“As Judge Kavanaugh stands to gain the lifetime privilege of serving on the country’s highest court, he has the burden of persuasion. And that is only fair.”
—Anita Hill, Sept. 18, 2018
“Not only do women like Dr. Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard, but they need to be believed.”
—Sen. Maize Hirono (D., Hawaii)
The last-minute accusation of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is an ugly spectacle by any measure. But if there is a silver lining, it is that the episode is providing an education for Americans on the new liberal standard of legal and political due process.
As Ms. Hill and Sen. Hirono aver, the Democratic standard for sexual-assault allegations is that they should be accepted as true merely for having been made. The accuser is assumed to be telling the truth because the accuser is a woman. The burden is on Mr. Kavanaugh to prove his innocence. If he cannot do so, then he is unfit to serve on the Court.
***
This turns American justice and due process upside down. The core tenet of Anglo-American law is that the burden of proof always rests with the person making the accusation. An accuser can’t doom someone’s freedom or career merely by making a charge.
The accuser has to prove the allegation in a court of law or in some other venue where the accused can challenge the facts. Otherwise we have a Jacobin system of justice in which “J’accuse” becomes the standard and anyone can be ruined on a whim or a vendetta.
Another core tenet of due process is that an accusation isn’t any more or less credible because of the gender, race, religion or ethnicity of who makes it. . . .
A third tenet of due process is the right to cross-examine an accuser. . . .
I find it actually frightening that an unsubstantiated accusation of misbehavior that allegedly took place 35 years ago can disrupt affairs of state, and the personal lives of the individuals involved, in such a sensational and damaging way. Both Democrats and Republicans have a lot to answer for.
We also need to give careful thought to whether decades-old misbehavior, even if verifiable, is necessarily disqualifying under all circumstances.
I don't believe the accusation was made public to prove guilt by accusation. I believe it was done with the hope that a string of accusers would come forward as with Cosby. This did not happen either because they don't exist, they are worried about their careers, they don't want death threats from armed, deranged right wingers. So far, it's another Democratic political misfire based on identity politics. As far as "innocent until proven guilty" is concerned, does this apply to job applications? We're not being asked to send him to jail, only to make a judgement as to his character. I think the main problem with his character is his elitism and that he will have no empathy for 99% of the population.
ReplyDeleteI also think the main problem is his elitism and the likelihood that he will favor corporations at the expense of people in his decisions. But those things would be true of anybody nominated by Trump and approved by this Congress. We're dreaming if we think that by sinking Kavanaugh we are going to get someone better under this administration.
Delete"Otherwise we have a Jacobin system of justice in which "J'accuse" becomes the standard and anyone can be ruined by a whim or a vendetta. " Exactly. "Innocent until proven guilty" has been a time-honored American principle, and not just in courts of law. Do we really want to lose it?
ReplyDeleteSimilarly I am wary of removing the statute of limitations.
Some real good points being made here.
ReplyDeleteI think the Democrats are trying to derail Kavanaugh as payback for Garland. They failed to gin up enough votes to sink him on competence or ideology, so they're playing the Me Too card. I think they're hoping that sexual allegations against a candidate put forth by another alleged sexual predator will help with the "women's vote" in the fall.
Should a teen sex offender be barred from serving on the court? I think so. But, then, in My World nobody who went to a toney prep school, belonged to a frat, had a DWI, went on a big game safari, owned a barking dog, used dryer sheets, or lived on a ranch would be eligible for public service or elected office.
Fortunately, we don't live in My World where people are subject to my whims and prejudices, and even if we did, evidence against Kavenaugh on the attempted rape allegation is totally nil.
I would add that Grassley and friends are trying to make sure that the evidence stays nil by trying to get the FBI on it.
I also agree with much of what Jean says - except for the dryer sheets. Since when is static cling a liberal virtue?!
DeleteI also plead guilty to belonging to a fraternity, or at least accepting an invitation to join one. But it was an academic fraternity, so I hope that, if it disqualifies me from public appointment, at least it will keep the howling Internet mob at bay. If the Senate committee asks me if I ever paid dues to the fraternity, I'll have to bob and weave like any Supreme Court nominee, because I truly don't remember.
Barking dogs I totally understand, but lived on a ranch? Don't live there anymore, but grew up on one.
DeleteDryer sheets pollute the air with choking perfume. My neighbor's vent is right outside my screen porch, and I get blasted for hours whenever he does his laundry, which is just about every day. Get wooly balls of you want to get rid of static. I have him some for Christmas, but the stupid git likes the perfume.
DeleteRanches: Think of presidents who lived on one--LBJ, Bush, Reagan.
Frats: No pass for any frat/sorority, including those who "graduate" to the Elk, Moose, Knights of Columbus, Rotarians, Shriners, Masonic lodges, Zonta, etc. They're just echo chambers where people go to tell each how they're a credit to God and country. Yeah, some of them do some good, but the funny hats cancel it out.
If you wad up a ball of aluminum foil and throw it in the dryer it takes care of static too.
DeleteHonestly I am glad to know what dryer sheets are. First I read drier sheets!? What they? Are some papers drier than others? Bed Sheets? Paper sheets. Never encountered these. Is it possible they don't sell these in NYC? Live and learn!
DeletePeggy, really? Don't they sell Bounce in NYC?
DeleteThe generally available bounce of NYC probably makes Bounce unnecessary.
DeleteJean, I agree with much of what you say.
ReplyDeleteBut, I'm not sure there is no evidence. The woman first told her therapist about the assault in 2012, long before she knew Kavanaugh would be nominated. She wrote the letter when he was on the short-list, but before he was the official nominee.
As the world knows all too well at this point from the rampant sexual abuse of teens and younger by Catholic priests, it often takes decades before victims tell anyone about it. This seems to be the case with her. I don't know if she's telling the truth, but her story is very credible, because of the macho, "toxic masculinity" culture at Prep and in the teen drinking prep school social world in the DC area in general.
His denials of being involved at all with the heavy partying/heavy drinking crowd at Prep seem not to be totally true, as evidenced by his own comments, and comments in his high school yearbook.
Finally, why is the GOP refusing to call the witness to testify? His heavy drinking buddy, Judge (who has written extensively about his drunken partying days at Prep), was in the room and apparently it was because he launched himself onto the bed also that they tumbled onto the floor and she was able to escape, which she couldn't do while pinned on the bed.
He should be called to testify also. He would probably claim he doesn't remember, but it would be good to put him in the hot seat too, as long as they want to put her in the hot seat.
The worry is that young men will continue to believe that they can assault young women under the excuse of being drunk, because, after all, "boys will be boys".
It would be a good thing if our culture would tell these "boys" in no uncertain terms that their actions at 16 might have lifelong ramifications.
As their actions in trying to force themselves on girls at parties have for the girls - lifelong memories, and, if it is too frightening a situation, lifelong trauma.
I was in a couple of uncomfortable situations when young, including an occasion when I had to fight off a date while I was in my 20s, after a nice dinner in a nice restaurant. No drunkenness involved. He seemed to feel it was his "right" since he had paid for dinner. I had to use a lot of force to push him off me, and he was very angry that I wasn't going to "put out" when he had bought dinner for me. A "respectable" 20 something male with an advanced degree from an Ivy and a professional, "good" job. Clean cut. So I thought. I was also groped in a car by an Army Colonel I had been working with when he drove both of us to a big conference. I was stunned, and finally pushed him off me. I was 22, in my first job out of college, and he was probably 45, a high ranking officer, but definitely not a gentleman. Two friends of mine and I shared an apartment, and ALL three of us encountered similar situations at some point when we were out of college. I had coworkers who were sexually harassed by their bosses. In one case, the boss showed up at his AA's apartment door and tried to force his way in. That was the final straw for her, and she actually did report it - 45 years ago. She requested a transfer to a different dept and got it. But nothing happened to her boss, 20 years older and married with kids. If she had been working for a small company instead of a huge one, she might have just had to leave her job and look for a new one.
In those days, women seldom spoke up, because it was likely that they would be the ones to suffer, not the men involved.
"Should a teen sex offender be barred from serving on the court? I think so."
ReplyDeleteI am not sure I do. Having once been a teen-aged boy, I can tell you the only ones who were not pigs for a time were the ones who were born at the age of 21 carrying a briefcase. Sexual assault wasn't a thing in our group; I honestly believe most of the girls I knew then would have screamed bloody murder to their parents, the cops and school authorities. (I may be wrong.) But any male who got though his teens without doing something he doesn't want to think about must have had a lobotomy later.
There is a real problem here, raised (I think somewhat awkwardly) by the WSJ. It is that there are real differences between a groping 16-year-old; a sports star accustomed to choosing among groupies; an aging actor who uses his fame to drug and assault women who interest him; a powerful man who expects every female who comes into his power to satisfy his lust; and a skittish head honcho who ignores predatory underlings. So far, under the Me, Too movement, distinctions are not being made, and there is only one penalty for all: consignment to outer darkness with weeping and gnashing of teeth.
I see your point, but Ford was 15, and she says Kavanaugh was doing more than trying to engineer a makeout session or even a seduction. He had her trapped in a room with his buddy, and was trying to rape her.
DeleteYes, most teenage boys do things they'd like to forget about when they grow up. So do most teenage girls. My guess is that most of those things did not involve the threat of violence and lifelong emotional trauma.
In the midst of all of this, a friend wrote this morning having read about Ian Buruma leaving the NYReview of Books over the decision to publish an essay by Jian Ghomeshi a Canadian and former broadcast guy accused of various forms of harassment and bullying plus. He was found not guilty by a Canadian court in 2012 (don't know the charges, the law, or the story of non-conviction), but lost everything else, his job, some of his friends, and maybe his country, since it appears that he now lives here.
ReplyDeleteHis essay is worth reading (not that we should feel sorry for him), but it offers a look into the after-life of well-founded harassment charges (he admits them). It's a mea-culpa that I would have published at Commonweal. How come Buruma was force to resign over it?
The NYReview link to his account:
Deletehttps://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/10/11/reflections-hashtag/
My guess is that people reading Ghomeshi's piece felt that he was being given an opportunity to rehabilitate his image in his own words (while being paid? I assume the NYRoB offered him remuneration for his story) while the women he used were still suffering in silence and possibly stuck with therapy bills and other repercussions.
DeleteHe not-so-subtly attempts to place his behavior in the realm of normality (e.g., many other men said they could have been nailed for similar behavior) and to highlight his rehabilitation by not hitting on his fellow train traveller in Europe.
The Canadian publication Maclean's indicates that Ghomeshi also softened incidents in favor.of making himself look more sympathetic. Possibly the lack of context and fact-checking is why Buruma resigned.
Among my many concerns on this topic is that from now on anyone asked to serve in a government position will have a very good reason to turn down the opportunity. Many qualified people will back away from the fear that a youthful indiscretion (and most of us have them) will suddenly reappear after decades to destroy family and career. I remember that when Pres. Obama was making his appointments, more than one plausible candidate withdrew rather than face the intrusive nature of the vetting process and the public consequences. (Of course, under Trump, there was no vetting so that wasn’t a concern.)
ReplyDeleteI am also not at all comfortable with the idea that any assertion of having been molested must be true. Women are human beings (so I’m told!), and every human being is capable of misrepresentation and lies. Until now the point of American jurisprudence was to seek fairness. Assuming that the accuser is always right is hardly fair.
If the only people who can serve in government must have no history and no failings, then the only people who can serve will be clones of Mike Pence (who is scarier than Trump, in my view). Is that what we want?
"Youthful indiscretion" is not what is being alleged.
DeleteBut, yes, I agree that people can be ruined by misrepresentions and lies. That's why women need to report illegal workplace harassment and sex crimes.
But, too often, this happens. Pretty sure I don't want these guys getting SCOTUS appointments ever: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/opinions/arlington-texas/?utm_term=.30d32b03363d
How many potential candidates for govt. service have already said No because of youthful post smoking...Now of course it has become legal in some places. But they didn't want to lie when asked "Have your ever smoked...."
DeleteOkay "post" smoking is one thing...pot smoking another. Post smoking is still illegal everywhere!
DeleteAndrew Sullivan on the subject of tribal warfare with some thoughts on Kavanaugh and Ian Buruma:
ReplyDeletehttp://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/amp/2018/09/andrew-sullivan-america-land-of-brutal-binaries.html?__twitter_impression=true
Thank you for the link. A very insightful analysis, and I largely agree with him. He has no solution; neither do I.
DeleteYes, thanks for the link, Margaret. Sullivan's article, aptly entitled "America, Land of Brutal Binaries" brings up issues of tribalism beyond the Kavanaugh nomination. I suggest it deserves its own thread.
DeleteI should clarify that my comment at 3:02 pm was not intended as a criticism for the Sullivan link being on this thread, but an encouragement to open up a further discussion of the issues it brings up.
DeleteAm I seeing a pattern in these comments?
ReplyDeleteIt seems that only women are open at all to listening to Dr. Ford's charges - without assuming it was not a serious incident, or that it didn't happen at all.
Kavanaugh has done nothing beyond deny, with no evidence to back him up. She says there was a witness, Kavanaugh's friend, Mark Judge.
Why isn't he asking the GOP to put his friend Mark Judge under oath to testify and clear his name of the charges?
What are they worried about? They must be worried about something since they have chosen not to call Mr. Judge to testify.
The men seem to be taking the "boys will be boys" defense, even if this charge is true. Or at least to be minimizing it- "all boys do things in high school they may not want brought up 30 years later".
And there is a big difference between someone smoking pot in high school and someone assaulting a girl in the bedroom of a house where a party is going on - unsupervised by adults.
Every woman knows the difference between an attempt at seduction and an assault. I was assaulted twice - not raped, but assaulted - as I have related previously. One of my roommates in college was raped by a date, before the term "date rape" was invented. Of course she never told the nuns at our college, nor did she call the police. Girls were always assumed to be guilty in some way - enticing men, and then saying No having been drinking with the man. "Teasing" it was called. So the men justify it - she sent "signals" that she was interested, or she was dressed in a sexy manner. or whatever. Somehow it was always the fault of the girl, especially if the guy was a "cool" guy, and/or a "jock".
As Jean points out, if her story is true, this wasn't just "groping", nor did it seem to be a seduction. It was an assault.
She did tell her husband and therapist about the assault years ago. It wasn't invented in June of this year.
She has taken a polygraph and passed it. I assume she would be willing to take another.
Perhaps Mr. Kavanaugh should also take a polygraph? Or maybe he was too drunk to remember much. If so, he should say so - honestly.
Besides the article that Jean linked to, there is an article in the LA Times that also casts additional doubt on Mr. Kavanaugh's views on women and on how seriously (or not) to take accusations of sexual harassment and abuse.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gomez-kavanaugh-kozinski-20180920-story.html#
Note too that the GOP spokesman on this case has resigned because of charges (denied of course) against him for sexual harassment in the past.
LA Times story link:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gomez-kavanaugh-kozinski-20180920-story.html#
Right. I know there's a difference between pot smoking, sexual assault, rape, etc. I'm tempted to say, "even I know that," idiot that I am!
DeleteMy point addressed Bob Ginzburg's comment about people declining to join the government because of past (mis)behavior and, of course, crimes.
As you certainly know, many government workers must pass FBI inspection and must swear their allegiance. Pot-smoking is a question candidates get asked. If they lie, they're up for perjury. If they tell the truth, they don't get the job. I know a person well qualified to serve in our government, who won't because he won't lie. Recall the 1987 withdrawal of Judge Douglas Ginsburg from appointment to the Supreme Court for admitting he smoked pot "a few times." Those were the days!
The larger point, I think, is that Kavanaugh and Ford aside...we are verging on major "wizard" hunts; guilty until proven innocent, and as Andrew Sullivan writes tribal warfare.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThanks for the info on security clearance. I will pass it on for my pot-smoking acquaintance!
DeleteP.S.
Delete"There is an awful lot riding on his nomination - we are stuck with him for decades."
We are stuck with whomever would replace Kavanaugh should he withdraw or not be confirmed. Of course, if the Dems take the House and Senate in Nov. without a confirmation, we can be sure they'll do a "Garland."
Borowity, he of "not the news" at the New Yorker reporters that Garland himself is still available...Probably not a pot smoker, drunk, or....
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe latest in the WaPo: apparently he's ducking questions even in mock questioning by his friends trying to prepare him.
ReplyDeleteAnyone nominated to an office that he will potentially occupy for 30-40 years needs to be totally honest and transparent. His views will impact laws in our society for two generations.
This is not simply a Cabinet post that he will hold for a couple of years (in this admin, it's rare to make it to 2 years), and impact only a relatively narrow range of policies.
