Kavanaugh endorsement rescinded

  • Thread starter Thread starter on_the_hill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PetraG said:
If you want to know why it angers so many women that she is disbelieved, it is because we have our own stories to tell, stories about guys everyone admires who we know very well did something totally out of bounds. If we spent any time at all blaming ourselves and then realize, “hey, I didn’t do anything wrong,” then the next emotion is usually anger. If you put yourself in her shoes and hear people calling her names and shaming her, you feel angry.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but having your own stories to tell might function to lead you into the trap of being all too ready to believe someone who falsely claims to have suffered from the same experience as you did.

That does not provide evidence that Ford is telling the truth, but it does point to a motivation many women might have for believing Ford even in the absence of proper evidence.

As a psychologist, Ford would likely have some insights into the pre-cognitive biases which move individuals and women specifically. So she would know very well what words to use, what emotional triggers to pull and how to construct a narrative so as to get the most mileage from those most prone to believe her.

This sword cuts both ways, which ought to bring us back to actual evidence and not a reliance on emotional empathy and its triggers.

Given that Ford floated Kavanaugh’s name as her assaulter back in 2012 when his name was high on the list of Romney’s potential nominees and then we heard nothing from her until 2018 when Kavanaugh’s name came up again, that coincidence is telling.

There is a connection between Kavanaugh and Ford through their mutual friend ‘Squi’ who Ford dated for several months in 1981, apparently. My suspicion is that Ford hoped to exploit this past connection between them by fabricating a story with just the right mix of plausibility and deniability that it would come down to a he said, she said accusation that would be entirely impossible to prove either way. She had four years to perfect the telling and hoped for at least a little corroboration from her named witnesses.
 
The advantage to Ms. Ford doing a public testimony, as opposed to one behind closed doors, was to the networks. The news networks got Super Bowl type numbers of viewers, and that means a lot of money for ads.

I hope they paid her.
 
HarryStotle said:
Mary Magdalene was a prostitute in her younger days and, yet, she was the first to see the Risen Christ.
Click to expand...
There’s absolutely no evidence Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. That is a myth that has taken root and spread. Jesus allegedly cast seven demons out of her, but they could have been making the poor woman ill, not unchaste. She is the most romanticized figure in the bible, for no good reason. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone told me she could have had a love affair with Jesus. (I suppose Dan Brown can be blamed for that myth!) There is nothing in the bible to even indicate her age. She could have been ninety, wrinkled as a raisin, with a penchant for helping unkempt young men, and nothing more.

If you think there is evidence for MM’s alleged prostitution in the bible, please post it. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Augustinian said:
The advantage to Ms. Ford doing a public testimony, as opposed to one behind closed doors, was to the networks. The news networks got Super Bowl type numbers of viewers, and that means a lot of money for ads.
Click to expand...
It also means we know for a fact what she said and how she said it.

I hope they did not pay her. She’s got enough in her GoFundMe accounts now. If she was really abused, she’d donate that money to some charity that helps truly abused kids.
 
PetraG said:
If you want to know why it angers so many women that she is disbelieved, it is because we have our own stories to tell, stories about guys everyone admires who we know very well did something totally out of bounds. If we spent any time at all blaming ourselves and then realize, “hey, I didn’t do anything wrong,” then the next emotion is usually anger. If you put yourself in her shoes and hear people calling her names and shaming her, you feel angry.
Click to expand...
I have my own story to tell, too, and it’s way, way worse than Ford’s. But I don’t believe her for one second. No way is she an abuse victim. No way does she have PTSD. She’s the one who angers me. I don’t care for Kavanaugh, but I can be impartial. I’m glad she wasn’t believed by most. She’s so patently lying. There are red flags all over her testimony beginning with that letter. Supposedly it was written by a college professor (Ford), yet a sixth grade child who paid attention in class could have done a better job. It’s riddled with grammar errors.
 
ConstantLearner said:
I hope they did not pay her. She’s got enough in her GoFundMe accounts now.
Click to expand...
I’m more concerned about the enrichment of the networks- they definitely made money from this whole media circus over the past couple of weeks. If CNN is making tons of cash on this kind of thing, it’s really motivation for them to manipulate public affairs for their own pecuniary benefits.

