I'm trying to wrap my mind around the fact that we are dedicating this much time to watching a major supreme court nomination hearing that amounts to decades old testimony of "teenage party boy v. teenage party girl".
I don't have enough information to know whether either of them are telling the truth, but I know that we should never have gotten to the point where we had to have have this hearing.
Dump Kavenaugh, nominate another Republican, and let's move on to the next election.
I'm more interested in the Amy Chua aspect of this story.
I'll tell you my problem I'm sick of hypocrisy and authoritarian strong arming. Obama put forth a very qualified reasonable candidate for the court and he wasn't even given a hearing, but this guy has to be approved at breakneck speed and forced down our throats by these tired old reactionary men to please Donald trump and their billionaire donor/controllers. I want to live in a GD middle class democracy, not North korea.
There are a lot of discrepancies in what he said in his interview on the news and what is printed about him during the time in question (yearbook, published books and various accounts he consumed large amounts of alcohol and other allegations). The denial of something that written evidence is being shown; that is what is concerning. I'm with 4:08 on this one, except, the judicial system is supposed to be non-partisan, so a judge from either party, or none at all would be sufficient. There is just too much controversy around Kavanaugh. It will follow him for the lifetime of of his appointment to SCOTUS. Judge Thomas just had his issues come back up years later.
Sorry 4:08 I just don't see Dr Ford as a teenage party girl. I'm not female but I'm a father of a wonderful, intelligent young woman who I always hope can go to a party or a gathering and not be forced to have unwanted sexual relations with anyone. I thought Dr Ford appeared highly credible and I have the upmost sympathy for her. If somebody hurts my daughter there's a good chance that I'll trade a law license and a business suit for an orange jump suit because I would have to restrain myself from, if not killing the bastard, at least probably neutering him. This society after todays events, particularly the gentlemen currently in power have a lot of splaining to do!
I don't think anyone knows the truth but the parties involved. Given that, I still think Kavanaugh should not be confirmed because it would damage the Court in the vital role it plays in our democracy.
When people turn to courts to resolve a dispute or problem they need to feel that they will be given a fair hearing by the person deciding their case. There needs at least to be a perception that they won't be disrespected or judged differently because they are a woman, a minority, or in some other disadvantaged group. Alot of people at least suspect that this nominee does not respect women based on what was presented so far.
Whether correctly or not, a substantial percentage of the population will not be satisfied that decisions he makes on important issues regarding women will be impartial and fair. Because of that a Kavanaugh nomination would fuel disrespect for the decisions of the Court by the public. That's not good for the rule of law. My hope is that he would put the integrity of the system ahead of his own desire to be a Supreme Court justice and withdraw his name from consideration.
I'd like to believe her but the lack of corroboration from people that were there or supposed to be there is a bit troubling. Dr. Ford could be wrong about who did this. It wouldn't be a first time someone was sure that something happened that didn't remember it exactly right. Or she could be right and Kavanaugh is a liar. I just wish the whole process wasn't so politicized--Republicans refusing to consider Obama's nomination for Sup Ct, Democrats playing this for all it's worth, etc. I don't think for a moment that the Democrats, or the Republicans, care about the victims. If they did, they'd act differently when one from their own party (Franken for example) is accused of something.
Like 8:56 I am the father of a two daughters. One went to a party when she was 14 (we thought she was staying a friend's home and was raped when she passed out drunk. It has taken her almost 20 years to get over this, although she seems to be doing well. For awhile we didn't think she was going to make it to age 18, she became so self-destructive. The other was given a date rape drug while in college, drinking legally at a restaurant. Luckily she was with a friend and said something about how strange she was feeling and the friend got her out of there and back to her dorm room. Women should not be victems of preditory men and I understand, all too well, Dr. Ford's reticence to come forward. So I think Dr. Ford is 100% credible and Kavanaugh was a young man with a bad drinking problem who lost all inhibitions when intoxicated. He did it. I presume he got over binge drinking and doesn't do such things anymore but his testimony was not credible and he should not be confirmed.
Ford didn't provide any fact to why Kavanaugh should not be confirmed. All I saw was totally what she thinks and believes but not what might be true. So I say confirm him since a new FBI investigation is not going to reveal anything we already don't know.
I did what he instructed, and let my common sense guide me, which kept leading me to the conclusion he wasn't being forthright and candid. For example, it's simply implausible to me that someone whose heavy drinking habits are so widely documented has "never" experienced lapses in his memory caused by alcohol, particularly given how little alcohol is needed to cause such lapses. Additionally, the man repeatedly refused to answer, and attempted to deflect, several of the questions asked of him, including simple "yes" or "no" questions. Droning on and on about how much church you attended and how much sports you played instead of simply answering straightforward yes or no questions is simply not the behavior of a candid witness. The inconsistency between his attack on the reliability of polygraph tests and his 2016 ruling praising their usefulness was also not lost on me.
Most of all, though, it speaks volumes that he would want to be confirmed as an associate justice to the Supreme Court without even allowing interrogation of the many other witnesses whose testimony could help shed light on this situation. His willingness to take this position, knowing full well the damage it will cause to the public's trust in that institution, tells me that he doesn't have sufficient respect for it to hold the job.
it is the process which was broken. this stuff should have been investigated earlier on behind closed doors. now two families are destroyed and the process is in shambles. the Democrats orchestrated a spectacle of two peoples early high school days. He is a good judge and good man, destroyed.
