Foolishness since 2007

Foolishness since 2007
Foolishness since 2007

Saturday, September 29, 2018

Kavanaugh

Kavanaugh said it best - the advice and consent of the Senate has been turned into search and destroy.

The hearings had nothing to do with sexual assault. The core reason for being of the Democratic Party is to preserve the right to abortion. The Dems feel Kavanaugh threatens that "right" and they will destroy anyone they fear could take it away.

This stain is permanent, not just on the Dem's, the Senate, but the Constitution and the nation. It will not be washed away. 

Thoroughly despicable behavior. 

Edit : To vote against Judge Kavanaugh is to reject his certain, clear and unequivocal denial that this event ever happened. The logical implication of a “no” vote is that a man with a flawless record of public service lied not only to the public but to his wife, his children and his community.  As Sen. Lindsey Graham said: “If you vote ‘no,’ you are legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics.”

23 comments:

  1. If was nice to see some of the republicans on that committee grow a set of balls.
    However, the entire fiasco was appalling.
    We are now a country where one is presumed guilty until proven innocent , especially if you’re white

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hands, you left out one word in this last sentence "male" and the charge has ANYTHING to do with a female. So your last sentence should read:

      ......We are now a country where one is presumed guilty until proven innocent , especially if you’re white AND MALE.....

      Seemingly it does not make any difference what the charge is..... simple assault, sexual harassment, sexual assault, offensive touching, rape.......if you are male and the charge is leveled by a female --- you must be guilty presumably because women never lie.

      Worse, when the charge is proven false, there never seems to be any consequences for the woman involved....think Juanita Broderick or the Duke lacrosse team.

      Delete
    2. I think you are dead on Jim. This debacle has occupied more space in my mind than anything of recent memory. [Now, understand that it's not a big mind and my memory sucks] Anyway, if she was in some room, somewhere, sometime with two guys, what she describes sounds more like horseplay, grab ass to me than sexual assault. What make me think that is when the second guy jumped on the bed, she was thrown off and able to escape. Sounds just like two drunk guys engaged in boisterous but not criminal behavior. She has a an axe to grind and somehow was recruited to be the next Anita Hill. It's all drama to me to prevent a conservative from taking their, the Dems, seat on the court.

      Delete
    3. Whoops! I am getting my victims confused -- Jaunita Broderick was a woman allegedly raped by Bill Clinton when he was Governor of Arkansas. She was the one that he told "Better put some ice on that." Refering to her swollen lip. Bill later apologized to her after he was out of office as POTUS. She has written a book about the whole sorted tale.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Removed comment was a duplicate posting of the " Whoops! I am getting my victims...."

      Delete
  2. Weren't a pair of justices confirmed where one had no bench experience and the other let their "ethnicity/gender guide their decisions"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had to Google to make sure, but the only two in recent times that did not come from district courts were Elena Kagan and Sandra Day O'Connor. David Souter was very briefly on First Circuit. You are probably recalling the wise Latino remark.

      Delete
  3. Yes on Kagen and yes on the remark.
    As a fan of all things Abe Lincoln, I believe the constitution and what the framers of the greatest document of all time were intending. For example, the intent behind Right to Privacy is to protect against corrupt law enforcement and officials.
    The Abe comment goes his philosophy of believing that adhering to the Constitution is the president's guide to decision making.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This has been so, so very hard to watch. Whatever happened to Dr. Ford at some stage in her life should be dealt with somewhere other than a United States Senate hearing room! None of those Senators (Republican or Democrat) have any business investigating 36-year-old sexual assault allegations. Due Process matters. The rule of law, not mob rule, is how we govern. I say this as someone who was sexually assaulted over 15 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your thoughtful comment. You may have been the only one to think it should have been investigated before bringing it public. Due process, not mob rule has been our way, but I fear that may be over, if our law givers ignore it in order to keep control.

      I no nothing about Psychiatry, she is supposed to be an expert in the field. She was asked if she knew that a forensic interview is the the gold standard for uncovering the unremembered parts of an assault. She denied she was aware of it. What?? Would that have led to perjury? I am not a lawyer either.

