Lessons to be learned from the Kavanaugh Hearing

[Belz...]

Typical whiny liberal bigoted response.

Maybe your response shows your lack of integrity and your ability to find guilt in a he said she said accusation. In the US, someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. You have basically declared Kavanaugh guilty and preparing him for the firing squad.

Could you put a little more sneer into that, to make the Kavanaugh impersonation more credible?

 

[Loss Leader]

Total nonsensical hyperbole. This wasn't a court of law, Kavanaugh is not standing trial. I agree with you there is not enough evidence of the assault to convict Kavanaugh of anything. He's criminally NOT GUILTY. But we have no business using that high standard in what is effectively a job interview.

It was his testimony, not her accusation which demonstrated his lack of character and judicial temperament that we should demand of of a Supreme Court Justice.

+1

The burden of proof here isn't reasonable doubt. It's any doubt about anything whatsoever. At any given time, there are maybe 100 people who could reasonably be considered for the Supreme Court. Just nominate a different person.

 

[xjx388]

So let's just all say this together: Women should never be sexually assaulted AND an accuser's sex life is irrelevant and should not be a factor in ascertaining whether or not an assault happened.

I think that this is something uncontroversial that all of us, regardless of political stance, can agree on. If you don't agree . . . well then you have an extreme position that I'm not really interested in arguing about.

OK. Good. Now, then, why is an accused's drinking habits or propensity to drink to forgetfulness relevant as to whether or not he committed sexual assault? You may respond, "it's not, it's relevant to whether or not he would remember sexually assaulting someone" But this is just kicking the can down a bit, begging the question, really. Shouldn't there be evidence pointing to a sexual assault occurring in the first place?

I think there should be some evidence before we start thinking someone might have sexually assaulted someone else. If drinking habits are not relevant to ascertaining guilt, then they only serve as a way to smear the accused -just as sexual habits are used to smear the accuser.

 

[acbytesla]

+1

The burden of proof here isn't reasonable doubt. It's any doubt about anything whatsoever. At any given time, there are maybe 100 people who could reasonably be considered for the Supreme Court. Just nominate a different person.

Exactly.

 

[LSSBB]

LOL, that's just adorably ignorant.

Bill Clinton and Al Franken disagree, to name a couple.

Throw in Barack Obama and the Birther personal attack, to prove just how ridiculously wrong you are.

And let's not forget Pizzagate! LMFAO!!!

"Killary"

 

[xjx388]

+1

The burden of proof here isn't reasonable doubt. It's any doubt about anything whatsoever. At any given time, there are maybe 100 people who could reasonably be considered for the Supreme Court. Just nominate a different person.

It seems to me that it would be trivially easy to inject "doubt about anything whatsoever" into a Senate SCOTUS confirmation hearing. That is an extremely low bar, IOW and I think you are overstating the case.

 

[acbytesla]

So let's just all say this together: Women should never be sexually assaulted AND an accuser's sex life is irrelevant and should not be a factor in ascertaining whether or not an assault happened.

I think that this is something uncontroversial that all of us, regardless of political stance, can agree on. If you don't agree . . . well then you have an extreme position that I'm not really interested in arguing about.

OK. Good. Now, then, why is an accused's drinking habits or propensity to drink to forgetfulness relevant as to whether or not he committed sexual assault? You may respond, "it's not, it's relevant to whether or not he would remember sexually assaulting someone" But this is just kicking the can down a bit, begging the question, really. Shouldn't there be evidence pointing to a sexual assault occurring in the first place?

I think there should be some evidence before we start thinking someone might have sexually assaulted someone else. If drinking habits are not relevant to ascertaining guilt, then they only serve as a way to smear the accused -just as sexual habits are used to smear the accuser.

Because HER SEX LIFE is not pertinent to whether HE assaulted her. Her rumored promiscuity doesn't demonstrate anything her honesty or lack thereof. The ONLY reason you and others mention it to draw a non-existent connection and paint her as a slut asking for it.

. But, his drinking could be relevant as people act differently when they are intoxicated. There may be behavior that he would do under the influence that he would never do if he was sober. I certainly am not going to condemn a 50 year old for some heavy drinking in high school or college.

 

[johnny karate]

Typical whiny liberal bigoted response.

Maybe your response shows your lack of integrity and your ability to find guilt in a he said she said accusation. In the US, someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. You have basically declared Kavanaugh guilty and preparing him for the firing squad.

It doesn't mean her allegation isn't true, but this is a skeptic's forum and no credible evidence has been produced to substantiate her claims. Her "lifelong friend" who was allegedly at the same party, did not corroborate Dr. Ford's story. If and when credible evidence is produced, I'm all ears.

A high-horse lecture from the guy who thinks slut-shaming is a legitimate response to sexual assault allegations.

Hilarious.

 

[Stacyhs]

I strongly suggest paying no attention to JoeCool's links. Just the part that was quoted reveals it to be a stupendously outlandish claim. There are all kinds of similar outrageous, false claims being leveled against her online that Snopes has already discredited. I have no doubt JoeCool's are of the same caliber. Not a single person has come forward claiming Blasey-Ford ever behaved in such a manner. And you know damn well they would if it were true.

Examples of these false internet claims:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blasey-online-photos/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/christine-blasey-ford-cellphone-1982/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/christine-blasey-ford-cellphone-1982/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ford-lawyer-hillary-clinton/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/christine-blasey-ford-neil-gorsuch/

 

[xjx388]

Because HER SEX LIFE is not pertinent to whether HE assaulted her. Her rumored promiscuity doesn't demonstrate anything her honesty or lack thereof.

Totally agree.