Of all the lawyers who spoke yesterday I was least impressed by Kavanaugh. And for that reason alone I think there are much better candidates to serve of the SCt. Anyone who has to refer repeatedly to their Ivy League and prep school educations and athletic prowess sorely lacks the personal gravitas and intellectual self-assurance to join the ranks of Mr. Justice Holmes, IMHO. Also, although I was not convinced to any reasonable degree of certainty regarding the specific events Dr. Ford described (not saying I didn’t believe her- just that all-in-all the evidence isn’t strong enough to make any definitive call at present), nothing I saw from Kavanaugh leads me to doubt that he WAS capable of such behavior. He reminds me of every dumb drunk former high school school bully I have ever met. And believe me, there are many, many of them amongst the Bar and Bench in my neck of the woods. If Trump were any kind of a leader he would acknowledge that Kavanaugh’s nomination has become too divisive, withdraw it with apologies to Kavanaugh, his family, and the women who have felt compelled to come forth and share their painful experiences, and re-nominate Merrick Garland.
I can only presume your assertion is in the context of, “Oh, what a mistake, and complete and total miscarriage of justice to Anita Hill, and all women.” Anything but interpretation would be wrong on many levels.
The real problem is liberals have used the courts to get what they couldn't legislate. Instead of letting states decide abortion, the courts decided it was illegal to prevent it. Because of this politicizing of the courts, it invites these tactics . It's not about what Kavanaugh did or didn't do 36 years ago (God alone may know the truth ), it is about what he could do in the future (overturn Roe vs . Wade, etc .)
It means truth has never been a part of this process. We may act like it, we may say the court is impartial, but the actual truth of the matter is that is a big steaming pile of dung. We have a precedent of letting known abusers sit on the court, a POTUS accused of the same or worse even saying it on tape.
This matters?
Not one iota. Please feel free to engage in some moral outrage if it makes you feel better, but the plan and simple truth is your rulers are going to do whatever they want to do and there isn't a single thing you can do about.
"I can vote them out" you say! Plllleeeeaasssseeeee!!!!! get over the fact that voting counts for anything. Masses will be manipulated one tweet, FB post and sound bite at a time. You wont even remember the members sitting on the board at Christmas. Be a good little subject and spend all you earn.
to 2:13 AM, September 28, 2018 - It is sad to read about what you report. Were the police notified about what happened on two separate rape events for your daughters? If so, what were the results of the investigations? If no report to the police was made, why not?
1. Do you believe her? 2. If not, why do you think she told her therapist and husband in 2012 that it happened? 3. What does she have to gain by coming forward and lying? 4. What does HE have to gain by lying about it? 5. If you accept that it happened, do you excuse his behavior because he was 17? Did you know it was wrong to attempt to rape a girl when you were 17? 6. IF he did it, do you really want a man who lied about the experience, attempted to rape at least one girl, as a supreme court justice? 7. IF a person interviewed with you for a job, had a great work history, but lied to you about attempting to rape a girl would you hire him?
I grew up in the same time frame as Kavanaugh and was around a lot of guys who acted like he is reported as having acted. Some of these guys even committed similar acts as those Dr. Ford alleges, and worse. So I could certainly see this as being a possibility as having occurred and Dr. Ford came across as very credible. If I had a vote, that would be enough to give me pause in confirming Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh did nothing in my eyes to dispel Dr. Ford's accusations and the level of his anger toward those raising valid questions certainly made it feel like he was hiding something. Perhaps it is just a drinking problem, perhaps it is much worse. Regardless, he would be disqualified in my book. This does not require a beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof or even a preponderance of the evidence, just simply a I have my doubts level. We aren't depriving him of life or liberty.
BTW: How was Dr. Ford able to place PJ and Judge at the party, perhaps the same party where Kavanaugh reports on his calendar as having skis with these same guys, when he didn't make his calendars public until after she named them as being there? Is it perhaps because she remembers the night, the night that is etched into her hippocampus?
On your specific point, that liberals used the court to recognize an individual's right to privacy as applied to abortion in Roe v. Wade, the vote was 7-2. One of the dissenting justices was appointed by JFK, a democrat (White). 5 in the majority were appointed by republican presidents. Burger, Powell and Blackmun were appointed by Nixon. Brennan and Stewart were appointed by Eisenhower.
Obviously presidents' conservative-ness or liberal-ness is not necessarily equivalent to their political party, but I suspect you do not believe Nixon and Eisenhower are liberals.
Byron "Whizzer" White believed in judicial restraint. He dissented in Miranda and was the loan dissent in Robinson v California , which greatly expanded what is considered "cruel and unusual punishment. White was liberal, but not an activist. William Brennan was clearly a judicial activists. His voting record is virtually identical to Thurgood Marshall. Brennan was a liberal Democrat , but was appointed by Eisenhower in 1956 in order to gain votes in the election. Blackmun, Burger and Powell were all appointed by Nixon, but voted with the majority. Powell was clearly influenced by the death of a girlfriend of one of his staff who bled to death due to a self-induced abortion. Powell was often a swing vote in cases. Burger and Blackmun were referee to as the Minnesota Twins , due to their background and voting record. Roe really was the beginning of Blackmun's transformation into a liberal activist judge. Burger would later see his vote as a mistake. Blackmun convinced the majority that Roe was about privacy of a doctor and patient.