      You have watched kids tell those sweet lies that will bring a smile to your face for their performance and ingenuity. Girls may be better at it than boys. I saw that on a few questions. She put on her pretty face, rocked side sideways in the chair, lowered her chin, cocked her head to the mike and spoke in a little girls voice. Not the behavior of a renowned speaker in her field.

      She could have come forward every time he was nominated for a position on the courts. She waited until it was 4th down and 15.

      I would have attached more gravity to her was she not a political activist.

      You are right it should have been vetted before the hearing. That's on the Dem's. I can only conclude there were so many holes, they could not risk a close look.

      Delete
  5. Oh where to begin…

    Overall, sadly Supreme Court nominations have become a sport measured as much by partisan philosophy as judicial merit.

    I find Dr. Ford way more credible than Judge Kavanaugh.
    He was avoiding answering questions, lost his cool and went on the attack.
    I am sure some people agree with that approach, I personally do not.

    To your “horseplay” comments.
    What she related did not sound like “horseplay” to me, but “assault”. Difference of opinion.

    I do not understand why an FBI investigation wasn’t approved by the committee sooner? Kavanaugh said he wanted it, but it was the Republicans and trump who were opposed to it. Get it started, get it done. Let it speak for itself.

    So why delay what was seemingly inevitable ? It won’t matter much in the end anyways, because it won’t really add much. It is a limited investigation and basically just an expanded background check under White House control.

    Graham was just political grandstanding. I find it hard to believe that this is the most despicable thing he has ever seen in his political time. Really?

    Kavanaugh comes off as a smug entitled ivy league jack.
    I think we can do better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Enzo, I will not try to answer your comments. The way I read your comments, the rule of law, the presumption of innocence and due process do not apply in this case. The women is to be believed with flimsy accusations and no corroborating evidence.

      Delete
    2. Bogey, I think you misread my comments entirely if that is your initial interpretation.

      Please reread my comments.

      If I find one person more credible than the other, that is simply my opinion and my right. You believe the other, your right. However, this is not a blanket statement by me of all men and women.

      As far as due process, I stand by my questioning in my original comment. Why wasn’t the FBI investigation approved by the committee sooner? All to of this is just political games on both sides.


      To the first response from the article below - “Democrats, it appears, will do almost anything to keep him off of the Supreme Court, despite his exceptional credentials.” Re-read my overall sentence in my original comment. This is something both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of.

      To the Ninth response - Again this sounds more like a political move than a personal decision on Dr Ford’s part or what am I missing in this?

      Again reread my original commentary.

      Delete
    3. I read it again and found nothing new. As to the investigation. He has already been investigated three times. The four people she named to corroborate her story have already denied any knowledge of it. One is her long time best friend. What else will another go around do? Will someone go back on a sworn statement? I see this as trail by ordeal. I see political activist taking down a man without any evidence, but a story that
      does not hold water. The prosecutor/questioner for the committee, put her own thoughts on paper listing the reasons she feels nothing happened.

      I saw a girl do this on a local level. A good man went to jail because the guy was not letting this underage girl do outside the church to sit with her 19 yo boy friend.

      I lost a job after being proposition and turning her down. I need a higher standard of evidence than vague memories.

      Delete
    4. Bogey what you are missing in my original comment is that nowhere did I make a blanket statement of which you think my opinion is based on. It is not. My opinion, yes my opinion, of the guy comes from his own lying under oath, skirting answers, and lacking the temperament to be on the Supreme Court.

      Again to my original opening comment, which I will repeat; the Supreme Court nominations have become a sport measured as much by partisan philosophy as judicial merit.

      I have never been one to support political parties without question regardless of the individual situations as so much of America currently seems to do and this current nomination process clearly seems to be an example of. So despite the obvious, that the SCOTUS nominee will mirror the Executive branch at the time, I still believe we can do better than Kavanaugh.

      Delete
    5. get that you think the Judge was lying. I strongly disagree. Her tale is so weak. I mean when your best friend denies any knowledge of the event, and no one else has any knowledge of it, that's telling to me.

      I agree that nominations are blood sport. In my time, it started with Judge Bork, then Justice Thomas and now Judge Kavanaugh. Funny they are all men that follow the rule of law in their decisions. I find that partisanship trumps merit for the Dem's. If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed it's game changer decades.

      We don't support political parties either. But since Clinton, the Dem's have offered ever increasingly unpalatable candidates. We have had no choice but to vote Rep.

