Law Professors Say That Sexism is The Problem

250 Law Profs Release Statement: ‘The Problem With Sexual Harassment Is Sexism’

By Opheli Garcia Lawler, October 4, 2018

Two-hundred-fifty law professors nationwide, as of Friday morning, signed an open statement condemning sexual harassment, which they sent to Senator Richard Blumenthal’s office on Thursday. The letter outlines ten principles to further combat sexual harassment, building on the momentum of the #MeToo movement to further advance equality in the United States.

Read the full statement below.

We, the undersigned law professors interested in eliminating sexual harassment, seek to offer a new vision and agenda for eliminating sexual harassment and advancing equality. We are inspired by the #MeToo movement: the courage and sheer number of people who have come forward to report sexual harassment and abuse, including in the chambers of the U.S. Senate, the solidarity among activists, the media’s in-depth and sustained coverage, and the public’s willingness to hear and believe so many victims all suggest this is a watershed moment for change. Spurred by recent events and renewed activism, we wish to contribute to the current momentum by broadening the conversation to include the law. To reduce sexual harassment and move toward a fairer, more inclusive society for everyone, we offer the following principles for addressing sexual harassment gained from years of working for progress within the law.

Ten Principles for Addressing Sexual Harassment

Principle #1: The problem with sexual harassment is sexism, not sexual desire.

Sexual harassment often refers to unwanted sexual advances and assaults, usually by powerful male bosses or benefactors against less powerful women. This is an important pattern of harassment, one that our society must address. Yet, not all harassment fits this pattern, and even this pattern is more about gender than it is about sexual attraction.

Contrary to popular perceptions, harassment is not always sexual in nature; it assumes a variety of nonsexual forms. Nor is it usually perpetrated by bosses or power brokers, nor is it always a male-to-female phenomenon. Men harass other men who don’t conform to prescribed images of who “real men” are supposed to be, for example. Women sometimes harass other women, as well as men.

In all these scenarios, the bottom line is that harassment is more about upholding status and identity than it is about expressing sexual desire or sexuality. In the usual case, harassment provides a way for some men to monopolize prized roles in society, and to maintain a superior masculine position and sense of self. Even where unwanted sexual misconduct occurs, it is typically a telltale sign of biased attitudes or broader patterns of inequality such as gender stereotyping and sex segregation, as explained below.

Principle #2: Harassment includes many forms of nonsexual sexism and abuse, not just sexual misconduct.

Recent events have focused on unwanted sexual advances, including serious sexual assaults. These acts cause serious harm. They humiliate victims, brand them as inferiors, and cause lasting psychological anguish and trauma. As the #MeToo movement insists, survivors of such sexual harassment and abuse deserve respect, empathy, and justice from society and the legal system to address these harms.

The same is true of many other nonsexual forms of sexism and abuse that women experience simply because they are women. Patronizing treatment, physical assaults, hostile or ridiculing behavior, social ostracism and exclusion, and work sabotage are all used to make women feel inferior, for example, just like sexual come-ons. In fact, research shows that nonsexual hostilities are more common than unwanted sexual overtures. Typically, even explicitly sexual overtures are accompanied by other forms of sex-based harassment and disrespect, revealing that sexual misconduct is often less about hooking up than about putting women down.

For these reasons, the laws prohibiting workplace and school harassment now prohibit all sex-based harassment, sexual and nonsexual, in a variety of institutional and social settings.

Principle #3: Sexual harassment is linked to sex segregation and inequality.

Reformers who highlight the importance of gender parity are right: sex segregation and inequality are a major cause of sex harassment. Research shows that harassment is more prevalent where women work in traditionally male-dominated jobs or settings, for example.

Women’s absence from some positions or spaces and predominance in others fosters gender stereotypes like “men are leaders” and “women aren’t tough enough to lead”—ideas that make the underlying segregation and inequality seem natural when they are not. These stereotypes foster harassment, encouraging men to view and treat women as “different” and second class. By harassing women who dare to enter traditionally male institutions or roles, or imposing sexist demands that remind women they are still women in a man’s world, men can shore up their masculine status and sense of masculine superiority. Harassment in turn reinforces the original segregation and stereotypes by driving women away and confirming ideas that they can’t cut it or don’t belong. Leaders often fail to respond or look the other way, completing the cycle.

Sex segregation not only affects mostly-male institutions: Women who inhabit traditionally female positions and spaces are often at increased risk of harassment and exploitation, too, especially where their roles require displaying heterosexual sex appeal or performing other stereotypically female roles. Without the power and safety that comes with equal representation and numbers, women cannot effectively counter stereotypes or deter or resist harassment. Combatting sexual harassment means eliminating sex segregation and ensuring that women and men work, learn, and socialize alongside each other as equals.

Principle #4: Same-sex harassment and LGBTQ harassment are prevalent and prohibited forms of sex discrimination, too.

Women are not the only victims of harassment. Men, too, frequently experience sex-based harassment—mostly at the hands of other men. At times, powerful men prey on other men for sexual favors, just as men do upon women. But more often, men harass other men through acts of gender-based hostility—including hostility toward those who don’t live up to images of “real men” prescribed by mainstream codes of masculinity. Although female-on-female harassment is less visible than other types, women do sometimes demean and ostracize women perceived as improperly feminine, including lesbians. Harassment against LGBTQ people is widespread, with transgender individuals experiencing the highest rates of all. By attacking LGBTQ people and heterosexual individuals who fail to conform to prescribed gender norms, harassers reinforce their status and shore up their own sense of self.

Because harassment and discrimination against LGBTQ individuals is necessarily rooted in prescriptive stereotypes about appropriate appearance, sexual partners, and gender identity, the law has rightly begun to recognize that sexual orientation and transgender harassment is a form of illegal sex discrimination. This is true regardless of whether the motive or means are sexual in nature or whether the harassment is directed at someone of the opposite or same sex.

Principle #5: Race-based harassment and intersectional race/sex harassment and discrimination must be specifically addressed.

Women and men of color experience higher rates of racial-ethnic harassment than white people. Women of color also report and experience higher rates of harassment than white women, often on the basis of both sex and race. Men of color may also be more likely than white men to experience gender-based harassment at the hands of other men. In general, people who experience sex-based harassment are more likely to experience racial-ethnic harassment, highlighting the importance of intersectional analysis pioneered by Black feminists.

Black women have been subjected to sexual and labor exploitation for centuries, dating back to slavery. Women of color generally face increased risk of harassment, and pernicious myths about their sexuality, as well as persistent nonsexual negative stereotypes. Men of color, too, face pervasive stereotypes and are sometimes targeted for harassment or discrimination, or accused of it, because of their race and sex. Women of color, as well as immigrants and undocumented workers, are also disproportionately clustered in low-paying, unskilled occupations, leaving them further vulnerable to and less able to resist stereotyping and harassment. The law has properly begun to acknowledge the foundational role of race in contributing to sex-based harassment, along with other structural factors as discussed below.