Holding him to a higher standard than those who smoked pot in high school or college (Clinton was elected in spite of his admissions), especially when it comes to civil rights - for women, for racial minorities, for religious minorities and for non-heterosexuals.
Neal Gorsuch was only two years ahead of Kavanaugh at Prep. He is also a "conservative" judge. But so far there have been no allegations that he was part of the heavy drinking, heavy partying cliques there. I would be interested to know what he knows about Kavanaugh. Maybe not much - two years behind in school, different social crowds.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/incredibly-frustrated-inside-the-gop-effort-to-save-kavanaugh-amid-assault-allegation/2018/09/22/6808baf6-bde0-11e8-b7d2-0773aa1e33da_story.html?utm_term=.22933d840e41&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1
Now conservative commentator and Trump critic Jay Kaganoff thinks it's time for Clarence Thomas to go.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/12/06/fellow-conservatives-its-time-to-call-on-clarence-thomas-to-resign/?utm_term=.74ea8ee8da63&tid=a_inl_manual
Anne C, you say, "The latest in the WaPo: apparently he's ducking questions even in mock questioning by his friends trying to prepare him." The pertinent line in the WAPO article you link to is as follows:
ReplyDelete“I’m not going to answer that,” Kavanaugh said at one point according to a senior White House official, who said that the questions were designed to go over the line and that he struck the right tone.
You also say, "It seems that only women are open at all to listening to Dr. Ford's charges - without assuming it was not a serious incident, or that it didn't happen at all."
I don't think that is accurate. I think the accusations made against Kavanaugh are to be taken seriously. In my post, I said I believed there must be an FBI investigation or the equivalent. What frightens me is that an uncorroborated allegation of something that allegedly took place over 35 years ago seems to be considered sufficient—in and of itself—to destroy a career. It is imperative to consider that Ford may be telling the truth. But it is also imperative to consider that, whether knowingly or unknowingly, her account is mistaken or even untrue. It is very dangerous to maintain that when a woman comes forward with an accusation of sexual assault we must automatically believe her.
I'm not suggesting that she be automatically believed. I am suggesting that a few too many people are automatically concluding that she is lying, and too many are also giving the "boys will be boys" excuse for his behavior, should the incident be true.
DeleteRight now, nobody knows, but a lot of people who support him don't want to do what is needed to shed more light on the situation. I'm glad you think there should be an investigation, because that would be the best way to remove the cloud.
How long did the Catholic church persist in protecting priests? How long did they persist in protecting bishops and other hierarchy - so as not to destroy their careers?
Forbes has an interesting commentary on how the GOP flubbed it.
DeleteI have little doubt that he will be confirmed. And I have little doubt that if he isn't, the next nominee will be just as "bad" as far as issues that I am concerned about.
But, I do think the message is important. How long will people find excuses for the "boys" who will be "boys"?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2018/09/23/how-the-republican-leadership-broke-the-four-rules-of-crisis-management/#5b8989b068d7
I think there is a difference between saying "boys will be boys" and considering the possibility that even a serious offense at the age of 17 may not define the character of a 53-year-old man. Of course, if Ford's recollections are accurate, and Kavanaugh has substantially the same recollections, then he is lying, which would definitely be disqualifying.
DeleteAmen. Anne C., if you think boys will be pigs (I didn't say boys) was meant to be exculpatory, I didn't explain myself adequately.
DeleteOver the last two years, I witnessed a friend's divorce. The woman initiated the divorce by going full nuclear. According to her, he was threatening violence, was a drunk, molested their daughter, was lazy. Not at all the picture of the man I know. She nonetheless won a restraining order against him by making allegations before a judge. It took two months of inquisition by DYFS and a lot of money to see his daughter again. Two years later, he's finally divorced, has access to his daughter, and is broke. As an example of the character of the man, while his daughter was visiting, she made her call to her mother. The daughter said something was wrong with her mother. Getting on the phone, he could tell she was slipping into a diabetic coma. He finally called the cops on HER. To save her life. After seeing the effectiveness and utility of lies, I am wary of believing anyone at first in these matters.
ReplyDeleteStanley, do you think that all women who initiate divorces because of a long litany of "complaints" about lazy, drunken, emotionally abusive husbands are lying?
ReplyDeleteBe wary - yes. But be wary of the possible lies the accused might be guilty of also.
The problem is that nobody really knows who is lying and who isn't unless they can find reliable witnesses. Or, perhaps an FBI investigation. Or even a poly for both, given by the same examiner. She is willing, he is not, or at least the GOP is not.
So, my question is - why not do the investigation? Why not call Mark Judge to testify under oath? Why not call her therapist? If Dr. Ford gives permission, her therapist could tell them what she was told in 2012.
Some years ago in DC there was a big story - a very high level official - incredibly respected in his job, in his neighborhood, in his parish, in the Catholic school his children attended, and in the community at large - four kids, "perfect" life - was found to have been abusing his wife for years. Nobody who knew him could believe it. It is well known that many abusers come across to people who know them as "great' people. It took his wife years to work up the courage to leave him and initiate a divorce and tell people why. She was telling the truth. There were hospital records of her many "accidents" that left bruises, broken bones, etc.
In the case of your friend, since she didn't allege physical abuse, there would be no records. What about the daughter? Any records? Any concerns about her at her school? Very often abused children become depressed, stop doing well at school, etc. Were there any signs? Did the judge ask for witnesses who might testify about the daughter's state of mind? Did the judge ask her if anything had happened?Did a doctor examine her? A psychologist?
Just because you know him as a great guy, doesn't mean he was that way to his wife. Just because you never saw him drunk doesn't mean he didn't abuse alcohol. Many drunks are very functional in public. They hide it well.
Perhaps the wife did lie through her teeth, and your friend is totally innocent. He eventually convinced someone that he should be able to see his daughter again. How old is she? Was she the one to convince the authorities that her father had not molested her?
Does that one personal example of a husband wronged,mean that every woman who accuses a man of wrongdoing should be immediately suspected of lying? Why not immediately suspect the person she accuses?
Maybe withhold judgment on both until there is more information available?
I would like to hear Kavanaugh explain some of the references to his drinking and partying in high school. He has denied it, but apparently there is evidence. I would like to know how he explains the allusions in his yearbook, in his speech to the law students, and in his friend Mark's published memoir (called "Wasted") about his drunken, partying high school years with his friend "Bart O'Kavanaugh."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2018/09/17/what-the-man-accused-of-helping-kavanaugh-assault-a-woman-wrote-about-female-sexuality/?utm_term=.dd7e2370653b
Just as some warn against finding Kavanaugh guilty without trial, I think it is equally wrong to assume that she is lying, without any evidence to support that judgment either.
So, you all can carry on. But,I am really tired of thinking about this as I have no answers and I can do nothing to impact the proceedings anyway. However, I will be totally shocked if he is not confirmed, and very soon, without any steps being taken to determine if he is lying or if she is.
I very much would like to see an impartial investigation. Who but the Republicans trying to ram Kavanaugh through the confirmation process would not? But I think there are other possibilities than that Kavanaugh is lying and Ford is telling the truth, or vice versa.
DeleteMeanwhile, there are two other allegations, one about Kavanaugh exposing himself at a drinking party as a college freshman, and another of high-school gang rapes (alleged by Michael Avenatti). Interestingly, alll three allegations so far involve drunken partying.
Anne. Originally, the court assumed that my friend was guilty, putting on a restraining order and keeping him away from his daughter. Based on nothing but the mother's allegation. DYFS interviewed all parties including the daughter and determined that the accusations were false. The psychological report on the mother was not good. He was granted joint custody and visitation. The man is in his fifties and has no record in these matters. No violence, no molestation. This is also attested to by his two nieces in their twenties who he babysat in their single digits with no problem. By the way, his monstress ex-wife told one of these lovely girls she should get sterilised. That's how consumed by hate she is. Myself, I used to assume the woman was always right in these matters. Now, by direct observation, I have recalibrated. I think the FBI should investigate Kavanaugh. But some corroboration from other victims as with Cosby would certainly be a game changer.
DeleteLord, what goes on in some marriages is beyond bizarre, and I think Albert Albee plumbed those depths in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf."
ReplyDeleteThe Kavanaugh hearings aren't anything like the long game a spouse seething with decades of resentment might dream up. This is just politics, and the GOP is being dumb.
Blindsiding the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee at the last minute before a confirmation hearing has created maximum shock and awe, embarrassment, doubt, and chaos, just like the Dems planned.
