The Worst Defenses for Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Ford

If you want to show your support for the accused or the accuser, stay away from these.

Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom

The fight to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh turned into bloody political theater after research psychologist Christine Blasey Ford accused him of holding her down and forcefully groping her at a high school party in the 1980s. Since then, other women have come forward to accuse the judge of past misconduct.

I won't speculate here about what did or did not happen. But while information is still coming out, we can be responsible in the way that we react to the situation. Here are some of the most nakedly partisan, disingenuous, or completely useless reactions to the confirmation process:

'Lying skanks'

Fox News contributor Kevin Jackson chose to stand with Kavanaugh by issuing a fiery rebuke to feminism and Kavanaugh's accusers. This took the form of an impassioned Twitter rant:

I disagree. Feminists are their own worst enemies, and enemy of women.

Also, they want men to NEVER be believed. I'm not succumbing.

TO HELL with the notion that women must be believed no matter what. Lying skanks is what these 3 women are, and we ALL know more#TeamKJ https://t.co/qGVJLTv6QI

— Kevin Jackson (@KevinJacksonTBS) September 27, 2018

Fox has reportedly fired Jackson following the rant.

It doesn't help anyone to accuse women of lying about sexual assault without explaining why you doubt them, and claiming that women who accuse men of sexual assault are just "skanks" contributes to an environment where victims decide not to report violence out of fear of retaliation.

'Believe the victims'

Automatically believing women doesn't make any more sense than automatically refusing to believe them. As Reason's Robby Soave has observed, Ford's accusations have only refueled the mantra "believe the victims." Mistakes happen; false accusations happen. If you weigh the evidence and conclude that neither has happened in this case, that's fine. If you just leap to assuming they didn't happen, that's a problem. False accusations have stained the history of the American justice system, particularly in the case of white extrajudicial violence against black men. An untold number of black men have been convicted or even lynched after being falsely accused of sexual assault and misconduct.

Needless to say, my point isn't that Kavanaugh is the victim of a modern-day lynching. It's that it makes as little sense to assume someone must be guilty as to assume they must be innocent. Belief should never be automatic.

'Tell me what boy hasn't done this in high school'

On a CNN panel, a Republican woman said, "We're talking about a 15-year-old girl, which I respect. I'm a woman, I respect. But we're talking about a 17-year-old boy, in high school, testosterone running high. Tell me what boy hasn't done this in high school. Please, I would like to know."

This woman—and the others who have made arguments like that over the last couple of weeks—seem to be arguing that every high school boy has gotten drunk, pushed a teen girl into a bedroom, and forcefully groped her while keeping his hand over her mouth to prevent her from screaming. It's one thing to doubt that this happened; it's another to say that even if it happened it wasn't a big deal.

A man can't be a predator if he is supported by women

Kavanaugh was joined by his wife, former presidential aide Ashley Estes Kavanaugh, for a Fox News interview this week. There, she spoke to the character of the man she married.

The Kavanaughs are not the first to use this stand-by-your-man strategy. While several congratulated Kavanaugh's wife for her outspoken support, others believed she was being used as a prop, especially in moments when her husband appeared to cut her off.

She made a point to say that "this is not at all characteristic. It's really hard to believe. He's decent. He's kind. He's good. I know his heart. This is not consistent with Brett." And as his spouse, she's certainly in a position have insight into his character. But a wife's absolution of her husband's alleged crimes isn't exactly the final word. If it were, the same logic applies would apply to someone like Hillary Clinton, who also helped shield her husband from his accusers.

These defenses of Kavanaugh and Ford do not do justice to either. And they do more harm than good to sexual assault victims and the wrongly accused alike. At the end of the day, only actual evidence will either convict Kavanaugh or clear him.

Comments

[Ken Shultz]

How about, "All four of the people Ford stated were at the party swore under penalty of perjury that the party never happened"?

One of the worst ways to support Ford's version of the story is to continue to do so without even acknowledging that fact.

[Homple]

Forget it, Ken. It's Reason.

[Just Say'n]

Zuri could have just copied and pasted her publication's defenses of Ford for the "worst defenses". I have no idea why she made things harder for yourself

[Marcus Aurelius]

You know who else made things harder for yourself?

[Last of the Shitlords]

Everyone who takes Viagra?

[Tony]

What is more pathetic than supposedly independent-minded nonpartisan libertarians regurgitating Republican lies?

Just because a Republican says it doesn't mean it's true. Life lesson #1.

[Leo Kovalensky II]

Just because a Republican says it doesn't mean it's true. Life lesson #1.

Says one of the most partisan posters here...

Just because a Republican says it doesn't mean it's false. Life lesson #2.

[Tony]

Eh...

[esteve7]

Fuck off you evil unprincipled hack

[Doug Heffernan]

Aren't the declarations of the sort;

I have no recollection [of some event].

rather than;

[Some event] didn't happen.

Neither of the above assertions entails the other.

[Ken Shultz]

My understanding is that one of the four, the other woman Ford claims was at the party, went so far as to say, in her sworn statement, that she's never seen nor met Kavanaugh in person.

When one person says they don't remember any such party, that's one thing. If the four people Ford names as being at the party say, independently, that they have no recollection of being anywhere like that or anything like that ever happening, then what's the substantive difference between that and saying that it never happened?

Ford gave up their names so that they could corroborate her allegation. Their testinony (all four of them) contradicted it--under penalty of perjury--instead. That's the fact--whatever substantive difference you believer there is between me saying that I have no memory of having walked on the moon and saying that I've never been to the moon notwithstanding.

[Doug Heffernan]

Judge and others have agreed to further FBI interviews. This will allow the prior assertions to be clarified, because the investigators will ask a series of questions.

Today, Ross Douthat ("Only the Truth Can Save Us Now") suggested some areas of inquiry that seem reasonable to me.

Perhaps further interviews will provide no more information than the parties' prior declarations. But even if so, at least by then, it won't be just the affidavits. By then there will have been something like a cross-examination of the assertions made in the declarations.

So, by then, everyone should be super happy, right?

[Ken Shultz]

There is no need for any further investigations. For one, the accuser's own witnesses have already dismissed Ford's story out of hand.

The other reason there is no need for an investigation is because disqualifying people from public office because of something they did when they were minors is ludicrous.

I've been asking this from a lot of people lately, and I still haven't seen a satisfactory response: Why should what any minor does today disqualify them from consideration for public office 35 years from now?

If you can't come up with a reasonable response to that question, then there is no reason for further investigation.

[ipsquire]

How about when one of the mouths you're shoving those words into says they're not, in fact, hers?

[Ken Shultz]

Am I misunderstanding? Care to be specific?

"Why should what any minor does today disqualify them from consideration for public office 35 years from now?"

If you're suggesting that question is invalid for some reason, I'd like to know why. You certainly can't believe an investigation will uncover something from 35 years ago showing that Kavanaugh should be disqualified--without believing that something he did when he was a minor should disqualify him from public office.

[Ken Shultz]

"How about when one of the mouths you're shoving those words into says they're not, in fact, hers?"

Or maybe you're suggesting that Ford's witness didn't say what I said she said?

She said she doesn't remember ever meeting Kavanaugh. She also says she believes Ford. There's a contradiction in there somewhere, right--since Ford says the witness was there when Kavanaugh assaulted her, but the witness says that as far as she knows* she's never met him?

Yes, not remembering having met somebody after having been named as someone who was a witness would seem to negate Ford's testimony. Are you familiar with the term "confirmation bias"? It's when the only acceptable answer seems to be the one that says what you wanted it to say. In reality, of course, answers that negate your preferred answer are just as valid as those that confirm your bias.

No really!

Witness testimony saying that she never met Kavanaugh is just as valid as testimony saying, "yup, I was there that night and so was Kavanaugh".

*I guess that's important to some people for some unclear reason.

[Bill]

Having it in writing from the FBI (who said exactly what)
is better than your "It is my understanding" from above.

And I would trust the FBI more than most journalists to
at least report the whole of what was said.

I did not support the idea that the FBI needed to look
into this further, but now that they will be, we may get
a better idea of the truth and probably the flimsiness of
the allegations.

[Ken Shultz]

We're already talking about statements that were made under penalty of perjury and read into the congressional record, so we're talking about a federal perjury charge regardless. I don't know why something would be more credible when it's said to the FBI. I suspect there's an appeal to authority fallacy buried in there somewhere. The statement in question was even submitted to the senate committee by the witness' attorney.

Some people seem to just want to keep asking her the same questions until her answer changes. If the witness changed her story now--and said she suddenly remembers meeting Kavanaugh that night--would that make her testimony more credible or less so? This confirmation hearing has already turned into a witch hunt a la the McCarthy hearings (Are you now or have you ever been a communist [sexist]?), so I guess we might as well turn it into a fishing expedition, as well?

I don't think so.

If one of the four witnesses Ford had named had remembered something that was pertinent or relevant, I suppose that might justify further investigation. Two main things holding me back. 1) Questioning someone about what they don't know is absurd. 2) Disqualifying people from public office for what they did 35 years ago when they were minors is ludicrous.

[Ben of Houston]

It is possible that the FBI could cross-reference schedules and figure out that the claimed party could not have happened (ie: there was no day that all five people could have attended the same party). That's essentially all that they could do. In the very real likelihood that they don't have that ability (I was genuinely shocked that Kavanaugh still had his calendar. Who keeps unimportant records for that long?), what else is there to research?

The FBI cannot possibly prove Ford right. It is astronomically unlikely that they will be able to prove her wrong. What is the point of investigating?

[Curt2004]

"What is the point of investigating?"

How about your assumptions about what they can and cannot prove are meaningless and irrelevant?

[unreligious]

If someone is looking for an appointment to the Supreme Court and lies about what they did 35 years ago, then yes they should be disqualified. Not necessarily because of what they did but because they are lying about it. Although that too should come into play as it suggests their moral character. Kavanaugh repeatedly said that seniors were allowed to drink as they turned 18 during their senior year and therefore were eligible to drink. What he failed to mention was that Maryland raised their drinking age to 21 on July 1, 1982. Kavanaugh did not turn 18 until Feb. 12, 1983. So one you have a candidate for the Supreme Court who is lying about his underage drinking. And two you have someone who is supposed to apply the law blindly to all with out regard to their station in life. Yet he felt he was above the law. So please explain why you think someone who lies and cheats should be on the Supreme Court. I would also like to know your thoughts on why is it that conservatives are constantly demanding that minors involved in criminal matters be tried as adults and then turn around and say that Kavanaugh should not be held accountable for what he did as a minor.

[Ken Shultz]

"If someone is looking for an appointment to the Supreme Court and lies about what they did 35 years ago, then yes they should be disqualified."

