Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

[Educational Post]
She came forward in 2012 after published articles mentioned Kavanaugh as a potential Mitt Romney SCOTUS pick. As a note, she did not name Kavanaugh at that time. She also can't provide even the year of the alleged "assault". This is the opposite of credible.

GOOD DAY

 

Yep. Game is up. Time to move on.

 

[Premium Post]
Ford is not willing to testify under oath. Before her statement, it was already established that the FBI will not investigate again -- there's nothing to investigate and they've already investigated Kavanaugh 6 times. Her gig is up. She's a pathetic liar.


GOOD DAY

 

Fair enough, she had her chance, time to move to a confirmation vote. Apparently this isn't a big deal to her or it's not something she believes strongly enough to testify about under oath.

 

It's not even a federal crime what she is claiming. It's on private property. The FBI can't investigate it. She asks the impossible. Why doesnt she ask local police to investigate this rape that took place at an unknown location in an unknown year? I bet it will go far.

I suspect the lefties on this thread now realize they got played.

 

I wouldn't bet on that, at least not when it comes to all of them.

I would however, bet that despite the fact that it doesn't matter enough to her to testify about, she will work with Democrats in an effort to swing voters in the midterms.

 

Kay Hymowitz for City Journal:

https://www.city-journal.org/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-16176.html

Unforgiven
Those who argue that what Brett Kavanaugh allegedly did is disqualifying need to consider the precedent they’re setting.
Kay S. Hymowitz
September 18, 2018

​

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of sexually assaulting a woman. According to the accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, during a party Kavanaugh and a friend, both heavily intoxicated, pulled her into a bedroom, closed the door, and pushed her onto a bed. Kavanaugh got on top of her, and, placing a hand over her mouth to muffle her screams, groped her and tried to remove her clothing. Terrified, she was able to escape and hide in a bathroom before fleeing the house.​

This happened 36 years ago, Ford says. Kavanaugh was 17 years old at the time and Ford, 15. Kavanaugh firmly denies the story.

These last facts should make all those determined to use the charge as the poison pill to kill the judge’s nomination nervous. They’re on the verge of setting a dangerous precedent that will inevitably come back to bite them.

For one thing, they are setting the stage for condemning to reputation-death not just a Roe v. Wade-threatening Supreme Court nominee but any person, man or woman, Bible-thumper or Democratic socialist, by accusation alone. Ford’s story is almost impossible to investigate, much less to corroborate. It happened either in 1982 or 1983; it was either in June or August; it was a house, but she doesn’t know whose; she can’t recall how she got home.

Despite the hazy details, many find Ford’s story is credible, and for good reason: there’s nothing extraordinary about the events she describes, unfortunately, and over the years she told two therapists about them, though it’s not clear that she ever named Kavanaugh. Still, those who caution that human memory is unreliable, especially after more than three decades, are indisputably right. Is she certain that it was Brett Kavanaugh who was on top of her during those dreadful minutes? She had reason to fear that he was going to rape her, but do we know that that’s what he was intending, and does that make a difference? Kavanaugh himself might not know the answer. Multiply 35 years by large quantities of alcohol—Ford described Kavanaugh and his buddy as “stumbling drunk”—and you’ve got a terrible formula for truth-seeking.

Even with corroborating evidence, the case raises difficult questions about what constitutes disqualifying behavior. Attempted rape? No senator, even in the motley crew that now inhabits our upper chamber, would be willing to give a thumbs-up to a Supreme Court nominee with a felony on his or her record. Such a candidate would never be nominated to begin with.

But how about if this was a single instance of drunken groping by a minor? Keep in mind that all modern societies use different standards for judging and punishing minors than they do for adults. These days, people point to brain science to prove that adolescents have poor impulse control and social-emotional awareness, but you don’t need neural imaging to know that adolescents can be dumb risk-takers. That’s why we seal juvenile records. That’s why we have juvenile facilities and diversion programs. That’s why the goal in juvenile proceedings is not so much punishment as deterrence and rehabilitation. Kids grow up; they change; often, they straighten out.

Just about all the liberal commentary on the Kavanaugh–Ford affair thus far has trivialized this distinction between juvenile and adult by referring to it as a “boys will be boys” excuse. “Boys Will Be Supreme Court Justices” was the title New York Times editors gave to Michelle Goldberg’s Tuesday column. “Much of defensive reaction I’m seeing around Kavanaugh (& not just from the right) suggests that lots of people think a regular part of male development is the stage where boys drunkenly pin down young women & try to assault them,” New Yorkcolumnist Rebecca Traister tweeted. Another tweet by popular progressive writer Jeet Heer continues in that vein: “I’m fascinated by the ‘teenage rapists deserve a pass’ strand of conservatism that is emerging.”

They are missing the point. No one—or at least no one outside the lunatic fringes of social media—is arguing that rapey behavior by teenaged boys is okay because, hormones. What they are suggesting is that the cruel and aggressive actions of an adolescent don’t deserve the same level of scrutiny and punishment as those of an adult. The perpetrators of such actions are more likely to be boys because hormones, but both sexes deserve a lighter touch when they’re underage.

