Righteous Man

There’s no wonder people find little use for the term righteous anymore. The definition of the word escapes modern vernacular, being replaced by words like “decent”, “honest”, and “loyal.” For the most part, words that can be used to describe a piece of furniture, animal, or nonprofit organization. However, if we look at the word’s origin, the adjective ‘righteous’ actually has many definitions that have little to do with what a man does, instead rather yield to the benefit of those that have been given the credit of righteousness, thereby being deemed righteous.

Much like the United States Constitution, the righteousness spoken of here is given by the God of the Bible. As deity, God is identified as the giver or righteousness. When the old English word is broken down, it is attributed to being “reckoned or judged” righteous. In a time when appointed judges, senators, and other members of our government, one can’t help but question, “Have the ones judging been judged to unequivocally reckon the righteousness of another?”

While policies, procedures, and precedent dictate the pattern by which confirmations are affirmed for higher levels of government, the recent proceedings regarding Judge Kavanaugh are farce. This opinion is not based on a disbelief of Dr. Ford’s experience, but more about the burden of proof that must be demonstrated, and done so without a doubt. Unfortunately for Dr. Ford, the burden of proof has not been proven, yet delays to Kavanaugh’s confirmation, and the barrage of insults by Kamala Harris abound. As a survivor of sexual assault on more than one occasion, my heart breaks for Dr. Ford, intimately empathizing with her anxiety, fear, and pain. Her accomplishments in light of this experience are a testimony to the capabilities of even a traumatized individual when hard work and determination prevail.

However, as the sister of a man convicted of a crime he did not commit, and was never proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the guilt of, I also sympathize with Judge Kavanaugh and his family. No professional record condemns this man, yet he is steadfastly defending himself to the nation, if not the world. No personal record condemns this man, yet he feels obligated to share personal experiences in courtroom-esque proceedings, being demeaned and vilified by colleagues when background checks do not justify such treatment. Do the nature of the proceedings justify the level scrutiny we see being played out? Because if the answer is yes, why isn’t this level of scrutiny happening in lower courts, interrogation rooms, and like scenarios?

If righteousness is truly only reckoned by a deity, meaning one whose righteousness is without question thereby being able to reckon righteousness in another, why does the Senate Judiciary Committee continue to badger for the sake of badgering its nominees. When seats go unfilled, the American judicial system is threatened. When nepotism abounds, the American judicial system is hindered. But certainly there is a happy medium that can be found when common sense and logic are put to use. If there is no evidence to warrant a charge against Kavanaugh, why does the Senate Judiciary Committee circumvent all logic to entertain what could and should have been handled in a manner indicative of actual justice, for both Ford and Kavanaugh.

I do not doubt for one minute Dr. Ford’s experience actually occurred. However, not knowing her, not being a physical witness, nor having a supernatural ability to read the minds of people, I cannot, nor can the Senate Judiciary Committee, accept the blind — meaning there is no proof — validity that the nominee is unfit because of Dr. Ford’s accusation.