Liberal law professor argues we shouldn’t hold a little attempted rape against Brett Kavanaugh all these years later
Rosa Brooks is uncomfortable with the idea of opposing the elevation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court because he allegedly tried to rape a 15-year-old girl when he was a 17-year-old preppie.
Now there’s a good point in this tweet storm, which is that it’s stupid and immoral to treat teenage criminals exactly like their adult counterparts, and that the fact that the American criminal justice system often does so (especially, as she notes, if the delightful little scamp isn’t an upper class white guy like our boy Brett) is typical of its many savage dysfunctions.
Instead of limiting herself to this fair observation, Brooks argues that:
As a lawyer I also think there are sound reasons behind statutes of limitations. After 35 years it is nearly impossible to conduct a full or fair investigation.
This does not mean I consider sexual assault “excusable” or “minor.” It just means that I think the bad behavior of minors should be treated differently than the behavior of adults, and that adults should not be shadowed forever by misdeeds as children.
If Kavanaugh responds to her accusations in a way that belittles her or other women who come forward with stories of sexual assault, THAT will definitely be relevant now.And to all who say “well yes but the GOP would draw and quarter any Dem nominee with similar accusations against him,” you’re right, but why would Dems want to do the same things the GOP does?But the GOP would not treat allegations of assault by a black teen as forgivingly,” I agree as well. But again, we shouldn’t conform to the bad behavior of others.Again, this is not because I am “defending” Kavanaugh: I’d vote NO, and for all I know he is a complete jerk and a serial sexual assaulter to boot. All I’m saying is: I am uncomfortable having the current allegation be the basis for opposing, given the above.