Principle #6: Broader structural vulnerabilities, as well as arbitrary unchecked authority, must be reduced.

Many women find themselves in occupations or situations that leave them vulnerable to sex-based harassment and exploitation. Hotel housekeepers work alone; agricultural workers are “out of sight and out of mind” for the general public; and waitresses who rely on tips may feel compelled to tolerate harassment, for example. Students must depend on teachers and coaches for advancement and advice.

Even apart from such specialized vulnerabilities, many people also face a more generalized risk for harassment and abuse—bosses or benefactors who have unchecked, carte blanche authority to make or break their careers and life prospects based on the higher-ups’ own subjective say-so. The gendered character of the hierarchy contributes to the problem—because of sex segregation and inequality, too many bosses and benefactors are men—but so does the nature of the hierarchy itself. Research shows that managers who are given unfettered, discretionary authority over subordinates, for example, are more likely to abuse it. This is unnecessary and wrong. Excessive, unchecked discretion not only provides a ready mechanism for discrimination; it also provides a powerful platform for sexual misconduct and sex-based harassment and intimidation. Time-honored legal principles prohibit excessively subjective, unconstrained discretion, incentivizing greater objectivity, oversight, openness, and accountability to constrain arbitrary authority that facilitates harassment and abuse.

Principle #7: Institutions should rely on fair process to determine whether sexual behavior is unwelcome and harassing, rather than simply banning all sexual behavior across the board.

In an effort to avoid legal liability, many institutions have adopted policies that broadly prohibit all sexually-oriented conversation and behavior, regardless of their purpose or effect. Some organizations even ban dating among same-level members. Such sweeping prohibitions tend to be unhelpful; they can even hinder the cause of eliminating harassment and discrimination by creating fear and encouraging higher-ups and peers to avoid women, further fueling patterns of sex segregation and inequality.

Common sense suggests that not all sexual conversations, invitations, or relationships are discriminatory or harmful; this is why the law requires that harassment be unwanted or unwelcome. Power and representation in a given context matter. In less sex-segregated, more gender equal settings, for example, women are less likely to experience sexual harassment. In other cases, dating relationships among colleagues are welcome.

Overzealous approaches that seek to eliminate all sexual expression invite cynicism and backlash against initiatives to combat harassment. They fail to promote equality for women, while leaving LGBTQ people, men of color, and others who are stereotyped as sexually predatory vulnerable to disproportionate punishment. To help prevent discriminatory enforcement of harassment policies, and to ensure basic fairness for both complainants and people accused of sexual misconduct, it is important to provide thorough, impartial, and evenhanded investigations and hearings for all complaints.

Principle #8: Support for victims of harassment and people who stand up for them must be strengthened.

To end harassment, societal institutions must create conditions and cultures that ensure equal inclusion and respect for everyone. Leaders can provide time, money, and organizational resources to prevent harassment, investigate complaints fairly, monitor results, and establish a climate of respect for all. They can also take steps to desegregate along sex and gender lines and create structural conditions in which equality and respect can flourish.

But addressing harassment is too important to be left to leadership alone. Eliminating sexual harassment requires solidarity with those who come forward to complain. Harassment can be eliminated only if people who are harassed are safe in coming forward, and if other people can safely stand up for them. All members of society have a vital stake and role to play in creating nondiscriminatory institutions and social spaces. Politicians, reporters, educators, activists, shareholders, consumers, and ordinary citizens can also stand up for victims—and for what is right—across traditional boundaries of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, national origin, and socioeconomic and occupational status.

Research shows that most people who experience harassment do not report it, largely because they fear retaliation—and with good reason. Without empowering victims and their allies to reveal and protest perceived wrongdoing, there is no way to eliminate harassment or to move society forward.

Principle #9: Victims of sexual harassment should have open and equal access to the legal system.

Sexual harassment is a form of discrimination, and it should be treated the same as other types of discrimination. To a large extent the law recognizes this principle. But there are exceptions. Even though hostile work environment harassment is simply discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment, for example, the Supreme Court has said employers do not face the usual strict liability for this type of harassment. Further, employees who are not fired or demoted must first complain internally to their employers before turning to the courts for redress. Once there, the law requires them to prove elements not required of other employees who experience discrimination. The Court has set unduly high standards that prevents many victims from having their day in court, let alone winning. Judges often turn a blind eye to sexism, refusing to find that harassment is because of sex when it is clearly driven by sexism and stereotyping.

These barriers are unacceptable. It is unfair and unwise to subject harassment cases to more onerous legal rules than other forms of discrimination. It suggests that victims of sexual misconduct are somehow responsible or at fault for the harassment. All victims of harassment and discrimination should have recourse to the legal system on equal, accessible terms.

Principle #10: Prevention and remedies must move beyond punishing individual wrongdoers to encourage systemic institutional change.

Harassment is a large-scale problem; it requires bold solutions. Individual harassers must be held accountable for their actions, as discussed above. Allowing harassers to rise to prominence, remain in their positions, resign, or disappear from the public eye quietly does nothing to prevent them from causing more harm. But institutions and society must do much more. Even if individuals are held to account, other harassers will eventually take their place unless the underlying conditions and cultures that fostered the harassment in the first place are changed.

Ending harassment requires moving beyond individual solutions to adopt approaches that hold institutions accountable for harassment and its sources. The law should lead the way, but recent Supreme Court decisions make it difficult to seek justice along these lines. The Court has cut back on the availability of class actions, for example, and upheld mandatory arbitration agreements for harassment and discrimination claims. These decisions force complainants into private arbitration forums that tend to favor the status quo and prevent people from challenging injustices together. Not only do such decisions limit access to justice for people who have experienced harassment and discrimination: all citizens are hindered in obtaining meaningful reforms when those in power treat harassment as a problem of individual bad actors, rather than as a product of the broader structures and environments in which those individuals work, learn, and interview.

Employees, advocates, policymakers, educators, labor unions, activists, students, and ordinary citizens must think expansively about how to facilitate such systemic changes to prevent and remedy harassment and discrimination. We must move beyond individual punishment to embrace actions that will alter the structure and culture of our institutions and encourage greater equality, respect, and solidarity among those who inhabit them. Such actions can and should be undertaken inside and outside the legal system, inspired by enduring legal ideals of equality and fairness for all.