The ONLY reason you and others mention it to draw a non-existent connection and paint her as a slut asking for it.

That is an unfair description of why I, in particular mentioned it.

. But, his drinking could be relevant as people act differently when they are intoxicated. There may be behavior that he would do under the influence that he would never do if he was sober.

That is extremely weak. Maybe if you could demonstrate that K acted this way by showing a history of sexually assaulting women under the influence, you'd have something. But even that something would not be proof that he committed this particular assault.

I certainly am not going to condemn a 50 year old for some heavy drinking in high school or college.

But that is exactly what is happening here. He was a big partier and drank to excess; therefore, it's possible he did this and doesn't remember. No, actually, his partying and blackouts do not indicate that he had a propensity to commit sexual assault which is what you actually need to establish. It's a smear in the same way that bringing up her alleged sexual history is.

 

[Delvo]

Wow. I've heard of the "slut-shaming" rape defense before, but never seen an actual real-world example til now. Or is it? The lower and more like a usually-false stereotype someone acts, the more that trolling looks like Poe.

Do you think that promiscuous women can't be raped, because they would agree to it anyway?
Do you think that promiscuous women deserve to be raped?

Of course, the intended logic is that it just makes her completely worthless in every way and we obviously need to make sure that the worthless person loses.

But trying to logically tie it to the actual subject makes it a fascinating choice. If it were true, and its being true meant anything at all on the subject, it would only make her accusation more credible: the more easily she accepting she was of other men, the more horrible one must have been to stand out enough to still be on her bad side anyway.

...your ability to find guilt in a he said she said accusation.

You're demonstrating that "ability" yourself.

In the US, someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

...in a criminal trial.

You have basically declared Kavanaugh guilty and preparing him for the firing squad.

At worst, he doesn't get a new job and just gets to keep his old one. He's not entitled to it; nothing would be particularly wrong/unjust with giving it to someone else instead, even for a wrong reason. It happens to other job-seekers all over the world countless times per day.

 

[acbytesla]

I strongly suggest paying no attention to JoeCool's links. Just the part that was quoted reveals it to be a stupendously outlandish claim. There are all kinds of similar outrageous, false claims being leveled against her online that Snopes has already discredited. I have no doubt JoeCool's are of the same caliber. Not a single person has come forward claiming Blasey-Ford ever behaved in such a manner. And you know damn well they would if it were true.

Examples of these false internet claims:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blasey-online-photos/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/christine-blasey-ford-cellphone-1982/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/christine-blasey-ford-cellphone-1982/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ford-lawyer-hillary-clinton/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/christine-blasey-ford-neil-gorsuch/

I never looked at his links. They weren't on CNN, NBC, The Washington Post, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune. They weren't even on Fox, WSJ, Forbes, or even the Hill. No, just some right wing crazy site.

And they were outrageously salacious as well as irrelevant.

But thanks for the links that slapped that silliness down.

 

[Craig4]

The real lesson is that the Dems need their own investigative machine. They should have blindsided Judge Rapist in the hearings and had character assassinations ready to go for his supporters. They should have been able to tell us all about his drinking issues after they ambushed him in the hearings.

The Dems aren't hitting hard enough. They need to stop whining about the process and get in front of every cable news guy with a camera and a sound man and talk about how no woman or man who respects women can expect justice from a SCOTUS with Kavanagh on it and need not feel governed by its decisions. They need to push the county to the precipice of an abyss where Americans lose faith in the courts to give justice and dare Republicans to push us over.

 

[acbytesla]

Totally agree.That is an unfair description of why I, in particular mentioned it.

That is extremely weak. Maybe if you could demonstrate that K acted this way by showing a history of sexually assaulting women under the influence, you'd have something. But even that something would not be proof that he committed this particular assault. But that is exactly what is happening here. He was a big partier and drank to excess; therefore, it's possible he did this and doesn't remember. No, actually, his partying and blackouts do not indicate that he had a propensity to commit sexual assault which is what you actually need to establish. It's a smear in the same way that bringing up her alleged sexual history is.

NO IT IS NOT. Keep in mind that the GOP acted grotesquely undemocratic in this process outrageously limiting discovery preventing reasonable judgement. They made pointed and perhaps even unfair questions a necessity. I mean if there is nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?

 

[fishbob]

BULLCRAP.! I'm a few years older than Kavanaugh it didn't even exist in 1980.

I am too, and it most certainly did.
And I am from a small backwards town out in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Stacyhs]

BULLCRAP.! I'm a few years older than Kavanaugh it didn't even exist in 1980.

Kav's Yale freshman roommate, Jamie Roche, says he heard Kav and his friends use those terms and that they had sexual connotations. He also said that Kav's definitions of the words "weren't interchangeable". He said Kav lied. LIED.

 

[fishbob]

No, it doesn't.



Sorry, for some reason I was thinking Garland. My previous reply on that part makes no sense.

As for why Gorsuch wasn't treated that way, well, one reason is because delays wouldn't have changed anything then, but they might now.

Or maybe he didn't sexually assault anybody.

 

[Cabbage]

BULLCRAP.! I'm a few years older than Kavanaugh it didn't even exist in 1980.

Because if you haven't heard of it, it simply doesn't exist, right?

What fascinating logic you conservatives use. LOL!

 

[Thermal]

BULLCRAP.! I'm a few years older than Kavanaugh it didn't even exist in 1980.

Getting a little FFFFFascinating.

 

[Stacyhs]

Because if you haven't heard of it, it simply doesn't exist, right?

What fascinating logic you conservatives use. LOL!

Hey! I hadn't heard of YOU, Cabbage before this year so that means that YOU didn't exist pre-2018!