Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Open Discussion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Open Discussion Discuss The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination at the General Forum; Originally Posted by ShivaTD Just a few thoughts. (1) There's a significant difference between a sexual assault that can be ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 09-18-2018, 12:29 PM
GottaGo's Avatar
Sanity is overrated.
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Miles to go before I sleep
Posts: 13,423
Thanks: 11,741
Thanked 9,808 Times in 6,003 Posts
Default Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Just a few thoughts.

(1) There's a significant difference between a sexual assault that can be classified as an attempted rape and "Harry" dipping "Sally's" pigtails in the ink well so we'll discard this issue as being nonsense.

(2) It's no necessarily a typical "he-said-she-said" if both of them are telling the truth based upon what they remember. I'll return to this because that appears to be the most likely conclusion we could end up making based upon what's been reported so far.

(3) The criteria of "innocent until proven guilty" only applies in the courtroom in a criminal case. In a civil case preponderance of evidence, and not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, exists and in society even a lower standard often applies. But that's for the typical case and we're not talking about a typical case.

We're addressing a Supreme Court Justice that will be receiving a lifetime appointment. Above any suspicion is a more appropriate criteria when it comes to individuals that will wield this type of power for such a long period of time. A Supreme Court Justice arguably needs to meet the highest possible standard of conduct, perhaps even greater than the President that wields more power but for a shorter period of time.

Yes, for the first time in history we're addressing the seriousness of allegations of sexual misconduct that has been historically swept under the rug. Often it can be a "he-said-she-said" case and invariably that was a no-win situation for the person that was a victim of sexual malfeasance and that was wrong. The victim never had a chance in the "he-said-she-said" world where "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" was the criteria. We used the wrong criteria and today we struggle to find a better criteria.

(4) The decision to bring this forward to the public was not Sen. Diana Feinstein's to make. Only the victim, Christine Blasey Ford, has the authority to bring this to the public and Senate's attention because she's the one that's going to suffer from the exposure regardless of what the final outcome is. In contacting Senator Feinstein she place her trust in the integrity of the Senator to keep the information private and we should be able to trust our elected officials. Since first writing she employed an attorney that's worked with her so that she finally decided to come forward and face the wrath of the Republicans that are going to take her down a brutal path in front of the American people during open Judiciary Committee hearings.

The GOP is aptly represented on that committee exclusively by "Old White Men" that have no ability to understand what she went through then or what they'll put her through during her testimony. We saw this when Anita Hill testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Clarence Thomas hearings and the Republican Party hasn't changed one iota on the Senate Judicial Committee. A couple of the GOP Senators are even the same ones that were on the committee when Anita Hill was subjected to their inquisition type interrogation.

No woman would willing want to put themselves in the place of Christine Blasey Ford or Anita Hill and it takes great courage and conviction to do so. We need to always remember that before all else.

But let me address something I mentioned earlier. What if both Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh are both telling to truth to the best of their ability. It can happen and this could very well be the "real truth" that we're looking for.

Apparently based upon statements from Mark Judge, Kananaugh's friend in high school and the other person that Dr. Ford says was in the room, as well as comments in a recently exposed year book, Kavanaugh and Judge were binge drinkers in high school. They would literally drink to the point of oblivion where they didn't know where they were or what they were doing.

I knew people like that in high school and binge drinking became huge on college campuses in the 1970's for those of us old enough to remember. Mark Judge, in a book he wrote, apparently refers to Kavanaugh as being so drunk one time that he didn't know where he was or what he was doing.

The allegation includes the statement that Kavanaugh and his friend were extremely drunk at the time. In fact, assuming the allegation is true, Kavanaugh was so drunk he couldn't even remove her swimsuit and groped her through the swimsuit. If Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge were as drunk as Judge claims they were at times it's very easy to believe that they were drunk, that Kavanaugh did engage in a sexual assault that he would never have done sober, and that neither Kavanaugh or Judge can remember the instance at all because they were too drunk at the time to remember.

In this case no one is lying, everyone is telling the truth to the best of their knowledge, and we have an explanation for what occurred.

The question then becomes what should a Senator do about it? It would be a drunken act by a teenage but "drunken" doesn't excuse the attack and being a "teenage" doesn't make the sexual assault disappear from the record.
Just a few thoughts from me.

If one were to believe Ms. Ford's allegations, and she is unable to specify the date or the place this supposedly took place, then chances are, she was more inebriated then she cares to admit.

If an event of the sort Ford alleges took place, there is emotional trauma. And speaking from experience, that degree of trauma forces one's brain into overdrive. The date, the place, are seared into your brain. You recall bizarre details like what color shirt someone was wearing, or the stench of their breath. It's not hazy and vague. It's not maybe. It IS.

