Well, this politcal cartoon sure is spot on.

[River]

Sowell's not wrong on the principle, but he apparently forgets that the term 'women's rights' is brought up when those using it feel that women, as a group, do not have, in fact, equal rights. Assuming they're correct, is it not justified to use this term?

I'm all for equal rights for everyone. However, the assumption you want to make here should not be assumed. How about instead -- list what rights women do not have that others have.

 

[johnny karate]

It is a long-standing principle of criminal justice that the accused be able to confront their accuser. Ford discarded this principle when she leveled criminal accusations while attempting to remain anonymous. While the confirmation hearings are not themselves a criminal trial, Ford clearly violated the principle, and acted in a spirit of suppressing justice.

Another way in which she suppressed justice was in the venue she chose for her accusations. If she knows that someone committed a crime, and she knows that an investigation will produce credible evidence of the crime, then she should be testifying not before Congress, but before a judge.

In my opinion it is also a suppression of justice for her to call on Congress for an FBI investigation into her claims. Obviously she does not want to get justice from this investigation. If she wanted that, she'd be in court. She wants satisfaction. The FBI is basically cast in the role of her therapy animal. It is not justice to try to use law enforcement agencies in this way.

There's some irony here, too. If she'd taken her credible evidence of a crime to the proper authorities, it would have been discovered during the FBI's initial background check or earlier, and probably torpedoed Kavanaugh's nomination right out of the gate. Now justice is pretty much off the table, and she's having to fight pretty hard just to have a chance at satisfaction. I wonder how satisfying it will actually be, once she counts the cost.

When Trump publicly accused Hillary Clinton of criminality over and over again, and gleefully lead chants of “Lock her up!” with thousands people, how much did this troubling concept of “suppression of justice” weigh on you before you went ahead and voted for him anyway?

 

[Ziggurat]

Not just that. He explicitly represents the US.

What on earth do you mean, not just that? That is the entirety of how he represents us. Absent his authority over the executive branch, there is no representation. In matters that don't involve the executive branch, there is no representation. You don't even seem to have a coherent notion of what "represent" means here.

Does he represent the ABA or not?

Which is why this question becomes meaningless.

 

[Belz...]

I'm all for equal rights for everyone. However, the assumption you want to make here should not be assumed. How about instead -- list what rights women do not have that others have.

Whether it's true is irrelevant. My point is that when they believe it's true, they are justified in using those terms. Do you disagree?

 

[Belz...]

It is a long-standing principle of criminal justice that the accused be able to confront their accuser. Ford discarded this principle when she leveled criminal accusations while attempting to remain anonymous.

No because even when her identity was known, this not being a criminal trial, he has no right to confront his accuser.

Another way in which she suppressed justice was in the venue she chose for her accusations. If she knows that someone committed a crime, and she knows that an investigation will produce credible evidence of the crime, then she should be testifying not before Congress, but before a judge.

But that isn't suppressing justice at all.

In my opinion it is also a suppression of justice for her to call on Congress for an FBI investigation into her claims.

It's suppressing justice to ask the justice folks to investigate her claims???

If she'd taken her credible evidence of a crime to the proper authorities, it would have been discovered during the FBI's initial background check or earlier, and probably torpedoed Kavanaugh's nomination right out of the gate. Now justice is pretty much off the table, and she's having to fight pretty hard just to have a chance at satisfaction.

You know full well that many sexual assault victims don't do that because evidence is hard to get and they feel shame or fear for speaking out or getting raped. It's unfortunate but you could at least extend a bit of understanding on this.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

There's some irony here, too. If she'd taken her credible evidence of a crime to the proper authorities, it would have been discovered during the FBI's initial background check or earlier, and probably torpedoed Kavanaugh's nomination right out of the gate. Now justice is pretty much off the table, and she's having to fight pretty hard just to have a chance at satisfaction. I wonder how satisfying it will actually be, once she counts the cost.

"Cost?" A more fitting and suitable word would be "profit."

The two GoFundMe pages dedicated to Dr. Ford, 'Help Christine Blasey Ford' and 'Cover Dr. Blasey’s security costs,' have raised just north of $700,000.

 

[BStrong]

Too bad there was never a years-long investigation and impeachment hearings to look into all that.

She’d probably get a laugh from the ridiculous fanfic you just wrote.

Too bad that Bill Clinton's supporters, including his wife, engaged in a public campaign designed to destroy the credibility of the women that came forward charging ol' Bill with having a wandering penis.

Serious question: If you're heard the testimony from both parties and have determined to your satisfaction that Fords' account is credible and correct, what should happen with Kavanaugh outside of rejection of his nomination? Should he face criminal charges? If not, why not?

 

[River]

Whether it's true is irrelevant. My point is that when they believe it's true, they are justified in using those terms. Do you disagree?

Are you suggesting some type of virtue posing? Truth doesn't matter? We clearly disagree on this concept.

 

[Belz...]

"Cost?" A more fitting and suitable word would be "profit."

The two GoFundMe pages dedicated to Dr. Ford, 'Help Christine Blasey Ford' and 'Cover Dr. Blasey’s security costs,' have raised just north of $700,000.

She just fooled us all! 4D chess-player!

 

[Belz...]

Are you suggesting some type of virtue posing? Truth doesn't matter? We clearly disagree on this concept.

How about you read what I actually posted rather than what you imagine I wanted to post instead?

I said:

My point is that when they believe it's true, they are justified in using those terms. Do you disagree?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

One thing are normal youthful indiscretions, say, consensual adolescent sex, light drugs, rock and roll. Another thing is the use of force. There is a trickle of information coming in from sources other than Ford describing similar coercive behavior or blatant disregard for the dignity of others, specifically, women. It warrants an investigation that is done at normal pace and using normal methods, free of political interference. Only then can anyone on any side make substantiated claims. Until then, in terms of law and due diligence, we have a way forward meanwhile. Simple! After all, it's a democracy and there are rules, gosh.

