Summary

Do Brett Kavanaugh and O.J. Simpson seem like an odd pair? Give me a few minutes, and we’ll see some key parallels; parallels that tell us a lot about how the law and politics in the US have become so wrongly conflated.

Links and References

J’Accuse...Kavanaugh!

Hatfield-McCoy

Ask the Right Questions

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

Do Brett Kavanaugh and O.J. Simpson seem like an odd pair? Give me a few minutes, and we’ll see some key parallels; parallels that tell us a lot about how the law and politics in the US have become so wrongly conflated.

Orenthal J. Simpson was clearly guilty; his lawyer and the jurors no doubt knew that as well. Simpson was found not guilty because historically so many black men have been falsely accused--and convicted--of crimes against white women. (Ron Goldman was merely collateral damage.) The jury was making a statement about past injustices; it was not rendering a verdict based upon the evidence in this case. Somehow, freeing Simpson was seen by the jury as proper in the light of the historical injustices involving whites and blacks.

Brett Kavanaugh was seen as guilty for very similar reasons. Many men have gotten away with assaulting women for a very long time; Kavanaugh was seen as having committed the crime based on nothing more than an accusation, an accusation that was not only uncorroborated but in many parts refuted, as a cry for historical justice. Again, somehow, seeing Kavanaugh as guilty was seen as proper in the light of the historical injustices involving men and women.

Today’s podcast goes beyond reinforcing the point that two wrongs do not, cannot, make a right. Clearly, two wrongs are at least twice as bad as one wrong.

One of the points we are making today is that morals and ethics, and right and wrong, can so easily get all tangled up when we think that allowing an injustice today can make up for historical injustices. With the Simpson verdict, Nicole Brown Simpson’s family, and Ron Goldman’s family, were left with not only no justice--but with a public slap in the face. And the American judicial system was deeply embarrassed and compromised. Pressing the Kavanaugh accusations and pronouncements of guilt badly damaged an innocent family, embarrassed the Senate and damaged the credibility of the Advice and Consent process. Perhaps more importantly, the whole world witnessed the attempt to further politicize the Supreme Court of the United States, and try to make it another legislative branch, negating a key part of the brilliance of our founding documents: the separation and balance of powers.

Now let’s look at the Hatfield-McCoy feud effect. This feud is part of our lexicon, and is used to describe damaging and unceasing feuds of unremembered origin. And while the origins may be murky, the dislike and hate are real and growing. Aren’t we in danger of an unceasing and growing Democrat-Republican feud--a feud of murky and unremembered origin--if we aren’t there already? More than just taking the side of one party or the other, anyone with a conviction who has the temerity to express it in public, stands to be shunned, loudly insulted, or even physically attacked. This is all part of the fallout of stains on our national character like the Simpson verdict and the Kavanaugh attack.

Today’s key point. When we take preconceived notions of what’s right and wrong, and who should be encouraged and supported and who should be rejected, into our thought processes and actions, while setting aside the evidence of that is going on today,