So telling the truth about having sexually assaulted this woman 35 years ago would get him off the hook? Or, am I to understand that four affidavits given under oath, with an attorney's advice, and under the penalty of perjury--all four of which contradict Ford's testimony--somehow suggest that Kavanaugh might be lying?

"Kavanaugh repeatedly said that seniors were allowed to drink as they turned 18 during their senior year and therefore were eligible to drink. What he failed to mention was that Maryland raised their drinking age to 21 on July 1, 1982. Kavanaugh did not turn 18 until Feb. 12, 1983. So one you have a candidate for the Supreme Court who is lying about his underage drinking."

I grew up in Washington DC. The drinking age wasn't raised to 21 until after 1986, at least.

[Ken Shultz]

"I would also like to know your thoughts on why is it that conservatives are constantly demanding that minors involved in criminal matters be tried as adults and then turn around and say that Kavanaugh should not be held accountable for what he did as a minor."

I would like to know why some of my fellow libertarians--who are largely in favor of major sentencing reform--suddenly want to make someone ineligible for public office (despite never having been convicted of anything) because of an allegation that's been contradicted by four witnesses over something that, at worst, happened 35 years ago, when he was a minor.

[antiestablismentarianism]

"Why should what any minor does today disqualify them from consideration for public office 35 years from now?"

I don't think it necessarily does, but (and this is a big but) if he is guilty, lying about it under oath would disqualify him. I have strong reservations that he is not lying and his temperament is characteristic of someone being accused of a heinous crime he did not commit in a political effort to ruin his life and his career. I'd be furious!

[Ken Shultz]

So, what I should take from this is that 1) even if he's guilty of what he's accused of, it shouldn't make any difference, and 2) that lying today is worse than sexually assaulting someone 35 years ago?

The simplest explanation, reading this thread, is that some people want Kavanaugh investigated and rejected for reasons that don't have much to do with what he did or didn't do--and a whole lot to do with other reasons. Maybe they don't like Trump; maybe they despise his supporters; maybe they don't like Republicans; etc.

What I'm reading here and elsewhere certainly doesn't support the suggestion that they object to Kavanaugh's nomination for philosophical reasons or because of what he did when he was in high school.

That's definitely part of the reason I'm supporting his confirmation. I'd object to Kavanaugh on Fourth Amendment grounds, but the horseshit being served up to reject his confirmation is so deep and foul, supporting his nomination is the only choice if you want to stand up against that. Civil society shouldn't screech to a halt for an uncorroborated allegation from decades ago, and seeing that happen is nauseating. Maybe it's still possible for honest people to disagree about whether Kavanaugh should be confirmed--but people should be forgiven for not knowing that after reading this thread.

Reason seems to be disproportionately stacked on only one side of this argument. The other side seems to be about people who think reason is passe.

[Cynical Asshole]

To be fair, I'm pretty sure the other four people stated they didn't remember the party. That's not the same thing as saying unequivocally that it didn't happen.

Which brings the whole fiasco back to "he said, she said" territory, and which person one believes is tied closely to partisanship. This whole thing is just a giant shit show and a complete waste of time absent some shred of actual evidence.

[John]

Them not remembering is the same thign as saying it didn't happen since she claims they were involved. No one forgets assaulting a woman.

[Ken Shultz]

The implication of saying something didn't happen is always that it might have happened to someone else or elsewhere. People can't testify to what they didn't experience. We're always talking about what we remember happening. Regardless, Ford's testimony was contradicted by the four people she said could corroborate her story. She's says those four people were there. If those four people say they have no memory of that happening or that it didn't happen, then why wouldn't that speak to the credibility of Ford's testimony?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How about, "All four of the people Ford stated were at the party swore under penalty of perjury that the party never happened"?

Did they say it never happened, or did they say that do not recall it?

The difference between providing a self-written, untested "declaration" and answering questions can be immense.

Other than that, though, great comment!

[KevinP]

All witnesses have been questioned under oath by Judiciary Committee investigators.

[Ken Shultz]

I'd only add, "under penalty of perjury".

[Ken Shultz]

"Did they say it never happened, or did they say that do not recall it?"

People seem to really believe there's a substantive difference between these two things. I'm yet to see it. Maybe you can explain it to me?

What's the substantive difference between me saying that I've never met Kavanaugh and me saying that I don't remember ever meeting Kavanaugh?

[Ecoli]

The second statement leaves you a little more wiggle room to recant when you have a recovered memory, "Oh yes, now I remember, it seems like only yesterday. Kavanaugh ravished her before my very eyes."

I wonder what the going price for recovered memories amounts to nowadays?

[sparkstable]

The first denies that Kavanaugh and the supposed witness met, thereby negating Ford's claim.

The second allows for Ford's claim to be true but that the person in question does not have any conscious knowledge of the event and can not make a claim to the truthfulness or lack-there-of of the claim.

If I don't see a person steal something does that statement preclude the possibility that they still did, in fact, steal it? No.

And for what it is worth, I generally side with the GOP position on this and do not think Kavanaugh did anything (but would prefer ACB instead of BK).

[Ken Shultz]

It was never alleged that she was there in the room during the assault.

She only needed to confirm seeing Kavanaugh and Ford at the same party sometime in the 1980s, and there is no substantive difference between saying you never did something to the best of your knowledge and saying that you never said something.

We are all limited by memory, the best of our knowledge, etc. Pointing that out before you say something doesn't add anything substantial.

A) This is the way I remember it . . .

B) This is what happened . . .

No substantive difference between them.

Nobody expected her to know what happened when she wasn't there. Ford said that she and Kavanaugh were there at the party. She said she never saw Kavanaugh at a party. That Kavanaugh could have assaulted her at some other party she didn't attend is an absurd and irrelevant observation.

[Ken Shultz]

"She said she never saw Kavanaugh at a party. That Kavanaugh could have assaulted her at some other party she didn't attend is an absurd and irrelevant observation."

Too many pronouns!

[The witness] said she never saw Kavanaugh at a party. That Kavanaugh could have assaulted [Ford] at some other party [the witness] didn't attend is an absurd and irrelevant observation".

Fixed!

[Bronze Khopesh]

Can we still use the "there's no evidence of any kind defense"?

[Mr. JD]

Truth is subjective, you bigot!

[Just Say'n]

This is the logic of the writers here:

"Title IX kangaroo courts are bad" and "Title IX kangaroo standards applied in the Senate are good".

"You have no right to a supreme court seat" can also be applied as "you have no right to attend the college of your choosing". So I'm really not getting the logic here.

[Square = Circle]

"You have no right to a supreme court seat" can also be applied as "you have no right to attend the college of your choosing".

Not the same thing, really.

[Just Say'n]

How so?

You have no right to either.

[Just Say'n]

In both cases the government is trying you, no?

The only difference seems to be that a Supreme Court nominee has considerably more prestige and means than some college student. But, taking those factors into account would be to suggest that government's burdens of proof should change based upon the background and status of the accused, no?

[Square = Circle]

You have no right to either.

You absolutely have the right to attend the college of your choice if they will have you. You do not have a right to be in the SCOTUS.

We don't have a rule that says "you may suspect a nominee is a criminal, but if you can't prove it beyond any reasonable doubt then you must confirm the nominee."

[Just Say'n]

"You absolutely have the right to attend the college of your choice if they will have you"

If they kick you out based upon a kangaroo trial than what makes you think they want you? And where does that "right" come from?

"Reasonable doubt"? We're not even in "the preponderance of the evidence"

[Square = Circle]

If they kick you out based upon a kangaroo trial than what makes you think they want you?

That would be them deciding they don't want you. But most around here (including all of the writers) agree that as public universities, they actually don't have the right to kick you out over a "kangeroo trial."

SCOTUS is not a public university. If you suspect someone has character failings, opposing their nomination to the SCOTUS is perfectly within bounds. The standard is not "well, I can't absolutely prove it, therefore I guess I have to appoint this person to the highest court in the land, because Public Accommodation."

[Just Say'n]

I never said "absolutely prove it". Once again, we haven't even reached "the preponderance of the evidence" phase yet.

And it's not just "public" universities that they have written about Title IX abuses. This includes all private universities, too. And the logic holds that since they accept federal dollars they must afford them some degree of due process.

I'm not actually arguing that they're exactly the same, but it would seem that if you want to be intellectually consistent you can't say that some level of evidence must be presented at collegiate Title IX cases, but that none needs to be provided in a Senate confirmation.

[Square = Circle]

And the logic holds that since they accept federal dollars they must afford them some degree of due process.

Yes.

The Supreme Court is fundamentally different. By the same token that there was nothing wrong with the Republicans simply deciding not to vote on Garland, there is nothing wrong with voting not to confirm Kavanaugh because you harbor some vague, even unverifiable, doubts about him.

Because you don't owe them seats on the Supreme Court.

If you have accepted a college student, the student has paid their tuition and has abided by all of the rules the student has been presented with, then the college doesn't have the right to simply kick them out for no reason, especially if they are taking public funding (but arguably not at all, since admission to the school could be considered a form of contract).

The Senate has an absolute right to confirm or not confirm a candidate to the Supreme Court for any reason or for no reason at all.

I'm not saying I approve of the way Kavanaugh is being treated, but to apply a criminal law standard to a Supreme Court confirmation doesn't pass the sniff test.

[Just Say'n]

I don't think you're reading my responses or I'm not making myself clear

[Square = Circle]

I don't think you're reading my responses or I'm not making myself clear

It sounds like you're saying Reason is being hypocritical on this because they don't think colleges that receive public funding should be able to expel students on a preponderance of the evidence standard while at the same time they don't apply an "innocent until proven guilty standard" to a nominee to the Supreme Court, because the standard for expelling college students and confirming Supreme Court nominees should be the same.

Did I misunderstand something?

[Just Say'n]

No. Try reading what I wrote in my last response rather than guessing

[damikesc]

The Dems whine about Garland but seem unconcerned about Estrada. Wonder why.

[Cy]

'Believe the victims'

Ummm.... That's why this is so absurd. Apparently the new statute of limitations on groping is over 35 years now.

[damikesc]

Believing the Victims led to Emmett Till's death and lynchings.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Apparently the new statute of limitations on groping is over 35 years now.

What is the statute of limitation on a birth certificate, or for Bill Cosby, you half-educated, bigoted rube?

[Last of the Shitlords]

*Yawn*

Silly bitch.

[Ecoli]

I agree. I believe the one being victimized in this witch hunt. Kavanaugh gave a powerful and persuasive expose of the sleazy tactics used by the Democratics in their vicious pursuit of political power.

I know it is naive to say they ought to have some sense of shame. Decent people do have a sense of shame and empathy for others. Sociopaths, psychopaths, and Democrats have no such obstacle to contend with.