Or not. The GOP insists on dates instead of due diligence (wtf, dudes), openly tampers with process (looking at you, orang-utan), and not only ignores the awesome potential for cowing witnesses through e-mobbing and physical threats, but actively directs it. The investigation is being driven toward a political objective, and failing that, it will be ignored regardless. Similarly, Republicans insist on preordained judicial outcomes when it suits them, regardless of law, process or fact, when seeking to jail opponents.

A farce, then. A rotten crew of the corrupt posturing on a pestilent stage. The cartoon is a perfect fit for the victim and the known perps in a travesty of justice, only far too kind. Does go well with the children in cages, enhanced interrogation techniques, and aggressive wars, however. Remember Nuremberg, if only for shame at the grotesque hypocrisy.

 

[Ziggurat]

She just fooled us all! 4D chess-player!

This outcome was easily predictable, and has precedent. It didn't require any genius to foresee.

 

[Belz...]

This outcome was easily predictable, and has precedent. It didn't require any genius to foresee.

And here's the whopper: it has **** all to do with whether her allegations are true.

 

[Cabbage]

I'm not seeing a question here.

OK, here are two:

1) Do you recognize the bias I mentioned previously?

2) Do you make a habit of being as ridiculously pedantic as you are being now?

LOL

 

[theprestige]

Does he represent the ABA or not?

Good question. What is the ABA's policy on ex cathedra pronouncements from their president? Was the president's recent letter such a pronouncement? Does the ABA even allow ex cathedra pronouncements from their president?

The ABA 2018-2019 Constitution and Bylaws indicates that the president is the "principal spokesperson" of the ABA.

The ABA 2017-2018 Policy And Procedures Handbook includes the following passage under "Guidelines for ABA
Spokespersons":

In a communication undertaken on behalf of the ABA, the spokesperson shall only address issues within and consistent with official ABA policy and shall not volunteer to discuss other issues that are not the subject of ABA policy. If asked about issues outside the scope of such policy, the spokesperson should respectfully decline to respond or, if a response is unavoidable, should indicate clearly that the response represents the spokesperson's personal views and not those of the Association.​

This suggests that where the president's opinion diverges from the duly-established findings of an ABA committee, the committee's opinion takes precedence as the official opinion of the ABA. It also suggests that where the president's opinion diverges from the committee, the president should probably keep their mouth shut, or at least make it clear that their opinion is personal, and not official.

 

[River]

How about you read what I actually posted rather than what you imagine I wanted to post instead?

I said:

My point is that when they believe it's true, they are justified in using those terms. Do you disagree?

Whether someones perception is false or true matters. Especially so when concerning rights. Just because someone feels a certain way does not make it so. The truth should always outweigh any virtue posing.


Just because I believe something to be true does not mean it is, or that I'm somehow not getting equal treatment because I feel like it. Do you expect equality of outcome or only of opportunity? This might help solve our disagreement. (or not lol)


ETA
(this means outcome depends on meritocracy, and input factors - not just being there)

 

[Belz...]

Good question. What is the ABA's policy on ex cathedra pronouncements from their president? Was the president's recent letter such a pronouncement? Does the ABA even allow ex cathedra pronouncements from their president?

The ABA 2018-2019 Constitution and Bylaws indicates that the president is the "principal spokesperson" of the ABA.

The ABA 2017-2018 Policy And Procedures Handbook includes the following passage under "Guidelines for ABA
Spokespersons":

In a communication undertaken on behalf of the ABA, the spokesperson shall only address issues within and consistent with official ABA policy and shall not volunteer to discuss other issues that are not the subject of ABA policy. If asked about issues outside the scope of such policy, the spokesperson should respectfully decline to respond or, if a response is unavoidable, should indicate clearly that the response represents the spokesperson's personal views and not those of the Association.​

This suggests that where the president's opinion diverges from the duly-established findings of an ABA committee, the committee's opinion takes precedence as the official opinion of the ABA. It also suggests that where the president's opinion diverges from the committee, the president should probably keep their mouth shut, or at least make it clear that their opinion is personal, and not official.

In that case someone should get that cleared up with the ABA.

 

[Belz...]

Whether someones perception is false or true matters.

Of course it does, but if you take a step or two through memory lane to about... oh, thirty minutes ago, you'll see that I was addressing a specific quote you posted. Specifically, that the terms are redundant. Well, they're not redundant when addressing the rights of those specific groups in relation to those of the larger mass. Whether they're currently wrong is irrelevant to the fact that in those cases the use of the term is justified.

 

[Ziggurat]

And here's the whopper: it has **** all to do with whether her allegations are true.

But it does. One of the primary arguments used to support Ford's credibility is that she doesn't have any motive to lie. And that argument is critical for the pro-Ford side because they have absolutely nothing else with which to support her claims, since no witnesses or records or evidence actually support her story.

But that's plainly not true that she has no motive to lie. She does. And while it's true that a motive to lie doesn't mean someone did lie, it does mean that there's basically nothing with which to support Ford's claims.

 

[River]

Of course it does, but if you take a step or two through memory lane to about... oh, thirty minutes ago, you'll see that I was addressing a specific quote you posted. Specifically, that the terms are redundant. Well, they're not redundant when addressing the rights of those specific groups in relation to those of the larger mass. Whether they're currently wrong is irrelevant to the fact that in those cases the use of the term is justified.

We will have to agree to disagree and let the thread get back on topic here.