How important is what we did in high school? Kavanaugh accusation


carlimac
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've listened to lots of opinions on whether this is important or not. Accuser wants an FBI investigation. What would they be investigating?  Whether it happened or not?  And how is that info going to be useful?  I think the most important thing that no one seems to be pointing out is that now that Kavanaugh has categorically denied it, but it really did happen, then his current honesty should be under the microscope. Whether it happened or not seems to be of little importance to how Kavanaugh would do his job in 2018. He was a teenager at the time and teens do stupid things.  Some want to simply throw him out at the very vague suggestion that he may have been involved in this long ago incident. Seriously?  There is a statute of limitations that would prevent him ever being put in jail. there should be a statute of limitations that prevents this kind of thing ever tangling up a Supreme Court Judge vote. That way  Kavanaugh would have been free to just say, ya, I was a dumb kid back then. I"m sorry it happened. But I'm not that kid any more.  All the other FBI investigations have shown me to be worthy of this position. 

 

Other thoughts?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following presumes Kavanaugh actually did what he is actually accused of doing, which is by no means certain.  

No.  NO.  Nopity-nopity-nope.  This is not teenaged stupidness.  This is an attempt to get a young woman away from any possible defenders, overpower her, silence her calls for help, and forcibly disrobe her; very probably in preparation for rape.

This is not normal teenaged boy behavior.  It is not even typical teenaged-boy-level stupid behavior.  

Believe it or not, I was once a teenaged boy.  And somehow—mirabile dictu!—I made it all the way through high school (and college!) without ever doing that to a girl.  

Now, I work in the juvenile court system; and I understand and generally agree with the rationale that youthful indiscretions—even grievous ones—should not subject a youth to the adult penal system; and that on attaining majority delinquents should be given a chance for a new start in life via a sealed juvenile record.

But that doesn’t mean prefer them in a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Freaking Court over the plenty of other excellent candidates who have never—either as an adult or a juvenile—exhibited the level of malice, brutality, and sheer sociopathy that it takes to engage in the sort of conduct being alleged here.

I was listening to several other conservative-leaning commentators discussing this today, and the not-quite-universal consensus was that this is run-of-the-male teenaged boy boorishness that ought to get a pass.  The ease with which this position was acknowledged and accepted frankly horrified me, and elicits two gut reactions:

1) Maybe the #metoo moonbats were right all along; and

2) Behold what Trump and his siren song of “locker room talk” hath wrought on the GOP.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with JAG. If Kavanaugh really did do this thing, then he should not be within a mile of a judicial post of any sort, much less a Supreme Court appointment.

That said, I have zero reason to believe his accuser. And do you know what would be ten times worse than appointing a former juvenile delinquent to the SC? Allowing any random, unsubstantiated accusation to destroy a man's reputation and a judicial appointment. The former would put a potentially bad man in a position of influence, something regrettable but probably survivable. Not like it has never happened before. The latter would destroy our society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vort said:

I agree with JAG. If Kavanaugh really did do this thing, then he should not be within a mile of a judicial post of any sort, much less a Supreme Court appointment.

That said, I have zero reason to believe his accuser. And do you know what would be ten times worse than appointing a former juvenile delinquent to the SC? Allowing any random, unsubstantiated accusation to destroy a man's reputation and a judicial appointment. The former would put a potentially bad man in a position of influence, something regrettable but probably survivable. Not like it has never happened before. The latter would destroy our society.

I mostly agree, Vort; but I’d note that Kavanaugh’s current position on the DC Circuit is not in jeopardy.  Given that pretty much nothing will redeem his good name no matter how this shakes out, his keeping his current still-influential position in lieu of ascending to a SCOTUS seat doesn’t strike me as quite tantamount to him being personally destroyed.  

