NYTimes: Kavanaugh’s nomination would have been defeated if only some survivors stayed silent

So, the NY Times has a theory which is theirs: Julia Swetnick’s sworn statement is responsible for Kavanaugh’s confirmation. From the article:

The Republican senators got into a lengthy conversation about Mr. Avenatti and how he could not be trusted and concluded that Ms. Swetnick’s claims did not add up. Why would she as a college student repeatedly go to high school parties where young women were gang raped? No one came forward to corroborate the allegation, and news reports surfaced about past lawsuits in which Ms. Swetnick’s truthfulness was questioned.

“This was a turning point,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. “That allegation was so over the top, it created a moment that was scary, quite frankly. But that moment was quickly replaced by disgust.”

… One Republican congressional official called Mr. Avenatti’s involvement “manna from heaven.” From the other side, a Democratic congressional official called it “massively unhelpful.”

So there you have it: don’t go to the wrong parties, if you’re going to be raped, make sure that you have sympathetic witnesses, and if you hire the wrong lawyer, then when justice doesn’t happen, it’s your fault. Of course, they don’t actually identify even one yes vote by someone who would have voted against Kavanaugh if only Swetnick had shut up like a good girl, much less the two that would have been necessary to change the outcome. But that’s not what’s important. What’s important is don’t speak up, unless you speak up a little bit, politely, about things that are appropriate dinner table conversation. Otherwise when injustice happens, it’s on you. Because goodness knows that if women were just encouraged to shut the fuck up a little bit harder, we wouldn’t have a perjurer and probable sexual assault perp sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

So if you’re thinking about speaking up about the assault that happened to you, think again: you’re probably just making things worse. Our newspaper of record has said so.


  1. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    You know what? It’s really The People’s fault for not lining Congress up against a wall and shooting them. That is also true.

    Well, at least the one half.

  2. cartomancer says

    I have a nagging feeling that if this continues then someone might take things into their own hands and assassinate Trump’s nominees. After all, it has been demonstrated beyond doubt that the system is corrupt and unfit for purpose – and it’s not like basic sympathy for those nominees as human beings will stay anyone’s hand. I’m not advocating for it, but it does seem rather a likely outcome.

  3. John Morales says

    cartomancer, ouch. That would be a huge boon for Trump’s administration. 😐

    (Surely you can imagine what they could “justify” on that basis!)

  4. cartomancer says

    Given what they routinely justify without it, I’m not sure it would make too much of a difference. Due process, the rule of law and basic human decency do not matter to these people – they find whatever ways they can to bulldoze through their agenda.

  5. says

    @John Morales:

    I think that cartomancer was trying to say what JFK said, although in a little more detail – which, when present, makes the general statement seem more a threat and less an observation about living in a complex society with millions of people, some of whom inevitably are unable to remain non-violent.

    The JFK statement:

    Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

    Also, while we should try to prevent all violence b/c violence, duh! it remains that while context can make certain actions more understandable, those actions are not necessarily any more justified or justifiable. Indeed, the critique of the NY Times here is that they’re attempting to justify terrible actions by Republican senators (and one Democratic) on the basis that we women had the gall to think the first amendment applied to us and that it was acceptable to use our freedom to speak about ways in which we have been treated unjustly to highlight the threat to justice a Kavanaugh tenure on SCOTUS imposes on us all. But fuck that. Our speech doesn’t make their votes more justifiable.

    So as for assassinating Justices or nominees, I have this to say: even if the Reichstag Fire were started by a queer, Jewish, socialist trade unionist in conspiracy with a thousand others of the same, still the Reichstagsbrandverordnung would have been unjustified. I can easily imagine Trump blaming anyone and everyone but himself for all sorts of unconstitutional, unjust, and even violent actions after such an assassination. Still it would be unjustified.

    We really shouldn’t be making decisions about our responses to Trump based on whether or not other people might use them to (attempt to) justify horrors. We have plenty of reasons to oppose real life assassinations without roping that twisted, dishonest Müllcontainerbrand into it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *