Response to Kavanaugh

[Mike]

If you're referring to Merrick Garland, then you should know that that was completely different. That was too close to a national election, so it was important to hear the voice of the people before considering a new justice. After all, the election was only about a year away in that case.

Completely different.

[Phoebe]

What is time, really? If a man born in Kenya is elected President, why not wait four or eight years, if we must? Whatever it takes to annoy the libtards is just.

[bralbovsky]

Full
Romanov.

and the family tree gets bigger every day.

[poorpete]

I already hear in my head
"it's he said vs. she said"
then bring in a third witness!
"nope!"
Have the FBI inv-
"nope!"

[mimekiller]

The only thing learned today is if you prattle on in an emotionally stunted baby voice with a smile like Dr. Ford did in Kavanaugh Hearings that people will say you are credible. She is a nice but emotionally disturbed woman. What’s so credible?

[Bonefish]

Kavie may have commited perjury. His pro-life stance makes him, imho, suspect. Focus on those. Focus.

Or, plant your flag atop a hill based on the memories of blackout drunk teenagers 35 years. Sexual assault is a serious thing. No shit. But if there's no concrete evidence, what can we do? He-said, She-said. Do I think an entitled white boy would do such a thing: hell yeah I believe that. Do I believe there is a substantial and systematic bias on sexual assault that keeps the true numbers suppressed? Fuckin' A. Do I think that this is the hill to plant our flag on? Nah. It's bad tactics. Retreat from this, and strengthen the already strong arguments.

[Ronster]

I am glad victims come forward. They need to and they need to feel safe and protected.

That said, this case puts all other victims in a bad light because it is painfully obvious to those who are not deluded that it is all a political ploy.

We are a nation of laws and we must follow due process or else the law means nothing and it becomes another Emmett Till episode.

Should all accuser be believed?

NO! They should all be heard and the evidence examined and a trial held if the grand jury brings an indictment.

Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

[bralbovsky]

Perfect reference, except it's not. It'd be closer if the pic was of Bob Euell.
The real difference here is the power dynamic.
In Mockingbird, the accused had no power except the law and rules of evidence. He's at the mercy of the ability of the court to be fair and colorblind and rational. That's the tragedy, of course, even the "rule of law" can't overcome deep biases and cultural norms.

Kav has all the power in this case. He has the support of the establishment that sets the rules, and decides which rules are important and which ones it wants to ignore. It controls the clock and the calendar.
Whatever one thinks of Ford's testimony, there's no apparent motive. She didn't intellectually show as strongly as her resume.
The only impression I got from Kav was that he didn't belong in the big leagues, although being thin skinned is recently allowed. Oh, and that he had very little concern, respect or even acknowledgement of Ford. Perhaps now as then?

Additionally, the stakes are totally different. Will it damage his reputation? Read QBVII. He's fundamentally not entitled to the seat. Tomorrow he will still be a powerful federal judge, regardless.
It hasn't often been mentioned, but Gorsuch, who apparently attended the same school, didn't meet with any of this, and his appointment was much closer to the raw insult of Garland.

Love the picture. Wish it wasn't such an icon of the powerful steamrolling the weak despite the laws they've made to protect themselves.

[DMDarcs]

In all honesty, my biggest issue with Kavanaugh isn't tied into any of the alleged sexual assaults. I'm not sure if his behavior meets the legal definition of sexual assault, as I don't know what that definition is. If his behavior was as reported, it was certainly unsavory and in poor taste. (I also believe the women coming forward with the allegations believe they were assaulted. I don't think that any of them are in it for fame or money.)

My issue isn't even with the fact that he's a conservative. Of course a Republican president is going to want to put a conservative on the Supreme Court. Democratic presidents generally want to put liberals on the court. It makes sense.

No, my main issue is that Kavanaugh believes that no action a sitting President takes can be seen as breaking the law. The President, regardless of party affiliation, popularity, whatever, is not above the law.

As another viewpoint, a friend of mine posted the italicized text below (he's an ethicist), and it made me think of the matter in a light I hadn't considered it before. Unedited (except for italicization).

I gotta say, the victimhood generated on behalf of Brett Kavanaugh and the concern that his life is being ruined by the process of investigating whether or not he, a candidate to the Supreme Court, may have at one point in his life been a sexual predator, has been next level ridiculous. So at the risk of stating the obvious I want to take a moment to process what “ruining this man’s life” actually means.

Brett Kavanaugh has been able to capitalize on the privilege that life has afforded him and landed himself an appointment as a judge on the DC Circuit (often referred to as this country's second highest court). He is NOT on trial for any of these allegations of past sexual assaults and is not under threat of jail time, community service, fines, or any other form of legal or financial repercussion, he wouldn’t even lose his job. The question is not one of punishment, not one of taking anything away, it is a question of whether we, as a representative democracy, would like to continue ignoring a developing narrative of sexual aggression and elevate this man to a deeply consequential position on our nation’s highest court...for life. This should not be about him, it is about the integrity and character of the Supreme Court and it’s influence on all of our lives. This is about performing due diligence and ensuring that we are equipped to make the best decision, it’s about maintaining at least the perception of impartiality, one would think that a judge would recognize the importance of such things. A man that feels entitled to a women’s body is not one that will likely have respect for her rights in a court of law. This shit is important! Investigate it like you actually want to know the truth.

Now for a clear portrait of privilege in this country, juxtapose the concern that this Republican Congress has for Brett Kavanaugh with the concern they demonstrate about the very real threat that violent, sexually repressed, and entitled boys and men have on ACTUALLY ruining (and in many cases ending) the lives of the girls and women they seek to exploit. Compare the “boys will be boys” defense that this white man has been so generously granted with the way that we talk about black boys accused of far less. Black VICTIMS of violence in this country endure more scrutiny, interrogation, and consequence than this man has!

[DMDarcs]

Clarification: I'm pretty sure rape meets the legal definition of sexual assault. I'm not sure how exposing yourself stands, which is what I recall reading from a different accuser.

[WillyGilligan]

[buckett]

[buckett]

[Bonefish]

So, why isn't that the angle taken? Why is it the allegations of sexual abuse that are over hyped rather than his questionable positions and the possible perjury?

The cynic in me says that it's because America has a sick fascination with the sexuality of women, with a strong puritanical urge to "protect their virtue", and you can get a lot of sympathy by playing that angle. But, ya know, defending the rights of suspected terrorists and WORSE, KNOWN MUSLIMS(or suspected Muslims) isnt garnering much support.

[Phoebe]

I agree with you. This is the issue we can't get past. I think it's much more serious that he seems to have lied so often throughout this process. Suppose for a minute that he is totally innocent of every allegation leveled. Is this the kind of person we think should be confirmed? There are so many other reasons not to, but of course, we can't get past this whole "good victim" vs. "potentially innocent man accused" thing our culture is stuck on.

[Bonefish]

Right. Like the unconstitutional protections he thinks the president has vs. crimes? That's a deal breaker. His opinions on women's reproductive Rights? Show stopper. Fuckin Perjury?!

Instead we get a fuckin dog and pony act.

[Phoebe]

Not sure whether he was the dog or the pony, but Lindsey Graham deserves an Oscar, Emmy, Tony, everything for that astounding performance. I'm not trying to minimize the importance of NOT having a rapist on the Court, by the way - hopefully it is obvious how I feel about that - but the nomination is a package of lots of important issues and if someone cannot uphold some basic standards and boundaries, confirmation should be impossible.

[Bonefish]

I thought Thomas set the precedent for rapists and sexial assaulters being justices.

[buckett]

I somewhat agree with you BF, but I think the sad fact is that his legal positions are by and large just mainstream conservatism and are the exact reason Lindsey Graham is throwing a hissy fit that the nomination is being inconvenienced. Throwing away due process when convenient, vast executive power, abolishing abortion - these are not untenable political positions in America, sadly. You would think getting an attempted rapist on the Supreme Court would be, but here we are.

His many and obvious lies during the process should be highlighted more though, absolutely.

[Bonefish]

I will be honest, mainstream conservatism has lost me. It reminds me of the bullies in high school.