Roe v Wade was the tipping point of a 20+ year liberal trend of the court to find rights not expressed in the Constitution or Amendments. It was the beginning of the polical struggle for control of the Supreme Court and to protect/overturn its decision . It was the reason for the circus we have seen the last month
12:15 you still are not getting it! We have a tradition of so called date rape not being taken seriously and the woman blamed for it. I know a young woman whose life was messed up when a group of popular and socio economically affluent high school football players pulled a train or "james gang" on her at a party. she reported it and they walked. This was thirty years ago but that is exactly the point. For years the woman was to blame. in my family over fifty years ago an elderly cousin was raped by her yard man and her sister refused to report it because of family stigma and shame. The victim lapsed into a dementia type situation and was scared to death of everything the rest of her life. Surely you are not so dense that you don't get this.
hmmm. Allegations without hard evidence. She's a lefty. He's on the right. His evidence is just as weak as hers. FBI won't find any hard evidence. All evidence is circumstantial. Seems to be a draw. Benefit of the doubts goes to the accused. I feel bad if anyone was assaulted. I'm sorry for her if she really was. Without hard evidence... Confirm him.
A "whiff of entitlement" came through from a guy who mirrors the morays of upperclass, prep jocks who don't care about others sensitivities when they are having fun.
Forget all of the he said, she said (actually they said). Did you see the guy's "performance"? He was partisan, rude, disrespectful...almost unhinged. I get that confirmation is a stressful process, but when faced with the biggest questions on the Court, do we not want Justices that will maintain their composure?
People are convicted of crimes in the absence of "hard evidence" all the time. It's quite common for there to be no "hard evidence," particularly in cases involving certain categories of crimes (conspiracies, sexual assaults, terroristic threats, etc.), and for prosecutors and juries to have to rely on witness testimony and circumstantial evidence. Also, it's not even accurate to say we've only got circumstantial evidence. To the contrary, we got witness testimony from the alleged victim herself, Dr. Ford! Do you honestly believe people should never face consequences for crimes in the absence of DNA evidence or similar tangible evidence? I, for one, would hate to live a country where people are free to commit any type of wrong that doesn't result in tangible physical evidence of the crime.
I would also note that it struck me as wholly unsurprising and inconsequential that Dr. Ford's friend and other reported attendees of the party in question had no recollection of the events, since the only people alleged to have been present while the alleged crime was committed were Dr. Ford, Judge Kavanaugh and Judge Kavanaugh's friend Mark Judge, who, like Judge Kavanaugh, has strong incentives to deny Dr. Ford's allegations, and has very openly admitted to having had a serious problem with heavy drinking during the time period in question. Additionally, you may well believe this is a "draw," but I saw more than enough evidence to draw conclusions concerning the relative credibility of Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, which is generally regarded as the appropriate approach to drawing conclusions in situations where the only evidence available is eyewitness testimony. Specifically, Judge Kavanaugh's claims regarding the extent of his drinking habits have been contradicted by numerous statements made by classmates who knew him, and seem implausible based on information concerning the frequency with which he consumed alcohol and the age at which he began consuming alcohol. Heck, I'd be hard pressed to identify any among my friends who drank alcohol in high school who could honestly claim never to have drank to the point of losing memories of at least part of a night, and it's pretty evident to me that Judge Kavanaugh's friends were far more into partying and drinking than any of mine. Additionally, as one Senator alluded to, his reference to "devil's triangle" appears to have been the first documented reference to that term as a drinking game. It also seems totally implausible that his yearbook reference to his membership in the "ralph club" is merely a reference to vomiting caused by indigestion rather than alcohol consumption, particularly given its inclusion among so many references to alcohol consumption and partying to excess. Beyond all of this, his combativeness and evasiveness suggests not only that he's hiding something, but in my opinion also suggests a lack of candor and fitness to serve on the Supreme Court (or in any judicial role for that matter).
This is a very angry man. Not just angry because of the charges, but angry to his core based on what can only be considered a sense of privilege and deep-felt sense of violation of that privilege.
I don't know, for certain, if the charges are true. But from the way he responded, I am more than ever convinced that they are more likely true than not. He is a Bro and he lived a bro life, seemingly marked by heavy drinking and treating others as objects, not people.
His virulent partisanship was on full display. His past writings on how he wanted to question Clinton are just historical evidence of this same trait.
Thomas, as well as Clinton, may have been pigs in their relations with women. But I don't believe either was as vile and bitter as this man. He is undeniably very bright. That doesn't make it better. It makes it far worse.
This is not a trial. Not a criminal trial. Nada! Take in inquiries, investigate, then confirm him! Many more decades of American tradition are coming whether or not the lefties want it!
@11:31am...good points you made. Just wanted to add that he lied about the meaning of devils triangle. After the hearing, someone edited the wiki definition to match kavanaugh's drinking game definition.
