Apparently I unwittingly lost my chance for a position on the U.S. Supreme Court one summer night in 1961 at the Piedmont Drive-In Theater in Atlanta, Georgia. On that fateful evening, my date and I parked in the very last row of cars where young couples had been known to kiss and engage in what was then termed “heavy petting”. And so they were that night. Except for us. Since Mary Margaret (not her real name) and I were good Catholics, I kept my hands to myself while fervently hoping that she might wish to join in the shameful display of unbridled adolescent lust that was underway in the adjacent cars.

But she remained indifferent and clung like a limpet to the front passenger door ready to scream and roll out onto the pavement if I tried to close the three foot distance between us. No sparks flew save for those on the movie screen where a large atomically-mutated lizard broke through electric power lines,  breathed fire on Tokyo and stomped fleeing pedestrians. Not bad entertainment, but hardly the reason I had paid the two dollar admission price.

Now, even though absolutely nothing of a sexual nature happened, if old Mary Margaret were to come forward these 57 years later and  accuse me of ungentlemanly conduct, I would be without a defense. It would be my word against hers, and, in today’s #MeToo world, I would automatically lose. Why? Because, as a white male, I must be made to pay for the sins of the patriarchy. Whether I had actually done anything untoward would be totally irrelevant before a jury of the angry feminists and social justice warriors who hold sway over our public discourse about the interactions between – dare I use these antiquated terms – “males” and “females”.

Which brings us, of course, to Judge Brett Kavanaugh whose nomination to the Supreme Court hangs in the balance due to a claim by one Christine Blasey Ford, a psychology professor at California’s Palo Alto University. In a letter provided in July of this year to Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Ford claimed that, in the early 1980s at a drunken high school party, 17 year old Kavanaugh forced her 15 year old self onto a bed where he got on top of her and placed his hands on her outer clothing while trying to remove the single piece bathing suit that she was wearing underneath. She also claims that he placed his hand over her mouth to stifle her cries. According to her, she managed to escape when one of Kavanaugh’s friends jumped on top of them.

In her letter she requested anonymity, but she has since publicly identified herself and repeated these charges to the Washington Post.

Although she claims that she was devastated by this life-altering event, she can recall neither the date nor location of the alleged attack. Equally curious, she reportedly made no mention of it until 2012 when she and her husband underwent “couples therapy”. Strangely enough, the therapist’s notes indicate that Ford claimed that there were 4 unnamed male attackers.

Senator Feinstein did not disclose Ford’s letter during the confirmation hearings when Kavanaugh was questioned at length for days. It wasn’t until the testimony had concluded and Kavanaugh appeared to be headed for confirmation that Feinstein released the letter. The manner and timing of the release are, to put it mildly, suspicious. It has delayed the confirmation process pending testimony by Ford and Kavanaugh this coming Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In a court of law, Ford would have a very difficult time selling her story to a jury of ordinary citizens whose decency and common sense had not been supplanted by the venomous hatred and logic-eradicating bitterness that pervades today’s politics. Any half-way competent lawyer could easily and effectively cross-examine and discredit her.  For example, if this attack was a shattering event, where did it happen? Ms. Ford, you don’t recall the address? Do you at least recall the identity of who lived there? How did you come to be there? Did someone bring you? Did you know anyone at the party? After you had escaped Kavanaugh’s drunken clutches, did you leave the party? Did you tell anyone at the party what had happened? Did you tell your parents, friends or the police? Did you seek medical treatment or counseling? Did you tell anyone about the attack before 2012? If so, who?

You say that you can’t recall the date of the assault?  Would you agree with me that, if this attack had the devastating effect that you claim, then you should at least be able to recall the date of the attack? Wouldn’t it be burned into your memory forever as the day on which your life was destroyed? If you can’t give us a date, can you at least tell us what month and year it happened?

Ms. Ford, here’s a letter signed by 65 women who knew Judge Kavanaugh in high school and who attest to his good character. In it, they state unequivocally that “he has always treated women with decency and respect.” At least 2 of these women dated him for a protracted period and have publicly reiterated their support for him. All of these women contradict your description of him as a sexual predator. Are all of them wrong and you are right? Should this jury take your word over theirs? Are all of them mistaken? Are all of them lying? If so, what is their motive to lie?

Were you aware of Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Circuit Court in 2006? If so, did you come forward at that time?

And so on.

All of these matters and more should be raised with her in a polite but firm and thorough cross-examination.She should be pinned down on every particular of her story so that it can be tested against the recollections of others and the record facts. But, since the challengers will be elected office holders (instead of veteran trial lawyers), I anticipate that  they will lack the skill to successfully execute such a ticklish and forensically difficult task. With the exception of Ted Cruz, Trey Gowdy and a handful of others, the members of both the House and the Senate seem to be incapable of formulating and asking the type of tightly constructed and narrowly focused leading questions that are the building blocks of  good cross-examination.

And, beyond that deficiency, the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee will most likely be disinclined to take the political risk of publicly doubting the word of a woman who claims to be the victim of sexual assault.  When the late Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) mildly questioned Anita Hill about her allegations of sexual harassment by then Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, he was roundly castigated and condemned for being too hard on her and for refusing to automatically credit her claims. The political risk of challenging a purported sexual assault victim will be exponentially greater. It will be surprising if any Republican on the Judiciary Committee will have the courage to wade into that potentially career-ending minefield.

The Republicans’ calculus here will have nothing to do with determining the truth or falsity of Ford’s story. It will center instead on how much political capital they wish to expend to save Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination. He is, after all, the appointee of President Donald Trump, the man who as a candidate conducted a hostile takeover of the Republican party and for whom the support of the party establishment is at best shallow.

On Monday before the Judiciary Committee, Ford and Kavanaugh will face each other. Predictably and unremarkably the Democrats will proclaim their support of the victim and condemn the nominee as a wannabe rapist.

The only question now is whether the Republicans will have the political gumption to stand united behind Kavanaugh or whether a fatal few will head for the exit.