Kavanaugh was something of a compromise candidate anyways, and I think if it were handled with finesse Trump could use this opportunity to get Senate squishes like Collins and Murkowski really mad at the Dems and firmly back into the GOP fold.  Then, he could use that newfound party unity to ram through a young conservative firebrand like Barrett.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a different thread I asked a similar question.  We are all familiar with the Story of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies...  In general they confessed to multiple murders...  No doubt about guilt.  Would we be OK with one of them (or even several of them) gaining leadership, judgeship or other highly powerful roles?  Or are they also non starters?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The following presumes Kavanaugh actually did what he is actually accused of doing, which is by no means certain.  

No.  NO.  Nopity-nopity-nope.  This is not teenaged stupidness.  This is an attempt to get a young woman away from any possible defenders, overpower her, silence her calls for help, and forcibly disrobe her; very probably in preparation for rape.

This is not normal teenaged boy behavior.  It is not even typical teenaged-boy-level stupid behavior.  

Believe it or not, I was once a teenaged boy.  And somehow—mirabile dictu!—I made it all the way through high school (and college!) without ever doing that to a girl.  

Now, I work in the juvenile court system; and I understand and generally agree with the rationale that youthful indiscretions—even grievous ones—should not subject a youth to the adult penal system; and that on attaining majority delinquents should be given a chance for a new start in life via a sealed juvenile record.

But that doesn’t mean prefer them in a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Freaking Court over the plenty of other excellent candidates who have never—either as an adult or a juvenile—exhibited the level of malice, brutality, and sheer sociopathy that it takes to engage in the sort of conduct being alleged here.

I was listening to several other conservative-leaning commentators discussing this today, and the not-quite-universal consensus was that this is run-of-the-male teenaged boy boorishness that ought to get a pass.  The ease with which this position was acknowledged and accepted frankly horrified me, and elicits two gut reactions:

1) Maybe the #metoo moonbats were right all along; and

2) Behold what Trump and his siren song of “locker room talk” hath wrought on the GOP.

Her assertion (at least her repressed memory in resurfaced form) is that both young men in the room were extremely drunk. So I would take your statement back a few steps and say that many teenage boys drink alcohol which, taken alone is definitelyin the category of "stupid teenage boy behavior".  Yes, it's illegal (so is driving over the speed limit and lighting certain kinds of firecrackers and probably throwing eggs and pizza at cars and doing donuts in a snowy parking lot)  but does not compare in severity of offense to attempted rape. And if indeed Kavanaugh did drink a lot in high school, maybe that's why he claims he never did it.  Because he doesn't remember what he did while drunk.  So does an alcohol impaired young man groping and clumsily trying to take a swim suit off a girl merit the same kind of punishment as a sober young man doing this kind of thing? 

So let's say Kavanaugh confesses to drinking too much during high school. Would an investigation into his current drinking habits be appropriate? He says he would never/ has never assaulted a woman ( that he can remember). 

And at what point does the committee say, "That was then and it hasn't happened since so he is indeed qualified to be  on the Supreme Court."  Can they ever be that forgiving? Or are people plagued for the rest of their lives and disqualified for dumb stuff they did in high school? 

And your #2 point- Has the GOP become numb or has the bar for sexual assault been raised incredibly high over the last year or so?   Because I can definitely remember a few experiences in my youth that I could now claim were sexual assaults according to today's standards, but that seemed like harmless playfulness back then. And to be perfectly clear, I was never groped or directly touched in places I shouldn't have been but it came awfully close while rough housing in a swimming pool once or twice and a during a playful wrestling match a time or two.  ( I didn't marry any of those young men.) 

Edited by carlimac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

In a different thread I asked a similar question.  We are all familiar with the Story of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies...  In general they confessed to multiple murders...  No doubt about guilt.  Would we be OK with one of them (or even several of them) gaining leadership, judgeship or other highly powerful roles?  Or are they also non starters?

I, for one, would not have been okay with it. They paid a heavy price for their sincere repentance, and God judged them (apparently quite positively), which I happily accept. But men guilty of murder have no business sitting in a position of judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

I, for one, would not have been okay with it. They paid a heavy price for their sincere repentance, and God judged them (apparently quite positively), which I happily accept. But men guilty of murder have no business sitting in a position of judgment.

