Supreme Court Nominee

[MamaTiger]

He doesn't respect women's rights. Not raping most women, he has been around in the last 30 0r 40 years, is a low, low bar.

My point is, if he was the type to assault women, one would think there would be multiple allegations against him. Not just one claiming he did it 36 years ago. It's not a low bar, it is judging him as a rapist based on one person's memory. I am not saying something didn't happened to her that she perceived to be an assault, but it is unfair to assume that he is a monster based on her recollection that she never spoke of for 20+ years and when she did, she didn't even give his name.
As I said, if she would have reported it in the 80s, then absolutely it should be taken into consideration, but I was answering the original question as to should someone be judged by what they did 40 plus years ago and I said it depends. As someone who has male loved ones in my life, I think it is a dangerous precedent to ruin someone's career based on the claims of one person made well after the fact.

The question being answered has nothing to do with his record as a Judge. It has nothing to do with whether his respects women's right. It doesn't even have to do with whether I think he should be confirmed. It has to do with ruining a person based on an unsubstantiated claim of abuse from 30+ years ago from one person. If it happens once, it can happen again.

 

[mickey2942]

It looks like his friend, Mr. Judge, won't defend him. Or testify before the committee. That is interesting. It also seems like the accuser, has decided not to move forward with testimony.

If her story is true, and she testifies, and the committee moves forward with the nomination, it may damage her credibility, she is a professional. I think she has opened up the Pandora's box, it can't be "unopened". Not following through at this point...why did she bring it up at all?

 

[CoolJ]

My point is, if he was the type to assault women, one would think there would be multiple allegations against him. Not just one claiming he did it 36 years ago. It's not a low bar, it is judging him as a rapist based on one person's memory. I am not saying something didn't happened to her that she perceived to be an assault, but it is unfair to assume that he is a monster based on her recollection that she never spoke of for 20+ years and when she did, she didn't even give his name.
As I said, if she would have reported it in the 80s, then absolutely it should be taken into consideration, but I was answering the original question as to should someone be judged by what they did 40 plus years ago and I said it depends. As someone who has male loved ones in my life, I think it is a dangerous precedent to ruin someone's career based on the claims of one person made well after the fact.

The question being answered has nothing to do with his record as a Judge. It has nothing to do with whether his respects women's right. It doesn't even have to do with whether I think he should be confirmed. It has to do with ruining a person based on an unsubstantiated claim of abuse from 30+ years ago from one person. If it happens once, it can happen again.

You only have to rape one time and you are a rapist is my book.

However, I am a strong advocate for the wrongfully accused and accusations such as this need serious evidence backing it up.

We cannot let accusations of sexual assault become a weapon. The implications of that are extremely dangerous. Not to mention the damage it does to legitimate victims of sexual assault.

 

[MamaTiger]

You only have to rape one time and you are a rapist is my book.

However, I am a strong advocate for the wrongfully accused and accusations such as this need serious evidence backing it up.

We cannot let accusations of sexual assault become a weapon. The implications of that are extremely dangerous. Not to mention the damage it does to legitimate victims of sexual assault.

Oh! 100% agree with every sentence you wrote.
I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
The bolded part is was the point I apparently failed to get across.

(I know how hard it is come forward when assaulted, but we need to raise our children to ALWAYS take the steps needed to prosecute even if it ends with the person getting away with it. Action today, not tomorrow.)

 

[kimlynn]

It looks like his friend, Mr. Judge, won't defend him. Or testify before the committee. That is interesting. It also seems like the accuser, has decided not to move forward with testimony.

If her story is true, and she testifies, and the committee moves forward with the nomination, it may damage her credibility, she is a professional. I think she has opened up the Pandora's box, it can't be "unopened". Not following through at this point...why did she bring it up at all?