Conclusion

As legal scholars and educators, we know that law alone cannot create change. Yet we know also that change rarely occurs without the law. For over forty years, employees, activists, educators, and policymakers have looked to the legal system to address sexual harassment, particularly in the context of the workplace and campus. These efforts have produced important theories and information, steps forward and setbacks, that yield important lessons for the future. The laws against discrimination provide an important tool in the fight against sexual harassment. But broader reforms are needed to address the conditions in which harassment flourishes, and to make legal and social institutions more responsive to the problem. The foregoing principles are a place to start.

Signed,

Alphabetical, institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only
Last updated 10/4/18 at 6:00 p.m. EST

Kathryn Abrams, Professor of Law, Berkeley Law School
Miriam R. Albert, Professor of Skills, Hofstra Law School
Anne L. Alstott, Jacquin D Bierman Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Nadia B. Ahmad, Associate Professor of Law, Barry University School of Law 
Ifeoma Ajunwa, Assistant Professor of Law, Cornell University 
Susan Appleton, Lemma Barkeloo & Phoebe Couzins Professor of Law, Washington University School of Law 
Rachel Arnow-Richman, Professor of Law, University of Denver Sturm College of Law 
Ian Ayres, William K. Townsend Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Sahar Aziz, Professor of Law and Chancellor’s Social Justice Scholar, Rutgers Law School
Rick Bales, Professor, Ohio Northern College of Law
Marsha L. Baum, Professor of Law, University of New Mexico
Nadine Baum, Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Arkansas-Little Rock)
Anita Bernstein, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School 
Beryl Blaustone, Professor of Law, CUNY School of Law 
Amelia Boss, Trustee Professor of Law, Drexel University School of Law
Robin Boyle, Professor of Legal Writing, St. John’s University School of Law 
Grace Ganz Blumberg, Distinguished Professor of Law Emerita, UCLA School of Law 
Stephanie Bornstein, Associate Professor of Law, University of Florida Levin College of Law 
Deborah Brake, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh 
Joanne Brant, Professor of Law, Ohio Northern University College of Law 
Melissa Breger, Professor of Law, Albany Law School 
Patricia Broussard, Professor of Law, Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University College of Law 
Margaret Burnham, Distinguished University Professor of Law, Northeastern University 
Erin Buzuvis, Professor of Law, Western New England University 
Alexander Capron, University Professor and Scott H. Bice Chair in Healthcare Law, Policy and Ethics, University of Southern California 
June Carbone, Robina Chair of Law, University of Minnesota Law School 
Catherine L. Carpenter, Arleigh M. Woods and William T. Woods Professor of Law, Southwestern Law School
Martha Chamallas, Robert J. Lynn Chair in Law, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University 
Gabriel J. Chin, Edward L. Barrett Jr. Chair and Martin Luther King Jr. Professor, University of California, Davis School of Law
Sumi Cho, Professor of Law, DePaul University College of Law 
Carol Chomsky, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School 
Stephen Clark, Professor of Law, Albany Law School 
Jessica Clarke, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt Law School 
Ruth Colker, Distinguished University Professor, Moritz College of Law
Donna Coker, Professor of Law, University of Miami School of Law
Ruth Colker, Distinguished University Professor, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law 
Dana Harrington Conner, Professor of Law, Widener University, Delaware Law School
Kim Diana Connolly, Professor of Law, University at Buffalo School of Law
Elizabeth Cooper, Associate Professor of Law, Fordham Law School
Angela Cornell, Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School
Bridget J. Crawford, Professor of Law, Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University
Mary Crossley, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Ellen E. Deason, Joanne Wharton Murphy Classes of 1965 & 1973 Professor of Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
Deborah Dinner, Associate Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law 
Nancy Dowd, Professor of Law, University of Florida Levin College of Law
Jennifer Drobac, R. Bruce Townsend Professor of Law, Indiana University 
Lauren Edelman, Agnes Roddy Robb Professor of Law and Professor of Sociology, University of California Berkeley 
Jean Eggen, Distinguished Professor Emerita of Law, Delaware Law School – Widener University 
Maxine Eichner, Graham Kenan Distinguished Professor of Law, UNC School of Law 
Kathleen Engel, Research Professor, Suffolk University 
Sam Erman, Associate Professor of Law, USC Gould School of Law
Katie Eyer, Associate Professor of Law, Rutgers University 
Marie Failinger, Professor of Law, Mitchell Hamline School of Law 
Stephanie Farrior, Distinguished Faculty Scholar, Vermont Law School
Zanita E. Fenton, Professor of Law, University of Miami School of Law
Richard Michael Fischl, Professor of Law, University of Connecticut
Linda E. Fisher, Professor of Law, Seton Hall Law School
Joseph Fishkin, Marrs McLean Professor in Law, University of Texas, Austin 
Catherine L. Fisk, Barbara Nachtrieb Armstrong Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley 
Barbara Flagg, Professor of Law Emerita, Washington University 
Akilah Folami, Professor of Law, Hofstra University Law School
Pamela Foohey, Associate Professor, Indiana University Maurer School of Law
Carolina Forell, Professor of Law Emerita, University of Oregon
Susan F. French, Professor of Law Emerita, UCLA School of Law
Clark Freshman, Professor of Law, University of California, Hastings College of the Law 
Martha E. Gaines, Distinguished Clinical Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School
Paula Galowitz, Clinical Professor of Law Emerita, New York University School of Law
Susan N. Gary, Professor of Law, University of Oregon School of Law
Hannah R. Garry, Clinical Professor of Law, USC Gould School of Law
Erika George, Samuel D. Thurman Professor of Law, University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law
Sarah Gerwig-Moore, Associate Professor of Law, Mercer University
Lauren Gilbert, Professor of Law, St. Thomas University School of Law
Rachel Godsil, Professor of Law, Rutgers University
Susan Goldberg, Associate Dean and Associate Professor, Delaware Law of Widener University
Julie Goldscheid, Professor of Law, CUNY School of Law
Jasmine Gonzales Rose, Associate Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh 
Steve Gray, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law, University of Michigan 
Michael Green, Professor of Law, Texas A&M University 
Tristin Green, Professor of Law, University of San Francisco School of Law
Elayne E. Greenberg, Assistant Dean of Dispute Resolution, Professor of Legal Practice, Director of the Carey Center for Dispute Resolution, St. John’s Law School 
Julie A. Greenberg, Professor Emeritus, Thomas Jefferson School of Law 
D. Wendy Greene, Professor of Law, Cumberland School of Law 
David Singh Grewal, Professor, Yale Law School
Ariela Gross, John B. and Alice R. Sharp Professor of Law and History, University of Southern California Gould School of Law 
Joanna L. Grossman, Ellen K. Solender Endowed Chair in Women and Law & Professor of Law, SMU Dedman School of Law 
Aya Gruber, Professor of Law, University of Colorado Law School 
Phoebe Haddon, Chancellor and Professor of Law, Rutgers University School of Law 
Jacqueline Hand, Professor of Law, University of Detroit Mercy School of Law 
Angela P. Harris, Professor Emerita, Distinguished of Law, UC Davis School of Law
Dina F. Haynes, Professor of Law, New England Law
Jennifer S. Hendricks, Professor of Law, University of Colorado Law School
Tanya Hernandez, Professor of Law, Fordham Law School
Kathy Hessler, Professor of Law, Lewis & Clark Law School 
Zachary Herz, Assistant Teaching Professor, Georgetown University 
Jeffrey Hirsch, Professor of Law, University of North Carolina 
Ann C. Hodges, Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Richmond 
Clare Huntington, Joseph M. McLaughlin Professor of Law, Fordham Law School 
Alan Hyde, Professor of Law, Rutgers University 
Lisa C. Ikemoto, Professor of Law, University of California, Davis School of Law
Lolita Buckner Inniss, Professor and Robert G. Storey Distinguished Faculty Fellow, SMU Dedman School of Law
Melanie B. Jacobs, Senior Associate Dean and Professor of Law, Michigan State University College of Law
Dawn Johnsen, Walter W. Foskett Professor of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law 
Margaret E. Johnson, Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law
Ann Juliano, Professor of Law, Villanova University 
Marcy Karin, Jack and Lovell Olender Professor of Law, UDC David A. Clarke School of Law 
Eileen Kaufman, Professor of Law, Touro Law School 