[Curt2004]

The statute of limitations is irrelevant. This is not a trial it's a character evaluation for a lifetime appointment to the highest court.

[Vernon Depner]

"It's one thing to doubt that this happened; it's another to say that even if it happened it wasn't a big deal."

And it's yet another thing to say that if it did happen and was a big deal at the time, it should still be a big enough deal after 36 years to warrant ejecting a man from polite society and destroying his career, even if his behavior has been exemplary ever since.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

destroying his career

Worst case, if Kavanaugh is rejected for SCOTUS, he goes back to being an appellate court judge. I'm not sure if I would regard that as "career-destroying".

[Vernon Depner]

Not if the mob attacking him got their way.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

The current vote is not about throwing Kavanaugh off the bench entirely.

[The Last American Hero]

No, but you can't have a serial rapist and gang banger on the bench, and that is what he is. Or don't you "believe her?" You can't have it both ways.

Not to mention the damage inflicted on his wife and children over this nonsense.

[MatthewSlyfield]

Doesn't meany that they won't try to throw him off the bench entirely if the Democrats take control of the House in November.

[handsoffmypineapples]

They won't though. If Kavanaugh's nomination to SCOTUS is derailed, you'll never hear anything about any of these women ever again...

[Vernon Depner]

Everyone knows that. I'm talking about the larger issue here.

[Naaman Brown]

It's an excuse to keep him off the Supreme Court, not because they believe he did it, but because they don't like his positions and will use anything to block him. If they believed he was a serial gang rapist who used alcohol & other drugs to render women helpless, would they be willing to leave him on the district court? Ha! (if they dropt the argument after blocking him from SCOTUS, that would be telling.)

Brett Kavanaugh supports the Heller 2008 decision that says the Second Amendment supports the right of individuals to keep and bear arms for all traditional lawful purposes, that the arms protected are those that are in common use, and the D.C. bans on handguns and on having a working firearm in the home for self defense was unconstitutional.

Former justice John Paul Stevens believes 2A should be amended to read "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed." [His addition in bold] He believes the government should be empowered to suppress individual possession and use of arms and would reinstate the D.C. bans on handguns and re-criminalize having a working firearm in the home for self-defense.

Stevens does not oppose Kavanaugh because something he allegedly did in 1982 reflects on his character. He opposes Kavanaugh for his answer to Sen. Diane "Mr and Mrs America, turn'em all in" Feinstein on gun bans.

[MatthewSlyfield]

That's assuming the Democrats don't try to impeach him over this even if his nomination is rejected.

[The Last American Hero]

If they don't, then Team Red should be screaming from the rooftops that these hypocrites are allowing someone they believe to be a serial rapist to sit on the appellate bench.

[Just Say'n]

Being labeled a rapist for the rest of your life is a pretty big kick in the gut

[Vernon Depner]

Being denied a seat on the Supreme Court you otherwise could have had is a pretty big blow to a career.

[Square = Circle]

Being denied a seat on the Supreme Court you otherwise could have had is a pretty big blow to a career.

But, in fairness, that happens to quite a number of people every single time a vacant SCOTUS seat is filled.

When you play the Game of Thrones . . .

[Vernon Depner]

It doesn't routinely happen in this way, though.

[Square = Circle]

No, and like I said in the other thread, it's the fact that in the current environment this rises to the level of an absolute judgement against Kavanaugh's character that makes this such an ugly issue.

We should demand spotless character of SCOTUS nominees. The bar should not be as low as the standard we use to decide whether or not to lock someone up.

IOW, "we don't have enough evidence to lock you up" should not be the standard for a SCOTUS nominee.

But, as I said in the other thread, the consequences for Kavanaugh won't be "he wasn't found Holy enough to be on the SCOTUS," he will become the proverbial gang-rapist that the Republicans tried to get on the Court. There will be jokes on sitcoms like "yeah, that guy raped a few women, but he's no Brett Kavanaugh!"

I think that's where people get the sense that an "innocent until proven guilty" standard should apply, but it shouldn't be the assumed standard for getting appointed to the Court.

[Vernon Depner]

We should demand spotless character of SCOTUS nominees.

Spotless ADULT character, perhaps. Spotless childhoods, no.

[Square = Circle]

Spotless ADULT character, perhaps. Spotless childhoods, no.

Again, I agree that Kavanaugh is not being treated fairly when you consider what is going to happen to him and his family due to this accusation.

I'm also disagreeing with the right-wing talking point that "innocent until proven guilty" is an appropriate standard to apply to the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee.

[John]

"innocent until proven guilty" is a legalistic term. The proper term for this context is benefit of the doubt. There is nothing wrong with giving him the benefit of the doubt here. You should not just end someone's career based on an allegaton this far removed in time and with so little evidence supporting it.

[Square = Circle]

You should not just end someone's career based on an allegaton this far removed in time and with so little evidence supporting it.

And this is the essence of what I'm saying: that what poisons the whole situation is the atmosphere of hysteria that makes it so that it's not merely a question of whether Kavanaugh is of high enough quality of character to sit on the Supreme Court, which should resoundingly not be a "benefit of the doubt" situation. What it is instead is that he will either be confirmed (and probably still be seen as a rapist by Team Blue partisans), or his career will likely be totally destroyed and the rest of his life he will be hounded by this. His children will forever hear their father described as that guy everybody knows is a rapist.

But honestly, Kavanaugh's tone that he does have a right to the benefit of the doubt on account of his being one of the Good People makes me think considerably less of him.

[John]

That is why I think they will end up confirming him. If Kavanaugh were some guy from Mississipi who went to Vanderbilt, the Republicans would have already forced him to withdraw. What has saved him is that he is a Yalie former Bush official who came from a known family. Being slandered as a rapist is something that happens deplorables not someone who went to Georgetown Prep and Yale.

And that part of this whole thing bugs me as well. I would like to think that the GOP establishment has finally grown a spine. But, I don't fully believe that. This is as much about class and the Democrats finally turning on a member of polite society rather than some deplorable than the GOP establishment actually giving a shit about defending an innocent man's reputation.

[Square = Circle]

I think you're probably right.

[Curt2004]

"I would like to think that the GOP establishment has finally grown a spine."

Have you been under a rock since Trump got elected? All GOP spines are now gelatinous unless you're on your way out the door anyways.

[ipsquire]

He's qualified to do the job, he's not qualified to wield the power.

[Square = Circle]

Well put.

[Vernon Depner]

I'm also disagreeing with the right-wing talking point that "innocent until proven guilty" is an appropriate standard to apply to the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee.

If we were looking at good evidence of a pattern of behavior, I would agree. When there's nothing but an unsubstantiable allegation of a single incident, I'd say "innocent until proven guilty" is an appropriate standard.

[Square = Circle]

When there's nothing but an unsubstantiable allegation of a single incident, I'd say "innocent until proven guilty" is an appropriate standard.

I don't disagree, and I don't personally think the allegation is particularly credible. But I think the argument should be made on those terms, not outrage that "this is not what we would do in a criminal proceeding," because that's not the standard we should be using. It's a straw man that isn't persuading anyone who's not already convinced.

[sparkstable]

It's not that the standard as used in a criminal case is what is needed here. The argument is about the underlying principle that should be universally applied in all social interactions for us to have a just society. Justice and injustice can occur outside the legal realms of a court.

If he is not confirmed it will be because he has been labeled a racist by influential and powerful people whose statements and actions will (knowingly) influence the thinking and behavior of many people. This will have a severe negative impact on Kavanaughs life. Given the lack of evidence (as well as evidence in his favor)... to do this to someone who all decent standards of fairness would leave you to believe is innocent would be an injustice despite not being done in court.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

The argument is about the underlying principle that should be universally applied in all social interactions for us to have a just society.

There is no such universal standard, nor should there be.

Trying to apply some universal standard upon every situation is a cure worse than the disease.

Libertarianism is all about avoiding such utopian nonsense of having a "just society".

[Hank Ferrous]

You keep saying this, and you've got it twisted. It's a simple universal within Western culture, much like when Americans refer to 1A or free speech when they are actually thinking about the universal, freedom of expression. As such it makes perfect sense to apply it, doubly so for a scotus nominee.

[Naaman Brown]

If the Democrats want to continue to use "Game of Thrones" as a playbook, so be it.

A person I follow posted a letter 2 Oct 2018 on Facebook addressed to Feinstein, Booker, and others. He blames the circus atmosphere on the Democrats. He was an independent voter for decades: he voted for candidates not for any particular party. As a protest against the way he saw the Kavanaugh hearing conducted, he plans to vote against Democrat candidates this election. He won't necessarily be voting for Republicans. But he won't vote for a single Democrat this year.

[Naaman Brown]

If the Democrats want to continue to use "Game of Thrones" as a playbook, so be it.

A person I follow posted a letter 2 Oct 2018 on Facebook addressed to Feinstein, Booker, and others. He blames the circus atmosphere on the Democrats. He was an independent voter for decades: he voted for candidates not for any particular party. As a protest against the way he saw the Kavanaugh hearing conducted, he plans to vote against Democrat candidates this election. He won't necessarily be voting for Republicans. But he won't vote for a single Democrat this year.

[Cy]

'Believe the victims'

I do. I believe Kav 100%.

[General_Tso]

^Hear him, hear him!^

[ipsquire]

You believe ralphing clubs were about spaghetti and ouchy tummies in 1982 HS world?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A few tears from Kavanaugh and Cy becomes weepy, too. Maybe they could share a tissue.

Carry on, clingers.

[Trumptard]

How about:

"He seems like the type"

"Affluent, privileged white men have been doing this sort of thing for hundreds of years"

"She has nothing to gain by coming forward"

[Paloma]

She has lots to gain by coming forward. She becomes a progressive icon.

And Democrats have a lot to lose if he or any other Trump nominee fills that empty SCOTUS seat. They may be under handed guttersnipes but they're not stupid.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Democrats are underhanded guttersnipes.

Republicans are half-educated, backwaters-inhabiting, gullible, bigoted, superstitious yahoos.

Libertarians, of course, object to them in equal measure.

[Ecoli]

"She has nothing to gain by coming forward"

I read that her gofundme page already has over $700K in it. It will probably be north of a million soon. Not much for a blue blood east coast elite, but a million here and a million there and pretty soon you have a lot of money.

[retiredfire]

Her hero status, among the communist set, will be priceless.

[Trumptard]

How about:

"He seems like the type"

"Affluent, privileged white men have been doing this sort of thing for hundreds of years"

"She has nothing to gain by coming forward"

[Marcus Aurelius]

Zuri: "It doesn't help anyone to accuse women of lying about sexual assault without explaining why you doubt them"

It's been explained in depth for weeks. It may as well be Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct writing her own alibi. There's no evidence other than her word attached to no details other than his name and a sensation. For all we know she had a drug induced nightmare of a wet dream at home on a random Tuesday and suddenly recalled it in therapy convinced it was real.

The other accusations are forged out of as much uncontestable whole cloth with no details and no ability to provide exculpatory evidence.

[retiredfire]

The "lined up to rape a drugged girl" accusation sounds like one of those movies caricaturing randy high-school boys.
Which one is she remembering? Porky's?American Pie? One of the sequels?

[lap83]

"It's that it makes as little sense to assume someone must be guilty as to assume they must be innocent. Belief should never be automatic"

No, it actually makes perfect sense because we are humans and we jump to conclusions when someone is using the public sphere to level an accusation. That's why, if these events happened, they should have been settled in court in a relatively timely manner....not saved up for the court of Twitter decades later. And, btw, if you do choose the court of Twitter to bring you justice....don't be surprised if some people "rule against you" because you sound like a crazy person. Good lord.

[Brandybuck]

I can definitely understand why a womon would not come forward for thirty five years. It happens. But it's usually because of some much more recent event with someone else. Which is why #MeToo is called #MeToo!

What I can't buy is the absolute silence about any improprieties for either Kavanaugh or his gang raping prep school for all this time. That's not how it works. You don't have a pattern of misconduct without a pattern. Stuff may get covered up and white washed, but it's never this sparkly clean.

[Bronze Khopesh]

womon

Isn't that a Jamaican tranny?

[Square = Circle]

I can definitely understand why a womon would not come forward for thirty five years.

^ This. Especially in this case. Assuming Ford is telling the truth, there is still not enough substance to any of it to bring any sort of formal charges, and I could see being worried that coming out with it might actually expose her to some sort of defamation charge since she can't prove anything.

I find it quite plausible that she believes what she is saying (true or not), and was legitimately hesitant to come forward precisely because it can't ever really rise above the level of hearsay. Everything she has done is consistent with knowing her allegation is not iron-clad, but wanting it out there in case there are other stories that might form a pattern (which there don't seem to be).

Now, how she has been used by Democrats is another matter entirely.

[Just Say'n]

Reason practices a weird brand of libertarianism where you are assumed guilty unless you can prove otherwise.

Some might even say that's not libertarian at all, but alas an old man in a leather jacket says otherwise

[mad.casual]

Reason practices a weird brand of libertarianism where you are assumed guilty unless you can prove otherwise.

At a job interview.

[Just Say'n]

Interesting point, if a company refused a job to an applicant based upon allegations that are as thinly substantiated as this one, that company could face suit

[Juggernaut]

That's completely wrong.

[Just Say'n]

It is wrong, but it's still the law in many states

[Marcus Aurelius]

False. Can refuse employment for an awful lot of stuff, anything not covered under the 14th.

[Eddy]

You could try and frame it as racism!

[mad.casual]

It's the same Mott-and-Bailey game. When they want to violate the rules of due process and rake someone over the coals, it's a job interview. When they demand an answer from people without regard for their personal rights to impugn the candidate, it's a Senate hearing. When they want the FBI to go collect evidence, it's a criminal trial.

If you interviewed with an HR manager who repeatedly insisted that you request an FBI investigation into your accusers allegations, the HR manager would likely have been shitcanned on the spot.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Interesting point, if a company refused a job to an applicant based upon allegations that are as thinly substantiated as this one, that company could face suit

That is a spectacularly uninformed statement. Get an education, goober.

[Last of the Shitlords]

Silly faggot, you are the least educated person here. You are barely fit to empty our garbage, like you do for your conservative boss at your day job.

[Square = Circle]

Reason practices a weird brand of libertarianism where you are assumed guilty unless you can prove otherwise.

They do this all the time. Constantly. I can't think of another publication that is more opposed to individual rights.

[Just Say'n]

I'm still not understand the major difference between kangaroo courts on the collegiate level and kangaroo courts in the halls of the Senate.

Both are being conducted by government agents and both do not infringe on anyone's "rights".

Break down what the difference is exactly

[loveconstitution1789]

The Senate has a constitutional power to advise and consent on judicial nominations to the courts.

[Square = Circle]

Break down what the difference is exactly

See my response above. But do you really not see any differences between educational institutions that receive public money and the Supreme Court? Do you really think Public Accommodation laws should apply to the Supreme Court?

[Just Say'n]

Read my response above

[This Machine Chips Fascists]

"I can't think of another publication that is more opposed to individual rights."

Try the Federal Register.

[loveconstitution1789]

You're in luck, Reason is run by Anarchists trying to burn it all down to get Anarchy-land.

[Procyon Rotor]

Hey now! I'm an anarchist and proud of it, and I won't have you sullying our good name by lumping the woketarians in with us.

[mad.casual]

I LOLed at this.

[Just Say'n]

He doesn't actually know what "anarchist" means. For some reason he thinks that people here will take it as an insult

[MasterThief]

It depends, really. In my opinion, he's a conservative with libertarian leanings (I'd essentially claim that label as well). I'd agree that the "law and order" aspect of conservatism is what functionally could make libertarianism work. Of course, I think a lot of us here have some sympathy for anarchy (especially anarcho-capitalism) due to a hatred of government. He could also be referring to the more common usage of "anarchy" in modern times (anarcho-communism.) I think outright anarchy is bad for freedom of all but the strongest and anarcho-communism is ultimately just communism and therefore statist.
Probably giving too much thought on this. Personally, I think having a society that follows certain rules (law and order) is the more successful approach to Libertopia than slash and burn all ruling structures.

[JTP]

Anarchy != No Rules/Laws

[Hank Ferrous]

Ah, that's why Zuri's articles seem better suited to Buzzfeed...

[Mr. JD]

"Kavanaugh should still be rejected because he doesn't feel a woman's pain enough"

"Kavanaugh is guilty because sometimes women get assaulted"

"Kavanaugh is guilty because of his judicial record"

How do these not make the list?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Zuri is a bit prejudiced on one side of this issue...

[Naaman Brown]

Now it's Brett Cavanaugh must be punished because Connie Chung has written Christine Ford to commiserate with her.
"Well, let me say for the record that anybody who sexually harassed me is now dead." -- Connie Chung
Will there be an FBI investigation to see if she has an alibi for where she was when they died?

[MatthewSlyfield]

"If you weigh the evidence and conclude that neither has happened in this case"

There is no evidence to weigh, and they could let the FBI spend the next 10 years investigating this and there will still be no evidence.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Maybe they should call the TSA instead

[retiredfire]

they could let the FBI spend the next 10 years investigating this and there will still be no evidence
I disagree. An FBI agent, who conducted a real questioning of Ford could, easily, expose her story as being a load of shit.
The lawyer the Republicans brought in wasn't allowed to hone in, on television, but a private cross-examination on some of the discrepancies she exposed could prove very insightful.
Hell; she admitted to be willing to lie about her fear of flying, to gain the advantage of not having to travel to DC. Who's to say she isn't lying to gain the advantage of keeping a Trump nominee from the SC. She has been pictured at an anti-Trump rally and scrubbed her social media accounts to hide her activism.

[Chuckles the Snarky Piggy]

only actual evidence will either convict Kavanaugh or clear him

All that talk about not rushing to judge only to drop this turd at the end.

Ford says there were 3 of them in the room. All three witnesses have testified. The crime scene is not know and since no bodily fluids were exchanged, and 35 years have passed, there is nothing to recover there anyway. No photos of bruises or cuts. No torn clothing.

The FBI could collect stories, but it would all be hearsay.

Ford's story was clearly the most credible of the accusations.

There is no evidence. There never was any evidence. He is cleared. Get over it, geez.

[MatthewSlyfield]

There never will be any evidence.

[Chuckles the Snarky Piggy]

And, holy shit, what kind of twisted mind-fuck are you engaging in to suggest the need of evidence to be cleared. Logic dictates the proof of an accusation falls on the accuser.

Fucking media hacks. Trying to gaslight anyone with a shred of moral fiber who suggests that this is something no one should ever have given a shit about in the first place.

[Ellis Wyatt]

A man can't be a predator if he is supported by women

Did Hillary Support Bill?

1) Chris Wallace on Christine Blasey Ford Testimony: 'This Is a Disaster for Republicans'

2) Judge Nap: Prosecutor 'Hasn't Laid a Glove' on Ford, Is Actually Helping Her Credibility

[Chuckles the Snarky Piggy]

Oh, crap! I invoked his name.

[O Square]

(sneer)

[Last of the Shitlords]

Hillary isn't a real woman.

[A Thinking Mind]

It's a good thing we're waiting on the evidence to prove his innocence. We wouldn't want the assumption of innocence to become an underlying principle or anything.

[Chuckles the Snarky Piggy]

I wish you had posted this a few minutes before I posted that sputtering rant to myself. People might think I am a Hihn-bot.

Which is just what a Hihn-bot would say to throw people of the trail...

Damn it all!

[MatthewSlyfield]

You can't be a Hihn-bot, no odd use of all caps...

[This Machine Chips Fascists]

STEVE SMITH ALWAYS LET VICTIM SCREAM IN ALL CAPS. THAT HOW ROLL.

[sparkstable]

Or bad math about directions equaling numbers or some other bull crap.

And you didn't declare that you were triggered or attacked.

[Fist of Etiquette]

There sure seem to be more survivors out there than ladies who've never been sexually accosted. I have a difficult time believing that the world is full of mashers. The cynic in me believes some of these victim cards being pulled are not legitimate. No, I don't automatically believe the accusers. Far from it. Rapist is a term that can't be cavalierly tossed about.

It's also very possible that teenage Brett Kavanaugh pulled a one-off the night in question and assaulted teenage Christine Blasey. It's also possible he's been involved in multiple sexual improprieties and has gotten away with it. But there's zero proof so far and, as I state above, rapist is a label we shouldn't be entertaining without proof. You have to default to innocent.

[Brandybuck]

I definitely believe that nearly every woman has been at one time the victim of boorish behavior. But the idea that every woman has been groped by a man is too hard to swallow. I don't buy it.

[Chuckles the Snarky Piggy]

I have been groped by men twice and I am a dude. It is believable that women get groped. The question is, how do we as a society discourage the behavior without allowing it to become a witch hunt. The correct answer is: on a case by case basis, with procedural rules of evidence.

I don't have daughters, I have sons. I taught my sons to respect boundaries. If I had daughters, I would teach them to set boundaries. For young women, one boundary is to not be alone with young men.

[John]

You can't totally deter it. It is a fact of life. What you can do is tell women to understand that and don't put themselves into positions, like being drunk and alone at parties, where it can happen. The other thing you do is tell anyone who is the victim of the crime that if they do no report it proptly, they make impossible for the legal system or society to give them any justice against their accusor.

[loveconstitution1789]

There were all sorts of women that reported sex crimes in 1982-83-whenever.

I would have sympathy for her is she reported and the cops ignored her complaint because of the times. She could never say that she reported it because she never did before 2018.

[loveconstitution1789]

I would add that I dont even think sexual crime victims need to report to police. Report it to a health professional, social worker, counselor, school official, etc.

If its documented, it adds credibility to your claim.

[mad.casual]

Yeah, another huge hole, IMO, is that her parents couldn't offer much more than support for her coming forward.

There are plenty of situations where teachers, priests, police officers, relatives, etc. tell victims not to tell their parents or bad things would happen. Kavanaugh had no authority in this regard.

A huge number of stories about genuine abuse victims include corroborating testimony (albeit vague) about how happy, outgoing victim suddenly became sullen and despondent. You don't necessarily have to spill your guts to every single relative but the fact that her parents can't seem to recall a night when their daughter came home late with her clothes all torn up and that she spent the next week locked in her room or whatever, indicates to me (along with other parts of her testimony), that not even Ford thought at the time the incident was that traumatic.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Back in the day if some asshole pulled a stunt like the one Kavanaugh is accused of, he might get a visit from the young lady's older brother or some male friends and learn some behavior modification. Works pretty effectively in my experience. There isn't any situation that can't be made worse by the presence of cops. Or social workers. Or school officials. Or health professionals.

[Chuckles the Snarky Piggy]

I was living outside Providence in 1983 when the events that were fictionalized in the Jodie Foster movie The Accused came to light. New Bedford was referred to colloquially as 'the Portuguese gang-rape capital of the World' after that.

Gang-rape was very much in the national spotlight from March of 1983 to June of 1984. I am not sure how intelligent, sensitive women like Ford and Sputnik could watch the unfolding saga of Cheryl Araujo and think that not reporting such a thing was OK. I was a 13 year old boy, and I certainly understood what was wrong with it.

[Marcus Aurelius]

You can't tell women anything. That's mainsplaining and misogynistic.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Depending where the bar is (tee hee) on this, I can call myself a survivor. And enjoy all the special privileges like unassailable high ground that come with the title.

[loveconstitution1789]

These people throw out the terms rapist and pedophile way too much.

They have lost their sting now because when you accuse all men of being these two things, men stop listening to actual cases of sexual crimes.

Girls who cry wolf....

[Vernon Depner]

The term "pedophile" has been expanded to include not just men attracted to children, but also men who are attracted to physically mature minors. By that definition, pretty much all men ARE pedophiles.

[Rat on a train]

Don't forget attraction to young adults. Anyone viewing 18-26 porn should be jailed. They're only doing that because it's the closest they can legally get to child porn. It's like that financial transaction structuring crime.

[Procyon Mustelid]

Why do we have to default to innocent? I absolutely believe more of us men have "been involved in sexual improprieties and gotten away with it" than haven't and the world is full of mashers (odd word, that).

[Ship of Theseus]

The 3:1 ratio is a tell here.

You couldn't come up with 3 more obviously stupid defenses for team Ford? Ugh.

[Ship of Theseus]

Excuse me, 2 more.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Trumptard (if that is his real name) lists a few more in a comment above.

[Alcibiades]

The only crime Kavanaugh is guilty of is being a nerdy overachiever with a fondness for the occasional beer in high school.

[A Thinking Mind]

He may or may not have made some crude jokes involving either farting or anal sex. It's possible that he's lying out of embarrassment that he made some jokes about either anal sex or rectally consuming alcohol some 35 years ago.

[Alcibiades]

Thanks for those images...

[loveconstitution1789]

Here ye, here ye....United States vs. Rectum Drinking is now before the SCOTUS.

[Bronze Khopesh]

Google "Mexican Shake".

[loveconstitution1789]

No thank you 🙂

[Bronze Khopesh]

How come no one asked him if his wife likes it in the ass?

What are they trying to hide?

[loveconstitution1789]

She doesn't. She does not have long hair to pull.

[Leo Kovalensky II]

"What are they trying to hide?"

The sausage?

[A Thinking Mind]

How about, "I disbelieve all alleged victims until they can provide evidence of the individual merits of their allegations?"

[chipper me timbers]

"It doesn't help anyone to accuse women of lying about sexual assault without explaining why you doubt them, and claiming that women who accuse men of sexual assault are just "skanks" contributes to an environment where victims decide not to report violence out of fear of retaliation."

This isn't really just a random allegation in a vacuum. The reason it's easy to dismiss these is because they are so blatantly politically motivated, AND the evidence provided is nil. The timing, the accusers, the lack of evidence, and the naked partisanship are what make these allegations easy to dismiss.

He's not accusing all "women of lying about sexual assault", he's accusing THESE women of lying about sexual assault. There is context here.

[Number 2]

The "call them skanks" defense worked well enough for Bill Clinton, didn't it?

[swillfredo pareto]

If you want to show your support for the accused or the accuser, stay away from these.

What if I just want to support the idea of due process and the presumption of innocence? Is there anything I shouldn't say or is that not even worth discussing?

e.g. I hate Illinois Nazis but I support their human right to peacefully assemble at Marquette Park.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

You have to take a stand on his raping. You have to. You have to.

Either he's a violent gang-rapist, or he's never had an untoward encounter with a woman in his life, driven snow wishes it were Kavanaugh.

MAKE A CHOICE NOW!

[Incomprehensible Bitching]

This isn't about the Supreme Court. THIS IS ABOUT ALL WOMEN EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!

[chipper me timbers]

^^Fantastic handle

[Ellis Wyatt]

A man can't be a predator if he is supported by women

Did Hillary Support Bill?

1) Chris Wallace on Christine Blasey Ford Testimony: 'This Is a Disaster for Republicans'

2) Judge Nap: Prosecutor 'Hasn't Laid a Glove' on Ford, Is Actually Helping Her Credibility

[Ship of Theseus]

I wish ^this old fuck-head would just die already.

[Just Say'n]

You could have just copied and pasted your publication's defenses of Ford for the "worst defenses". I have no idea why you made things harder on yourself

[A Thinking Mind]

Her account is credible even though there's no way to independently verify it and all possible witnesses are denying the incident and/or any knowledge of it.

[John]

The "credible accusation" thing drives me nuts. An accusation is either true or it is false. Saying an accusation is "credible" means that it is worth looking into. Once you make a determination of the ikelyhood of its truth, the fact that it is "credible" no longer means anything. A credible allegation can also be completely untrue. So when some half wit claims "there is a credible allegation" like it means anything, they are effectively saying Kavanaugh should be treated like he is guilty regardless of the facts, because even if he were to prove his innocence, the allegeation would still be "credible".

[loveconstitution1789]

She has lied on other things and her claim is ridiculously old and far fetched.

Ford has 0% credibility.

[John]

Just when you though Suderman had set the bar for dumbest reason take about Kavanaugh, Zuri Davis steps in to clear it easily.

First, I don't recall anyone claiming that Kavanaugh must be innocent because he wife supports him. The claim is that his years as a faithful husband is evidence of his character that makes this accusation unlikely to be true.

Second, you do just automatically not believe some accusations. "Presumption of Innocence" is just a legalistic way of saying "benefit of the doubt". Surely, even the author of this idiotic collumn doens't think no one ever deserves the benefit of the doubt about any allegation. You give someone the benefit of the doubt when their known character and behavior contradicts the allegation sufficiently enough to outweaigh the credibility of that allegation. In this case, the allegation totally contradicts everything that is known about Kavanaugh's behavior and character, has no corroborating evidence, and is of an event that happened over 30 years ago and was reported to no one until 2012. Yeah, you give Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt here absent further proof.

[John]

Third, reason has rightly argued against the insanity of sex offender registries, idiot prosecutors ruining teenagers' lives over sexting, and other things that make our society so judgemental and unforgiving. The idea that a single incident that wasn't even important enought to be reported to adults or authorities that happened when Kavanaugh was 17 years old should outweigh 30+ years of ethical behavior and make him unfit for high office is counter to every principle of fairness and justice that reason claims to uphold.

[Vernon Depner]

Yes. Why is everyone so aghast at the suggestion that the accusation against Kavanaugh should not disqualify him from the Supreme Court even if it is true? Why is it off the table to suggest forgiveness for a one-time transgression that happened long ago when a man was very young? Isn't the reason for having a separate juvenile justice system that we recognize young people are still in growth and development and deserve second chances after even serious misdeeds? Yes, I know that concept has been eroded in recent decades and it has become more common for very young offenders to be tried as adults and treated very harshly, but, as John pointed out, Reason normally is opposed to that, as they should be. And with juvenile offenders, there is no subsequent record of good behavior to mitigate our judgement of them. Is it a good idea to make a spotless childhood and adolescence a requirement for respect and success as an adult? What message does that send to young people who have made mistakes and are trying to straighten out? That it's too late for them and they should give up?

[John]

It is a terrible idea to make having a spotless youth necessary for success as an adult. But, the writers at reason and indeed pretty much all of the media is so obsessed with virtue signaling their membership in the upper class and the revulsion agianst the evils of sexual assault and rape that are required for membership in the upper class, they are completely afraid of speaking the truths you mention.

[Vernon Depner]

In fairness to them, I would be reluctant to speak that truth under my real name. I still have to work for a living.

[John]

Then they should not claim to stand for anything.

[Procyon Mustelid]

Shitty adolescents sometimes mature into decent adults. Most don't, though, so... Yeah. It probably is too late for teenagers who fuck up, there's no way to tell in advance who the minority that are reformable all, so hang them all. There's 320,000,000 people in this country and the number keeps growing, we can afford to kill plenty.

[A Thinking Mind]

Let's take this situation and depoliticize this scenario real quick.

Imagine this isn't Brett Kavanaugh, but a convicted rapist who has served his time and been released. Then someone makes the same allegation and says, 36 years ago they were sexually assaulted by this convicted rapist. They can't tell us exactly when, they can't tell us where, and the list of people they say were present all deny any memory of the event.

Even though there's a high plausibility for the accusation, given that we're talking about someone who has already been convicted of rape, these accusations are STILL not actionable. No evidence, no witnesses, no corroboration, and the witness never spoke of the event for 30 years.

Why is it suddenly okay to suspend your skepticism when it's about a public figure?

[John]

We certainly would not throw that person in jail over that accusation. But, I don't think anyone would be wrong to believe that accusation and take other actions like concluding the person hasn't really rehabilitated themselves and can't be trusted as an employee.

The better example would be suppose Hillary Clinton had won the election and nominated Bill Clinton to the Court. And during the hearings a woman came forward who said Bill Clinton assaulted her. She had no corroborating witnesses but she knew when it happened and her and Bill Clinton were known to be associated at the time such that it would have been possible for Clinton to have done it. Do you give Bill Clinton the same benefit of the doubt you give Kavanaugh? Hell no.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

'Believe the victims'

Well, here we go.

Faber wrote. "I do not believe that survivors have a civic duty to speak out. I believe that we have a civic duty to believe survivors."

[John]

Behold the power of the tautology. Because you are guilty, I am under the obligation to believe your accusors when they say you are guilty.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Without Twitter, this 'presumption of innocence' concept the old white slave owners invented would still be in vogue.

[John]

Thinking anyone deserves the benefit of the doubt about anything is just racist Paul. How are we supposed to purge society of its undesireable elements if we start giving them the benefit of the doubt?

[loveconstitution1789]

This woman?and the others who have made arguments like that over the last couple of weeks?seem to be arguing that every high school boy has gotten drunk, pushed a teen girl into a bedroom, and forcefully groped her while keeping his hand over her mouth to prevent her from screaming. It's one thing to doubt that this happened; it's another to say that even if it happened it wasn't a big deal.

I have been pushed onto a bed by women, my clothes taken off or my hog taken out, and ridden hard.

I would NEVER call that sexual assault even if I did not want the sex. I would chock it up to unwanted fun.

Before the 1990s rape was unwanted sexual contact when the woman said no. Trying to get the woman to say yes, was every boy and man's mission in life.

There is just a fundamental difference between men and women on how sexually aggressive we need to be.

[Bronze Khopesh]

Because Cory Booker left in a huff Ed Morrisey has dubbed him Departacus.

[A Thinking Mind]

Ed Morrisey gets thumbs up for that one.

[John]

The Jesuits are saying Kavanaugh should not be confirmed. If there are two groups that ought to sit this one out, it is the Jesuits and the Kennedys.

[loveconstitution1789]

The Jesuits will do anything to deflect Catholic Church molesting of kids.

[Just Say'n]

You really don't know anything about the Jesuits

[John]

They don't care much about the child molestation scandal because most of them are communist homosexuals who see the scandal as a crisis that can be used to get the Church to abolish celebicy in the priesthood and accept homosexuality.

[loveconstitution1789]

The are a religious arm of the Catholic Church.

When I lived in Italy I saw those robed dudes walking around Italy.

[Just Say'n]

"The are a religious arm of the Catholic Church."

Watch out, Eddy. We got a canonical scholar here

[Eddy]

No, but if you want a canonical scholar you can check out this guy:

https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/

[Square = Circle]

The are a religious arm of the Catholic Church.

I've more commonly heard them described as the Atheist arm of the Catholic Church, honestly. One of my oldest friends works at a Jesuit university, and he describes them as "slightly to the left of Marx."

[Just Say'n]

^ This go knows the Jesuits

[General_Tso]

The Unitarian Universalist pf the Catholic church.

[SIV]

I would of gone with "lying ho-bags".

[John]

"The bitch set me up" is always the go to defense in these sorts of situation.

[A Thinking Mind]

I know it's been stated before, but the issue with "Believe the victim" as a mentality is the fact that she's only a victim if you believe her. It restates its own premise.

Dr. Ford MAY be a victim, but she IS an accuser. And "Believe all accusers" is an insane position.

"She has nothing to gain by making this up" is the type of shitty logic that informed the fucking Salem Witch trials.

[Ship of Theseus]

I think I love you.

So what am I so afraid of?

[Nardz]

Being accused of (attempted) rape 30+ years from now

[Tony]

I don't get what you idiots think you're going to benefit from this appointment, except the ephemeral satisfaction of beating the libtards this round. Perhaps Prof. Ford could explain the brain processes.

[A Thinking Mind]

I'm only hoping for it because presumption of innocence is more than a constitution protection, it's a principle of the criminal justice system. If we just discard it as a principle, what kind of world are we unleashing?

[Tony]

Well, Judge Kavanaugh is not the only person being accused of something here. The other people being accused of something--namely, his accusers, of being liars and slanderers and conspirators--aren't up for a lifetime appointment to one of the most powerful jobs on earth. You're going to have to raise your standards a bit.

[John]

Denying an accusation necessarily requires accusing the person making it of some degree of slander. That fact should deny someone the benefit of the doubt.

[A Thinking Mind]

His denial does not rise to the level of accusation. That's simply not how this shit works. He doesn't have to "prove" his allegation, she does.

I know that you're smarter than this.

[John]

I know that you're smarter than this.

All existing evidence says that Tony is not smarter than this.

[Tony]

She offered first-hand witness testimony and an investigation has been called for. You know that.

The counter-accusations follow inevitably. If he's telling the truth, then Ford and the others are lying for some purpose. It's not a court of law with one defendant. It's accusations against accusations.

[John]

No. Ford may just be mistaken about who assaulted her. You can be wrong but not lying. And her testimony lacks basic facts like time and place that are necessary for any investigation to occur. There is nothing to investigate. You keep using the word "investigate" like it it is some magical means of finding the truth in all instances. Some things can't be investigated because the information surrounding them is lost in time. This is one of those times. If you were not literally dumb as a fucking post or maybe anything but a completely craven partisan you would understand that.

[A Thinking Mind]

"First-hand witness testimony." What a fancy term for saying that she made an ACCUSATION.

So how should an investigation proceed? Interview the accuser (done that), ask her to provide corroborating witnesses (she tried to do that and other witnesses disputed her account), and interview the accused (did that and he denies the allegation).

What else is left to investigate? We've gone through the motions already and there's nothing to unearth here.

[Tony]

What reason is there not to investigate? The constitutional rule for a speedy confirmation before any more rape accusations come out?

[John]

What is there to investigate? You keep repeating the same stupid talking point you have been given like it is going to convince anyone. You are the dumbest troll ever Tony.

[A Thinking Mind]

I'm asking you what is left to investigate. 36 years after the fact there's no physical evidence. She can't give us an address or location so they can't interview the former owners of the house about whether or not a party took place.

Then again, I suspect you want to subpoena everyone they went to high school with in order to recreate details of parties that kids went to 30 years ago. I'm sure the lurid details that come up would be fantastic. Perhaps we can slander more girls like Renate who may or may not have been high-school sluts.

[Tony]

The fucking sexual assault accusations that have come to light since the other background checks. Are you retarded or are you just hoping that saying enough words will distract us until the floor vote?

[John]

Tony you realy are retarded. There being an accusation doesn't mean there is any way to investigate. When something is 35 years old lacks any spefics about time and place and has no corroborating evidence, there is nothing to investigate. The fact that it is a "sexual assault" allegation doens't change that fact.

I know you are stupid. But no one is this stupid. Stop dying on this hill.

[Chuckles the Snarky Piggy]

Tony|9.28.18 @ 3:41PM|#

Well, Judge Kavanaugh is not the only person being accused of something here

Yes he is, you sack of illogical shit.

If the accusation is false, then the statement 'The accuser is a liar.' is not another accusation. It is corollary to the statement 'I am innocent'.

Your mistake seems like something that would make a judge react angrily.

[John]

Presumption of innocence is a principle in the criminal justice system because it is essential to fairness and justice. You don't throw out all concepts of fairness and justice just because the stakes of the decision do not involve jail.

[Tony]

The stakes involve... remaining a federal judge. I'm sure that counts as a life sentence to someone who came up in an environment where pussy was served on a silver platter.

[John]

No one is trying to put Bill Clinton on the court Tony. So just clam down and try to make some kind of a rational response to the points at hand.

[Tony]

He already was. Guess what person advocated for diving into the most intimate details of his sex life no matter how painful it was?

Do you think Berty cried for Chelsea Clinton?

[John]

When Kavnaugh is shown to be getting blowjobs in his office from college age interns, we can investigate that. Until that time, we won't be doing anything except confirming Kavanaugh.

[Tony]

Monica consented, fucktaint.

[John]

Kavanaugh is innocent you fucking retard. And she sure as hell didn't consent to the Clintons trying to make her out to be a stalker and trying to ruin her life even thought they knew she was telling the truth.

[Square = Circle]

Monica consented, fucktaint.

Funny how in that one circumstance the vast difference in age and power didn't invalidate that "consent."

[Tony]

Well I am on record opposing Bill Clinton's nomination to the supreme court. And I never supported him as president.

[John]

Yes Tony, you are all about criticizing Democrats who no longer matter. Criticize some that are in office today once in a while and people will laugh at you a little less.

[Square = Circle]

Well I am on record opposing Bill Clinton's nomination to the supreme court. And I never supported him as president.

What does that have to do with your assertion that "Monica wanted it?"

[Just Say'n]

Things to gain from a Kavanaugh nomination

- gun rights secured

- free speech rights secured

- religious liberty rights secured

- Chevron doctrine on life support

[Just Say'n]

I think that's what people think they'll gain from him.

But, it's not even about Kavanaugh. It's about a perverse "guilt by the accusation alone" that is utterly disturbing. If Kavanaugh was being taken down because he sucked on the 4th Amendment that would be fine with me, but this is just garbage.

[Tony]

And you'd think that way if the same accusations were being leveled at a Democratic appointee, no doubt.

I just hate the fucking lying. From Kavanaugh and you guys. Lying really pisses me off.

[Just Say'n]

Let's drop the act, Tony. There is no way that if similar allegations were alleged against a Democratic nominee that major new outlets would even entertain such nonsense.

We have a real-time example of this: Keith Ellison and Jard Polis, who have both been accused of physically assaulting women and absolutely little to know media coverage of the incident.

[Tony]

I've heard about it. And they can get booted from their jobs for all I care.

[John]

They won't and you won't care when they don't. But you care so deeply if Kavanaugh doesn't get booted from his. Keith Ellison could be found to have raped and murdered women and you wouldn't give a fuck and would vote for him if the party told you to do so.

[John]

Yes he would Tony. You are so stupid and depraved and politics have so degraded what few brains you had to begin with, you just cannot grasp the idea that someone might not an unprincipled fanatic like you are. You project all of your nastiness and insanity on everyone else and then use that projection as a way to rationalize it in yourself.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

The right to gang rape girls that keep showing up to gang-rape parties, confirmed.

[John]

Overturn US v. Steve Smtih and affirm the right to gang rape!!

[Square = Circle]

I don't get what you idiots think you're going to benefit from this appointment

That's not what it's about. I don't mind Kavanaugh not getting on the Supreme Court. It's about not condoning the methods being used against him. Kind of how no one here has sympathy for your hatred of Trump because we spent eight years of you rationalizing Obama's power grabs trying to explain to you that someday a Republican that you hate is going to be in office, and all you could do was call us all racist cousin-fuckers.

Perhaps Prof. Ford could explain the brain processes.