I’m inclined to agree.  If I understand things correctly, a Church member guilty of such an accusation would have their membership record marked and would not be entrusted to act as a bishop no matter how sincere their repentance.  It’s not a matter of the individual’s deserving ongoing stigmatization; it’s just a situation where some positions are too important to entrust to someone who has a track record of predatory behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, carlimac said:

Her assertion (at least her repressed memory in resurfaced form) is that both young men in the room were extremely drunk. So I would take your statement back a few steps and say that many teenage boys drink alcohol which, taken alone is definitelyin the category of "stupid teenage boy behavior".  Yes, it's illegal (so is driving over the speed limit and lighting certain kinds of firecrackers and probably throwing eggs and pizza at cars and doing donuts in a snowy parking lot)  but does not compare in severity of offense to attempted rape. And if indeed Kavanaugh did drink a lot in high school, maybe that's why he claims he never did it.  Because he doesn't remember what he did while drunk.  So does an alcohol impaired young man groping and clumsily trying to take a swim suit off a girl merit the same kind of punishment as a sober young man doing this kind of thing? 

So let's say Kavanaugh confesses to drinking too much during high school. Would an investigation into his current drinking habits be appropriate? He says he would never/ has never assaulted a woman ( that he can remember). 

And at what point does the committee say, "That was then and it hasn't happened since so he is indeed qualified to be  on the Supreme Court."  Can they ever be that forgiving? Or are people plagued for the rest of their lives and disqualified for dumb stuff they did in high school? 

And your #2 point- Has the GOP become numb or has the bar for sexual assault been raised incredibly high over the last year or so?   Because I can definitely remember a few experiences in my youth that I could now claim were sexual assaults according to today's standards, but that seemed like harmless playfulness back then. And to be perfectly clear, I was never groped or directly touched in places I shouldn't have been but it came awfully close while rough housing in a swimming pool once or twice and a during a playful wrestling match a time or two.  ( I didn't marry any of those young men.) 

1.  Inebriation is not an excuse.  A victim isn’t any less traumatized, or bruised, or dead, just because her rapist/attacker/murderer was drunk/high/stoned.  As I said above, I recognize the need to give people a fresh start generally.  But the simple fact is there are some behaviors that suggest you shouldn’t be trusted beyond a certain degree of authority.  For example, attempted rapists shouldn’t be on SCOTUS (or in the White House).

2.  That’s a fair question, but not one I see as being terribly relevant to the issues at play here.  Getting a woman (or girl) alone, overpowering her and pinning her on a bed, muffling her mouth so she can’t scream for help, and tearing off her swimsuit; are not mere “playfulness”, and never were.  

It should also be noted that, in spite of the existence of the juvenile court system; in particularly heinous crimes the court can refer the matter to the regular adult penal system.  My guess is that, at least in  my own jurisdiction, a seventeen-year-old participant in an attempted gang-rape would probably have been tried as an adult.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m inclined to agree.  If I understand things correctly, a Church member guilty of such an accusation would have their membership record marked and would not be entrusted to act as a bishop no matter how sincere their repentance.  It’s not a matter of the individual’s deserving ongoing stigmatization; it’s just a situation where some positions are too important to entrust to someone who has a track record of predatory behavior.

To be clear: I freely admit that many or even most (or all) of the repentant murderous Lamanites might have been far better men than I am. I also quickly concede that many of them might have made better judges than I would. (For that matter, I admit that I have no desire to be in a position of judgment, either secularly or ecclesiastically.)

None of those make any difference. If a man has murdered someone, he permanently loses any claim on being in a position of judgment over others in this life. Qualifications and even sincere repentance don't really matter. I mean, of course they matter for the man and his eternal welfare. But I cannot imagine any reasonable society, secular or religious, that would put important matters of personal judgment in the hands of a man who had committed murder.

