Originally written on October 8th, 2018 when this was relevant.

In September 2018 serious allegations were levied at, the now Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, following his nomination for Supreme Court. The case has been active since early September and has only become more controversial since Kavanaugh’s confirmation into the Supreme Court on October 6th, 2018. With that said, one might ponder the possible future ramifications this could have on modern-day politics and what it says about the precedent being set by the Supreme Court system in general.

The already turbulent trial was met with much criticism as many attempted to blind the strict regulations of judicial hearings with their own personal agenda. With the inclusion of the #metoo movement in full swing, many are quick to act without first considering all the facts present within the case. It’s at this point that both the affirmative and opposing sides have come to an ideological standstill. Concerned citizens question whether morality should be considered in politics and others want to keep it as traditional as possible. Are we as a society able to adequately judge who’s right?

Well, Michael J. Sandel certainly thinks we do. In his 2009 book: Justice What’s The Right Thing to Do?, he maintains that society, “need(s) a more robust engaged Civic life than the one to which we’ve become accustomed. In recent decades we’ve come to assume that respecting our fellow citizens moral and religious convictions means ignoring them (for political purposes, at least) leaving them undisturbed and conducting our public life – insofar as possible – without reference to them, but this stance of avoidance can make for a spurious respect. Often it means suppressing moral disagreement rather than actually avoiding it.”

What he’s saying may bridge the gap between the opposing sides of the case. It’s clear that any case involving the possibility of sexual misconduct should be treated with the utmost respect and caution. However, in order for this matter to be considered a case there must always be an opposing side and simply having two words that say the opposite thing consistently brings any argument to an impasse. Despite the, as President Donald Trump said, “compelling” circumstantial evidence provided by Mrs. Ford, there is still no substantial concrete evidence that has been brought to the table in order for a justified conviction. This seems to be where the majority of aggravators and activists attempt to fill in the gaps with their own conclusions and agenda. The argument has now been reduced to two people attempting to prove their own idea of the truth with interjections from all political sides.

Does this mean that Sandel correct in his judgment of politics? Are we justified adding our own moral spin on a trial with little to no concrete evidence? Should we face these moral questions? Will it lead us to the truth without unreasonable discourse? The answer isn’t all that simple, and never has been. There are several angles to consider all of which muddle the case even more. Whose perspective is the right one? Is it the one with the moral high ground? That couldn’t be right, for everyone fighting believes their cause is virtuously superior. As a population, we are being led in circles with no hope of seeing a sensible end. Much like the politics of today, the pitfalls and traps are clearly telegraphed to the public. We simply keep falling into them.