Justice Kavanaugh: No, because: #MeToo=Roe v. Wade

Comment submitted to New York Times online blog in repsonse to Editorial in today's Times, "Questions Brett Kavanaugh must answer":

The Times is certainly wrong to say that it would be unfair to deny Kavanaugh a seat in the court if he is innocent.

It is not about taking away from him a gold medal, nor sending him to prison. He has no special entitlement to serve on the Supreme Court. The Senate is deciding on hiring him for a job. Is he a good candidate?

The answer is no if he would make a bad Supreme Court Justice. Indeed, he would. The reason is surprising but relevant.

On the Court, he will almost certainly have the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade. This case was about a woman's supposed right. A right to decide whether under certain conditions she will give birth to a child.

Call this a reproductive right. It is a right to say no (and engage medical science to carry out this no). It is a right to say no to having a child even though you are pregnant.

Many people see this right as negated by a "spiritual" duty. It is not hard to see that the "spiritual" here has a possible analogue in the "seminal" contribution of some man to the process. This is enough to see that something like a patriarchal ideology is at work here.

Now shift to a man wanting to have his way sexually with a woman. Does she have a right to say no? How seriously should men take that right?

Guilty or not, Kavanaugh owes every person in America a resounding condemnation of that with which he is accused. Otherwise, he has a conflict of interest, and the Senate must say no.