And Republican Senators are making it worse by not expeditiously gathering info. Evidence would allow them to make a stronger case for their nominee. Or to quietly inform him that he needs to withdraw.
Instead, they're treating Ford like a weepy devotchka who will go away as soon as she is patronized and dismissed.
At best they'll get confirmation and then have to welcome a whole bunch of really pissed off new Democratic women into their ranks in January and possibly lose majority status.
Republicans know the knives are out. Democrats really hate Trump. And so do a lot of Republicans. In this political climate, they have to know their nominees will be relentlessly scrutinized and to expect surprises.
Well, there's another accusation from another woman that took place at Yale. Now we're starting to get somewhere. We now have two data points on the perv versus time chart. The more the merrier. Now we need something from his early law career. Next!
Delete*Edward Albee.
DeleteKellyanne says it's all a vast, left-wing conspiracy theory. And she said this, which, syntactically, qualifies as gibberish:
“This may be the first time we ever heard of allegations against someone as a teenager that did not prey upon women thusly as he became powerful,” Conway said, adding: “I just don’t think one man’s shoulders should bear decades of the MeToo movement.”
I knew it was one of them Albees.
DeleteCount on Kellyanne to bring the word salad.
DeleteYale student. She was so drunk she wasn't sure what she saw or whose it was. And some tabloid now says that Michael Avenatti, Stormy Daniels' lawyer, says he has a client who was also assaulted by Kavanaugh as a teenager.
DeleteMike Aventi! At last an opponent worthy of the president. And vice versa.
DeleteMSM are now picking up the story on the Avenatti client. Here's The Hill: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408151-avenatti-new-client-will-go-public-with-kavanaugh-accusations-in-next-48
DeleteSounds like some Dems really don't want his "help."
They may as well take it. They'll probably have to settle on him as their candidate against Trump in '20. It figures.
Delete"At best they'll get confirmation and then have to welcome a whole bunch of really pissed off new Democratic women into their ranks in January and possibly lose majority status."
DeleteBut that's the devil's bargain, isn't it, that Congressional Republicans and the conservative industry that supports them have made with Trump: "We'll work with you if you give us judges and a tax cut". So now Trump has given them judges and a tax cut.
Democrats in 2009-10 had the courage of their convictions: they got Obamacare passed. Many of them paid for it with their seats in Congress, and Nancy Pelosi promptly lost her speakership. I don't know how all of them feel about it, but I'd wager that many of them say that, even though it was a very high price to pay, it was worth it. Republicans are being offered a similar opportunity here. For how many decades have they dreamed about a reliable conservative majority on the Court? Isn't it worth it for them to grasp the opportunity, even if it means losing Congress?
Now: that said, it seems entirely possible to me that Kavanaugh isn't already confirmed because these women coming forward are making Republican women senators waver. I think we should consider the possibility that, as of today, McConnell doesn't have the votes lined up.
The way McConnell assured the base yesterday that this was going to a floor vote makes me wonder if he plans to vote ten times himself.
DeleteWe had the Warren Court. And the Rehnquist Court. Both were chief justices. Now you look at the makeup of the next court: Either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh wouldn't be there if there had been a vote on Garland. And Kavanaugh might very well not be there if the Senate Judiciary Committee were allowed to take the time to do due diligence. Who blocked the vote on Garland? Whose clock does the Kavanaugh confirmation run on?
DeleteThe next court will be named for a senator who isn't even on the bench. But he will be The Man who shaped it.
So one of my Facebook friends posted that it's "pray for Kavanaugh day". She's asking for people to pray for Kavanaugh every day until he is confirmed. I don't have any problem with doing that, I'm sure he needs prayers, as we all do. But not for the reason she thinks, my prayers won't be for him to be confirmed.
DeleteO Lord, deliver us from people who want to cover political partisanship with the patina of prayer, as if, since it's a prayer, the wish is more pure.
DeleteI pray justice is done in the confirmation process knowing that we may never really find out if it was.
Couldn't the orange one have nominated a woman and avoided all this? I guess the career background has to look good. But, really, all one has to do is make decisions in favor of hardwiring plutocracy. That's all they really want.
DeleteWell there was a woman under consideration; Amy Coney Barrett. If Kavanaugh is shot down, she may get another chance.
Delete