She brought it up because she felt it was her civic duty. I think she was/is willing to testify but would like an investigation beforehand by the FBI.
According to an article I read earlier...the Anita Hill FBI investigation took three days, so I don't see why it would be an issue to have that investigation.
Mr.Judge said he doesn't remember and doesn't wish to testify and so far hasn't been asked as far as I know.
I don't think her credibility will be questioned one way or the other. At this point (IMO) it is just going through the motions. Majority will rule. IMO

 

[kimlynn]

My point is, if he was the type to assault women, one would think there would be multiple allegations against him. Not just one claiming he did it 36 years ago. It's not a low bar, it is judging him as a rapist based on one person's memory. I am not saying something didn't happened to her that she perceived to be an assault, but it is unfair to assume that he is a monster based on her recollection that she never spoke of for 20+ years and when she did, she didn't even give his name.
As I said, if she would have reported it in the 80s, then absolutely it should be taken into consideration, but I was answering the original question as to should someone be judged by what they did 40 plus years ago and I said it depends. As someone who has male loved ones in my life, I think it is a dangerous precedent to ruin someone's career based on the claims of one person made well after the fact.

The question being answered has nothing to do with his record as a Judge. It has nothing to do with whether his respects women's right. It doesn't even have to do with whether I think he should be confirmed. It has to do with ruining a person based on an unsubstantiated claim of abuse from 30+ years ago from one person. If it happens once, it can happen again.

If she is telling the truth it isn't her perception of an assault it is an assault.
When grown women have issues coming forward it is expecting a lot from a 15 year old to be brave enough to confront a person that abused them.
I think she is telling the truth because I can't imagine any other reason to have to put herself through this very public display.IMO

 

[cherrymeg]

If she is telling the truth it isn't her perception of an assault it is an assault.
When grown women have issues coming forward it is expecting a lot from a 15 year old to be brave enough to confront a person that abused them.
I think she is telling the truth because I can't imagine any other reason to have to put herself through this very public display.IMO

Most people probably wouldn't come forward because of all the public scrutiny.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

This part is so ridiculous. I shouldn't be surprised they think a list of women saying "But he never attacked me" somehow proves something.

Right?! "But all the women he didn't allegedly assault!" If a lawyer trotted out that defense for an accused bank robber or pedophile, they'd get laughed off the state bar. It's a useless defense.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Most people probably wouldn't come forward because of all the public scrutiny.

Most people don't. No probably about it. Even fewer are actually prosecuted.

"Rape is the most under-reported crime; 63% of sexual assaults are not reported to police. Only 12% of child sexual abuse is reported to the authorities."

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Yes I count this among the other blemishes on his record. I don't the nomination should even be occurring to begin with under all the other circumstances. However, I think this should be the final nail in the coffin.

I think it proves something. It proves they had that letter ready to go because they knew this allegation was out there. 65 women signed this thing overnight? Right.

Then when contacted only 2 of them were still willing to support him after the allegation came out? That doesn't sound like terribly strong support to me.

You are very fortunate! I've seen many people who still had to fight for years to clear their name even with outrageous allegations.

I am also biased because I work with a defense attorney who defense primarily those falsely accused, primarily for free.

I would never judge whether the man is guilty or innocent. I simply believe that since he's already been proven to be a liar, he should not be holding the highest judicial position in our land. I felt that way before the allegation was made, it only strengthened my feeling.

I agree. Just wanna jump off your post to say something about "false allegations" and what that means.

An exception doesn't invalidate the rule. Most sexual assault allegations aren't "false."

Around 2-10 percent can be "unfounded" or "baseless" (which is not the same as false, btw). "Unfounded" doesn't mean untrue, though a percentage of the 2-10 percent might be.

That isn't an insignificant number, but it certainly doesn't negate the other 90-98 percent.

For example, unfounded cases include those that law enforcement believes do not meet the legal criteria for rape. It does not mean that some form of sexual assault may not have occurred, but only that from the legal perspective, in that jurisdiction, the case does not meet the legal criteria, or it is “baseless.”
​

 

[mickey2942]

#MEETOO will also include men who have been wrongly accused of sexual assault.

