Should Brett Kavanaugh be Put on the Supreme Court

Brett Michael Kavanaugh is an American citizen, who was born on 12 February 1965, and has served in the judicial arm of government under different capacities. Kavanaugh holds two degrees, one in American History and another in Law. He acquired the two degrees from Yale University, a university considered one of the best in America. Although he holds two degrees, he has practiced law for the better part of his life. Kavanaugh has managed to rise through the ranks in judicial service, and currently serves as an Associate Justice of the American Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Recently, Kavanaugh was nominated by President Donald Trump to the Supreme Court in place of the retiring justice, Anthony Kennedy while such nomination has sparked a mixed reaction in the United States due to a series of allegations surrounding his social life.

While the name of Kavanaugh was still on the short list of Supreme Court nominees, a series of allegations were registered by different people to bar his nomination. One of the complainants was a professor of psychology from Alto University named Christine Blasey Ford. The professor claimed to have been sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh back in the year 1980 when they were still in high school (Stolberg, 2018). The allegation sparked mixed reaction considering that Kavanaugh was to serve in one of the highest Court in the land. The American constitution bars any form of abuse, and individuals with dirty records are not allowed to serve in offices of high capacity. Apart from Christine, other women also registered their claims about Kavanaugh's sexual misconduct (Stolberg, 2018). Due to the high number of claims of sexual assault, the case was registered in the Senate judiciary committee, and FBI investigation launched to ascertain the claims. However, it is challenging to investigate incidences that happened thirty years ago without any formal form of complaint registered.

Cases of rape and sexual assault are based on immediate evidence, hence, compelling the complainants to produce substantial evidence that links the accused to the misconduct. In some instances, complaints may be a conspiracy launched by an opponent to malign the name of a nominee (McCarthy, 2017). As much as rape is considered a serious offense, care must also be taken in dealing with such cases. In the case of Kavanaugh, the complaints launched against him are based on historical assertions that are difficult to prove.

The American constitution gives the President the power to appoint ambassadors, public ministers, and judges of the Supreme Court. The President in his capacity as the head of government can, therefore, appoint members to the positions mentioned above irrespective of their race, political, and religious affiliations (Gerhardt & Stein, 2015). In the case of Supreme Court judges, the constitution gives the President the full privilege of appointing anybody without considering his or her qualification and citizenship. The reason for giving the President the privileges to appoint without qualification is because the Courts are considered to be the shield of evil and anybody can serve to defend the rights and interests of the people. Based on the reasons given above, the President is not to be held responsible for any form of misconduct associated with an appointee or nominee. President Donald Trump can, therefore, not be questioned on his choice of nominees. Therefore, nominating Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court was in line with the rights accorded to him by the American Constitution.
When the President nominates a Supreme Court judge, the name is forwarded to the Senate for proper vetting before approval to the office. The Senate's work is to conduct a background check and vet the nominee based on the registered misconducts, qualifications, and the ability to hold the position (Gerhardt & Stein, 2015). In case the Senate declares the individual viable to hold the office, the approved name is then sent back to the President for confirmation. Besides, the Senate has the right to decline a nominee appointed by the President. The American constitution gives the Senate powers to dismiss the nomination of an individual based on academic qualification, misconduct and poor health (Gerhardt & Stein, 2015). When the Senate rejects a nominee's name, the entire process is repeated with the President appointing a new nominee. Hence, the goal is to find a perfect candidate.

In most cases, presidential appointees pass the Senate vetting process due to the high numbers of senators in the presidential ruling party. Immediately after the Senate's vetting, all senators are subjected to a vote that determines the fate of the nominee. Over the years, seventy percent of presidential nominees have passed the vetting process regardless of the allegations labeled against them (Christiansen & Eskridge, 2014). These statistics are high because senators always vote along party lines without considering the consequences of approving a bad person. Approving such individuals is against the American constitution that stipulates that any person mentioned of any misconduct is and shall not be reasonable to serve in the office of the land under any capacity until the matter is settled. Even though the Senate has the powers to approve the nomination of a judge, the truth behind any launched allegation should be considered, and if the truth becomes difficult to prove, the nominee should be allowed to hold office.