Perhaps something did happen, a fondle or grope. Not that any teens ever did something like that before. Sexual assault? I'm not thinking so.
__________________
Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.
If you don't laugh at yourself, a whole bunch of people will volunteer to do it for you
I never lose. I either win, or I learn....
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GottaGo For This Useful Post:
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 09-18-2018, 02:28 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,901
Thanks: 13,931
Thanked 4,955 Times in 3,166 Posts
Default Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Just a few thoughts.

(1) There's a significant difference between a sexual assault that can be classified as an attempted rape and "Harry" dipping "Sally's" pigtails in the ink well so we'll discard this issue as being nonsense.

(2) It's no necessarily a typical "he-said-she-said" if both of them are telling the truth based upon what they remember. I'll return to this because that appears to be the most likely conclusion we could end up making based upon what's been reported so far.

(3) The criteria of "innocent until proven guilty" only applies in the courtroom in a criminal case. In a civil case preponderance of evidence, and not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, exists and in society even a lower standard often applies. But that's for the typical case and we're not talking about a typical case.

We're addressing a Supreme Court Justice that will be receiving a lifetime appointment. Above any suspicion is a more appropriate criteria when it comes to individuals that will wield this type of power for such a long period of time. A Supreme Court Justice arguably needs to meet the highest possible standard of conduct, perhaps even greater than the President that wields more power but for a shorter period of time.

Yes, for the first time in history we're addressing the seriousness of allegations of sexual misconduct that has been historically swept under the rug. Often it can be a "he-said-she-said" case and invariably that was a no-win situation for the person that was a victim of sexual malfeasance and that was wrong. The victim never had a chance in the "he-said-she-said" world where "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" was the criteria. We used the wrong criteria and today we struggle to find a better criteria.

(4) The decision to bring this forward to the public was not Sen. Diana Feinstein's to make. Only the victim, Christine Blasey Ford, has the authority to bring this to the public and Senate's attention because she's the one that's going to suffer from the exposure regardless of what the final outcome is. In contacting Senator Feinstein she place her trust in the integrity of the Senator to keep the information private and we should be able to trust our elected officials. Since first writing she employed an attorney that's worked with her so that she finally decided to come forward and face the wrath of the Republicans that are going to take her down a brutal path in front of the American people during open Judiciary Committee hearings.

The GOP is aptly represented on that committee exclusively by "Old White Men" that have no ability to understand what she went through then or what they'll put her through during her testimony. We saw this when Anita Hill testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Clarence Thomas hearings and the Republican Party hasn't changed one iota on the Senate Judicial Committee. A couple of the GOP Senators are even the same ones that were on the committee when Anita Hill was subjected to their inquisition type interrogation.

No woman would willing want to put themselves in the place of Christine Blasey Ford or Anita Hill and it takes great courage and conviction to do so. We need to always remember that before all else.

But let me address something I mentioned earlier. What if both Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh are both telling to truth to the best of their ability. It can happen and this could very well be the "real truth" that we're looking for.

Apparently based upon statements from Mark Judge, Kananaugh's friend in high school and the other person that Dr. Ford says was in the room, as well as comments in a recently exposed year book, Kavanaugh and Judge were binge drinkers in high school. They would literally drink to the point of oblivion where they didn't know where they were or what they were doing.

I knew people like that in high school and binge drinking became huge on college campuses in the 1970's for those of us old enough to remember. Mark Judge, in a book he wrote, apparently refers to Kavanaugh as being so drunk one time that he didn't know where he was or what he was doing.

The allegation includes the statement that Kavanaugh and his friend were extremely drunk at the time. In fact, assuming the allegation is true, Kavanaugh was so drunk he couldn't even remove her swimsuit and groped her through the swimsuit. If Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge were as drunk as Judge claims they were at times it's very easy to believe that they were drunk, that Kavanaugh did engage in a sexual assault that he would never have done sober, and that neither Kavanaugh or Judge can remember the instance at all because they were too drunk at the time to remember.

In this case no one is lying, everyone is telling the truth to the best of their knowledge, and we have an explanation for what occurred.

The question then becomes what should a Senator do about it? It would be a drunken act by a teenage but "drunken" doesn't excuse the attack and being a "teenage" doesn't make the sexual assault disappear from the record.
(1) Yes, there is, indeed, a "significant difference" between the two.

But I am pointing out the fact that once Democrats and liberals (which are usually interchangeable terms) go down this road, we will eventually proceed from one to the other.

(2) Your speculation that both are telling the truth "based upon what they remember" is precisely that: speculation.

(3) Yes, "innocent until proven guilty" is a standard used in criminal cases--not in civil cases.

But I do find it rather telling that we still use that standard elsewhere--except when the matter involves alleged sexual misconduct (and especially by a male).

Does this not trouble you in the slightest?

(4) It is rather difficult to see just how the accuser will "suffer" as a result of this. (In fact, those who believe her--and there are many who do, just as many do not--will be more likely to hire her, out of sympathy.)