Deseriee Kennedy, Associate Dean of Diversity & Inclusion and Professor of Law, Touro Law Center
Laura Kessler, Professor of Law, University of Utah
Kathleen Kim, Professor of Law, Loyola Law School Los Angeles 
Kit Kinports, Distinguished Faculty Scholar, Penn State Law 
Laurie Kohn, Associate Professor of Law, George Washington Law School 
Judith Koons, Professor of Law, Barry University School of Law 
Jane Korn, Professor of Law, Gonzaga Law School 
Minna J. Kotkin, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School 
Candy Kovacic-Fleischer, Professor of Law Emeritus, American University 
Zachary Kramer, Professor of Law, Arizona State 
Douglas Kysar, Joseph M. Field ’55 Professor of Law, Yale Law School 
Rebecca K. Lee, Associate Professor of Law, Thomas Jefferson School of Law 
Sophia Lee, Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania 
Nancy Leong, Professor of Law, University of Denver Sturm College of Law 
Nancy Levit, Professor of Law, University of Missouri, Kansas City
Mary A. Lynch, Kate Stoneman Chair in Law and Democracy, Albany Law School
Orly Lobel, Professor, University of San Diego School of Law 
Antoinette Sedillo López, Professor Emerita, University of New Mexico School of Law 
Jean Love, Professor of Law, Santa Clara University
Lois R. Lupica, Maine Law Foundation Professor of Law, University of Maine School of Law 
Ellen Marcus, Royce Till Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center
Maya Manian, Professor of Law, University of San Francisco School of Law 
Serena Mayeri, Professor of Law and History, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Elizabeth McCormick, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, University of Tulsa College of Law
Marcia McCormick, Professor, Saint Louis University School of Law 
Ann McGinley, William S. Boyd Professor of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Law School
Miranda Oshige McGowan, Professor of Law, University of San Diego Law School
M. Isabel Medina, Ferris Family Distinguished Professor of Law, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law 
Kathryn Mercer, Professor, Case Western Reserve University School of Law 
Vanessa Merton, Professor of Law, Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University
Margaret Montoya, Professor Emerita of Law, University of New Mexico 
Seema Mohapatra, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law
Jennifer Moore, Professor of Law, University of New Mexico School of Law 
Melissa Murray, Professor of Law, New York University 
Yxta Maya Murray, Professor of Law, Loyola Law School
Smita Narula, Haub Distinguished Professor of International Law, Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University
Carol A. Needham, Emanuel Myers Professor of Law, Saint Louis University
Victoria F. Nourse, Professor of Law, Georgetown Law School 
Michael A. Olivas, William B. Bates Distinguished Chair, University of Houston Law Center 
Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Dean and Professor of Law at Boston University School of Law 
David Oppenheimer, Professor of Law, University of California Berkeley Law School
Laura Oren, Professor Emerita, University of Houston Law Center 
Richard Ottinger, Dean Emeritus, Elizabeth Haub School of Law of Pace University
Jessica Owley, Professor of Law, SUNY Buffalo Law School
Laura Padilla, Professor of Law, California Western School of Law
Cathren Page, Associate Professor of Law, Barry University School of Law
Joyce Palomar, Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Oklahoma College of Law 
Sachin Pandya, Professor of Law, University of Connecticut Law School
Wendy Parmet, Professor of Law, Northeastern University
Danielle Pelfrey Duryea, Clinical Visiting Assistant Professor, Assistant Dean, University at Buffalo, SUNY
Andrea L. Peterson, Professor of Law Emerita, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
Catherine Powell, Professor of Law, Fordham Law School 
Nicole Buonocore Porter, Professor of Law, University of Toledo College of Law
Jeanne Frazier Price, Professor of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Lisa Pruitt, Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law 
Vernellia Randall, Professor Emerita of Law, The University of Dayton School of Law
Srividhya Ragavan, Professor of Law, Texas A&M School of Law
Gowri Ramachandran, Professor of Law, Southwestern Law School 
Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Proessor of Law, Temple Law School
Renee C. Redman, Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Connecticut School of Law
Meredith Render, Professor of Law, Hugh F. Culverhouse Jr. School of Law at the University of Alabama 
Judith Resnik, Arthur Liman Professor of Law, Yale Law School 
Deborah L. Rhode, Professor of Law, Stanford Law School 
Camille Gear Rich, Professor of Law and Sociology, USC Gould School of Law
Stephen Rich. Professor of Law, University of Southern California Law School 
Michelle Richards, Assistant Professor of Law, Detroit Mercy Law 
Sarah E. Ricks, Distinguished Clinical Professor of Law, Rutgers Law School
Florence Wagman Roisman, William F. Harvey Professor of Law and Chancellor’s Professor, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law
Adam Romero, Professor of Law, University of California Los Angeles
Carrie Rosenbaum, Adjunct Professor, Golden Gate University School of Law
Laura Rovner, Professor of Law, University of Denver College of Law
Susan Deller Ross, Professor, Georgetown University 
Merrick Rossein, Professor of Law, City University of New York School of Law
Brandi Katz Rubin, Adjunct Professor of Law, Cardozo School of Law
Margaret Russell, Professor of Law, Santa Clara University 
Leticia Saucedo, Professor of Law, U. C. Davis School of Law 
Wayne Sandholtz, Professor of International Relations and Law, University of Southern California
Margaret Satterthwaite, Professor of Clinical Law, New York University School of Law
Nadia N. Sawicki, Georgia Reithal Professor of Law; Academic Director, Beazley Institute for Health Law & Policy, Loyola University Chicago School of Law
Naomi Schoenbaum, Associate Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School 
Vicki Schultz, Ford Foundation Professor of Law and Social Science, Yale Law School
Paul Secunda, Professor of Law, Marquette University
Dveera Segal, Professor of Law Emeritus, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law
Rachel Settlage, Associate Professor, Wayne State Law School
Ann Shalleck, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law 
Elaine Shoben, Professor of Law, University of Nevada Las Vegas 
Abbe Smith, Professor of Law, Georgetown University
Charisa Kiyô Smith, Associate Professor of Law, City University of New York School of Law 
Peggie Smith, Charles Nagel Professor of Employment & Labor Law, Washington University in St. Louis School of Law 
Gemma Solimene, Clinical Associate Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law
Jane Spinak, Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
Brian Soucek, Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law 
Kathryn Stanchi, Jack E. Feinberg Professor of Litigation & Professor of Law, Temple University School of Law
Charles Sullivan, Professor of Law, Seton Hall University 
Allison Tait, Associate Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law
Ann Thomas, Otto L. Walter Distinguished Professor of Tax Law, New York Law School 
Michelle Travis, Professor of Law, University of San Francisco School of Law
Jane Spinak, Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
Deborah Tuerkheimer, Research Professor, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law 
Valorie Kay Vojdik, Professor of Law, University of Tennessee
Leti Volpp, Robert D. and Leslie Kay Raven Professor of Law, UC Berkley School of Law
Rachel Vorspan, Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law
Lu-in Wang, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh 
Ettie Ward, Professor of Law, St. John’s University School of Law 
Rhonda Wasserman, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law 
Gary Watson, Provost Professor of Philosophy and Law, University of Southern California
Danielle Weatherby, Associate Professor of Law, University of Arkansas School of Law
Jessica Dixon Weaver, Associate Professor of Law, SMU Dedman School of Law
Kelly Weisberg, Professor of Law, University of California Hastings College of Law
Marley Weiss, Professor of Law, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
Deborah M. Weissman, Reef C. Ivey II Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law 
Robin West, Professor of Law, Georgetown University
Barbara Ann White, Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law 
Deborah Widiss, Professor of Law, IU Bloomington
Stephanie Wildman, Professor Emerita, Santa Clara University of School of Law 
Pam Wilkins, Professor of Law, University of Detroit Mercy School of Law
Stephen Wizner, William O. Douglas Clinical Professor of Law Emeritus, Yale Law School
David Yamada, Professor of Law, Suffolk University 
Deborah Zalesne, Professor of Law, CUNY School of Law 
Noah Zatz, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law 
Candace M. Zierdt, Professor of Law, Stetson University College of Law