When the president was running in 2015-16, he recognized how his presence on TV was spiking ratings and creating a windfall for networks too, and was trying for a while to get them to give money to charity to assure his appearance on their network.
 
pnewton said:
In any case, while I would never judge a woman for not coming forward for decades, the effects of the decision must not be ignored. Facts cannot give way for feelings.
Click to expand...
I don’t disbelieve her because she waited decades to come forward with allegations. I disbelieve her for so very many other reasons.
 
ConstantLearner said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Mary Magdalene was a prostitute in her younger days and, yet, she was the first to see the Risen Christ.
Click to expand...
There’s absolutely no evidence Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. That is a myth that has taken root and spread. Jesus allegedly cast seven demons out of her, but they could have been making the poor woman ill, not unchaste.
…
If you think there is evidence for MM’s alleged prostitution in the bible, please post it. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Actually there is no evidence that her life of prostitution was a myth. In fact it was the dominant narrative for most of Church history, and there are a number of good reasons for thinking it to be true. That notion has been contested recently, but that hardly makes it a “myth.”

http://www.magdala.org/2017/07/mary-magdalene-icon-hope/

Regardless, whether or not Mary was a prostitute or merely exorcized of seven demons, my point still remains – people change.
 
HarryStotle said:
Actually there is no evidence that her life of prostitution was a myth. In fact it was the dominant narrative for most of Church history, and there are a number of good reasons for thinking it to be true. That notion has been contested recently, but that hardly makes it a “myth.”
Click to expand...
I think there is. At least according to Catholic biblical scholars:

Now that scripture scholars have debunked the myth that she and the infamous repentant sinner who wiped Jesus’ feet with her tears are one and the same woman, word is trickling down that Mary Magdalene’s penitent prostitute label was a misnomer. Instead, her true biblical portrait is being resurrected, and this “apostle to the apostles” is finally taking her rightful place in history as a beloved disciple of Jesus and a prominent early church leader.

“We’re trying to right a 2,000-year-old wrong,” says Christine Schenk, C.S.J., executive director of FutureChurch, a Cincinnati-based church-reform organization that launched nationwide observances of Mary Magdalene’s feast day (July 22) two years ago. The idea quickly grew from a handful of celebrations to nearly 130 prayer services last year at Catholic parishes, Newman centers, schools, retreat houses, hospital chapels, motherhouses, and in small faith communities.

uscatholic.org

Who framed Mary Magdalene?

Mary Magdalene is a model of a faithful, devoted follower of the Lord, as well as a strong, independent leader in the early church.
uscatholic.org uscatholic.org

That myth grew out of the fact that Magdala was a town with many prostitutes. Then, to make matters worse, and early “home, in Rome, for wayward girls,” most of whom we pregnant and unwed, was named the Mary Magdalene home.

You’re doing to MM, who happens to be a saint in the RCC, what you claim people did to Brett Kavanaugh. There is no evidence. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing.

Her popular representation as a prostitute and repentant sinner wasn’t a plan conceived by the apostles to discredit her, as some esoteric and pseudo-historical novels would have us believe; there is no textual evidence to support such an affirmation.

The mistake of identifying her with a repentant sinner actually has a more recent origin, in the Middle Ages.

aleteia.org

Was Mary Magdalene a prostitute?

The mistake of identifying her with a repentant sinner actually has a more recent origin, in the Middle Ages.
aleteia.org
 
Last edited:
Okay, Republicans now have the presidency and control both the House and Senate and a new ultra-conservative justice has been sworn in. Currently, the Democrats have no power. None. They are powerless, for the moment.

If Roe v. Wade can’t be overturned now, it probably never will be. The ball is squarely in the conservative’s court. Let’s see what they do with it.

No excuses. None. Absolutely none.

PS: The clock is ticking.
 
Last edited:
24 days and you expect something to happen?

The midterm election is still up in the air, and will be until they day after, assuming that there are not a significant number of states needing recounts, with the balance of the balance of the House and the Senate to be determined.

And lest you have turned off the news, some Democrats have been promising that if they win in November, they will start impeachment hearings against Justice Kavanaugh. So much for a ticking clock.