If he were a claimant and records reported that he talked and responded that way to others ...particularly those to whom some modicum of respect should be given...he would likely be given a moderate limitation in ability to be social and interact with others and not be able to return to past work even at Walmart or Macdonalds
1:22 PM. I have been "fired" by 2 doctors offices with letters saying they will no longer treat me. Apparently they didn't want to deal with my "frustration" anymore. Could this apply to me as well?
It could. It would depend on what they actually said you did or said and the impact on the decision would depend on your other impairments, age, education and past work
Thanks . I guess I haven't been willing to admit it to myself...But, I have become much, much more irritable when dealing with people than I used to be . Kind of like admitting your depressed...There's a denial favor ininvolved . I didn't want to admit to myself, let alone others. Thank you !
Consideration for an appointment for a Supreme Court seat should be limited to people of the highest moral character, legal acumen, and ability to impartially apply the law. A person who can't control his own emotions when under pressure, is in my opinion, unfit for the job because their out of control emotions would impair the ability to impartially decide cases. We can only speculate who is telling the truth about what happened many years ago. We don't have to speculate that this man reacts to pressure with anger. We saw it this week on television. We the people deserve better.
Another nominee from Harvard, Yale or Columbia. All the others are from those schools.
Another nominee from the Boston, New York, Washington geographic area. All the others are from those areas.
No Justices from the South, Southwest, West, North West, Midwest. NO justices from any other law schools.
Diversity? We don't need any of that.
The court seems to like to make up the law like in Baker v Carr, Roe v Wade, and many others. Democracy? Representative government? Constitutional government? We do not need those, if we can enact programs by the court under the guise that he constitution requires it.
Funny, a woman says she was molested thirty plus years ago, people want evidence and police reports. Guy says he was molested by a priest thirty plus years ago totally different reaction.
We are all waiting patiently for actual evidence to support the serious allegations made by Dr. Ford. Evidence. To repeat, evidence. None has been presented. As to the question of motive, that is clearer today than before. As to the actions taken by the Democrats and Dr. Ford's attorneys, that is also clearer today than before. That list grows longer with each passing day.
If you believe she is credible, then you must believe her conflicting statements and the justifications about the many more things she cannot remember. At what point will you accept her story falls apart? She may truly believe her story. That is not enough. Are you that accepting of all other people's beliefs when they say they are 100% certain? If not, why not?
I am kind of more bothered by his decisions on cases of people with disabilities and also age based discrimination. For example in Doe vs DC saying it was OK to give involuntary abortions to people with intellectual disabities who are in state facilities without even consulting them. The law actually said there had to be consultation but in his ruling he ignored the fact that this was supposed to be done and the allegation of the suit was partly it had not been done.
I would hate to have my professional life derailed by an allegation made in regards to my behavior at an unsupervised party of drunk teenagers. Is there no room to become better as a person than we were at 17?
As traumatized as the woman apparently was, as a former prosecutor, there is no way charges would be filed based on what she reported.
What I am more interested in is how has the Judge treated women since becoming an adult. I have not heard anyone say they have been harassed, assaulted or demeaned since he became a lawyer or a judge.
It's a product of a lazy Congress over the years. Have never really understood how the opinions of 9 people (or less in some circumstances) should carry more weight than what over 500 people in Congress. It's the fundamental flaw with our common law system.
That being said. Of course, Kavanaugh should not be confirmed if any of this is true. Same should have happened to Clarence Thomas. But it didn't. The Republicans are great at spinning things.
Also, I did not understand how the Republicans did not even have hearings on Merrick Garland? Was that fair?
Just wonder what you men do every single day to not be sexually assaulted? Do you change your clothes to not be provocative? Carry your keys in your hand in every parking lot? Have someone walk you to the car in the dark? Never put your drink down when out, always take it directly from the bartender? Check the back seat of your car before getting in? Always meet in public areas? Fake talking on the phone so people think you are in contact with someone? Leave social gatherings early before people become intoxicated?
What do you men do every day to avoid being sexually assaulted other than be men?
"What do you men do every day to avoid being sexually assaulted other than be men?"
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you don't know any heterosexual men who have been sexually assaulted or stalked by other men.
In the case of the sexual assault, the man in question should have avoided getting passed out drunk.
I'm not sure what the man being stalked should have done, or could have done, to avoid the stalking. However, a strongly worded letter from an attorney to the medical school attended by both parties in question did stop the stalking behavior.
To anon 3:05: I see your point somewhat. But I do not like the argument that someone cannot have an opinion simply because they have never experienced something.
Kind of like - "I do not need to jump off a building to know it's dangerous."
Empathy can come from people who have not experienced it. Trust me it's possible.
I'm trying to wrap my mind around the fact that we are dedicating this much time to watching a major supreme court nomination hearing that amounts to decades old testimony of "teenage party boy v. teenage party girl".
ReplyDeleteI don't have enough information to know whether either of them are telling the truth, but I know that we should never have gotten to the point where we had to have have this hearing.
Dump Kavenaugh, nominate another Republican, and let's move on to the next election.
I'm more interested in the Amy Chua aspect of this story.
I'll tell you my problem I'm sick of hypocrisy and authoritarian strong arming. Obama put forth a very qualified reasonable candidate for the court and he wasn't even given a hearing, but this guy has to be approved at breakneck speed and forced down our throats by these tired old reactionary men to please Donald trump and their billionaire donor/controllers. I want to live in a GD middle class democracy, not North korea.
