So I don’t suppose when Kavenaugh testifies the Democrats can get Gloria Allred or Michael Avenatti to sub in for them, huh?
I doubt Kavanaugh will find Booker, Harris, Leahy, Blumenthal and Hirono to be a cake walk. Or Klobuchar, Whitehouse and Coons.
Durbin will probably be pretty mellow. In comparison he’s a pushover.
He is a lawyer and a judge. And hoping to become a Supreme Court Justice. If he can’t face up to such attacks then he should go home.
Let’s just assume that the accusers are all lying. Just based on what he chose to put in his high school yearbook, it is clear that he is a misogynistic pig with questionable values and poor judgment. Sure people regret what they put sometimes, but they don’t use the platform to mock and slut-shame an acquaintance and brag about illegal drinking to excess. I am his age. I went to high school and college at the same time and nobody with any sense put crap like that in their yearbook. Add that to pledging a disgusting, sexist fraternity that celebrates non consensual sex and you get a picture of who he really is.
Why? They should be examined as any accusations are.
But no one is nominating a 18 year old to the High Court, They are nominating a 53 year old, with actual life experience and skills and relevant qualifications.
Are there any other areas of life where people of 53 are held to be responsible for what they did at 17? Or, assuming they were some sort of miscreant at that age, that they should still be considered to be the same now?
“Lovely picture of your grandkids there, Dr. Jones, but we’re going to have to let you go. It’s just come to our attention that you sold drugs when you were 17.”
Or, “I’m sorry, Captain Smith, we’re not only going to have to deny you this promotion but fire you because we just found out you held up a store when you were 17.”
Or, “I’m sorry, Judge, but we’re going to have to institute disbarment proceedings against you because we just found out you belonged to a gang 37 years ago.”
Even if Kavanaugh did what he’s accused of, it’s absolutely, totally, batshit nuts to hold him accountable for it now, 37 years later. And even crazier to accuse him of being a “rapist”, as some posters on this board have done, asking “Do we want a rapist sitting on the Supreme Court,” despite the fact that, 1) what is alleged is not rape; and 2) he has by all accounts led an exemplary life his entire adulthood; and 3) in no other area of American life are grown men of 53 held responsible for things they did as juveniles.
I suppose, given the scenarios listed above, such individuals might find fame, fortune and admiration as rap stars, but then there’s that ‘old white guy’ thing in the way, so I guess they’re fucked.
Nope, it’s just mess up once and pay for it forever, right, guys?
(And before you start up with “But, but…the Supreme Court,” I don’t recall any such concerns regarding the presidency when Bill Clinton’s rape of Juanita Broaddrick and multiple “Bimbo eruptions” came to light and heralded his treatment of women. If someone like Bill Clinton can behave the way he did as a grown-ass man and still be supported in his presidency, surely a former stumbling drunk 17-year-old boy can be qualified to sit on the Supreme Court at the age of 53.)
This entire episode is ridiculous and 100% politically motivated. If it weren’t, middle-aged men would be getting called to account for juvenile misdeeds by the millions.
If Kavanaugh did what he’s accused of – by two different women now – then he’s lying about it when he denies it. He proposes to lie to Congress about it. Because he knows it’s morally disqualifying, but so is the lie. Is he also lying about his feelings about Roe v Wade and everything else he’s being asked about in the confirmation process? Is this your idea of a man morally fit for the highest court in the land, just because you share his reprehensible partisan views?
And that’s different from Kavanaugh’s entire nomination and confirmation process how?
And if he didn’t, then he’s not.
The point is that he never should have been put in such a position in the first place.
And why?
For the very reason I just posted - 53-year-old men should not be called to account for behavior they engaged in when they were too young to join the military or sign legally-binding contracts. Or, coincidentally, to make certain decisions regarding sex.
Are you beginning to get it?
Clinton is also a pig and a probable rapist. What we have here is not an isolated incident of indiscretion in high school. This is someone who had issues in high school, continued with the behavior in college and turned a willful blind eye to blatant sexism in his future jobs. Add that to the fact that I haven’t heard one word of apology or regret for his attitudes in the past. Just admitting that he was part of a culture that reduced women to sex objects and devalued them as humans would go a long way. Then again, his actions in the illegal immigrant abortion case reveal that his attitude toward women has not changed. He essentially ruled that a woman who had been judged to be competent to make her own decisions by a court would not be able to do so until she jumped through arbitrary hoops that he set up solely to delay long enough to prevent her from exercising her legal rights. I wonder how he would feel if his daughters were the law clerks that were harassed on a daily basis while men like him were either too dense or too callous to take notice.
…my friend. 
America is a country that reveres its constitution. Where the separation of powers, the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, is held absolute.
The head of the executive gets reviewed every few years by the people of America, as do the people who sit in the legislature.