Based on her "explanation" of how memory works in the hippocampus, I'm gonna say probably not.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Trauma does funny things with memory therefore the fact that her testimony, witnesses and facts are so foggy proves Kavanaugh is guilty.

[Ship of Theseus]

This, precisely.

I have no love for Kavanaugh, but I certainly have an issue with the idea of doing away with the burden of proof. Forget about what it does to the accused in such instances, it destroys the foundation for rational argument ("The moon is made of donkey testicles." "Prove it." "Nope, don't gotta. We're in lala land now, where you have to just believe the shit I say.")

[Juggernaut]

A Republican judge who puts his dick in your face is the perfect marriage of all things Republican.

[John]

Unless I missed it, Bill Clinton is neither a judge nor a Republican.

[Ship of Theseus]

LOL wut?

[Square = Circle]

Dude, not even the woman making that actual allegation was willing to swear it was Kavanaugh.

Don't you have a communist dictatorship to go defend somewhere?

[loveconstitution1789]

Kavanaugh! KAVANAUGH! Kavanaugh!

[A Thinking Mind]

I'm glad that we're finally ignoring the Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnik accusations. I haven't seen those in the news at all in the past 2 days, ever since their credibility utterly collapsed.

[Square = Circle]

The only thing that is important is "there have been three accusations." For many, that is all that is needed. They don't need to know anything else.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Slow down, Swetnik's accusations are the nail in the coffin.

[BestUsedCarSales]

You know? We get way more worked up over this than people actually tried in a criminal court under similar circumstances.

[John]

I can't speak for you but I would get prety worked up over a case where someone was tried in a criminal court based on evidence this scant.

[BestUsedCarSales]

There are many times that scant evidence is used to press a plea. This does happen every day, and it has been detailed here and otherwise.

It does not turn into a national conversation, and even here we rarely have multithread spanning arguments about it.

[A Thinking Mind]

People tried in criminal courts have rights. There are legal steps taken, and if a case actually makes it to court, there's usually some degree of evidence.

Kavanaugh is being denied the basic presumption of innocence because he's being tried in a court of public opinion based on an utter lack of evidence.

[Procyon Rotor]

Criminal cases don't usually have the entire media apparatus and the entire Democratic party throwing concepts of fairness and rationality under the bus for blatantly political ends. It's easier to get angry about an argument if there's actually someone on the other side.

[BestUsedCarSales]

In fact, having this much attention is better. Because now this argument is forced rather than happening to some kid, so who gives a shit?

[A Thinking Mind]

If you want to see some of worst defenses of Christine Blasey Ford, see Jeff Flake confronted by a sexual assault victim in an elevator and filibustered at.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bshgOZ8QQxU

[A Thinking Mind]

I made myself watch this but Dear God, this was painful.

[This Machine Chips Fascists]

So much emotion. So many words put in someone else's mouth.

[A Thinking Mind]

They're arguing based solely on the fact that they have strong emotions about this. They don't have anything to say, but they're emotional.

They were this close to saying Flake was raping them by not answering their questions. There's literally no way to engage with this unless you're willing to capitulate everything they want for no reason.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

What would Henry Miller say about all this?

[John]

If Henry Miller were alive today, he would rewrite the Crucible to make the witches guilty.

[Ship of Theseus]

LOL so true.

[A Thinking Mind]

"While we can't prove that any witchcraft took place, it's not our place to question the life experience of these young women. I'd like to applaud them for courageously standing up to Satan and I hope that my daughter will be brave enough to confront Satan if she ever witnesses witchcraft."

[Square = Circle]

If Henry Miller were alive today, he would rewrite the Crucible to make the witches guilty.

That's Arthur Miller. Although Henry Miller's take would be interesting, too (but probably wouldn't get him a lot of Twitter friends).

[John]

It is late in the day and my mind is appearently broke. If Henry Miller were alive today, he would write a novelization of this where Ford and Kavanaugh's wife were lovers and the whole thing was a plot by Ford to pry her away from her husband.

[Square = Circle]

Now you're talking!

[Ship of Theseus]

Honestly, this sounds as reasonable as anything else I've heard the last few weeks.

In fact, are we sure this isn't what's really going on here?

[Unicorn Abattoir]

If Roger Miller rewrote the crucible, would it sound like this?

[lap83]

that, or "Where Have All The Average People Gone?"

[Vernon Depner]

I'd rather hear Glenn Miller's take on it.

[General_Tso]

Perhaps Barney Miller could look into that.

[esteve7]

This Stalinist show trial shows the left is playing this like a war. They have been for decades, and it's time for everyone to wake up. If they easily trample Kav's rights and slander him to ruin his life, then you would mean nothing to them either. All they care about is power. Their collectivist ideology needs to end, and they should never be in power.

[Demosthenes666]

"It's that it makes as little sense to assume someone must be guilty as to assume they must be innocent."

Nice, Reason, nice.

[A Thinking Mind]

I'm quite willing to go on the record and say that, without any evidence at all, and with nothing to back it up, I will assume someone is innocent.

That's really going out on a limb, isn't it?

[John]

Reason has really covered itself in glory this week hasn't it?

[esteve7]

what the fuck has happened to you Reason? Saying it makes little sense to assume someone is innocent? Holy fucking hell. I don't want to live on the same planet as you. How can you even call yourself libertarian much less individualist.

[U. R. Huyulov]

The writer phrased it clumsily, but there's a difference between presuming innocence and assuming innocence.

When you assume something, you treat it as true throughout the entire process of reasoning.

When you presume something, you treat it as true at the start of your process, but are open to changing that position during the process.

The legal tradition is to presume innocence, not assume innocence.

[Tony]

So now that Trump has ordered a supplemental FBI investigation, it's a good idea to you morons, right?

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Yes. But I'm an outlier here. I honestly believe that the FBI will turn up bupkis.

[Square = Circle]

I honestly believe that the FBI will turn up bupkis.

^ This.

[Square = Circle]

Ooooo, you just want so badly for everyone here to be as mindlessly partisan as you!

[Tony]

I want them to be mindfully partisan and not to lie about it.

[IceTrey]

Most people here think government shouldn't even exist so it's kind of hard to be partisan.

[Square = Circle]

I think Tony's fundamental thing, the thing that unites all of his comments here over the years, is "Pick a Side!"

You're either on his side, and thus are a mindful critical thinker, or your are on the wrong side, and are thus a mindless partisan.

If you don't pick a side he doesn't know what to do with you. It drives him absolutely batshit.

[Tony]

I don't know how much clearer I can be. My problem is that you are picking a side--the worse side--and then lying about it. Just defend Republicans on their merits, if you can find any.

[Square = Circle]

mindfully partisan

What would that even mean?

[AlmightyJB]

I'm not sure if this whole witch trial is a "new low" for democrats, but it's pretty despicable. I will not "believe All women" especially in such an obvious case of lying as this one.

[Tony]

That's the whole forking reason for doing the supplemental background check. Everybody wins. Yay.

[Square = Circle]

That's the whole forking reason for doing the yet another supplemental background check.

FTFY

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Tony, language, please.

[Nardz]

How is incumbent upon Kavanaugh to prove he didn't assault Blasey Ford, but not incumbent upon Blasey Ford to prove she is lying?

[Nardz]

*isn't lying
Damn it

[U. R. Huyulov]

If she proved that she was lying, would smoke come out of Feinstein's ears?

[Eddy]

We're not discussing this in a vacuum, as if we are simply engaging in a search for the most moral, most qualified, purest judge we can find.

If we were, I'd say reject Kavanaugh, find a judge with not only an impeccable life but a record of judicial protest against all sorts of Constitutional violations, who when forced by Supreme Court precedent to accept a bad legal principle will at least rail against that principle, so as to make clear that the blame rests on the door of the Supreme Court - and, by implication, that (s)he would cleanse the evil principle if (s)he got on the high court.

It's a situation where, if constitutionalists had their druthers, only someone with an unambiguous, supportive records of zealously enforcing the constitution would be acceptable.

But let's put down the bong and look at the real-world political situation.

We have a bipartisan establishment consensus supporting the security state, and judges (perhaps including Kavanaugh) who are OK with this, the Constitution be damned. It would be *very nice* to get a judge who opposes this, but realistically, how likely is that?

[Eddy]

We have one party (the Dems) who have a constitutional theory which they have been very successfully implementing - not so much a constitutional theory as an anti-constitutional theory of the administrative state, encroaching federal power, eliminating whole clauses of the bill of rights (as in Kelo), adopting evil new "rights" (like abortion), and so forth.

Before taking office, Supreme Court justices promise to enforce the Constitution. If they they then proceed to follow the leftist anti-theory of the Constitution, they are perjuring themselves. This is a point I have been trying to explain to one of John's left-wing counterparts who insists that we can't even *consider* a nominee if he lied about being a teenage hoodlum 30+ years ago.

I don't know if K lied about being a teenage hoodlum (prep school style), but I find it hard to take that these violated vestal virgins who protest about omg perjury are EAGER to put perjurers on the Court, so long as they perjury themselves about supporting the Constitution.

[Eddy]

And we're not talking about perjury to cover up three-decades-old behavior, but perjury with consequences in the here and now, like putting children outside legal protection (Roe), putting people in the federal pen for what the feds don't have the power to punish (Raich), stealing people's houses (Kelo), disarming citizens, etc., etc.

If the Dems take over the Senate - and later the White House - that's the kind of person they'll put on the Court - flat-out perjurers whose lies actually deprive people of property, liberty...and life itself.

If the current vacancy remains unfilled, this is the situation we'll face.

So, yes, I don't enjoy the fact that President Trump's idea of a "safe" choice for this seat was a Bush admin. veteran who turns out to be a lot less safe than he supposedly was.

But we're not choosing between Kavanaugh and perfection, but between Kavanaugh and the risk of a perjuring Demcratic anti-constitutional justice.

I've had people who admit Hillary was a liar and say it's OK to vote for her anyway, but who are shocked - *shocked* - at the idea of a perjurer on the Supreme Court and refuse to use the same lesser-evil reasoning in the case of Presidents as in the case of Supreme Court justices.

In all of this, we're talking worst-case scenario of a version of Kavanaugh who covered up his high-school hoodlumism. It's even worse given the sketchy "verification" of the charges against him.

[Eddy]

"refuse to use the same lesser-evil reasoning in the case of Presidents as in the case of Supreme Court justices"

that should be vice-versa - refuse to use the same lesser-evil reasoning in the case of Supreme Court justices as in the case of Presidents

[U. R. Huyulov]

Breaking an oath of office is not perjury.

Perjury consists of lying under oath in a way that affects the court proceeding, tax return processing, or whatever the occasion of taking the oath is.

Breaking a promise is not lying.