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of discrepancies in what he said in his interview on the news and what is printed about him during the time in question (yearbook, published books and various accounts he consumed large amounts of alcohol and other allegations). The denial of something that written evidence is being shown; that is what is concerning. I'm with 4:08 on this one, except, the judicial system is supposed to be non-partisan, so a judge from either party, or none at all would be sufficient. There is just too much controversy around Kavanaugh. It will follow him for the lifetime of of his appointment to SCOTUS. Judge Thomas just had his issues come back up years later.
ReplyDeletefor women, this is visceral...
ReplyDeleteSorry 4:08 I just don't see Dr Ford as a teenage party girl. I'm not female but I'm a father of a wonderful, intelligent young woman who I always hope can go to a party or a gathering and not be forced to have unwanted sexual relations with anyone. I thought Dr Ford appeared highly credible and I have the upmost sympathy for her. If somebody hurts my daughter there's a good chance that I'll trade a law license and a business suit for an orange jump suit because I would have to restrain myself from, if not killing the bastard, at least probably neutering him. This society after todays events, particularly the gentlemen currently in power have a lot of splaining to do!
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone knows the truth but the parties involved. Given that, I still think Kavanaugh should not be confirmed because it would damage the Court in the vital role it plays in our democracy.
ReplyDeleteWhen people turn to courts to resolve a dispute or problem they need to feel that they will be given a fair hearing by the person deciding their case. There needs at least to be a perception that they won't be disrespected or judged differently because they are a woman, a minority, or in some other disadvantaged group. Alot of people at least suspect that this nominee does not respect women based on what was presented so far.
Whether correctly or not, a substantial percentage of the population will not be satisfied that decisions he makes on important issues regarding women will be impartial and fair. Because of that a Kavanaugh nomination would fuel disrespect for the decisions of the Court by the public. That's not good for the rule of law. My hope is that he would put the integrity of the system ahead of his own desire to be a Supreme Court justice and withdraw his name from consideration.
I'd like to believe her but the lack of corroboration from people that were there or supposed to be there is a bit troubling. Dr. Ford could be wrong about who did this. It wouldn't be a first time someone was sure that something happened that didn't remember it exactly right. Or she could be right and Kavanaugh is a liar.
ReplyDeleteI just wish the whole process wasn't so politicized--Republicans refusing to consider Obama's nomination for Sup Ct, Democrats playing this for all it's worth, etc.
I don't think for a moment that the Democrats, or the Republicans, care about the victims. If they did, they'd act differently when one from their own party (Franken for example) is accused of something.
It's a circus and a Democratic tactic to delay this confirmation hearing until after the mid-terms, simple as that.
ReplyDeleteLike 8:56 I am the father of a two daughters. One went to a party when she was 14 (we thought she was staying a friend's home and was raped when she passed out drunk. It has taken her almost 20 years to get over this, although she seems to be doing well. For awhile we didn't think she was going to make it to age 18, she became so self-destructive. The other was given a date rape drug while in college, drinking legally at a restaurant. Luckily she was with a friend and said something about how strange she was feeling and the friend got her out of there and back to her dorm room. Women should not be victems of preditory men and I understand, all too well, Dr. Ford's reticence to come forward. So I think Dr. Ford is 100% credible and Kavanaugh was a young man with a bad drinking problem who lost all inhibitions when intoxicated. He did it. I presume he got over binge drinking and doesn't do such things anymore but his testimony was not credible and he should not be confirmed.
ReplyDeleteFord didn't provide any fact to why Kavanaugh should not be confirmed. All I saw was totally what she thinks and believes but not what might be true. So I say confirm him since a new FBI investigation is not going to reveal anything we already don't know.
ReplyDeleteI did what he instructed, and let my common sense guide me, which kept leading me to the conclusion he wasn't being forthright and candid. For example, it's simply implausible to me that someone whose heavy drinking habits are so widely documented has "never" experienced lapses in his memory caused by alcohol, particularly given how little alcohol is needed to cause such lapses. Additionally, the man repeatedly refused to answer, and attempted to deflect, several of the questions asked of him, including simple "yes" or "no" questions. Droning on and on about how much church you attended and how much sports you played instead of simply answering straightforward yes or no questions is simply not the behavior of a candid witness. The inconsistency between his attack on the reliability of polygraph tests and his 2016 ruling praising their usefulness was also not lost on me.
ReplyDeleteMost of all, though, it speaks volumes that he would want to be confirmed as an associate justice to the Supreme Court without even allowing interrogation of the many other witnesses whose testimony could help shed light on this situation. His willingness to take this position, knowing full well the damage it will cause to the public's trust in that institution, tells me that he doesn't have sufficient respect for it to hold the job.
it is the process which was broken. this stuff should have been investigated earlier on behind closed doors. now two families are destroyed and the process is in shambles. the Democrats orchestrated a spectacle of two peoples early high school days. He is a good judge and good man, destroyed.