I would say the same standard would apply to a man guilty of attempted rape, even in high school, even if done when impaired. By the same token, if a woman is shown guilty of lying about such a thing, she should never again in her entire life be believed about any complaint she ever swears out against anyone for anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK JAG...changing directions about this whole fiasco that is blowing my mind.  If this woman can demand an FBI investigation of Kavanaugh, what about an FBI investigation of her? 

How do we know her claims are credible or that SHE is  who she says she is?  How did we get to a point where just anybody can make claims like this out of the blue and totally derail the process? Is anyone checking out all her conversations and bank accounts to make sure she isn't a pawn? 

Seriously, this thing is outrageous. 

Another question- Some presidents were elected into office as known womanizers. Do you believe the office of POTUS less important than SCOTUS in regards to these kinds of things? Why is SCOTUS more sacred? And how did Clarence Thomas get voted in with his shady past?

Edited by carlimac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question I have is how do we settle this issue? It will never go beyond he said she said. He vehemently denies assaulting her and has character witnesses to back him up. She vehemently argues that it was absolutely him and has character witnesses to back her up. There will never be any physical evidence and, since she can't even remember the location or exact year of this supposed assault, there probabbly won't be any more witnesses either (I could be wrong, but that's my impression.) So the question for me is, since guilt will never be able to be proven in this kind of case, where do we go from here? Have we really become a society where a single, unprovable accusation from 35 years ago is enough to destroy a man's reputation and deny him a spot on the court? My opinion may change if they could show me some kind of evidence beyond her word (maybe proof that he regularly drank to excess as a teenager, or someone who can remember the actual place and time of this supposed event) but until that happens I fully support continuing on with the nomination. I do, however, agree with what was said earlier. If, and I use this word on purpose, if it can be shown he did this than I would argue in favor of finding another candidate. But only if.

Edited by Midwest LDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vort said:

I, for one, would not have been okay with it. They paid a heavy price for their sincere repentance, and God judged them (apparently quite positively), which I happily accept. But men guilty of murder have no business sitting in a position of judgment.

 

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m inclined to agree.  If I understand things correctly, a Church member guilty of such an accusation would have their membership record marked and would not be entrusted to act as a bishop no matter how sincere their repentance.  It’s not a matter of the individual’s deserving ongoing stigmatization; it’s just a situation where some positions are too important to entrust to someone who has a track record of predatory behavior.

Thanks for the serious answers.

I have no problem with a past offense keeping one from a future privilege .

I do have a problem with an unproven allegation driven for political gain to smear a person of good character.

As for picking someone else without such... that is possible if it is about the past.  Not so much if it is a character assassination... In the case of the latter you simply put another good person in the cross hairs 

 

28 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

The question I have is how do we settle this issue?

Rule of law and principles.  Give the lady a chance to be heard and questioned under oath, then move the process along and let the vote happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, estradling75 said:

 

Thanks for the serious answers.

I have no problem with a past offense keeping one from a future privilege .

I do have a problem with an unproven allegation driven for political gain to smear a person of good character.

As for picking someone else without such... that is possible if it is about the past.  Not so much if it is a character assassination... In the case of the latter you simply put another good person in the cross hairs 

 

Rule of law and principles.  Give the lady a chance to be heard and questioned under oath, then move the process along and let the vote happen

That seems reasonable to me considering the lack of evidence. I'm just not sure that's what's going to happen, I've read enough articles from left leaning sources (Huff post, salon etc.) to know they've already pronounced him guilty. That's business as usual for the MSM, but I don't have a lot of faith in the Senate to ignore the shrill voices on the left, especially after they chickened out over repealing Obamacare. I hope I'm wrong though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

 

Thanks for the serious answers.

I have no problem with a past offense keeping one from a future privilege .

I do have a problem with an unproven allegation driven for political gain to smear a person of good character.