Joan Swirsky On The D.C. Freak Show and The Kavanaugh Hearings

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh testifies during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on his nomination to
the Supreme Court on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 27, 2018.Erin Schaff / EPA

P.T. Barnum Had Nothing on the Democrat’s Freak Show

Joan Swirsky, News With Views, October 1, 2018

Additional Articles By Joan Swirsky

The Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus that I attended in my youth showcased acts like the freak show in which people with all sorts of bizarre physical features would attract millions of morbidly curious wide-eyed visitors.

But even Tom Thumb and the Siamese twins, the bearded lady and the dog-faced boy, and the head of Medusa that “turned men into stone” had nothing on the oddities of the 2018 circus that billed itself as the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee’s Hearing to determine if Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s selection for the Supreme Court, is fit for that august position.

Those oddities, however, were not physical, but rather deformities of character, integrity, honor.

After an exhaustive interview process, a marathon of visiting members of Congress for personal interviews, and being investigated six times by the FBI for his position as U.S. Circuit Judge on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (and other lofty positions), the married father of two adorable young daughters seemed headed straight to take his place beside the president’s former pick, conservative jurist Neil Gorsuch.

But wait! What is this slithering worm in the ointment?

It was the prospect of a majority of conservative justices on the highest court in the land eventually overturning their most cherished law––the “right” to kill in-utero embryos, fetuses, and babies…right up to the ninth month of pregnancy! And we all know how proud State Legislator Obama was about his legislation in Chicago that allowed doctors to snuff the lives out of living, breathing infants who survived the gruesome abortion procedure.

As far as the left is concerned, you can take military strength, low taxes, high employment (for blacks, Hispanics, women and youth), the genuine protection of our borders, equitable treaties between the U.S. and other countries, huge inroads in foreign policy, on and on and on, and throw them all in the garbage in comparison to the absolute Holy Grail of leftism: abortion.

THE PLAN

The Democrats’ initial plan to quash the Kavanaugh nomination was to grill him so relentlessly and to examine his judicial decisions so microscopically that personal and professional flaws would be found to disqualify him for the job. It turned out, to their everlasting anguish, that he passed all the tests with flying colors and the only remaining procedure was a vote in the Senate which promised to be narrow but successful.

Then quite suddenly––literally out of the blue, it seemed––came a challenge to Judge Kavanaugh’s heretofore sterling reputation: an accusation from a female professor in California that when teenager Kavanaugh and his friend were 17 and drunk, he groped her 15-year-old self and her bathing-suit-clad body and put his hand over her mouth when she tried to scream. Her report was a little sketchy––not sure of the date or venue––but quite sure of the perpetrator.

Where did this challenge come from? Why none other than the Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Senator Dianne Feinstein from California, who said that almost two months earlier she had received a letter from the aggrieved professor, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, but was asked to keep it secret.

Obviously Sen. Feinstein or a member of her staff leaked the confidential letter to a member of the always-accommodating leftist media…and the race was on for all the Progressives to express their terminal outrage and demand––DEMAND!––to question the judge about this 36-year-old accusation.

Don’t ask these evolved politicians the color of their neckties two days ago or what they ate for dinner three nights ago, but trust them when they say that a memory from drunk teenagers almost 40 years ago is credible. Can’t make this up!

Better than the dog-faced boy!

THE STARS OF THE D.C. FREAK SHOW

RING ONE: Step right up, ladies and gentlemen, to the greatest show on earth. Watch the magic taking place in the center ring as the craven leftwing media elevate innuendo over truth, lies over objective reality, fantasy over rationality.