And, no, I am not commenting regarding this particular situation, but we have a Supreme court justice right now, on the bench, who was also accused of sexual harassment.

 

[bluesneakers]

I'm with RBG:
When will there be enough women on the Court? When there are nine.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

My point is, if he was the type to assault women, one would think there would be multiple allegations against him. Not just one claiming he did it 36 years ago. It's not a low bar, it is judging him as a rapist based on one person's memory. I am not saying something didn't happened to her that she perceived to be an assault, but it is unfair to assume that he is a monster based on her recollection that she never spoke of for 20+ years and when she did, she didn't even give his name.
As I said, if she would have reported it in the 80s, then absolutely it should be taken into consideration, but I was answering the original question as to should someone be judged by what they did 40 plus years ago and I said it depends. As someone who has male loved ones in my life, I think it is a dangerous precedent to ruin someone's career based on the claims of one person made well after the fact.

The question being answered has nothing to do with his record as a Judge. It has nothing to do with whether his respects women's right. It doesn't even have to do with whether I think he should be confirmed. It has to do with ruining a person based on an unsubstantiated claim of abuse from 30+ years ago from one person. If it happens once, it can happen again.

I'm so tired of the old line of "we don't want to risk ruining his life" when women are potentially victimized in some way.

It's exasperating.

It deserves investigation. These are crimes (potentially felonious ones, at that) we're talking about, not shoplifting a grape at the grocery store. I do not understand the pervasive cognitive disconnect about this fact.

Of course he should be investigated. Of course it shouldn't ruin Kavanaugh's career if there isn't enough evidence to sway a no vote.

And it won't.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

#MEETOO will also include men who have been wrongly accused of sexual assault.

And, no, I am not commenting regarding this particular situation, but we have a Supreme court justice right now, on the bench, who was also accused of sexual harassment.

Wait, you're saying men are victims of the #metoo movement?

Please scroll up a teensy bit and check out the data I've linked to.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

#MEETOO will also include men who have been wrongly accused of sexual assault.

And, no, I am not commenting regarding this particular situation, but we have a Supreme court justice right now, on the bench, who was also accused of sexual harassment.

Yes, let's talk about Anita Hill for a moment.

The hearings were not to determine whether or not Clarence Thomas was guilty of sexual harassment. (And he wasn't accused of sexual assault, btw.)

Facts are especially important here, so thank you for this opportunity to clarify the record.

Hill passed a polygraph test. But that's irrelevant.

Her allegations in those Senate hearings were not determined to be false, because the intent of the hearings wasn't to determine guilt or non-guilt of harassment.

There was little question that he acted inappropriately. The behavior just didn't influence the decision to vote him onto the Supreme Court.

"In my opinion, based on my reading of the law, yes, it was [sexual harassment]. But later on, immediately following that response, I noted to the press that I did not raise a claim of sexual harassment in this complaint. It seems to me that the behavior has to be evaluated on its own with regard to the fitness of this individual to act as an Associate Justice. It seems to me that even if it does not rise to the level of sexual harassment, it is behavior that is unbefitting an individual who will be a member of the Court."

~ Anita Hill, excerpt from 1991 Senate hearing​

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

It looks like his friend, Mr. Judge, won't defend him. Or testify before the committee. That is interesting. It also seems like the accuser, has decided not to move forward with testimony.

If her story is true, and she testifies, and the committee moves forward with the nomination, it may damage her credibility, she is a professional. I think she has opened up the Pandora's box, it can't be "unopened". Not following through at this point...why did she bring it up at all?

bbm

Link, please? TIA

Judge said he doesn't want to testify publicly. He didn't flat-out refuse to testify. There's a difference.

The accuser is in hiding because of death threats. She also wants the FBI to investigate before she testifies. She didn't flat-out refuse to testify, either.

Please link to sources when alleging statements of fact, and label opinion as such.