As for picking someone else without such... that is possible if it is about the past.  Not so much if it is a character assassination... In the case of the latter you simply put another good person in the cross hairs 

 

Rule of law and principles.  Give the lady a chance to be heard and questioned under oath, then move the process along and let the vote happen

Fully agree.  And I’m really torn about how the GOP should handle it.  There’s a big part of me that thinks they should say “you say on this for seven weeks; that’s dirty pool and we’re voting.”  But I think the electoral consequences would be disastrous.  It seems to me that the sounder strategy is probably to withdraw Kavanaugh and tee up a person of irreproachable character whose ideology the Dems will hate even more—and when they repeat the same antics with the new guy that they ran with Kavanaugh, hopefully the country will get the message that the Dems are not (and haven’t been) dealing in good faith.

But, yes; that’s not remotely fair to Kavanaugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about anyone else- but I did stupid things in high school, heck I've done some stupid things in adulthood. But repentance is a wonderful thing, it's nice to have a clean slate with God.

That being said Brett Kavanaugh has gone through 6 extensive FBI checks over his career; and although I don't have much faith in the upper tiers of the FBI, I do have confidence with the agents who do the actual work. And I'm sure they went back as far as his elementary years. 

This woman might believe everything she says happened..... my ex believed all the garbage he told people he did too. Only thing is he didn't do half of what he said he did, but he's such a gifted liar- he actually believes his lies.

She waited until Judge Kavanaugh was on the rise in his career before her "recollection" in 2012 in a therapists office, and according to USA Today ...." without mentioning the name of a perpetrator" in that sudden recall. THEN she waits until 2018 to bring it to political attention- only this time she has a name, only she doesn't want HER NAME used. She wants to speak, then she didn't want to speak, then she wanted to speak only after another FBI investigation. Red flag, red flag, red flag.   RED FLAG.

I'm not that educated in government or politics but I have an idea that the FBI doesn't classify a 36 year old hazy/ incomplete accusation as breaking a federal law or raising a national security issue. I would think that any investigation should be done by her lawyer and her resources.

 I firmly believe it's all a last ditch political effort to delay the SCOTUS vote. Nothing more.

I feel for the woman for putting herself in the middle of everything with a hazy, inaccurate memory. Sorry Not sorry.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering her background, I'm not sure what to think.  Considering what I've heard of his school and his buddy Mark Judge, I also don't know what to think other than it is plausible and it sounds like Mark Judge and some of his buddies were doing some pretty terrible things back in High School.  I think there are MANY these days that also fall into doing similar things.

The one PROBLEM that stands out to me is the boy who called Wolf.  The Democrats seem to have fallen into this casual accusation approach these days.  If they cannot seem to win by normal means, they win by creating a social pariah of the Republican Candidate.  They will conjure up some individual to make accusations to ruin a candidate's reputation.  Everyone is concerned about it when the accusations arise, but after the Democrats win, no one follows up and no one cares.  This makes it basically a ruse, the boy who called wolf.

We look at this woman's reputation.  It seems like another Democrat ruse.  After it is all done, the Democrats won't follow up, the woman won't really care and will disappear in the woodwork, and Kavanaugh's reputation will still be ruined.

To me, this is despicable.  I don't like the Democrats taking this type of approach to ruin someone's reputation merely for power on their part.  It's against the Democrat Party's (well, what used to be) ethics and moral compass.  It's against their directives.  But it seems a LOT of this has been tossed aside these days.

So, the story is suspect, ESPECIALLY considering who it is coming from and their background and connection to this same ploy of people who call wolf.

The problem is considering who his friends were in High School and the reputation those friend have given that High School from back then (and Murkowski is another whose brother went and who seems to give credence to the stories...and she is one of the few that some think may NOT be favorable to Kavanaugh) is that the story being stated is actually believable.  It could have happened that way.  We've seen a LOT of places where morality among the boys were not that high, and considering the stories that have been written about the High School Kavanaugh went to, and that many were even sourced to one of his good friends...doesn't speak well. 