ReplyDeleteOf all the lawyers who spoke yesterday I was least impressed by Kavanaugh. And for that reason alone I think there are much better candidates to serve of the SCt. Anyone who has to refer repeatedly to their Ivy League and prep school educations and athletic prowess sorely lacks the personal gravitas and intellectual self-assurance to join the ranks of Mr. Justice Holmes, IMHO. Also, although I was not convinced to any reasonable degree of certainty regarding the specific events Dr. Ford described (not saying I didn’t believe her- just that all-in-all the evidence isn’t strong enough to make any definitive call at present), nothing I saw from Kavanaugh leads me to doubt that he WAS capable of such behavior. He reminds me of every dumb drunk former high school school bully I have ever met. And believe me, there are many, many of them amongst the Bar and Bench in my neck of the woods. If Trump were any kind of a leader he would acknowledge that Kavanaugh’s nomination has become too divisive, withdraw it with apologies to Kavanaugh, his family, and the women who have felt compelled to come forth and share their painful experiences, and re-nominate Merrick Garland.
ReplyDeleteTwo Words
ReplyDeleteClarence Thomas
@9:35 stated, “Two Words
ReplyDeleteClarence Thomas.”
I can only presume your assertion is in the context of, “Oh, what a mistake, and complete and total miscarriage of justice to Anita Hill, and all women.” Anything but interpretation would be wrong on many levels.
The real problem is liberals have used the courts to get what they couldn't legislate. Instead of letting states decide abortion, the courts decided it was illegal to prevent it. Because of this politicizing of the courts, it invites these tactics . It's not about what Kavanaugh did or didn't do 36 years ago (God alone may know the truth ), it is about what he could do in the future (overturn Roe vs . Wade, etc .)
ReplyDeleteIt means truth has never been a part of this process. We may act like it, we may say the court is impartial, but the actual truth of the matter is that is a big steaming pile of dung. We have a precedent of letting known abusers sit on the court, a POTUS accused of the same or worse even saying it on tape.
ReplyDeleteThis matters?
Not one iota. Please feel free to engage in some moral outrage if it makes you feel better, but the plan and simple truth is your rulers are going to do whatever they want to do and there isn't a single thing you can do about.
"I can vote them out" you say! Plllleeeeaasssseeeee!!!!!
get over the fact that voting counts for anything. Masses will be manipulated one tweet, FB post and sound bite at a time. You wont even remember the members sitting on the board at Christmas. Be a good little subject and spend all you earn.
to 2:13 AM, September 28, 2018 - It is sad to read about what you report. Were the police notified about what happened on two separate rape events for your daughters? If so, what were the results of the investigations? If no report to the police was made, why not?
ReplyDelete1. Do you believe her?
ReplyDelete2. If not, why do you think she told her therapist and husband in 2012 that it happened?
3. What does she have to gain by coming forward and lying?
4. What does HE have to gain by lying about it?
5. If you accept that it happened, do you excuse his behavior because he was 17? Did you know it was wrong to attempt to rape a girl when you were 17?
6. IF he did it, do you really want a man who lied about the experience, attempted to rape at least one girl, as a supreme court justice?
7. IF a person interviewed with you for a job, had a great work history, but lied to you about attempting to rape a girl would you hire him?
I grew up in the same time frame as Kavanaugh and was around a lot of guys who acted like he is reported as having acted. Some of these guys even committed similar acts as those Dr. Ford alleges, and worse. So I could certainly see this as being a possibility as having occurred and Dr. Ford came across as very credible. If I had a vote, that would be enough to give me pause in confirming Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh did nothing in my eyes to dispel Dr. Ford's accusations and the level of his anger toward those raising valid questions certainly made it feel like he was hiding something. Perhaps it is just a drinking problem, perhaps it is much worse. Regardless, he would be disqualified in my book. This does not require a beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof or even a preponderance of the evidence, just simply a I have my doubts level. We aren't depriving him of life or liberty.
ReplyDeleteBTW: How was Dr. Ford able to place PJ and Judge at the party, perhaps the same party where Kavanaugh reports on his calendar as having skis with these same guys, when he didn't make his calendars public until after she named them as being there? Is it perhaps because she remembers the night, the night that is etched into her hippocampus?
@11:16
ReplyDeleteOn your specific point, that liberals used the court to recognize an individual's right to privacy as applied to abortion in Roe v. Wade, the vote was 7-2. One of the dissenting justices was appointed by JFK, a democrat (White). 5 in the majority were appointed by republican presidents. Burger, Powell and Blackmun were appointed by Nixon. Brennan and Stewart were appointed by Eisenhower.
Obviously presidents' conservative-ness or liberal-ness is not necessarily equivalent to their political party, but I suspect you do not believe Nixon and Eisenhower are liberals.
Byron "Whizzer" White believed in judicial restraint. He dissented in Miranda and was the loan dissent in Robinson v California , which greatly expanded what is considered "cruel and unusual punishment. White was liberal, but not an activist. William Brennan was clearly a judicial activists. His voting record is virtually identical to Thurgood Marshall. Brennan was a liberal Democrat , but was appointed by Eisenhower in 1956 in order to gain votes in the election. Blackmun, Burger and Powell were all appointed by Nixon, but voted with the majority. Powell was clearly influenced by the death of a girlfriend of one of his staff who bled to death due to a self-induced abortion. Powell was often a swing vote in cases. Burger and Blackmun were referee to as the Minnesota Twins , due to their background and voting record. Roe really was the beginning of Blackmun's transformation into a liberal activist judge. Burger would later see his vote as a mistake. Blackmun convinced the majority that Roe was about privacy of a doctor and patient.
