Supreme court nominees

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kmcicco2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
Not exactly. If you are counting positive assertions that deny the opposite position, it is 1-1 (Ford and Kavanaugh). All the rest are not positive denials of Ford’s story. They are statements of not recalling the facts she claimed. So it is still 1-1. As for which one to believe when it is 1-1, you can look at the demeanor, the vested interest, the consistency with known facts, and decide for yourself. That is what the Senate should do and that is what the American people should do.
Click to expand...
Stop deflecting, it’s 4-1 with her witness list.
The event clearly wasn’t that compelling if none remember it, even her friends.
 
Additionally,this apparently wasn’t a huge party,rather a small gathering of a handful of people.That she ran out the door without anyone noticing is pretty unbelievable .
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Not exactly. If you are counting positive assertions that deny the opposite position, it is 1-1 (Ford and Kavanaugh). All the rest are not positive denials of Ford’s story. They are statements of not recalling the facts she claimed. So it is still 1-1. As for which one to believe when it is 1-1, you can look at the demeanor, the vested interest, the consistency with known facts, and decide for yourself. That is what the Senate should do and that is what the American people should do.
Click to expand...
Stop deflecting, it’s 4-1 with her witness list.
The event clearly wasn’t that compelling if none remember it, even her friends.
Click to expand...
Not that compelling for them. They did not suffer or even witness a trauma that day. Of course it would not be memorable to them.
 
Jeanne_S said:
Additionally,this apparently wasn’t a huge party,rather a small gathering of a handful of people.That she ran out the door without anyone noticing is pretty unbelievable .
Click to expand...
She literally ran or walked through the room where they were sitting.
 
Last edited:
gracepoole said:
I’m sure you don’t mean it to be but this is deeply insulting. Do you feel this way about victims of sexual assault by priests, as well?
Click to expand...
I think that sexual assault should be reported when it occurs, for the victim’s sake as well as for the sake of protecting society. If one elects to not report for 36 years, not much can be done, except perhaps to destroy a nominee some decades in the future.

In Dr. Ford’s case, during that 36 years she completed college and graduate school and earned a doctorate degree, while her alleged assailant finished college, law school, went to work for the government, and became a Federal judge.

Yet she was not motivated to report him during all that time until the last minute of a court confirmation hearing. She has a PhD, but said she didn’t know how to contact the judiciary committee. She required a lawyer to figure it out. Finally she managed to provide a letter to Sen. Feinstein, who held it in reserve as ace card to be played when needed to delay the vote.

The Philadelphia grand jury report went back 70 years and listed all priests who had been accused of sexual molestation—not convicted but accused. Yes, I think that was also an overreach.

As an aside, I note that it has happened in the past that prosecutorial overreach and public hysteria has resulted in false convictions and innocent people going to jail. After reading Dorothy Rabinowitz’s book “No Crueler Tyrannies,” I have a skeptical view of the justice system.
 
humbleseeker said:
He told her he was sorry and that she should speak to the authorities. What else was he supposed to do?
Click to expand...
Apparently under the current standard, one does not go to the police, but to a Senator so that it can be blamed on Judge Kavanaugh. All sexual assault is now his fault.
 
dvdjs said:
Hardly. This is a job approval process - approval by the Senate. The Senators are allowed to move however they please - including, you might remember, just disregarding a nominee and waiting for a new President. In this case there is a serious charge, a credible accusers, a less nominee may not be all that it should be, and plenty of other highly qualified people to choose from.
Click to expand...
How nonchalant one can become to unsubstantiated allegations. Well, it’s just a job interview…there are lots of others…meaning, apparently, that there is nothing particularly wrong with destroying a man’s reputation and his life’s work. It’s not clear how many others would actually be willing to risk their livelihood and good name to such a carnival. When innocence is no longer a defense we are all in trouble.

Those who would condemn the behavior of the senate in this farce would do well to look beyond their attitudes alone and see just how many of their fellow citizens either approve of their actions or defend them. Again, senators can behave this way only when they are confident their actions are supported.
 
Ender said:
When innocence is no longer a defense we are all in trouble.
Click to expand...
Innocence is certainly a defense. But our real and large problem has been the summary dismissal of credible accusations. That is changing.
 
JimG said:
I think that sexual assault should be reported when it occurs, for the victim’s sake as well as for the sake of protecting society. If one elects to not report for 36 years, not much can be done, except perhaps to destroy a nominee some decades in the future.
Click to expand...
Yes, if Cosby or Weinstein had been called out years earlier, much abuse could have been mitigated.