That Kavanaugh’s fiercest opponents are now using a (tenuously recalled) adolescent crime as proof of his unfitness is an irony worth considering. The Left has always been at the forefront of the fight for leniency for minors. Progressives founded the juvenile court in 1899. Liberals fought “law and order” conservative attempts to try juveniles as adults initiated during the crime wave of the 1970s through 1990s. They pointed out, accurately, that those policies affected black kids far more than white. They were rightfully indignant that prepubescent children could be labelled sex offenders. “Children are regularly put on sex offender registries, sometimes for their entire lives, for conduct less serious than what Kavanaugh is accused of,” writes Goldberg. Well, yes. That’s exactly the tough-on-juvenile-crime approach that has five times as many black as white juveniles in prison and that Goldberg herself would justify against Kavanaugh.

Now, you could still argue, reasonably enough, that the bar should be set higher for a Supreme Court justice than for many other official positions; that 17 is old enough to justify severe lifelong consequences; that Kavanaugh, assuming that he is guilty, would have deserved a pass if only he would admit and apologize for his transgression. But these arguments need to be made as a matter of considered, consistent principle, and far away from the political war zone.

Men and women are not angels. Someday a brilliant, highly experienced, well-regarded woman may well be sitting in Kavanaugh’s seat and be accused at the zero hour and after interminable vetting of, say, stalking a former boyfriend or snorting cocaine when she was going through a bad stretch in high school. Then what?

Kay S. Hymowitz is a City Journal contributing editor, the William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and the author of Marriage and Caste in America: Separate and Unequal Families in a Post-Marital Age.​

 

So what is there to investigate? Do she have more information than she has already provided?

 

Nope. She doesnt want an investigation. If she did she would take her story to the police. You know like a normal rape victim would .

 

Unfortunately for the right, we have no reason to not give the accuser the benefit of the doubt.

Kavanaugh has shown he is not trustworthy.

The only proper thing to do is a full investigation.

 

Ah, so guilty until proven innocent....because tribalism?

If there were anything to investigate then that would be one thing, but without so much as a credible accusation, there's just nothing to base an investigation on.

 

[Educational Post]
Kavanaugh has done absolutely nothing wrong and absolutely nothing to suggest that he is not trustworthy. A left wing activist lied about a possible event from over 3 decades ago. An event that she can't name any details of -- whether it was time, place, date -- even YEAR. Democrats knew about this since July and sat on it until such point that they thought would maximize the damage. This was a political stunt and a pack of lies. Brett Kavanaugh's reputation has been unjustly smeared and he should sue the dirty hair off of Christine Blasey Ford's ugly legs.

GOOD DAY

 

Interesting that Hatch would call Cavanagh who has been shown to have lied repeatedly under oath straightforward and trustworthy.

 

[Real Post and Not TJ Drivel]
I find it disgusting and disturbing that the right on this BBS all attack the victim and try to discredit her in order to defend their political team. You folks have no ethics or character - it's really a sad sad low.

Her accusations are credible. The therapist notes, the lie detector, and the fact that she has name Judge as a witness is huge - if she was lying why would she name someone who obviously will contradict her story?

Instead of tarring her as a liar, why not investigate her claims? Why not have law enforcement interview people and share their results of an investigation?

You know why? Because that might derail a conservative supreme court. So instead of seeking justice, you just want to win politically.

GOOD DAY

 

The FBI background check given the new allegations is a totally fair request by the democrats and shouldn't take too long if there is nothing to it and if they are asked to do it quickly by POTUS. Republicans denying it are being shady imho. I guess in the end this will be decided by the popular opinion. I'm pretty sure democrats will come out ahead for it in the polls in November, as women will feel even more slighted than before that Republicans barely appeared to give a f*ck about the #metoo stuff in the vetting of Kavanaugh who is as shady as they come (he is basically the deep state that Trumpers are supposedly so upset about).

And for those of you questioning someone choosing not to appear on national TV to bring forward an old grudge that they thought might be of benefit for the American people, but they wanted to originally bring forward ANONYMOUSLY, so as not to append their well off PRIVATE life, I don't know what to tell ya. Do you not see that someone trying to go against a deep state is not comfortable at doing so without some semblance of investigation? Can you not put yourself in her shoes at all? Would you go on national TV, to be hated by many many crazed up millions of partisans, if someone tried to, say, MUG you 36 years ago and now is a SCOTUS nominee? Why does everything have to be a freaking conspiracy with you? Because known purveyors of alternative facts (trolls) on here are prone to ignore all factual arguments against them and force appearances that their speculation is the reality of things?

I digress. I think Ford has some leverage to get a few concessions in exchange for a public hearing. This is a good risk for democrats.

 

If you aren't willing to testify, keep baseless accusations to yourself. I'm sure Democrats will try to use this in the midterms since that was the whole point to begin with, but if she passes up her chance to tell her story, you really can't blame anyone for just moving on with the process. Without any actual evidence of wrongdoing, there's no reason to assume that someone is guilty of anything.

 

How many times are you going to repeat your point (that doesn't address my point at all btw)?

 

Does the FBI usually investigate 30+ year old sexual assault cases in which the victim can't remember the basic crucial details and the only alleged witness has come forward, denied it happened, and refuses to comment further on it?

If the answer is yes, then proceed with an investigation. If no, then lets move on from this.

This is appearing to be more short sighted nonsense from the left. It bit them in the ass 2 years ago and it still hasnt helped them. Focus on electing competent leaders instead of trying to manipulate public opinion to get what they want. This is Trumpism full tilt.

 

Most of us are more than willing to let this play out. This could be the case that the #metoo movement needs. On the other hand I wouldn't condemn anyone for doubting her story at this point, mainly because of the recent timeline dictated by the dems.

 

You are repeating your point too without addressing mine at all. Can you read and reply to my post instead of parroting some non-evolving idea in your head?