Although most of the presidential appointees pass the vetting, some cases registered before the Senate fail the validity tests, hence, leading to approval. Kavanaugh's case still rests with the Senate considering that the Senate has the final say. When the Senate declines his nomination, Kavanaugh will have no option, but to retire from public service (Abramson & Abrams, 2018). The constitution does not allow public servants with proven criminal records to hold government offices. When an allegation is proven right in the Senate, the nominee should lose both the current and target positions.

Kavanaugh versus Christine's case has attracted public attention considering that the allegations are based on an incident that took place more than 20 years ago. A significant percentage of the American population questions the timing of the allegation. Kavanaugh has served in the judicial service and risen to higher ranks with no serious allegations. It is still not clear why Christine, who is the major complainant of sexual assault, would prefer to wait for 36 years to launch a complaint (Chiacu, 2018). The complaint comes at a time when Kavanaugh is nominated for the highest judicial office in the land. Evidently, it has become a trend in the United States where sexual assault cases are reported only when certain individuals are at the verge of getting job promotions or business deals.

Christine Blasley's complaint is based on a high school experience that no one witnessed. The American constitution is clear on the kinds of complaints that should be given priority. The allegations of sexual assault that bar individuals from office must be within their years of service in the government or the private sector. Throughout Kavanaugh's profession as a lawyer and judge, there has never been any form of an allegation of sexual assault or gross misconduct (Becket, 2018). In every promotion step in the judicial service, background check and the level of competence are major considerations. Christine, who is a university professor, did not give clear details of her allegations towards Kavanaugh, and this makes it difficult to prove the authenticity of her claims.

Kavanaugh should be allowed into the Supreme Court since the allegations labeled against him happened many years before he became a civil servant. Although sexual assault is immoral, a high school occurrence should not bar Kavanaugh from holding office. High school is full of youthful exuberance brought about by adolescence. In the case that a high school student is assaulted sexually, complaints were first registered with the head of school before taking any legal action. Apart from the school heads, students also explained their negative occurrences with parents who later reported the matters to the authorities. It was difficult for students to face officers of the law considering their fears of the police and lack of knowledge. The parents of Christine of could have reported the incident if the allegations are true. The American authorities have records of registered complaints, and if the allegation were never registered any time between the 1980s to date, the authenticity of the claim is in question (Stolberg, 2018). Records of the school authority can also be retrieved to prove the incident. In American law, the evidence is always a key factor that determines the outcome of a case or claim. Apart from America, almost all countries around the world are governed by laws. The evidence is the only tool that can make an individual to win a case. If the allegations against Kavanaugh are true, then the evidence must be strong enough to prove the allegation.

The Senate approval depends on votes, and given the scandals that surround the nomination of Kavanaugh, some of the Republican supporters may opt to vote him out of the Supreme Court position (Abramson & Abrams, 2018). Allegations of sexual assault in America are treated with much care considering gender equality rights. American's believe that all genders are equal and at no time should one dominate the other. In case a female or male gender dominates the other, then the case is considered an assault. It is, therefore, the role of the Senate to decide whether Kavanaugh is hired for the position in the Supreme Court or his nomination is dismissed.

Sexual assault cases are difficult to prove in law. Kavanaugh versus Christine is a unique case that can trigger some changes in the constitution of America. Fighting incidences of vague sexual assault claims require the American government to amend some laws within the constitution to address such cases. For instance, if the amendment is to be made, then cases of sexual assault should be reported within five years after, which the cases become invalid. When amendments of sexual assault are made, cases reported late in life will decrease by a significant percentage.

In American history, allegations of sexual assault have crippled many careers and dreams. Christine is an American citizen who understands the laws of the land, and the magnitude of the claim that she registered. Hence, there is a possibility that she might have lied to stop the nomination of Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. The case of Christine may be considered a conspiracy aimed at maligning Kavanaugh's name. It beats logic for a case to be registered at a time when Kavanaugh is about to join the Supreme Court. There is no solid evidence linked to the assault, and this makes the claims suspicious. Early reporting of cases will help investigators to gather evidence before they diminish into the mist of time. Kavanaugh should be allowed to hold office considering the time factor. The time of the alleged incident cannot present fair ruling since all the evidence must have diminished if at all the allegations are true. Again, chances that the allegation is a conspiracy are also high, making the case difficult to decide. Therefore, the allegation should be nullified, and Kavanaugh allowed into the Supreme Court.

Cite this page