With Kavanaugh, we know with a high degree of certainty that he is not a serial predator. That would have come out during his many FBI checks.
 
dvdjs said:
Innocence is certainly a defense. But our real and large problem has been the summary dismissal of credible accusations. That is changing.
Click to expand...
What makes an accusation credible? One would expect that necessarily it would include corroborating evidence, although clearly that is not the case here inasmuch as there isn’t a shred of evidence to support her claim. As for dismissing credible assertions, that would apply almost exclusively to the assertions Kavanaugh has made about his innocence.

Given that Ford’s charges have been investigated and she has testified in a senate hearing it is incredible to suggest that they have been “summarily dismissed.” Many things have happened here, but that is by any rational measure not one of them, although in the men-are-evil mentality in which we live, apparently not automatically accepting an allegation from any woman is tantamount to “summarily dismissing” it.

The accusers at the Salem witch trials had a better case for guilt than has so far been made against Kavanaugh.
 
Theo520 said:
Where did you get that? It’s not up to Kavanaugh to demand anything.
Click to expand...
Because he said he would be willing to do it when they were setting up the meeting between him and Ford. Then he changed his tune by saying he would do it if the committee wanted him to. And why didn’t the committee ask? I think any objective-minded person knows likely why.

Either way, now let’s wait and see what happens and not prejudge this much like you and several others repeatedly have.
 
Ford claims “anxiety and PTSD-like symptoms” as a result of the experience.

Can you think of anyone in your circle of friends who has PTSD, but doesn’t have a clear memory of what, exactly, the circumstances of the original traumatic experience were? One of the primary characteristics of PTSD is to relive the trauma. Over and over and over and over again.
 
Additional details would be helpful… Memories are pretty much one of the defining factors of PTSD.
 
Ender said:
How nonchalant one can become to unsubstantiated allegations. Well, it’s just a job interview…there are lots of others…meaning, apparently, that there is nothing particularly wrong with destroying a man’s reputation and his life’s work. It’s not clear how many others would actually be willing to risk their livelihood and good name to such a carnival.
Click to expand...
Why do you continue to maintain that unsubstantiated allegations are destroying Kavanaugh’s livelihood? You know he still has a job for life, regardless of the vote for confirmation. You know Clarence Thomas seems to be doing well. Even Bill Clinton seems to be happy and well-provided, despite the allegations against him.
 
Ender said:
40.png
dvdjs:
Innocence is certainly a defense. But our real and large problem has been the summary dismissal of credible accusations. That is changing.
Click to expand...
What makes an accusation credible? One would expect that necessarily it would include corroborating evidence, although clearly that is not the case here inasmuch as there isn’t a shred of evidence to support her claim. As for dismissing credible assertions, that would apply almost exclusively to the assertions Kavanaugh has made about his innocence.
Click to expand...
One difference is self-interest. Ford has no self-interest reason for coming forward with her allegations. Kavanaugh has a huge self-interest reason for denying them. Now, this difference is not absolutely determinative, but it is worth taking into account when evaluating them.
Given that Ford’s charges have been investigated and she has testified in a senate hearing it is incredible to suggest that they have been “summarily dismissed.”
Click to expand...
As dvdjs said, “this is changing.” Your observation above is evidence of this. The summarial dismissal is not being done by the Senate. But it is being done by some posters in this thread.
 
Ender said:
What should be done is to look at the evidence. This is not a popularity contest. No charge like this should be believed simply because one person’s demeanor is more appealing. You’ve set an awfully low bar to allow the destruction of a man’s life and reputation.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely spot on. This is a criminal accusation, not merely a challenge to a character flaw. Far more than a seat on the SC is now involved here.
Without corroborating evidence, there is no reason to even consider the accusation in the determination of one’s vote.
 
Ender said:
How nonchalant one can become to unsubstantiated allegations. Well, it’s just a job interview…there are lots of others…meaning, apparently, that there is nothing particularly wrong with destroying a man’s reputation and his life’s work. It’s not clear how many others would actually be willing to risk their livelihood and good name to such a carnival. When innocence is no longer a defense we are all in trouble.
Click to expand...
It is cavalier. It’s almost like he deserves to have his reputation destroyed. How dare he be a constitutionalist, nominated by Trump, and then emotionally defend his name. How dare he demand presumption of innocence! As the overt sexist from Hawaii said, his judicial philosophy disqualifies him from the privilege.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top