While Dr. Ford’s life was being turned upside down, you and your staff scheduled a public hearing for her to testify at the same table as Judge Kavanaugh in front of two dozen U.S. Senators on national television to relive this traumatic and harrowing incident. The hearing was scheduled for six short days from today and would include interrogation by Senators who appear to have made up their minds that she is “mistaken” and “mixed up.” While no sexual assault survivor should be subjected to such an ordeal, Dr. Ford wants to cooperate with the Committee and with law enforcement officials.

~ A letter by Ford and her attorney to the judiciary committee chairman, dated yesterday​

bbm

 

[kimlynn]

#MEETOO will also include men who have been wrongly accused of sexual assault.

And, no, I am not commenting regarding this particular situation, but we have a Supreme court justice right now, on the bench, who was also accused of sexual harassment.

And if you had watched the hearings at that time you would wonder how that could be.
AH was treated horribly for coming forward. The only one that acted like she was a human being was Biden and even he had his moments.
More of the same if Ford testifies. Sadly not much has changed in how women are viewed. IMO

 

[bluesneakers]

Yes, let's talk about Anita Hill for a moment.

The hearings were not to determine whether or not Clarence Thomas was guilty of sexual harassment. (And he wasn't accused of sexual assault, btw.)

Facts are especially important here, so thank you for this opportunity to clarify the record.

Hill passed a polygraph test. But that's irrelevant.

Her allegations in those Senate hearings were not determined to be false, because the intent of the hearings wasn't to determine guilt or non-guilt of harassment.

There was little question that he acted inappropriately. The behavior just didn't influence the decision to vote him onto the Supreme Court.

"In my opinion, based on my reading of the law, yes, it was [sexual harassment]. But later on, immediately following that response, I noted to the press that I did not raise a claim of sexual harassment in this complaint. It seems to me that the behavior has to be evaluated on its own with regard to the fitness of this individual to act as an Associate Justice. It seems to me that even if it does not rise to the level of sexual harassment, it is behavior that is unbefitting an individual who will be a member of the Court."

~ Anita Hill, excerpt from 1991 Senate hearing​

What Anita Hill went through should put to rest the sad line women do this to get famous or get attention, or to advance their careers. They come forward as victims who are putting their livelihoods (and sometimes lives!) at risk to help protect other women. To speak the truth. To hold men accountable. But they are called liars and treated like pariahs.

I seriously believe anyone who hints at a woman doing something like this for attention needs to take a trip back to 1991 to witness what she went through and see exactly how it affected her career and personal life.

She did the right thing, and what did she get for it?

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

And if you had watched the hearings at that time you would wonder how that could be.
AH was treated horribly for coming forward. The only one that acted like she was a human being was Biden and even he had his moments.
More of the same if Ford testifies. Sadly not much has changed in how women are viewed. IMO

I watched them, too. I remember. And yes, sadly, not much has changed in how women are viewed. It's depressing and infuriating.

 

[1&2&3]

I voted it depends. It depends on what happened. I am specifically thinking of the Martha Moxley case where one of the Kennedy cousins were involved in her murder but wasn’t arrested for years.

The times were different when this incident took place. What was a 15 year old girl doing at this party where drinking was heavily going on? Why can’t she remember how she got home? How did she get to the party? Was this the group of kids she normally hung around with? She apparently didn’t go with a boyfriend. Why did she go with Kavanaugh when he led her out of the main party room?

I’m sorry. I see too many areas for questionable guilt on her side. Me thinks she wanted to be in the “in crowd” with this handsome guy. She got his attention and her mind let go of her common senses! Had she been drinking?

Did he actually rape her? From what I’ve read, it doesn’t appear he did.

If not, then the experience in the bedroom scared her to death and that’s when she realized the mistakes she had made by following him.

This is my interruption of what happened. I may be 100% wrong! If this is the way it happened, why bring it up and what does she expect to gain? Anita Hill had lots of evidence, and it didn’t help her.