", subordinating the working class to one or the other of these utterly corrupt and venal organizations of the degraded American bourgeoisie, is a criminal dereliction of the responsibilities of a revolutionary party. The central question is that of political leadership. Would you have us hand that off to the Democrats, and accept their ridiculous current right-wing line as the basis for the opposition to Kavanaugh?

It would be wonderful if the rising socialist sentiments & demands expressed itself in a united front type party. Senator Sanders is trying to turn the Democratic party back to its New Deal version, a dubious effort I would say, but understandable in light of the futile attempts to develop third parties in the United States ; from Teddy Roosevelt "Bull Moose", the Progressives, and the like they have never gotten very far, a few congress people, the odd senator; i believe there was even once a Communist Congressman from Manhattan., Marcantonio [?] who represented what is now Spanish Harlem in the 40s.

But why are attempts to build a third party - I will use your word - “futile?” To say that building a new party is futile is to accept the political status quo.

The policy avenue is not possible to convince republicans to change course and is not persuasive to Blue Dogs. This step right now, an answer to a credible FBI-corroborated and psychologically grounded accusation is. It can ward off Kavanaugh in a way questions of policy never could in a body (Senate) where Democrats have 49 senators to the GOP's 51. I understand your position, but politics is about winning any way you can win. This is not a partisan witch hunt, proof is not the argument as this is a job interview. A job interview, in which he has proven himself unworthy for this position of grave and important authority.

If politics is about winning any way you can win, I think we're in trouble. Would you be okay with assassination? Poison gas? Biological warfare?

Or a Reichstag Fire?

I always had to have proof in a job interview. That's what references are for.

Sophistry is about winning any way you can. Politics is the rational orchestration of governance.

I just discovered that the World Socialist Web Site noted and criticized Mr. Westen 's essay on " what happened to Obama " long before I did :

[ "Once again: Why Obama won’t—and can’t—be Roosevelt
By Patrick Martin ] 2011

Like the magician who fools the audience, the Democrats and the Republicans continue to put on a charade to give the impression of moral superiority, when in fact, if every male at the hearing (or in the Senate or Congress) were to go through the same background checks as Kavanaugh, they would most likely not "pass the smell test". And, like the magician who works the magic, we fall prey to the entertainment that we pass for reality. This does not in any way mean that men will suddenly end their abuse of women. It may only stop men from being so open about it until the heat dies down. What has really changed since Anita Hill's testimony? As long as women wait for men to "smarten up", nothing will change. Why would men want to give up their position of power over women? It's not going to happen. Women are better off forging ahead without men's approval. That would be a bigger fear for men than the yelling at them and asking them to care.

It's similar to supporters of the Democratic party, who wait for that party to move to the left.

The overwhelming majority of American Worker's are class conscious. They believe there are three(3) classes: the upper class, the Middle class and the lower class. Most of these workers believe that they are in the middle class and that this is the roadway to the upper class. Furthermore, these workers believe that the working class is really a kind of sector of the lower class. This is why, as a rule, they will always vote in elections against their true class interests and in favor of the upper class which includes the political caste(repubs and demodummies and the union bureaucrats).

Excellent article ... It is hard to listen to this right-wing tripe coming from Democrats, such as a political light-weight like Corey Booker talking about patriarchy. The alleged 35 year-old incident occurred when Kavanaugh and Ford were essentially children, albeit rich, arrogant, preppy and privileged ones ... both of them. Why didn't she go after Kavanaugh earlier? It has been reported that Dr. Ford is or was estranged from her parents because,according to Ford they had no respect for her. I wonder why?The Democrats and #MeTooers must be compiling a data base of alleged sexual improprieties to be used as needed against their political opponents. The article makes reference to Kavanaugh's role in the sexual misconduct charges against then President Clinton. How's that for a double edged sword. But workers be warned, this sword is being used as an end around leading ultimately to police state and the destruction of democratic rights.

"The alleged 35 year-old incident occurred when Kavanaugh and Ford were essentially children, albeit rich, arrogant, preppy and privileged ones ... both of them. Why didn't she go after Kavanaugh earlier?"

What does the fact that the alleged assault happened in the distant past have to do with invalidating Dr. Ford's allegations? Or the fact that she came from a "rich, preppy, and privileged background". That could describe quite a few socialists that I know. I also don't see the accuracy of describing her as arrogant. Kavanaugh, yes. Ford? Not really.

The question of Ford not coming forward earlier was Trump's initial response. I am surprised that it is repeated here. I don't know about you but I have known many, many women who have repressed memories of sexual assault for decades. It's a tragic, traumatic event in someone's life and victims frequently deal with it by trying to forget about it. That phenomenon is well documented. Ford explained that she did not go to her parents because she was a 15 year-old girl and was afraid of telling them that she had been at an event with boys drinking beer where no parents were present. Do you find that a stretch?