So, it's a double sided dilemma.  If the Democrats had not resorted to this ploy so much over the past two years it probably wouldn't be such a diliemma, but because they have...it makes it all the much harder to think this is anything more than a deliberate boy crying wolf yet again when there is no real concrete plan to follow up on it other than to trash a candidate reputation for political gain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Considering her background, I'm not sure what to think.  Considering what I've heard of his school and his buddy Mark Judge, I also don't know what to think other than it is plausible and it sounds like Mark Judge and some of his buddies were doing some pretty terrible things back in High School.  I think there are MANY these days that also fall into doing similar things.

The one PROBLEM that stands out to me is the boy who called Wolf.  The Democrats seem to have fallen into this casual accusation approach these days.  If they cannot seem to win by normal means, they win by creating a social pariah of the Republican Candidate.  They will conjure up some individual to make accusations to ruin a candidate's reputation.  Everyone is concerned about it when the accusations arise, but after the Democrats win, no one follows up and no one cares.  This makes it basically a ruse, the boy who called wolf.

We look at this woman's reputation.  It seems like another Democrat ruse.  After it is all done, the Democrats won't follow up, the woman won't really care and will disappear in the woodwork, and Kavanaugh's reputation will still be ruined.

To me, this is despicable.  I don't like the Democrats taking this type of approach to ruin someone's reputation merely for power on their part.  It's against the Democrat Party's (well, what used to be) ethics and moral compass.  It's against their directives.  But it seems a LOT of this has been tossed aside these days.

So, the story is suspect, ESPECIALLY considering who it is coming from and their background and connection to this same ploy of people who call wolf.

The problem is considering who his friends were in High School and the reputation those friend have given that High School from back then (and Murkowski is another whose brother went and who seems to give credence to the stories...and she is one of the few that some think may NOT be favorable to Kavanaugh) is that the story being stated is actually believable.  It could have happened that way.  We've seen a LOT of places where morality among the boys were not that high, and considering the stories that have been written about the High School Kavanaugh went to, and that many were even sourced to one of his good friends...doesn't speak well. 

So, it's a double sided dilemma.  If the Democrats had not resorted to this ploy so much over the past two years it probably wouldn't be such a diliemma, but because they have...it makes it all the much harder to think this is anything more than a deliberate boy crying wolf yet again when there is no real concrete plan to follow up on it other than to trash a candidate reputation for political gain.

Bingo and this also...

One of the common complaints we hear a lot of is that we do not believe such stories when they come forth (aka the Me Too movement) and the current criticism being leveled against anyone not willing to lynch Kavanaugh.  I would love nothing more to then to believe that a person would NEVER lie about being a victim of sexual assault. Sadly this has proven to be demonstrably false.  Every person that has lied about sexual assault and used such claims to advance causes other then justice for the crime are guilty of causing further harm to the people who truly are victims.  Because of this we can not just assume guilt based on an accusation, because of this we have to ask the accuser hard questions.  To some degree this re-traumatize true victims and it sucks, but there is really no other way around the fact that people lie and will continue to lie about the subject.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/19/2018 at 5:41 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

I mostly agree, Vort; but I’d note that Kavanaugh’s current position on the DC Circuit is not in jeopardy.  Given that pretty much nothing will redeem his good name no matter how this shakes out, his keeping his current still-influential position in lieu of ascending to a SCOTUS seat doesn’t strike me as quite tantamount to him being personally destroyed.  

Kavanaugh was something of a compromise candidate anyways, and I think if it were handled with finesse Trump could use this opportunity to get Senate squishes like Collins and Murkowski really mad at the Dems and firmly back into the GOP fold.  Then, he could use that newfound party unity to ram through a young conservative firebrand like Barrett.

I disagree.  Kavanaugh is not a compromise candidate.  Kavanaugh was even tossed around back in 2012 as Romney's SCOTUS pick.

And I don't like that term "conservative firebrand".  That just sounds like an activitist like Ginsburg except siding with conservatives.  You don't want activist judges.  So, it's not conservative or liberal that you're looking for.  It's constitutionalists.  And yes, Barrett is qualified in that regard.

