FITNESS TO SERVE OR JUDGE?

FITNESS TO SERVE OR JUDGE? "Fitness to serve" compared to what? Is the issue with the Senate's Supreme Court confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Is it one that is to be applied to other legal people? Other judges? Dr. Christine Blasey Ford? Each other? Jesus? The standard "fitness to serve," as any other standard, must be , can only be, viewed through the prism of personal experiences or values. I am, for example, a 67-year old, retired, black, preacher, historian , writer, philosopher, Missouri attorney, who matriculated at the first American black law school, Howard University in Washington, D. C., graduating in class of 1976. Therefore I judge all else through the prism of my own personal experiences, values, and learning. So do you! by and from your own! By that standard, the nominee is unquestionably "fit to serve," based on my knowledge and experience of my peers, of the national history. Reason, philosophy, law, religion, history have fared poorly compared to pique, especially prior nonplused pique, arising from the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill donnybrook in 1991, neither of whom ever went to Howard U. They both confounded me! speaking of Coke cans with a hair on top of them, but not of having had coitus, not having had conjugal nor even of digital penetration! No less so am I also confounded by Ford-Cavenaugh! He says, she says! But neither say that there was coitus! no sex, no penetration digital nor penile of the vagina, nor anal orifice; not even a kiss was testified to by him or her! In my mildly, older male-female world of acceptable black social interaction, even "grinding" while slow-dancing would have been deemed to have been a sexual assault by today's emergent legal, feminist standards and definitions. They are all too nebulous for older black men like me to completely conceive much less to understand! So who is fit to serve gets down to, resolves itself in who is fit to judge?