Yes, they have tried and utterly failed to destroy the Trump presidency since the day citizen Trump and his gorgeous wife Melania came down the escalator to announce his intentions to run for president. In fact, nothing the media have done, said, invented, distorted, fabricated and twisted has diminished the president’s blazing effectiveness and successes. The media bosses––aka media whores––are leftists and globalists at heart and have aided and abetted every effort to undermine the president and have paid their shills (anchors, reporters, commentators, et al) to do the same.

But watch as they continue to contort themselves into knots never before seen in the human species!

RING TWO: In the second of our three rings is the left’s newest darling, the 51-year-old woman, wife, mother, widely traveled jet-setter (who’s afraid to fly, she says), and aggrieved party. Observe the professor, Christine Blasey Ford, as she speaks in a widdie biddie liddle three-year-old voice, implying, at least to me, that the accused predators of her teens must have been attracted to what was then goo goo gurgles that sounded like an 18-month-old widdle baby!

But wait! In all the media blather, why has no mention been made of what famed radio host Michael Savage has alleged, that Dr. Ford is deeply tied to the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency)?

“She just so happens to head up the CIA undergraduate internship program at Stanford University,” Savage reveals. And her brother Ralph, “used to work for the International Law Firm of Baker, Hostetler…the firm that created Fusion GPS,” the company that wrote the [phony] Russian “dossier” that was fraudulently used to try to destroy the Trump presidency.

Savage continues: “Baker Hostetler is located in the same building where the CIA operates three companies…all operated by Ralph Blasey II, the father of Christine. Also that Christine’s Grandfather was Nicholas Deak––former CIA Director William Casey acknowledged Deak’s decades of service to the CIA.”

For that matter, why have the media not investigated or brought to public awareness Professor Ford’s extensive writings on––ta da––abortion? According to Mary L. Davenport, M.D., Dr. Ford “has 21 articles listed in PubMed…six of them are on mifepristone, the abortion pill.”

Mmmm….CIA connections, a fetish with abortions. Nothing to see here. After all, she was “credible.” Really? Does that mean she was able to read her answers without drooling? Refer to her hippocampus without laughing out loud?

But the question remains: what don’t we know about her background? What notes did her therapist take that have not been publicly revealed? Does she have borderline personality disorder? Is she a sociopath, the type who can look directly in your eyes and lie through her teeth or pass any number of lie detector tests without blinking an eye?

Will the FBI investigation this week include those therapist’s notes and more in-depth information about the professor who can’t seem to remember where or when the groping incident took place and cannot explain why the people she claims were present during the incident all deny being there and, in one case, knowing her!

RING THREE: In the third ring of our three-ring circus is ranking Judiciary Committee member Senator Dianne Feinstein, the arch manipulator of the hearings. After the judge presented an airtight explanation of his whereabouts on the evening in question, even providing a decades-old calendar proving he was nowhere near the teenage get-together, Sen. Feinstein, writer Roger Simon reports, “was up to her old tricks…reading a litany of recent accusations against Kavanaugh so ludicrous even the New York Times wouldn’t print them.

As Monica Showalter spells out, about Sen. Feinstein’s decision to sit on Dr. Ford’s letter for 60 days: “Sen. Dianne Feinstein dropped herself to the bottom of the barrel as a political hack.  Her performance, from start to finish, was a disgrace. It was so bad, so loathsome, even to the left, that it’s hard to think it won’t cost her Senate seat, where she is in a tight race this November… being challenged by a crazed far leftist of the worst Sacramento-swamp stripe. Couple it with her employment of that Chinese spy for 20 years and her defense of the Steele dossier, and an ugly Jurassic partisan hack picture emerges.”

And the inimitable Senator John Kennedy (R-LA), clearly directing his remarks to Sen. Feinstein, had this to say: “To the person who leaked Dr. Ford’s letter, to the person who breached Dr. Ford’s anonymity, and to the person who did not tell her she could have avoided this by testifying privately in her home in California, you know who you are. You should bow your head in shame, in my opinion, and you should hide your head in a bag every day for the rest of your natural life.”

Oh… and Sen. Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum, has served the university of Palo Alto as a member of the University of California Board of Regents since 2002. Kinda ironic that this is where Christine Blasey Ford works!

JOINING THE CAST…

Hard to know if D.C. is a magnet for political freaks or if the very business of politics itself produces them. Whatever…in 2018, there seem to be 20 circuses worth of these Democrat miscreants, pathological liars, career victims, and raving hypocrites.

They were all on display during the hearings, still saturated in Trump Derangement Syndrome, still entertaining the unicorn fantasy of a Blue Wave in November, still displaying all the character defects that led their role model Hillary to go down in ignominious defeat in November of 2016.

First is Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ), whose obsessive, nearly psychotic hatred of President Trump––much like that of his fellow Arizonan, the late John McCain––compels him to try to sabotage every facet of the president’s agenda. Also like McCain, he is an easy touch for the attention and kudos of the left, who he collaborates with at every turn.

As JudyBeth Wagoner explains: “Soon-to-be United States ex-Senator Jeff Flake just can’t overcome his bitterness as a swamp creature being drained from the Washington swamp. He continues to inject his worthless progressive sentiment into the national conversation, even though his representation was rejected by his own constituents…[he] went to Washington by presenting himself as a conservative Tea Party candidate. Once there he betrayed the people who put him in office and became a flaming progressive establishment hack.”

So there was the hack, “trapped” in an elevator––cameras and microphones at the ready to capture the entire phony scene––with an aggrieved woman pleading with him to take women’s grievances seriously.  The clearly orchestrated scenario impelled the senator––Roger Simon calls Sen. Flake “the captain in the #NeverTrump resistance movement from within the Republican Party”––to ask for another week so the FBI could investigate further.

Well whaddaya know? That shrieking harpy was none other than Ana Maria Archila, the co-executive director for the Center for Popular Democracy and the Center for Popular Democracy Action Fund, the latter heavily funded by Trump-loather George Soros.   

And did I fail to mention this little factoid that makes every Flake move and word stink to high heaven? Specifically, as reported by Joe Hoft for Gateway Pundit, the last person Sen. Flake called before asking for another week of Supreme Insanity was Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein––which “sends a clear message that the Deep State is now involved in the Supreme Court nomination process.” The anti-Trump Deep State, I might add.

“The fact that Flake contacted Rosenstein (Redactenstein) should worry the entire country,” Hoft continues. “Who in Rosenstein’s corrupt DOJ or FBI should be investigating anything related to the President? God help this country…”

Perhaps Karin McQuillan explains the Flake phenomenon best. “Jeff Flake is an ambitious man. His ambition is to sabotage President Trump, the Republican Party, and Trump voters by any means possible. Flake sides with the Left on cultural issues, on immigration, on the war on coal. [He] was a reliable ally for Obama on those causes and more…his only major accomplishment was joining the ‘Gang of 8’ open borders initiative.”