I also don't see the point of her current relations, good or bad, with her parents. How is that relevant to the validity of her memories?

As far as the destruction of democratic rights - how can you defend democratic rights without respecting the protest of a woman who comes forward with Dr. Ford's allegations? By ignoring them? Isn't that a contradiction?

The only thing I'd add, if we'd like to discuss feminism, is that plenty of poor and middle class women are exploited ans harassed by their bosses every day, especially black folks and other vulnerable groups. If we take the view that feminism is about improving the lives of women, men and children through struggle against classism, patriarchy, imperialism and racism, then the Dems would do plenty more things such as stop supporting Afghan warlords who we know use sex slaves. The fact that they are selective makes them opportunists, as there are real issues confronting much more women, but these go ignored

I agree with some of your points. No doubt any 15 year-old would be reluctant to explain to her parents why she was was at a drunken orgy with "older" boys They were all children (minors), however, when the alleged incident occurred. I think we both have a pretty good idea of what went down. By arrogance, I meant the "arrogance" of youth, but yes, Kavanaugh is (and probably was) a total jerk. That being said, is this a democratic rights issue? Why didn't she demand an apology from the schmuck? Maybe she did, and was rebuffed. She waited 35 years for this "protest", and look how it (and she) is being used ... as a political cover.

How can you pretend to be defenders of the international working class if you can't defend a woman who was assaulted by a thug like Brett Kavanaugh when she was 15 years old?

Anybody who takes the temperature of the public on this matter quickly arrives at the conclusion that: 1) not only is that a principled position, but 2) that's widely understood and those who you might want to recruit as a member into a socialist organization agrees with that.

I took issue with your baiting of Dr. Ford as an arrogant preppy. You quickly caved. However you still retain an inability to distinguish between the criminal (Kavanaugh), the victim (Ford), and the opportunist maneuvers of the Democratic Party.

Why is that so hard? Socialism does not consist of putting a negative sign in front of every Democratic Party plus sign. Call the Democratic Party out for their opportunism and diversions. That's their stock in trade. But someone like Dr. Ford cannot be accurately reduced to the level of a Democratic Party shill.

That runs the danger of creating an unintended, left handed defense of reactionaries like Kavanaugh and Graham who resort to desperate threats and shrieking as a last line of defense.

Yes, that is the danger, I see too. In this case, reducing the argument to attacking the victim has actually led to defending a right wing, anti-worker, anti-human rights, anti-environment and pro the establishment judge.

Why isn't possible for socialists to simultaneously express support for someone who suffered an attack like Dr. Ford while making all of the obvious points about the opportunism of the Democratic Party? If Ford was a simple shill for the Democratic Party that would be one thing but her history and related behavior indicate otherwise. As many have noted the parallels to Anita Hill are striking. The difference between the Democrats and Republicans is that the Democrats acquired a certain skill since Clarence Thomas's confirmation in posturing as the champions of women's rights. Can socialists expose the absurdity of that while defending women whose democratic rights have been attacked? Does the fact that there are far more grievous crimes of American imperialism against the world's populations make what happened to Dr. Ford any less of an offense? Isn't that heading in the direction of sophistry?

The two aren't mutually exclusive, as you mention. Both sets of injustices can be possible. We need not pick one.

I feel sorry for her possibly being a victim of assault. I feel much worse that she finds herself being used by Democrats for political purposes.

Thank you. I am being shunned for not supporting this circus. I work in a law office, and staff were mesmerized, glued to the TV in the lunch room, absorbing every minute like sleepwalkers. If even lawyers are falling for this tripe, we are indeed in danger. One of them accused me of supporting violence against women! They can see no difference between working class women being abused and blackmailed day in and day out, and wealthy women who have no idea of what a violent sexual assault actually is.

Were they punched in the face and knocked to the floor? Were their teeth knocked out? Were they dragged by the hair? Was the attacker their husband or boyfriend? Their boss? Were they sodomized? Were they threatened at gunpoint? Knife point? Were their children threatened? If that assault happened over 35 years ago and consisted of immature teenage male groping, on that basis you can bet it is being used as a political weapon.

There are better (much better) ways of fighting the right-wing and also of defending women's rights.

This is not the way.

well-said comrade ! you walk the path of truth and you are not alone ! we, the many, we understand you, and we agree with you !

Is it possible to evaluate the current body of data and testimony and agree with Dr. Ford's position that Brett Kavanaugh should not sit in judgement of others as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court? Do socialists need to refrain in all instances from expressing an opinion until absolute proof is available?

