Senate’s “Consent” = Woman’s Consent

How much does President Trump’s public mockery of Christine Blasey-Ford’s sworn testimony of being assaulted undermine the requirement of consent in sexual conduct? While you consider the question, this post draws attention to two types of consent posed by the Kavanaugh nomination—one political, one sexual.

The impending vote occurs under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution: “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, (to) appoint Judges of the Supreme Court….

Here is a legal definition of consent in the United States Code as a defense against rape and sexual assault as crimes:

(8)Consent.—

(A) The term “consent” means a freely given agreement to the conduct at issue by a competent person. An expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent. Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission resulting from the use of force, threat of force, or placing another person in fear does not constitute consent. A current or previous dating or social or sexual relationship by itself or the manner of dress of the person involved with the accused in the conduct at issue shall not constitute consent.

(B) A sleeping, unconscious, or incompetent person cannot consent. A person cannot consent to force causing or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm or to being rendered unconscious. A person cannot consent while under threat or in fear….

(C) Lack of consent may be inferred based on the circumstances of the offense. All the surrounding circumstances are to be considered in determining whether a person gave consent, or whether a person did not resist or ceased to resist only because of another person’s actions.

Suppose the Senate votes to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. 
This wouldn’t repeal or modify the legal definition of consent. 
But the president’s public mockery of Ms. Ford, directing laughter and scorn at her, seems to have undermined the importance of consent as a requirement for sexual activity.

I would like to hear a senator connect the two usages of consent: When we give advice and consent, we mean in this particular case that no one who has been credibly accused of ignoring consent by covering another person’s mouth during an assault can serve on the Supreme Court. In other words, her consent is necessary for our consent.