When the Senate Judiciary Committee hears on Thursday from Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and a woman who alleges that, as teenagers at a 1983 house party, he sexually assaulted her, the testimony is sure to be dispiriting.
Republican committee members, most of them men, will be in the unenviable position of asking a woman why she waited until now to go public about an incident that occurred 35 years ago. And Democratic opponents of Kavanaugh’s nomination are sure to ask him about his teenage drinking and other personal habits.
Last week, The Washington Post reported that, in preparation for his return to the Judiciary Committee, Kavanaugh sat before White House aides who were playing the roles of committee members. They intentionally asked him uncomfortable questions.
The Post said that aides designed some of the questions to go over the line of decency, and Kavanaugh refused to answer them. That’s an interesting decision, because 20 years ago, when Kavanaugh was a member of Kenneth Starr’s special counsel team investigating Bill Clinton, he wrote a memo in which he unsuccessfully argued that lawyers ought to ask the president graphic questions about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
There are significant differences between the two cases. For one, Clinton’s actions occurred while he was president. Kavanaugh’s occurred while he was a teenager — with a second woman alleging this weekend that he exposed himself to her at a party during his freshman year at Yale University.
Another difference is relevant. While Clinton’s fooling around with Monica Lewinsky, an intern in her early 20s, was the height of stupidity, it clearly was action between two consenting adults. That is not the case in either of the two allegations against Kavanaugh.
The guess here is that Kavanaugh will survive this week’s hearings and ultimately win appointment to the Supreme Court in a divided Senate. The only things that could prevent confirmation are more recent allegations of a similar nature, or if he completely botches his answers to some tough questions, giving female Republican senators a reason to oppose him.
It bears repeating that Kavanaugh has forcefully denied the allegations in both cases. Even though his Democratic opponents sound prepared to accept at face value the versions of one or both of his accusers, the nominee is due the same deference as anyone else accused of wrongdoing — a presumption of innocence without evidence to the contrary. He also has a long list of good works, along with commendations from many people — all of which continue to outweigh the current accusations, which at this point seem essentially impossible to prove or to disprove.
Nevertheless, Kavanaugh could be making an error in judgment if he refuses to answer too many embarrassing personal questions from adversaries on the Senate panel.
It is true that adults should be cut some slack for mistakes they made as adolescents. Also, it is wrong to assume that having the courage to come forward with a sexual assault allegation somehow gives it added credibility. There is a lot of fogginess about what Kavanaugh’s two accusers remember.
Nevertheless, Kavanaugh could lose some sympathy if he comes across as too evasive in this week’s hearing. Political posturing aside, these are questions, at the heart, about a person’s character. How he answers them under oath could likely shape what the American people — not to mention some key senators — think of his.