In civil court, aggravating circumstances only have to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is the requirement in criminal court. The activity of the Senate Judiciary Committee is neither. The confirmation process is not a court of law but, effectively, a job interview. If Kavanaugh is not confirmed he does not go to jail or suffer financial penalties. He continues to serve as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. How does the principle of innocent until proven guilty apply under the circumstances?

Can socialists take Dr. Ford's side without supporting the reactionary posturing of the Democratic Party? Do socialists have the luxury of picking and choosing which sections of the population (whose democratic rights have been trampled on) they should express support for? Are socialists champions of all of the oppressed or only those sections of the oppressed that Democratic Party operatives are not seeking to use for their own reactionary diversions?

Well, "absolute proof" rarely exists. My position based on what I've seen so far is that Kavanaugh likely did it, but that isn't why he shouldn't be on the court

As always, the revolutionary party never allows the petty-bourgeoisie to decide our agenda.

I personally believe Dr. Ford. However, politics is not wishful thinking. It is impossible to make any public stance "in solidarity with Dr. Ford" without giving tacit support for the Democratic Party. As a matter of personal justice, of course, she deserves her due. However, given both the timing of her accusations AND the assorted radio interviews (source: NPR, roughly 7 days ago) with those who know her (which reveal that Dr. Ford only told others of her trauma in a non-medical setting after Trump announced Kavanaugh on the shortlist of candidates for the Supreme Court and only planned to act after his confirmation), it seems too politically convenient. At the very least, her legal team or the Democratic Senators who initially heard her concerns deliberately waited until they could exploit her grief for political gain and Dr. Ford either did not know or did not care to contest this. I do not doubt she needed personal courage to resist death threats, but I do doubt the fawning media story of the martyr and victim who is apolitical, simply "wants justice", and now has "found her voice". As a socialist, there is no point allying with someone who willingly allows their own struggle to become the pawn of the Republican or Democratic Parties, be it Alex Jones, be it Alexandra Osario-Cortez, or Dr. Christine Ford; in the long-term interests of the revolution, it is more important to clarify these issues so the working class can empower ourselves.

You just expressed that you believe Dr. Ford. It's unlikely that she's lying- she told her therapist about this incident years ago. She likely hasn't seen or spoken to Kavanaugh in many years, but if it were you, and you'd heard that someone who'd attacked you was going to be in a position of great importance, wouldn't you, too, make it public? It would be like if your ex who cheated on you is now going to be the head of a fidelity organization- the IDEAL time to mention it would be right then.

It is remarkable and disgusting how easily the promoters of the politics of #MeToo dismiss foundational democratic concepts such as the presumption of innocence and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This in itself reveals the deeply reactionary content of this political operation. As if those subjected to oppression and exploitation, including victims of sexual abuse, can be defended on the basis of the methods of witch hunt and appeals to irrationality, spite and vengeance. To dismiss so cavalierly the presumption of innocence is to justify the destruction of the careers and lives of dozens of people on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations trumpeted in the corporate media, that is, guilt by accusation. Ever hear of McCarthy? There is a long and tragic history of this tradition--a right-wing, anti-socialist tradition--in the frameup and murder of blacks in the US on the basis of unsubstantiated or false sex claims and Jews and other minorities under fascist and totalitarian regimes. Whatever the immediate fate of Kavanaugh, the methods employed by the Democrats to oppose him aid and abet his right-wing politics and strengthen the repressive powers of the capitalist state.

"...how easily the promoters of the politics of #MeToo dismiss foundational democratic concepts such as the presumption of innocence and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

Thats the job of the court, not those seeking to expose the sexual corruption of the capitalist system.

Kavanaugh is and was one of the most unpopular candidates to be put forward for the supreme court even before the Democratic stunts of the last week. And he was and is so on the merits, which this site has meticulously documented.

Why is it then, Ed, that you have been completely incapable of engaging in that objective analysis? Why do you remain confined to that most subjective and unproven reason alone for attacking Kavanaugh? What are the implications of that position?

I'll tell you. To promote subjectivism as a basis for attacking the bourgeoisie is the recipe for separating the working class from reason, to disarm it by substituting emotion rather than objectivity as their method, to disunite them along the subjective divisions prepared and drawn up by the Democrats, and thus make it easier for the Democrats to sweep them back into the fold in November, with a weakened presumption of innocence now established as the de facto if not de jure law of the land.

We haven't a clue whether Christine Ford is or is not "oppressed." But hundreds of millions in this country are, and they are best served by an analysis which is politically independent of the shallow subjectivism served up by the identity-politics-besotted bourgeois party which has caught you within its orbit. The unity of the working class cannot be achieved by non-class politics developed by subjective means. Both are hostile to it. And that is the reason they are served up in such heaping doses. Cui bono?