[Eddy]

The framers of the 14th Amendment, far from agreeing with you, put in a clause (Sec. 3) by which any former officeholder who had taken an oath to support the constitution and subsequently taken part in a rebellion or helped the enemies of the U. S., was unqualified for future office (unless Congress restored his eligibility). Since, under the victorious Union's definition, secession was unconstiutitonal, any officeholder who pledged to support the Constitution and then became a secessionist had perjured himself.

Timonthy Dwight, prominent American divine of the founding era (and President of Yale), wrote in his *Theology: Explained and Defended" (Vol. 3 Sermon 126): "Perjury under an oath of office or trust is a false declaration of future facts. The future facts, here referred to, are universally such as are supposed to be under our own control; and are chiefly such as are involved in our own conduct. Such is the case, at least, when the oath, or promise, is lawfully made."

[loveconstitution1789]

Technically the 14th Amendment was nit ratified until after the civil war.

Holding the confederates to that standard would have ciolated the ex post facto rule.

[tpaine]

Can we run Don Willetts through the process/punishment next?
He's dreamy...

[Ecoli]

Lindsay Graham is rockin' it, though, isn't he?

[wreckinball]

Ok how about if you are accusing bring some evidence

[wreckinball]

Here's the thing.

You are rolling along with your life in your early 50s and you have an opportunity to a great job SCOTUS

And then somebody claims that 36 years ago you sexually assaulted them but doesn't know where or when. They cite witnesses who either say it didn't happen or have no knowledge of it.

How do you defend that other than I didn't do it? In the face of folks who say you must just believe the accuser how do you defend that?

Let's just make a crazy claim that you didn't do it. How do you defend it?

[catmatmc]

I watched most of the testimony Thursday and I felt I was watching a women caught in a web of her own making. I've been involved with and known people renovating their house. Stressful? Yes. Can you bicker with your SO under that stress? Yes. Do you wind up in marriage counseling over it unless there are already existing underlying marital issues? No way. You go to marriage counseling to save a marriage or prep a divorce. So my take is she came up with an assault story to trigger or appeal to her husband's need to be a "white knight" or "savior" of her poor broken self to explain irrational behavior that he would otherwise have begun to consider leaving her for. Men are actually surprisingly susceptible to being triggered to protect. (1/2)

[David Nolan]

What about the growing number of provable lies by Kavanaugh? Some blatant?
If you really watched it, how could you miss his repeated evasions, diversions and attacking the questioners, on every key question? Why did he REFUSE, twice, to deny that he was the blackout drunk classmate in Mark Judge's book, named as "Bart O'Kavanaugh?" (wink wink)

[catmatmc]

(2/2) In subsequent discussions, she filled in a few gaps, and named the prep school BMOC and party dude as those who did it with some rando and the bestie thrown in for good measure. Can't get pressed for details because "trauma", something she would know as a psych major. SOL ran out so she can't be pushed to file charges. Just a little lie to save her marriage and no one gets hurt. Time goes by, and BMOC shows up on short list for SCOTUS. "Hey, isn't that the guy you claimed assaulted you? You have to tell someone!" Now, does she fess up and lose her husband, kids, house, etc or does she look for an out? Let's send a letter to our congresscritter and make them swear to confidentiality! Covers her ass for a little while until the letter gets to Senator Feinstein and the pressure mounts to commit. Lawyer up time! And there are plenty of lawyers willing to get a pound of flesh while protecting her name. Until it leaks, people push back, and she has lost control of the lie. It's bigger than her now and she had to go all in. I am sure the GoFundMe money and backing of the more militant #MeToo types helps, and she knows that no matter what comes out, if she sticks to her story, there will always be believers. So when people say or ask what she has to gain from this or why she would put herself through this, this is why. She is protecting her lie, her personal faults continue to be ascribed to trauma, she stays married (maybe), and she gets paid.

[antiestablismentarianism]

Here's some defenses we can use: What about the social media accounts being scrubbed? She was a political activist, but then testified she didn't know who to go to about her allegations, so she goes to the media? What??? Any kid on a high school debate team can see through that! More questions need to be asked about her leaving the get together/party. Cell phones and GPS didn't exist yet, so where did she find a phone to call someone? What kind of beer was being provided at the house? (Very specific reason for asking this question that I won't reveal here). Why did you go to the house in the first place if you only knew one person and it was the only other girl? Why did you leave your best friend at the house alone, being the only girl there, with attempted rapists? So. Many. Holes!

[A Thinking Mind]

It was like 20 miles from her house, right? If she immediately fled, how did she get home? Did she run to her friend and have her friend drive her home? Did she walk 20 miles to get home?

[A Thinking Mind]

The flaw is my logic is that assuming the legal driving age in Maryland at the time was over 15. I'm having a tough time finding when Maryland adopted the 16-year-old minimum requirement (it has since moved up to 18).

[David Nolan]

It was like 20 miles from her house, right?

Try again.
And TRY to stick with relevant issues, like so many proven lies by Kavanaugh,

[loveconstitution1789]

Maga

[A Thinking Mind]

Questioner: "Can you provide any evidence to prove you didn't sexually assault the victim?"

Response: "Well, I can point to the testimony of several witnesses who are alleged to have been present who are willing to deny any recollection."

Questioner: "But that doesn't prove anything! You can't even account for your whereabouts for the time in question!"

Response: "Well, not precisely, but I do have this calendar I used keeping track of my schedule and plans. What day did she say this occured?"

Questioner: "Well it's been 36 years, of course she doesn't remember the exact day!"

Response: "Okay but, maybe if you could narrow it down to within a week or two?"

Questioner: "Well, that's still a bit difficult..."

Response: "Okay, look, here's a calendar covering a period of over 4 months. Obviously it's not complete but..."

Questioner: "Why are there so many holes in this story? There's dozens of days in here where this could have happened!"

[A Thinking Mind]

Response: "Well okay, it's not the best evidence. But what evidence does the accuser have?"

Questioner: "How DARE you ask this poor woman for evidence! Hasn't she suffered enough?"

Response: "Well, she's the one bringing this to light so I thought she'd like to substantiate..."

Questioner: "You're not respecting the lived experience of the victim. As a man, you could never understand the pain of having been sexually assaulted."

Response: "Well, there are recent studies showing that men comprise over 30% of victims of sexual assault!"

Questioner: "Stop mansplaining! Why should we listen to anything a rapist has to say?"

Response: "But I haven't even been accused of rape, and you can't even provide evidence of the supposed sexual assault that took place..."

Questioner: "You're not being sensitive to the victim when you say that!"

[David Nolan]

Kavanaugh committed perjury several times, repeating two lies..

1) He claims he was legally allowed to drink beer, but his drinking was illegal. The drinking age in Maryland changed to 21, before he became a senior, and he was not 18 as a junior. Associated Press

2) He also lied that the other four people at the party have "denied" the events. HE is the only one denying it. The others all said they could not remember it, BIG difference. Only one other student was in the room, Mark Judge, and even he did not deny it happened, only that he could not recall it. AP Fact Check

Most notable to me, Kavanaugh twice REFUSED to answer if he was the out of control drunk depicted in Mark Judges book as "Bart O'Kavanaugh." (wink wink) Is that because he was under oath? (lol)

Check my sources. If recent history on this topic is a guide, this will now be followed by the typical raging hatred and personal attacks by Trump's loyal cyber-bullies NEVER any SUPPORTED challenge to the known facts.

Because: Left - Right = Zero
Both authoritarian, less than 40% of Americans, and still shrinking..

[David Nolan]

Another BIG demand that Kavanaugh be withdrawn,,,

This from a leading Jesuit publication, America Magazine. (Kavanaugh's high school was Jesuit)
To this, add this the Dean of the prestigious Yale Law School, Judge Kavanaugh's own alma mater,

The list is growing of supposedly dishonest answers from Kavanaugh on Thursday, now expanded to include diversions, evasions and refusals to key question. Personally, his refusal to deny that he is the total drunk in Mark Judge;s book, a classmate named "Bart O'Kavanaugh" This one is becoming a bandwagon. He claims innocence everywhere EXCEPT this published incident. With all his other claims that he was never a heavy drinker, why would he refuse to say it was not him who puked into a car and passed out?

It's quite reasonable to assume he was avoiding perjury. He refused twice. The first one, he set his jaw and went totally silent, defiantly. New "witnesses" are popping up on his heavy drinking, including an ex-girlfriend of Mark Judge, who says Mark described an event similar to Dr. Ford.s.

[loveconstitution1789]

Maga

[AD-RtR/OS!]

Is this an example of small-l, or Big-L, morality; or just more BS?

[David Nolan]

OMG, A balanced article on this!
Guaranteed to trigger rage by authoritarians, both left and right. With all-too-typical-these-days shoutdowns.

[loveconstitution1789]

Maga

[Gary Trieste]

This whole charade was one of proxied stories, emotion, synthetic fear and outrage.
It was one of who could more convincingly emote and project sincerity and personal performance.

This was not a forum for facts, logic, real events or acts.
Nothing in it was about reality, just stories with emotion attached to them, and who could more convincingly evince sincerity and concern.

Ford's testimony was successful by these standards.
And by these standards, there was no way a person could defend themselves cooly, reservedly, or with composure, or by using reason and rationality, only citing facts or witnesses.
If he did that, he would have been worse than not convincing, he would have been viewed as emotionally deaf, uncaring, dismissive or robotic.
The only way to properly respond, was to meet Ford's emotional sincerity, with Kavanaugh's emotional sincerity and passion/outrage at being portrayed such.

[macsnafu]

Nice try, Zuri, but like many of these cases, some people will ALWAYS believe in his guilt, and some people will ALWAYS believe in his innocence, and the real truth will never be discovered or revealed.

[Lee Moore]

Automatically believing women doesn't make any more sense than automatically refusing to believe them

This is rank dishonesty. Kevin Jackson's impolitic remarks do not automatically refuse to believe women. He objects to the notion that men should "NEVER" be believed and that women should be believed "no matter what." And he reserves his accusation of skankiness specifically to "these three women." Consequently he is unambiguously, if indelicately, in the camp of all rational people ? that female accusers should sometimes be believed, and sometimes not.

But there are plenty of looney lefties and feminists who do advance the notion that women should always be believed. zuri sets up a false equivalence by offering us Kevin Jackson as an example of the equivalent lunacy on the looney right / patriarchal side. Except Jackson never says that women should always be disbelieved or that female accusers are always skanks. He's plainly agreeing with zuri's silliness-of-automaticity point, while being accused by her of the opposite.

It's hard to believe that zuri can offer the defense that she's too stupid to understand Kevin Jackson's clear meaning. So if we rule out fool, we're pretty much left with knave. Proving Jackson's point. If you persuade yourself that women can't be knaves, then you're the fool.