Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) have recently called for the postponement of Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing because of sexual assault allegations raised against the federal judge.

The timeline for Kavanaugh’s confirmation, which seems to change every day, is shaped too much by party politics.

Christine Blasey Ford, a professor of clinical psychology at Palo Alto University, accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her at a party in 1982, when they were teenagers. Schumer, Gillibrand and fellow Democrats appear to be using these allegations to slow down or even stop the confirmation of Kavanaugh.

“Nominations are always political,” said John Kastellec, an associate professor in the department of politics at Princeton University.

But the accusations are not clear cut. Kavanaugh and another individual Ford said was present at the alleged assault, Mark Judge, have both denied the accusations. And two other people named at the party Ford described, Leland Keyser and Patrick J. Symth, say they have no recollection of the incident, according to CNN.

Don’t get me wrong, these allegations should be taken seriously. For that reason, it’s justified that both Ford and Kavanaugh testify under oath to tell their respective sides. It may even be reasonable — like Schumer and Gillibrand have asked — to investigate the matter much further.

Ford first revealed the details of the story three decades after it happened during a therapy session, and notes indicate that four men were present — a discrepancy Ford blames on the therapist.

But there’s a responsibility to hold Kavanaugh innocent until proven guilty. And officials such as Gillibrand have already implicated Kavanaugh despite the iffy nature of the allegations.

Even if the FBI decides to investigate, the investigation would be futile because Ford’s story is unverifiable. She may be telling the truth, but there is almost nothing tangible for investigators to pursue.

Plus, Kavanaugh has already endured six FBI investigations. If there was something questionable about Kavanaugh’s character, surely it would have surfaced by now.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.) has known about these allegations since July. It’s unclear why she withheld the allegations until days before Kavanaugh’s likely confirmation. But as a result, Feinstein has drawn out the nomination process and may have even disqualified Kavanaugh altogether, which would require a new Supreme Court pick.

“How you think about the timing depends on how much weight you put on the truthfulness of the allegations,” Kastellec said.

But regardless, the suspect timing of this fiasco should still leave a bad taste in the mouth of those who uphold reasonable standards of civility. Had Feinstein taken politics out of the equation, these allegations would have been investigated months ago.

Kastellec used Robert Bork’s nomination in 1987 as an example of how politics can cloud Supreme Court nominations. Bork was the victim of an intense conflict between political interest groups, and in the end, his nomination was defeated by a vote of 58 to 42, the largest margin in history.

It’s plausible that Kavanaugh will find himself in the same situation.

Schumer and Gillibrand’s outrage doesn’t seem to apply to the recent domestic abuse allegations against Keith Ellison, the deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee who is running for Minnesota attorney general. Those allegations, unlike Ford’s, have some tangible evidence to substantiate the accuser’s claims, yet Gillibrand and Schumer have remained silent.

The motives behind those who eagerly rallied behind Ford and implicated Kavanaugh should be questioned. And it would be a mistake to view Schumer and Gillibrand as noble defenders of a sexual assault victim.

Joseph Pucciarelli is a junior public relations and history dual major. His column appears biweekly. He can be reached at jjpuccia@syr.edu and followed on Twitter @JoeyPucciarelli.

Published on September 26, 2018 at 8:07 pm