DeleteRoe v Wade was the tipping point of a 20+ year liberal trend of the court to find rights not expressed in the Constitution or Amendments. It was the beginning of the polical struggle for control of the Supreme Court and to protect/overturn its decision . It was the reason for the circus we have seen the last month
12:15 you still are not getting it! We have a tradition of so called date rape not being taken seriously and the woman blamed for it. I know a young woman whose life was messed up when a group of popular and socio economically affluent high school football players pulled a train or "james gang" on her at a party. she reported it and they walked. This was thirty years ago but that is exactly the point. For years the woman was to blame. in my family over fifty years ago an elderly cousin was raped by her yard man and her sister refused to report it because of family stigma and shame. The victim lapsed into a dementia type situation and was scared to death of everything the rest of her life. Surely you are not so dense that you don't get this.
ReplyDeletehmmm.
ReplyDeleteAllegations without hard evidence.
She's a lefty.
He's on the right.
His evidence is just as weak as hers.
FBI won't find any hard evidence.
All evidence is circumstantial.
Seems to be a draw.
Benefit of the doubts goes to the accused.
I feel bad if anyone was assaulted. I'm sorry for her if she really was.
Without hard evidence...
Confirm him.
A "whiff of entitlement" came through from a guy who mirrors the morays of upperclass, prep jocks who don't care about others sensitivities when they are having fun.
ReplyDeleteForget all of the he said, she said (actually they said). Did you see the guy's "performance"? He was partisan, rude, disrespectful...almost unhinged. I get that confirmation is a stressful process, but when faced with the biggest questions on the Court, do we not want Justices that will maintain their composure?
ReplyDelete@11:22PM
ReplyDeletePeople are convicted of crimes in the absence of "hard evidence" all the time. It's quite common for there to be no "hard evidence," particularly in cases involving certain categories of crimes (conspiracies, sexual assaults, terroristic threats, etc.), and for prosecutors and juries to have to rely on witness testimony and circumstantial evidence. Also, it's not even accurate to say we've only got circumstantial evidence. To the contrary, we got witness testimony from the alleged victim herself, Dr. Ford! Do you honestly believe people should never face consequences for crimes in the absence of DNA evidence or similar tangible evidence? I, for one, would hate to live a country where people are free to commit any type of wrong that doesn't result in tangible physical evidence of the crime.
I would also note that it struck me as wholly unsurprising and inconsequential that Dr. Ford's friend and other reported attendees of the party in question had no recollection of the events, since the only people alleged to have been present while the alleged crime was committed were Dr. Ford, Judge Kavanaugh and Judge Kavanaugh's friend Mark Judge, who, like Judge Kavanaugh, has strong incentives to deny Dr. Ford's allegations, and has very openly admitted to having had a serious problem with heavy drinking during the time period in question. Additionally, you may well believe this is a "draw," but I saw more than enough evidence to draw conclusions concerning the relative credibility of Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, which is generally regarded as the appropriate approach to drawing conclusions in situations where the only evidence available is eyewitness testimony. Specifically, Judge Kavanaugh's claims regarding the extent of his drinking habits have been contradicted by numerous statements made by classmates who knew him, and seem implausible based on information concerning the frequency with which he consumed alcohol and the age at which he began consuming alcohol. Heck, I'd be hard pressed to identify any among my friends who drank alcohol in high school who could honestly claim never to have drank to the point of losing memories of at least part of a night, and it's pretty evident to me that Judge Kavanaugh's friends were far more into partying and drinking than any of mine. Additionally, as one Senator alluded to, his reference to "devil's triangle" appears to have been the first documented reference to that term as a drinking game. It also seems totally implausible that his yearbook reference to his membership in the "ralph club" is merely a reference to vomiting caused by indigestion rather than alcohol consumption, particularly given its inclusion among so many references to alcohol consumption and partying to excess. Beyond all of this, his combativeness and evasiveness suggests not only that he's hiding something, but in my opinion also suggests a lack of candor and fitness to serve on the Supreme Court (or in any judicial role for that matter).
This is a very angry man. Not just angry because of the charges, but angry to his core based on what can only be considered a sense of privilege and deep-felt sense of violation of that privilege.
ReplyDeleteI don't know, for certain, if the charges are true. But from the way he responded, I am more than ever convinced that they are more likely true than not. He is a Bro and he lived a bro life, seemingly marked by heavy drinking and treating others as objects, not people.
His virulent partisanship was on full display. His past writings on how he wanted to question Clinton are just historical evidence of this same trait.
Thomas, as well as Clinton, may have been pigs in their relations with women. But I don't believe either was as vile and bitter as this man. He is undeniably very bright. That doesn't make it better. It makes it far worse.
Why didn't Neal Gorsuch have this problem of the vast left wing conspiracy if this is just a political tactic always in use?
ReplyDeleteThis is not a trial. Not a criminal trial. Nada!
ReplyDeleteTake in inquiries, investigate, then confirm him!
Many more decades of American tradition are coming whether or not the lefties want it!
@11:31am...good points you made. Just wanted to add that he lied about the meaning of devils triangle. After the hearing, someone edited the wiki definition to match kavanaugh's drinking game definition.