“Flake plotted a mini-coup on Friday morning to snatch away Kavanaugh’s moral victory over the Democrats’ smear campaign. [He] is doing “the most despicable thing” any of us have seen in politics in our lifetimes—using uncorroborated and implausible allegations from 36 years ago to launch scummy attacks against a decent man,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). “No amount of rhetoric about ‘healing the country’ can cover Flake’s perfidious deed.”

Then there is Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) who repeatedly lied and lied and lied about serving in the military in Vietnam. Think about that. Is that not the definition of unbalanced, irresponsible, pathological? Yet, when confronted with the truth, he repeated the lie! As writer Daniel John Sobieski has pointed out: “Sen. Blumenthal asked Kavanaugh to explain the judicial concept of ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,’ a phrase that means ‘false in one thing, false in everything’ and allows jurors to discount the entire testimony of someone caught lying on a particular point. This pearl of wisdom came from a man who himself lied that he served in Vietnam, something Sen. Tom Cotton has rightly noted and condemned. In fact, Blumenthal…sought at least five military deferments and eventually landed a spot in the Marine Reserve, where he was essentially guaranteed not to serve in the conflict itself, The New York Times reported.”

Then there is Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), the man who is famous for comparing brave American soldiers to Nazis.

And who can forget Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), whose recent notoriety, as detailed byDebra Heine, describes the senator’s own written words, not 36 years ago, but in the student-run Stanford Daily newspaper in 1992 in which Booker admitted to taking advantage of an intoxicated classmate: “New Year’s Eve 1984 I will never forget. I was 15. As the ball dropped, I leaned over to hug a friend and she met me instead with an overwhelming kiss. As we fumbled upon the bed, I remember debating my next ‘move’ as if it were a chess game. With the ‘Top Gun’ slogan ringing in my head, I slowly reached for her breast. After having my hand pushed away once, I reached my ‘mark,’” he continued, without explaining what he meant by “mark.”

Booker returned to the subject of “date rape” a few months later: “But by my second column, as I raised my noble pen to address the issue of date rape, I realized that the person holding it wasn’t so noble after all,” he  wrote. “With this issue as with so many others, a dash of sincere introspection has revealed to me a dangerous gap — a gap between my beliefs and my actions.”

What? No trial for this self-admitted groper for what Heine calls his own lurid sexual misconduct allegations? And this man is judging Judge Kavanaugh!

There are so many other guilty-until-proven-innocent Democrats, the most egregious of whom is Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY), a lawyer who uttered perhaps the most blazingly idiotic statement of this entire travesty of a hearing: “I believe Dr. Blasey Ford because she’s telling the truth.”

According to writer Michael Anton, The Gillibrand Standard is now that “accusation suffices to destroy. Not only is no corroborating evidence necessary, to ask for such evidence makes one just as guilty as the accused. Especially monstrous is to ask questions of the accuser; that is to repeat or compound the alleged crime. The accusation, once stated, immediately takes on metaphysical certainty. To doubt is to blaspheme.”

There is “but one limiting principle to the Gillibrand Standard,” Anton continues: “It shalt be used only against the Right and Republicans. Credible accusations—with evidence, witnesses, contemporaneous police reports—against Democrats and liberals are not merely to be ignored but also stonewalled and attacked, alleged victims and witnesses alike smeared.”

Incidentally, as reported by Seth Barron in The City Journal, “in 11 years of serving in Congress, Gillibrand has sponsored just one bill that became law—the naming of a post office in Washington Heights after deceased councilman Stanley Michels.”

Astoundingly, both she and the above-mentioned species actually win elections!

THE BRIGHT LIGHT AHEAD

Personally, I’m confident of Judge Kavanaugh’s ascension to the Supreme Court of the United States. And there is more good news ahead.

Writer Larry Schweikart believes that when Sen. Feinstein hatched her malevolent plot in July, “when Christine Ford’s letter first arrived on her desk, it was at that time almost certain that she believed—based on polling—that the Democrats stood a chance of taking the Senate in November.” The strategy she devised was to delay, delay, delay the Kavanaugh nomination.

Today, he continues, “not only will the Democrats stand no realistic chance of winning the Senate, but it increasingly looks as though they will lose another five to seven seats, and if [Sen. Feinstein’s] trick has incensed enough Republicans to turn out, they could face a 60-seat majority next January.”

Schweikart concludes by saying that “California Senator Dianne Feinstein has done something even President Donald Trump could not do: Awaken the sleeping giant of the Republican electorate to defeat the Democrats in the 2018 midterms––she has mobilized a somnambulant Republican base and filled it with a terrible resolve!”

More from the Author:I Have Two Words for Donald Trump––Harry Truman! By Joan Swirsky

James Comey and the Stinking Fish Factor

Kavanaugh v Ford: Ford Could Be Lying For Political Reasons

Photo by: Jacquelyn Martin
Alumni of Holton-Arms School, Karen Bralove, class of 1963, left, Sarah Burgess, class of 2005, and Alexis Goldstein, class of 1999, speak to members of the media about a letter they delivered to the office of Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., who is also an alumni of the school, Thursday, Sept. 20, 2018, on Capitol Hill in Washington. The letter, which the group wants Capito to sign, calls for an independent investigation of accusations by Christine Blasey Ford, a 1984 alumni of the school, against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Christine Blasey Ford could indeed be lying

By Cheryl K. Chumley - The Washington Times - Saturday, September 22, 2018 

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

I knew two girls growing up who lied about being raped. Or, more to truth, I knew two girls growing up who said they were raped and then a couple days later, recanted. What actually occurred is really anybody’s guess; only they and God, and the guys they accused, of course, truly know the truth.

But the fact is, somewhere along the line, lies were told.

And while America does not need to go back to the time when females accusing sexual assault or rape or abuse are asked such stupid questions as, “What were you wearing?” and “How many sexual partners have you had in the past?” — fact is, too, there are indeed cases where women, for whatever reasons, do make up these stories.

Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh

Word was, the two girls in my growing-up years were angry at their boyfriends and wanted to inflict some revenge. It happens. It’s a terrible injustice to the guys who find themselves in the terribly unjust spot of having to prove their innocence for a crime they did not commit. But it happens, just the same.

What happens more, of course — and only the completely unaware or outright misogynists of the world would refute — is that real female victims of sexual harassment, sexual abuse and sexual attack often dismiss, ignore, deny, downplay, disregard and yes, in cases of high trauma, in cases that bring post-traumatic stress disorder horrors, even forget, in whole or part, details of the instances of harassments, abuses, and attacks.

Case in point: While I’ve known two in my own circle to falsely claim a sexual attack that never happened, I’ve known easily 100 or more who’ve actually suffered sexual harassment, abuse, even rape, and who’ve bit their tongues on telling.

