Supreme Court drama exposes an uncomfortable truth

YESTERDAY’S dramatic public interrogation of US Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and one of the women accusing him of sexual assault, Christine Blasey Ford, was disturbing on so many levels.

The hyper-partisanship which now infests American politics turned the Senate hearing into a farce. Democrats, desperate to stop Mr Kavanaugh’s nomination, believed Dr Ford’s allegation as a matter of faith.

They had judged Mr Kavanaugh guilty before he sat down. Instead of asking Dr Ford for evidence, they delivered speeches praising her courage.

Meanwhile, Republicans acted as though Dr Ford, the alleged victim here, were on trial. They brought in a prosecutor to interrogate her, and called the claims against Mr Kavanaugh an “unethical sham”.

Both sides were there to score political points, when they should have been searching for the truth.

Dr Ford’s testimony was dignified, moving and believable, as she gave the Senate Judicial Committee a raw account of the alleged attack.

She said Mr Kavanaugh pinned her down on a bed, attempted to strip off her clothes and covered her mouth when she tried to scream.

“It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me,” she said.

It didn’t change the fact that no proof has yet emerged to corroborate her story, but it did destroy the conspiracy theory that she was lying about Mr Kavanaugh for political reasons. No one could watch Dr Ford’s performance and doubt her feelings were genuine.

The accuracy of her memory is still up for debate.

Mr Kavanaugh, who appeared immediately after her, was equally emotional. But in contrast to Dr Ford’s quiet anguish, he radiated anger.

Mr Kavanaugh furiously denied her claims and labelled them an effort to destroy his life. He avoided talking about Dr Ford directly, instead aiming his fury at the Democrats.

“This confirmation process has become a national disgrace,” the judge said.

“This has destroyed my family and my good name, a good name built up through decades of very hard work in public service at the highest levels of American government.

“This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fuelled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons.

“This is a circus. This grotesque and co-ordinated character assassination will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from serving our country.”

Mr Kavanaugh was snappy and sarcastic in his responses to senators’ questions. He clearly felt extremely aggrieved.

All of which is understandable. If Mr Kavanaugh has indeed been falsely accused of a sickening crime, he has every right to be mad.

But his performance, and the fulsome praise it drew from many viewers, exposed an uncomfortable double standard in American society — one which extends to our own.

Men are allowed to be angry. They’re allowed to rant and rave; to occasionally behave beneath the dignity of their office. Women are not.

That double standard didn’t go entirely unnoticed.

“Imagine an alternate reality where Dr Ford had yelled, cried, engaged in self-pity and interrupted senators with snarky questions. How do you think that would have gone for her?” asked columnist and CNN analyst Kirsten Powers.

“Can you imagine if a woman came to this hearing and had a temper tantrum and screamed and interrupted senators and behaved in the manner in which he has? She’d be taken out of the room in a straight jacket,” former federal prosecutor Cynthia Alksne told MSNBC.

“And instead, because he’s a guy, it’s acceptable behaviour. And the President undoubtedly will be proud of him because he’s fighting back.”

Whether you think Mr Kavanaugh is guilty or innocent — or, perhaps more wisely, admit you can’t be sure either way — it is undeniable that a woman in his position could not have got away with the same behaviour.

"Can you imagine if a woman came to this hearing and had a temper tantrum ... and behaved in the manner in which [Kavanaugh] has? She'd be taken out of the room in a straight jacket."

— Former Federal Prosecutor Cynthia Alksne pic.twitter.com/wE99DNLNdM

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) September 27, 2018

For a classic example, look no further than Hillary Clinton.

I am not a fan of Ms Clinton, nor am I among those who think she was robbed in the 2016 election. She lost because she was entitled, arrogant and out of touch.

But she was also a victim of the infuriating double standard between women and men.

RELATED: Hillary Clinton’s extraordinary blame-shifting

Does anyone seriously believe Ms Clinton could have got away with cheating, repeatedly and unrepentantly, on three different spouses? Donald Trump did.

If a tape had surfaced of her bragging about grabbing men’s private parts, and was followed by more than a dozen allegations of sexual misconduct, do you think her campaign would have survived? Mr Trump’s did.

Would voters have forgiven her for viciously lashing out at a war hero, or the family of a fallen soldier, just because they had the audacity to criticise her?

Of course not. Two years later, Mr Trump’s supporters still haven’t got over Ms Clinton’s one serious gaffe of the campaign, when she called them “deplorables”.

It is obvious that Mr Trump was held to a far lesser standard of behaviour than his opponent.

Was it because Republican voters have lower expectations of their politicians? Good luck making that argument stack up, when Democrats have spent much of the last three decades defending their own creep, Bill Clinton.

The truth is, Mr Clinton and Mr Trump both enjoy the extraordinary latitude in acceptable behaviour that comes with being a man.

Among the many thoughtful and legitimate defences of Mr Kavanaugh that have emerged in the last week, there has also been one particularly insidious argument.

“We’re talking about a 17-year-old boy in high school with testosterone running high. Tell me what boy hasn’t done this in high school, please. I would like to know,” a former Republican congressional candidate, Gina Sosa, told CNN. She wasn’t alone.

We are talking about a boy allegedly restraining a 15-year-old girl against her will, trying to rip off her clothes and covering her mouth to stop her from screaming.

When did such horrifying behaviour start to fall under the “boys will be boys” defence?

That so many people are pushing for Mr Kavanaugh to be immediately confirmed to the Supreme Court, the most dignified institution in the United States, when he stands credibly accused of attempted rape is disgusting.

Many avenues of investigation remain untouched. Democrats are pushing for the FBI to examine the case, and their partisan motives notwithstanding, they are right.

This is a lifetime appointment. Once Mr Kavanaugh is on the court, he will stay there for at least the next 30 years. No one should want to rush into this decision without all the facts.

If a thorough investigation discovers no evidence to support Dr Ford’s story, then by all means give Mr Kavanaugh the job.

But in truth, his angry, partisan performance yesterday may have proven he isn’t fit to sit on the Supreme Court anyway.

A woman with his temperament wouldn’t even be on the shortlist.

— Continue the conversation with Sam Clench on Twitter @SamClench