      Delete
  6. WHAT IF DR. CHRISTINE FORD IS LYING?

    Much of America was mesmerized by Dr. Christine Ford's impassioned testimony before the Senate Judicial Committee. All of the Democrats on the Committee and most of the media accepted her words as gospel truth. As a result Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court was placed in jeopardy. But what if Dr. Ford concocted the story and none of it is true? Is there any reason to question her veracity? Certainly, there are many reasons.
    First, as a committed liberal Democratic operative, she does not want Judge Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. Democrats, it appears, will do almost anything to keep him off of the Supreme Court, despite his exceptional credentials.
    Second, her veracity is already in question. She said she feared flying, when in fact she flies regularly. She claimed to want anonymity, but before testifying she hired a noted lawyer and took a lie detector test, not the usual preparation for remaining anonymous.
    Third, her story of an event that ostensibly took place 36 years ago is so vague and imprecise that there is no way to prove or disprove it. She cannot remember who invited her, where it occurred, when it occurred, who drove her there or who drove her home. The people she claims were there have unanimously denied being at such a party.
    Fourth, the only thing she is certain about is that Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape her. Yet, they attended different high schools and operated in different social circles. How did she know him?
    Fifth, Kavanaugh kept meticulous records of his activities in the summer of 1982. The records show that he was in the Washington area only two week-ends that summer and his records account for those two week- ends. Thus, he was not there.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Continued from above

    Sixth, Dr. Ford claims she escaped from the two boys in the bedroom. How does a frightened 15 year-old girl escape from two older boys who are determined to rape her? Kavanaugh, bigger and athletic, should have been able to subdue her easily. And why didn't the boys break into the bathroom and take her? If they were determined to rape someone, why didn't they rape her friend downstairs?
    Seventh, Dr. Ford's best friend was downstairs. Yet, she never went upstairs to assist Dr. Ford, despite all the noise and commotion. Apparently, when Dr. Ford left the house her best friend remained in the house with four drunken boys.
    Eighth, Dr. Ford claims that she did not contact the police, nor tell her friends or parents about this traumatic experience. In fact, she told no one until 2012 when she related the incident to a therapist. Even then she did not mention Kavanaugh by name.
    Ninth, Dr. Ford's letter got to Sen. Dianne Feinstein in late July, but she did not act upon it for months. It was not until the very last minute--after the judge had met with individual senators and testified for more than 30 hours before the Judicial Committee, just before the vote to confirm him--that she acted. One could easily conclude that the senior senator from California realized that Dr. Ford's account could not withstand careful scrutiny. The senator could have discussed the matter in a private meeting with Kavanaugh, thereby maintaining Dr. Ford's anonymity, but she chose not to do so. Only when all other efforts to tarnish Kavanaugh had failed did she come forward. It smacks of desperation.
    Tenth, Dr. Ford's description of Kavanaugh is at variance with the signed reports of countless women who have know him for years in high school, college, the Bush Administration, and the courts.
    In the American judicial system, the individual has always had the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Dr. Ford presented no evidence whatsoever to support her emotional account. Without evidence, her story should not be taken seriously. If her unsubstantiated charges defeat Kavanaugh, then no man, regardless of his reputation or behavior, will be safe from sexual accusations by a female. That is what is at stake before the United States Senate.
    James Cook , Professor Emeritus
    Georgia Highlands College

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have no doubt that Kavenaugh lied during the hearing. He clearly stated he had no ties to Yale. Does anyone believe "Renate Alumni" was a sign of infection, ralphing was not alcohol related, or his definitions of "boofing "and "devil's triangle" are true. If he is going to lie about these things, I cannot trust him on other topics. The bar for the Supreme Court should be much higher.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EL, seems you are predisposed to believe a flimsy story. I would sure be screwed if you were on my jury. No ties to Yale? He did undergrad and law there.

      Delete
    2. What EL is referring to is Kavanaugh’s claim that he had ‘no connections’ to Yale to aid in his admittance, arguing that hard work and ambition were the sole factors leading him to study at the prestigious institution of higher education. He was in fact a legacy student. His grandfather attended Yale.

      Delete
  9. Thank you for supplying the extra detail, Enzo.
    EL

    ReplyDelete

Comments are closed on this blog

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.