(5) Your attack on "Old White Men" is both absurd and mean-spirited. (If another poster were to verbally assault "young black women," as a group--and not just a few, in particular--would you find that okay? Or would you take umbrage at that?)
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to pjohns For This Useful Post:
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 09-18-2018, 03:06 PM
Dog Man's Avatar
Down Boy!
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southern Nevada
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,082
Thanks: 7,809
Thanked 7,352 Times in 4,956 Posts
Default Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination

Fact are Facts. This is ONLY about politics, NOT about sexual harassment.

The sexual harassment allegations are only for political purposes, that should
be what we are talking about.

It's obvious the so-called encounter did nothing to hurt Ford.

It's also obvious that she IS trying to hurt Kavanaugh for political purpose only.
__________________
"The freedom of speech is, in sum, our foremost protection against tyranny. Without it, a tyrant can work his will without any fear of his opponents uttering even one cross word."
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 09-18-2018, 03:13 PM
Hairy Jello's Avatar
Deplorable
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,554
Thanks: 1,966
Thanked 13,208 Times in 8,270 Posts
Default Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Man View Post
Fact are Facts. This is ONLY about politics, NOT about sexual harassment.

The sexual harassment allegations are only for political purposes, that should
be what we are talking about.

It's obvious the so-called encounter did nothing to hurt Ford.

It's also obvious that she IS trying to hurt Kavanaugh for political purpose only.
It's important to not forget she deleted her social media footprint. It's no doubt because we woulda seen all of her anti-conservative/anti-Trump posts. She conveniently did this right before she came forward with her bs allegations.

And this whore wants us to believe her coming out with all this right before Kav's nomination hearing is just pure coincidence....
__________________

Not an accurate representation of a white person.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hairy Jello For This Useful Post:
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 09-18-2018, 03:51 PM
Dog Man's Avatar
Down Boy!
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southern Nevada
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,082
Thanks: 7,809
Thanked 7,352 Times in 4,956 Posts
Default Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hairy Jello View Post
It's important to not forget she deleted her social media footprint. It's no doubt because we woulda seen all of her anti-conservative/anti-Trump posts. She conveniently did this right before she came forward with her bs allegations.

And this whore wants us to believe her coming out with all this right before Kav's nomination hearing is just pure coincidence....
Hopefully someone will have screen shots for the hearing. This is a political lynching by the left.

Sexual abuse has nothing to do with any of this.
__________________
"The freedom of speech is, in sum, our foremost protection against tyranny. Without it, a tyrant can work his will without any fear of his opponents uttering even one cross word."
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Dog Man For This Useful Post:
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 09-18-2018, 05:12 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,901
Thanks: 13,931
Thanked 4,955 Times in 3,166 Posts
Default Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
We're addressing a Supreme Court Justice that will be receiving a lifetime appointment. Above any suspicion is a more appropriate criteria when it comes to individuals that will wield this type of power for such a long period of time. A Supreme Court Justice arguably needs to meet the highest possible standard of conduct, perhaps even greater than the President that wields more power but for a shorter period of time.
Your argument seems to imply that we should all be "suspicio[us]" of Judge Kavanaugh. (Of course, that is precisely what the Democrats want.)

Moreover, you seem to be implying that if a person makes a charge--any charge, whether with or without corroboration--it should automatically disqualify the person being charged.

This is just a variation of the "heckler's veto"...

Oh, an addendum: Can you honestly say--honestly--that if the situation were reversed, and a liberal president were appointing a judge (hoping to be a justice) in the mold of, say, Stephen Breyer or Sonia Sotomayor, you would still believe the accuser?
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007

Last edited by pjohns; 09-18-2018 at 05:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to pjohns For This Useful Post:
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 09-18-2018, 05:19 PM
Hairy Jello's Avatar
Deplorable
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,554
Thanks: 1,966
Thanked 13,208 Times in 8,270 Posts
Default Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination

__________________

Not an accurate representation of a white person.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Hairy Jello For This Useful Post:
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 09-18-2018, 05:33 PM
Hairy Jello's Avatar
Deplorable
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,554
Thanks: 1,966
Thanked 13,208 Times in 8,270 Posts
Default Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination

__________________

Not an accurate representation of a white person.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Hairy Jello For This Useful Post:
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2018, 07:07 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 19,150
Thanks: 12,692
Thanked 13,658 Times in 7,958 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination

The accuser cannot remember the location, the date, the other party goers besides one and she is none too clear on the year of the alleged incident. The FBI has declined to investigate such a vague 30+ year old recollection. Now the accuser has refused to testify before the judicial committee until the FBI non investigation is finished exposing her accusations as a partisan political charade.