I would hardly call Kavanaugh an ultra conservative justice; Judge Garland, with whom he shared the bench, agreed with Kavanaugh (and he with Garland) 90% of the time. And Garland was proposed by the Democrats.

It is not necessarily that Roe. vs. Wade cannot be overturned, s much as the SC usually takes the decision in the narrowest of terms if possible. That could easily result in a nibble here and a nibble there to the Roe decision, ultimately either overturning it or rendering it moot as the matter reverts back to the States.

What it will likely mean is that some decisions, such as gay marriage, may be brought back into the spotlight as they effectively overturn part of the First Amendment. There is a running conflict right now, for example, with the bakery/cake decorator in Colorado being decided on an issue of the independence of an artist, as opposed to the issue of a violation of First Amendment rights. And last I heard, Colorado is going after him again, another example of the Left/Progressives not knowing when to back off.
 
Two interesting things occurred after Dr. Ford testified. 1) the majority of the committee repeatedly requested the therapist’s notes, and 2) Dr. Ford said she did not want Kavanaugh to be impeached.

Why the issue over the notes? One could say “well, it was a private conversation with a therapist” and that might carry it for some people.

However, as has been said repeatedly since her attorneys refused, the notes while not being absolute evidence would at least support her testimony, and one has to wonder why she would not give them over.

A second thought comes to mind from trial work, and that is that if a witness has control over some evidence and does not produce it, it is likely because that it refutes some or all of their testimony.

According to Dr. Ford’s statement to the press, prior to the hearing, she noted that the incident occurred when she was in late high school. That would put Kavanaugh in college, and not at high school parties (which timeline changed as her story continued to unfold). That, and/or there was other information which would work to the contrary of her narrative.

Just some thoughts. The post at 774 from American Greatness is worth reading or re-reading. So also, you can find the prosecutorial attorney’s memorandum to the Republicans worth reading - maybe even twice.
 
Comments have been made parroting the Democrats mantra that Kavanaugh got angry and this is clear evidence of lack of judicial temperament.

Aside from the fact that is nothing but the most recent mantra to try to question Kavanaugh’s seat on the Court, it flies in the face of 300 or so opinions, as well as reviews by the American Bar Association. Were he to have exercised temperament inappropriately while either a trial or appellate judge, it would have come to light. Further, after enduring repeated direct questioning by individuals who clearly were out to game him, and then being accused of a near rape, it is understandable that he would get to the “Enough!” point. One has to wonder what they might have said had he not blown up - let’s see, oh… obviously he is a clod fish, and that just proves he tried to get Dr. Ford’s clothes off…

Trial judges are not questioned during a trial; they rather act as a referee between competing attorneys. Appellate Judges will have a much greater exchange with attorneys pleading their case on appeal; but again, no one is attacking them as incompetent, prejudiced, or otherwise besmirching them and their reputation during a hearing.

It is simply one more example of the goal posts being moved.
 
I never said she was lying about being assaulted (by someone) but she DID lie about planes if her past is correct and she actually enjoys flying as a witness has said.
 
Augustinian said:
What do you mean by “farce”? They asked her what happened and she asked the questions.

Why would she need “evidence”?

She would be confidentially delivering the information she had about the alleged event and that was that. Get the info to the Senators on the committee. I don’t see how that would be compromised at all by doing it behind closed doors with legal counsel there.
Click to expand...
No, no, no…I did not say it was a farce. I said that she might fear that…that is, that she wanted to speak directly to the public, not to someone who might have a reason to misrepresent what she said or how the interview went.

It is the same reason that trials and confirmation hearings are public. In theory, the Senate ought to be able to hold confirmation hearings in a more discrete setting, but people want to hear what is said. The level of trust isn’t always there.

Again: I’m not saying I agree with her. I’m saying it is not hard to understand why someone in her situation might choose to testify in public rather than in private. You may disagree with it, but that doesn’t mean it is beyond imagining that someone who wasn’t a glory hound would make the decision she did.
 
I’m glad she did testify in public, once we all knew what was going on. People may have been less apt to understand why Kav was still appointed had it been kept private. People may have thought there was actual evidence that was ignored.
 

the battle is won

now hopefully ginsburg retreats to the nursing home where she belongs and we appoint amy barrett to the Bench
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top