And as far as @Vort's comment about destruction - I think he meant destruction to society.  Not just destruction to Kavanaugh personally.  Letting non-evidenced accusations derail a SCOTUS hearing sets a precedent that that's all you have to do to stop or delay a nomination.  That is a constitutional crisis.

I'll put my thoughts on the matter on a separate post so it's not muddied by my response to you and Vort's discussion.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I disagree.  Kavanaugh is not a compromise candidate.  Kavanaugh was even tossed around back in 2012 as Romney's SCOTUS pick.

And I don't like that term "conservative firebrand".  That just sounds like an activitist like Ginsburg except siding with conservatives.  You don't want activist judges.  So, it's not conservative or liberal that you're looking for.  It's constitutionalists.  And yes, Barrett is qualified in that regard.

And as far as @Vort's comment about destruction - I think he meant destruction to society.  Not just destruction to Kavanaugh personally.  Letting non-evidenced accusations derail a SCOTUS hearing sets a precedent that that's all you have to do to stop or delay a nomination.  That is a constitutional crisis.

I'll put my thoughts on the matter on a separate post so it's not muddied by my response to you and Vort's discussion.

I fully agree about *constitutionalist* versus *conservative*—at this point in time there’s a lot of overlap between the two; but you’re correct that *constitutionalist* is preferable when it comes to the federal bench.

As far as “destruction” and “process”—I agree the Dems are playing dirty pool; but not every incident of dirty pool leads to a constitutional crisis.   The GOP just needs to find a way to make it backfire so spectacularly that the Dems never try it again.  :satanflame:

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@carlimac

This is what I believe is going on.  To be expedient, I'm not going to link supporting sources.  I will if you need me to.

Brett Kavanaugh is a devout Catholic who holds the Catholic belief that abortion is a sin without exceptions.  Christine Ford is a Feminist Activitist.  She has been in opposition of BK, especially after his name bubbled up as Romney's SCOTUS pick if he would have gotten elected president, solely because of BK's pro-life stance which the Feminist Activists deem as an extremist.  BK has been through 4 FBI investigations in his career to vet his nomination for Judicial positions.  He has never had any scandal attached to him and he has performed all his duties with exemplary skill. 

CF told her therapist in 2012 about an attempted sexual assault in high school but did not name BK.  Last July, she wrote a letter to Diane Feinstein (they have a connection) outlining the events at a party where she accused BK and Mark Judge by name of sexually assaulting her while drunk.  She did not name a location nor a time beyond "early 80's".  Feinstein sat on the letter through the preliminary interviews before the hearings, through the Judicial Committee hearings, and all the way up to the last week before the scheduled confirmation.  But, instead of releasing the letter to the Judicial Committee to be admitted as a part of the hearing, she instead redacted copy of the letter to the FBI to not name CF and Mark Judge.  She also leaked a copy to the press.  The FBI rejected the request for investigation (more on this later).  Grassley - the head of the Judiciary Committee - upon knowing of the letter through the leaked press reports, delayed the confirmation vote that was supposed to happen today and scheduled a hearing with CF and BK on Monday.  CF eventually came out as the redacted name on the letter and she went on a round of interviews with the press.  During an interview with Washington Post, CF claimed that PJ Smyth is witness to her story.  Both Mark Judge and PJ Smyth sent letters to the Judiciary committee through their lawyers stating that they have been unwillingly dragged into this scandal against their will and that they both deny that they are witness to any such event between CF and BK.  They both stated that these letters will have to suffice because they are not going to appear at the hearing.  CF, through Diane Feinstein, stated that she is also not going to appear at the hearing because she demands an FBI investigation to be opened.  Grassley stated that if CF doesn't appear at the hearing, then they will proceed with the nomination. 

Since then, 65 women who knew BK in High School (he went to an all boys Catholic school) plus 2 of BK's ex-girfriends in high school and college vouched for BK's character.  Similarly, Samantha Guerry, a close friend of CF who went to high school with her vouched for her story.  But when pressed, she denies knowledge of anything specific to BK and that she believes CF's story because those things were common at parties when she was in high school.  200 women from their high school (attended from the 60's to today) signed their name on a letter stating the same thing - not specific to BK but that it was common at parties.  CF and SG has since deleted all their social media presence.  Their High School also deleted all their online information about any of their students.

