��һ�ǿ�����

Well as the saying goes – it’s all over bar the shouting.

One of the most controversial and divisive processes in appointing Judge Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court has concluded.

The question which remains is why we, outside of the USA, have such a fascination with not only observing, but passionately sharing our opinions about the evidence which was presented, and indeed the whole process.

Of course, when it comes to affairs relating to the decisions, conduct and policies of the current US President, our interest is easier to understand, given the impact that any President’s decisions and rhetoric might have on global affairs, trade and security.

But when it comes to the Supreme Court it is harder to see how the makeup of that court should really concern us beyond a curiosity in its processes and the decisions it delivers. But curious we have been. Enthralled even.

Undoubtedly much of that curiosity has been driven by what has been a fascinating spectacle, observing Americans and their institutions of government wrestle with each other over what has become such a divisive issue.

Perhaps the best we can hope is to learn and avoid some of the pitfalls that America has lurched into.

I think the tragedy for the participants and a warning to us all is seeing how many people’s views on the Kavanaugh process are shaped purely by their own tribal and political affiliations, or in some cases misogyny.

As a talkback host, I’ve even received messages on this issue saying “Trump won – Hilary lost – get over it”. If that isn’t a clear example of checking your brain at the door, I don’t know what is. But that is what it has come to. More and more, we leave our own decision-making abilities and opinions to whatever view our team is espousing.

I would prefer that people should make up their minds based on their own views and observations of the evidence and its presentation.

In the Kavanaugh case, even President Trump, in one of his more reasonable moments appeared to give credibility to Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony as “very compelling”. That didn’t last long, however, with the subsequent temptation to mock her testimony proving too great in front of a partisan crowd of supporters.

For my money, I think the issue could have been decided without reference to events from that night, 30 odd years ago. That was always going to be tricky given the passage of time.

I believe the Senate only needed to look back about a week or so to Judge Kavanaugh’s purportedly innocent explanations as to the meaning of some of the references in his yearbook relating to “Renate Alumnus” “have you boofed yet” “FFFF” and “the devil's triangle”. One might understand his potential embarrassment in explaining these references honestly from 30 years ago – it was, in my view, his evasiveness and untruthfulness which should have decided the vote.

But the good news is that we can all move on and leave them to it and remind ourselves that unbridled partisanship is no way to govern ourselves or our opinions.