Perhaps if the FBI leadership under Obama hadn't been corrupted into a partisan political weapon copying the tactics of the Soviet era KGB by launching an investigation of a political opponent on virtually nothing other than animosity they might have been willing to take a closer look at these vague accusations. But the Resistance will never admit their role in undermining the integrity of the FBI.
__________________
If Democrats were confident their nominee actually received more than 80 million votes they wouldn't have more troops occupying Washington, DC than Lincoln had defending the city during the Civil War. Not Joe Biden, Kim Jung Biden.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2018, 08:52 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,429
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,315 Times in 1,841 Posts
Default Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
(1) No Shiva this cannot be classified as attempted rape. Not even the lawyer, Di Fi, and the activist are trying to make that claim. At best it's a class 3 or 4 misdemeanor. If the parties involved are within 4 years age difference, (they were) it's probably not even that.

(2) No Shiva, it's not a case of he said, she said if both have different recollections. However, if her accusation is based on her "different" recollection, then this entire metoo is a non starter. You're just saying she's making shlt up based on what she thinks might have happened.

(3) Actually it's innocent till found guilty. Like most 40 year old cases, especially he said she said sexual cases based on no evidence, this will never be proven either way.

Where do you get this "first time in history"? Not even close. Two fairly recent examples: Duke Rugby team. Charlottesville fraternity. Both have similarities. Young kids, groups of well healed kids. Alleged sex misconduct.
Both BTW the boys were found innocent. And any evidence was much newer than 40 years.

(4) Apparently DiFi thought so. Instead of immediately turning this alleged letter over to authorities, she put it into her things I can use later file.

Putting your trust in DiFi is like watching a shark circling and believing he likes the color of your suit and is not actually hungry.

Old white men? Obviously something black won't fit here, so it must be something old white men.

Don't give me that po' me crap regarding Ford. She sent a letter, allegedly, to a Senator 40 years after the fact instead of to the proper authorities 40 years earlier, when it actually mattered. As you say, Senators have no authority to act in rape cases.

No woman wants to put herself in that position? They do it all the time. Hill, Duke, C'ville, Ford, There's 4. I know a HS soccer player who claimed the coach patted her on the ass. 5 years, fifty grand, loss of job later, the court concluded no case. The student just said oh well and suffered no loss. I expect you could find thousands of similar cases if you care to look.

Another relevation. HS kids go to parties. They sometimes they drink. I didn't know that. It certainly didn't happen when I was in high school. We never made passes at the girls either.

The Jimbo assessment: It's Bull Shlt. All of it. The letter was possibly written by the same person as the Opinon piece which was last weeks gotcha. Or maybe by the Rolling Stone writer who wrote the C'ville story. Next week it will be something else. Probably Monday ahead of the this time we really mean it Senate vote. Ford is an active activist. Just her part to further the cause.

So put on your ***** hats. Crawl down to your safe spaces. Don't come out until after 2020. The rest of us, we got work to do. Seating judges, Removing treaties not right for our country. Protecting borders. Winning elections.
1. The possible criminal charges would be for a prosecutor to consider but the claim he was attempting to remove her clothing but was too drunk to accomplish it suggests attempted rape to me. But this isn't about a criminal prosecution.

2. In fact according the Mark Judge's description of the times in his book "Wasted" this isn't actually a "he-said-she-said" case. If, as Judge describes, they engaged in binge drinking so excessive that they couldn't remember where they'd been or what they'd done then we have a case of:

She said but he can't remember because he was plastered.

Her allegation includes the claim that both Kavanaugh and Judge were extremely drunk which Judge claimed was not uncommon at the time in his book.

We both agree that the case cannot be proven one way or the other so Kavanaugh would always have a cloud over his tenure as a Supreme Court Justice based upon a creditable allegation by a very creditable accuser of sexual assault in his past. We don't need that and that suspicion should not be allowed to exist for someone with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. That would degrade the Supreme Court as an institution.

3. This is not a criminal prosecution. It's about the standards that should be applicable to a person receiving a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. The standard being applied should also be the highest possible standard of conduct where they are beyond reproach or suspicion of any possible wrongdoing.

There are many very qualified individuals that can sit on the Supreme Court without even a hint of scandal in their history. We don't need to put someone on the Supreme Court that will always have a dark spot on their record where they could very well have sexually assaulted a 15 year old girl while being illegally intoxicated to the point of oblivion where they couldn't even remember what had happened.

Republicans don't need Brett Kavanaugh. There are plenty of other very qualified conservative (Republican) jurists that are equally qualified to be on the Supreme Court and that don't have any allegations of misconduct that will always haunt a Kavanaugh appointment.

Don't lower the standard. Find someone that exceeds the standards for being on the highest court in the land.


PS I've ignored the conspiracy theories that always seem to pop up when Republicans try to defend against the facts.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.

Last edited by ShivaTD; 09-19-2018 at 09:00 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
democrats, kavanaugh, nomination, resistance, the

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0