So, BK went and hired Beth Wilkinson, a stellar anti-defamation lawyer, as his defense attorney.  Interesting choice there.  In addition, Feinstein came out yesterday and said she can't be sure if CF's claims are true.  This is another interesting thing - especially after several Democrats went public stating that the way this scandal is going it looks like it's going to hurt the Democrats in the mid-terms.  These Democrats are now saying this because they thought Trump was going to hail fire and brimstone against CF which would excite the Feminists and anti-Trumpers but the exact opposite is happening.  Trump was actually supporting the delay of the confirmation to have CF be heard!

--------------------------------

So, this is the tactic... this accusation is not about BK's character.  BK has a long-standing Catholic presence with extensive service to the community.  This accusation is about ABORTION.  This accusation is an attempt to delay the confirmation at least until after mid-terms so they can gin up the votes to overturn the Senate.  The only way they can delay the vote, after their pressure on Collins, Murkowski, and Flake exploded on their faces (they threatened Collins with putting $1M to the campaign of her opponent if she supports BK and when that didn't work, they sent her a giant poster of a man's genitals to her office, among other dirty methods), is to open an FBI investigation.  FBI investigations do not have a time limit.  They are confidential and can be done without transparency to the Senate or the public and closed to the press (except for what they choose to leak).  Confirmations cannot happen when an FBI investigation is ongoing.  So, this is their Hail Mary and if this was the pre-Trump FBI, they would have gotten it (it should be obvious by now how the FBI played partisan politics for the Democratic Party).  Therefore, the fact that the FBI summarily rejected this request shows that the FBI has finally gotten dislodged from the grips of the Democratic Party.

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I fully agree about *constitutionalist* versus *conservative*—at this point in time there’s a lot of overlap between the two; but you’re correct that *constitutionalist* is preferable when it comes to the federal bench.

As far as “destruction” and “process”—I agree the Dems are playing dirty pool; but not every incident of dirty pool leads to a constitutional crisis.   The GOP just needs to find a way to make it backfire so spectacularly that the Dems never try it again.  :satanflame:

I forgot to address your statement about this and Trump and the GOP.

You are wrong about that - thinking that this is all about a post-Trump GOP.  Of course you know that is not right.  The Democrats have been playing dirty since time immemorial.  The post-Trump GOP simply got tired of caving in to the Democrat Playbook like they used to do. 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I forgot to address your statement about this and Trump and the GOP.

You are wrong about that - thinking that this is all about a post-Trump GOP.  Of course you know that is not right.  The Democrats have been playing dirty since time immemorial.  The post-Trump GOP simply got tired of caving in to the Democrat Playbook like they used to do. 

I don’t think I said it’s *all* about a post-Trump GOP.  I believe I specifically referred to a few commentators who were saying that even if the accusations are true, Kavanaugh should be confirmed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t think I said it’s *all* about a post-Trump GOP.  I believe I specifically referred to a few commentators who were saying that even if the accusations are true, Kavanaugh should be confirmed.

Well, I believe he should be confirmed even if the accusation is true as stated.  What would make him lose my support if this action proved to be habitual instead of a one-off - not just the sexual assault but even just being stupid drunk at parties.  But, as the way this has progressed, with BK strongly denying the claim, finding out this is true is not anymore about a one-off at a party - as @carlimac has stated, this is now akin to perjury.  And that now has direct impact on his qualifications as a judge and not just a statement of an imperfection of character.

But, remember, you and I have different views on what we consider qualifications for public office.  I don't expect perfect character from government.

But even then... pre-Trump GOP definitely had no problems putting people with questionable character in office (McCain cough, cough, God bless his soul).  They're just like them old ladies (like my mother) - won't let their kids watch characters french kissing on TV but will let them watch the same characters chopping their heads off with machine guns.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share