ReplyDeleteIf he were a claimant and records reported that he talked and responded that way to others ...particularly those to whom some modicum of respect should be given...he would likely be given a moderate limitation in ability to be social and interact with others and not be able to return to past work even at Walmart or Macdonalds
ReplyDelete1:22 PM. I have been "fired" by 2 doctors offices with letters saying they will no longer treat me. Apparently they didn't want to deal with my "frustration" anymore. Could this apply to me as well?
ReplyDeleteIt could. It would depend on what they actually said you did or said and the impact on the decision would depend on your other impairments, age, education and past work
DeleteThanks . I guess I haven't been willing to admit it to myself...But, I have become much, much more irritable when dealing with people than I used to be . Kind of like admitting your depressed...There's a denial favor ininvolved . I didn't want to admit to myself, let alone others. Thank you !
DeleteConsideration for an appointment for a Supreme Court seat should be limited to people of the highest moral character, legal acumen, and ability to impartially apply the law. A person who can't control his own emotions when under pressure, is in my opinion, unfit for the job because their out of control emotions would impair the ability to impartially decide cases. We can only speculate who is telling the truth about what happened many years ago. We don't have to speculate that this man reacts to pressure with anger. We saw it this week on television. We the people deserve better.
ReplyDeleteAnother nominee from Harvard, Yale or Columbia. All the others are from those schools.
ReplyDeleteAnother nominee from the Boston, New York, Washington geographic area. All the others are from those areas.
No Justices from the South, Southwest, West, North West, Midwest. NO justices from any other law schools.
Diversity? We don't need any of that.
The court seems to like to make up the law like in Baker v Carr, Roe v Wade, and many others. Democracy? Representative government? Constitutional government? We do not need those, if we can enact programs by the court under the guise that he constitution requires it.
Funny, a woman says she was molested thirty plus years ago, people want evidence and police reports. Guy says he was molested by a priest thirty plus years ago totally different reaction.
ReplyDeleteWe are all waiting patiently for actual evidence to support the serious allegations made by Dr. Ford. Evidence. To repeat, evidence. None has been presented. As to the question of motive, that is clearer today than before. As to the actions taken by the Democrats and Dr. Ford's attorneys, that is also clearer today than before. That list grows longer with each passing day.
ReplyDeleteIf you believe she is credible, then you must believe her conflicting statements and the justifications about the many more things she cannot remember. At what point will you accept her story falls apart? She may truly believe her story. That is not enough. Are you that accepting of all other people's beliefs when they say they are 100% certain? If not, why not?
I am kind of more bothered by his decisions on cases of people with disabilities and also age based discrimination. For example in Doe vs DC saying it was OK to give involuntary abortions to people with intellectual disabities who are in state facilities without even consulting them. The law actually said there had to be consultation but in his ruling he ignored the fact that this was supposed to be done and the allegation of the suit was partly it had not been done.
ReplyDeleteBuh bye BK...on to the next
ReplyDeleteWe should/do? have higher character and fitness standards for our SC Justices.
I would hate to have my professional life derailed by an allegation made in regards to my behavior at an unsupervised party of drunk teenagers. Is there no room to become better as a person than we were at 17?
ReplyDeleteAs traumatized as the woman apparently was, as a former prosecutor, there is no way charges would be filed based on what she reported.
What I am more interested in is how has the Judge treated women since becoming an adult. I have not heard anyone say they have been harassed, assaulted or demeaned since he became a lawyer or a judge.
The Supreme Court has too much power.
ReplyDeleteIt's a product of a lazy Congress over the years. Have never really understood how the opinions of 9 people (or less in some circumstances) should carry more weight than what over 500 people in Congress. It's the fundamental flaw with our common law system.
That being said. Of course, Kavanaugh should not be confirmed if any of this is true. Same should have happened to Clarence Thomas. But it didn't. The Republicans are great at spinning things.
Also, I did not understand how the Republicans did not even have hearings on Merrick Garland? Was that fair?
Just wonder what you men do every single day to not be sexually assaulted?
ReplyDeleteDo you change your clothes to not be provocative?
Carry your keys in your hand in every parking lot?
Have someone walk you to the car in the dark?
Never put your drink down when out, always take it directly from the bartender?
Check the back seat of your car before getting in?
Always meet in public areas?
Fake talking on the phone so people think you are in contact with someone?
Leave social gatherings early before people become intoxicated?
What do you men do every day to avoid being sexually assaulted other than be men?
"What do you men do every day to avoid being sexually assaulted other than be men?"
ReplyDeleteI'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you don't know any heterosexual men who have been sexually assaulted or stalked by other men.
In the case of the sexual assault, the man in question should have avoided getting passed out drunk.
I'm not sure what the man being stalked should have done, or could have done, to avoid the stalking. However, a strongly worded letter from an attorney to the medical school attended by both parties in question did stop the stalking behavior.
4:19 nice way to blame the victim, must be a man.
ReplyDeleteTo anon 3:05: I see your point somewhat. But I do not like the argument that someone cannot have an opinion simply because they have never experienced something.
ReplyDeleteKind of like - "I do not need to jump off a building to know it's dangerous."
Empathy can come from people who have not experienced it. Trust me it's possible.
If you talked about how much you love beer and cried and yelled in your job interview, how well do you think it would go?
ReplyDelete