Women in the military, for instance, often go along to get along with their harassers because they fear they have no voice.

Women in the civilian workplace frequently turn blind eyes to the leers or deaf ears to the suggestive comments because they don’t want to stir the pot, damage their careers, stunt their chances for advancement.

That all happens, too.

No matter how you slice it, it’s ungodly. All of it.

But now we’ve got an accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, who’s coming forward after decades of silence to say, in essence, as a paraphrase, “Hey, you know that guy who’s about to be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court? Well, at a high school party, he drunkenly pushed me on a bed and tried to have sex with me. He didn’t, and I fled, but I lived with the trembling secret all these years — all those years he climbed his very public career ladder, from clerking for Justice Anthony Kennedy to writing the Ken Starr report. And I kept silent. Until now.”

Until now?

Apparently, Ford’s finally reached the boiling point of her alleged ordeal and called for an FBI investigation of Kavanaugh’s high school behavior, along with umpteen conditions in exchange for offering senators now what should have been offered at the get-go: facts and evidence to support the allegations.

Seems a bit hog-washy.

This whole confirmation process, in fact, has grown, in the words of Alice, curiouser and curiouser. The more we learn of Democratic funding to stop the Kavanaugh process, the more we learn of George Soros’ ties to groups like Demand Justice — a non-profit entity aimed at halting President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court picks that, coincidence-of-all-coincidences, just hired the same general counsel who worked for Sen. Dianne Feinstein — the more Wonderland this all becomes.

What’s more, it’s gone around the bend of un-American.

It’s just not constitutional to throw out unfounded, unsupported accusations against an individual and then sit back and watch the chaos that unfolds, all the while claiming some untouchable high ground of victimhood.

If Ford has proof, it should’ve come at the same time as the accusation.

If Ford has a compelling reason why that proof couldn’t come at the same time as the accusation, she should’ve made known that reason.

If Ford has anything, anything at all that could show her claims against Kavanaugh are rooted in fact and truth, she needs to cough it up and cough it up quick. It’s not incumbent on Kavanaugh to prove his innocence.

It is, however, incumbent on Ford to prove his guilt — to prove she’s not lying and using a shameful, despicable tactic to disrupt the Supreme Court proceedings and kill Kavanaugh’s nomination. After all, it may not happen often, but women can indeed lie about such matters. And when they do, they don’t just hurt the accused.

They hurt the real victims, the ones who’ve already come forward in truth and courage to tell their stories of abuse and injustice and, more egregiously perhaps, the ones who are yet to come, and need to be believed.

Cheryl Chumley can be reached at cchumley@washingtontimes.com or on Twitter, @ckchumley.

Rosenstein Defends Zero-Tolerance Immigration Policy and Rule of Law in ABA Speech

Rod Rosenstein

ABA Journal,

BY VICTOR LI, POSTED AUGUST 2, 2018

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein may not be a very popular person within certain circles in Washington, D.C., but he received a rock-star welcome during the opening forum of the ABA Annual Meeting.

Speaking Thursday to a standing room-only crowd, Rosenstein received multiple standing ovations as he talked about the importance of preserving and promoting the rule of law while defending U.S. Department of Justice policies regarding efforts to combat foreign meddling in U.S. elections and the recent zero-tolerance policy on illegal immigration.

“The rule of law is indispensable to a thriving and vibrant society,” he stated. “It shields citizens from government overreach. It allows businesses to invest with confidence. It gives innovators protection for their discoveries. It keeps people safe from dangerous criminals. And it allows us to resolve differences peacefully through reason and logic.”

In a short question-and-answer session with ABA President Hilarie Bass, Rosenstein affirmed that zero tolerance was consistent with the rule of law, and that the DOJ was simply doing its job in enforcing the laws and treating everyone equally.

“It would be wrong to say we’re prosecuting everyone without regard to the law,” said Rosenstein, who also stated that there were large numbers of people “blatantly violating the immigration laws of this country.” He added that “if the facts of the law justify prosecution, then we’re committing the resources to ensure everyone is treated equally rather than picking and choosing who will be prosecuted.”

Rosenstein also assured those in attendance that federal agencies are doing a lot to combat foreign meddling in elections and propagation of fake news. “Because a lot of the information we learn is from classified intelligence, there’s a lot we don’t talk about publicly,” said Rosenstein, who noted that federal agencies including the FBI, Justice Department and U.S. Department of Homeland Security are constantly briefing state and local election officials about cyberthreats and attacks. He also pointed out that federal agencies are taking steps to combat hacking of political campaigns and candidates and pointed to the July indictment of 12 Russian nationals by Special Counsel Robert Mueller as evidence of this commitment.

When asked about the opioid crisis and safe injection sites as a means of combating the ongoing issue, Rosenstein was dismissive. “It’s illegal; it’s a crime,” he said. “I think you can anticipate that if someone would try that in the U.S., they would face litigation by the Department of Justice and they wouldn’t have much of a defense.” Rosenstein added that while he was “100 percent committed” to prevention and treatment, he believed that these sites sent the wrong message, giving illegal and dangerous drugs the imprimatur of government approval.

The embattled deputy attorney general has become a central figure in the ongoing probe into Russian interference during the 2016 presidential election. He was confirmed as the second-highest-ranking official at the DOJ by a 94-6 vote in the U.S. Senate in April 2017 after a 12-year tenure as U.S. attorney for the District of Maryland. Rosenstein soon found himself a fixture in the news. A couple of weeks after his confirmation, he authored a memo recommending that FBI Director James Comey be fired. Less than 10 days later, he appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself.

Since then, Rosenstein has been under near-constant pressure to fire Mueller, amid reports that he could also be fired, and has become a target of House Republicans. Last week, 11 representatives filed articles of impeachment against Rosenstein accusing him of not turning over requested documents. One day later, one of the co-sponsors of the impeachment resolution, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), announced he would table the effort and focus on pursuing a contempt citation if the documents were not produced.

Rosenstein basked in his warm reception while making light of some of his recent battles. Noting that Robert H. Jackson—attorney general from 1940 to 1941 before being appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court—once remarked about the unpleasantness of dealing with congressional inquiries, Rosenstein drew laughs from the audience when he stated that he could relate.

Ultimately, Rosenstein defended his boss Sessions, echoing the ex-Alabama senator’s statements that the DOJ must be a nonpartisan entity dedicated to representing all Americans and not just a small subset.

“The Department of Justice must never be a partisan actor,” Rosenstein said. “In all cases, agents and prosecutors are obligated to make neutral decisions, preserve personal privacy, protect national security, and insulate investigations from political interference.”