But the people that sit at the head of the judiciary do not. They are political appointees. And once appointed they are essentially appointed for life. They are responsible for making decisions that literally hold peoples lives and deaths in the balance. And the process to get rid of one of them has only ever been used once, way back in 1804.
So I would argue that if there was any job position in America where what somebody did at the age of 17 should be considered as part of their job application it should be for the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Because he isn’t just being judged for what he did when he was 17. He’s being judged now, on his reaction to the revelations of the past couple of weeks.
There is no comparable job position. The role of President isn’t comparable. You get to vote him out after a few years. Doctors can get fired. Captains can get fired. Lawyers can get fired.
It is entirely appropriate to be open to this amount of scrutiny. If Gorsuch was problematic then the same thing as what happening now would have happened to him. But Gorsuch wasn’t problematic. He was a safe pick. And now he is sitting on the Supreme Court.
Kavanaugh wasn’t a smart pick. There are plenty of suitably qualified candidates with strongly conservative views that didn’t have the issues that we have discovered over the last few weeks and I’m not just talking about the accusations. If they had picked better this would all be over and done with now.
The accountability is also known as #metoo. John Cheese from Cracked yesterday had all his columns removed from their website because we found out he had a habit of harassing young women. Cheese was from the “political left” and I enjoyed his columns. But I’ll never read anything he will write ever again and I’m glad he’s gone. I argued very loudly on these boards that Franken should go. And I’m glad he is gone as well. I watched Bill Clinton the other day respond when asked did he owe Monica Lewinsky an apology. His response sickened me. He is filth. Disgusting. I hope to never hear another word that man has to say ever again.
My opposition to Kavangaugh isn’t politically motivated. I don’t like what the Republicans did with the process (Garland) that allowed Gorsuch to get nominated to the Supreme Court. But I didn’t oppose his nomination. I wouldn’t have voted for him (if I was in the position to do so). But he is qualified. Kavangaugh is no Gorsuch.
Hey, buddy! Long time, no see! It’s good to hear from you!
And I’m sorry but as I just said in the Pit thread, I’m off to bed as I have an appointment in the morning. And as I also said in the other thread I’ll likely be busy all day and won’t be posting much until tomorrow night or the next day.
Should I fail to remember to come back to your obviously well-written and tactful post, qualities I was able to detect even with just a glance, please remind me of it and I’ll come back to read it and respond accordingly.
You’re a good guy and someone I feel I can trust to shoot straight. I’ll be looking forward to seeing what you have to say.
As others have pointed out, a nominee to the Supreme Court absolutely should be subject to that kind of scrutiny, for all the reasons already noted. I personally think it’s morally disqualifying, but he could have taken the Cory Booker approach of honesty, and tried to make the case you’re making – that in view of his subsequent record, it shouldn’t matter. He chose not to take that path. It appears that he chose to lie instead.
In view of Dr. Ford’s history it seems highly likely that she’s telling the truth. The second woman’s accusation now makes that a virtual certainty. So now you’ve got a Supreme Court appointee who lies and is willing to perjure himself before Congress, and whose answers to questions in confirmation hearings are equally likely to be lies, every one of them. And you totally support him, because the slimeball is going to make rulings that you like, such as prohibiting women from having abortions.
The real question is: are you?
Oh my god, how could you monsters throw a man in jail for attempted rape a whole 37 years ago that he never saw any consequences for?
Wait, what’s that? You’re not trying to throw him in jail? Huh. Okay.
Oh my god, how could you monsters push for the public shunning of a man for merely attempting rape a couple of times a few decades ago, an action he never saw any consequences for?
Wait, what’s that? You’re not trying to remove him from the public eye? Huh. Okay.
Oh my god, how could you vicious inhuman bastards push for someone to get fired from their high-profile, nationally important job for the mere act of unrepentantly trying to rape someone back when they were kids (an action that they never saw any consequences for)?
Wait, what’s that? You’re not trying to get him fired from his position of national importance?*
OH MY GOD, HOW COULD YOU NOT WANT TO PROMOTE THIS MAN TO A LIFETIME POSITION ON THE MOST IMPORTANT LEGAL BODY IN AMERICA FOR THE MERE ACT OF UNREPENTANT ATTEMPTED RAPE?! YOU DISGUSTING FUCKING MONSTERS, HOW DARE YOU?!
If you aren’t rolling your eyes so hard you get DOMS in your superior rectus and inferior rectus, you might have some really fucked-up priorities.
*Quick side note - if we start from the assumption that the accusation is true, We should definitely do this. He’s a fucking DC circuit judge - do we really want attempted rapists on a court that high? This guy should be bagging groceries for a living, not making huge life-or-death decisions that significantly impact our jurisprudence on a large number of topics.
Literally any sex crime, including taking a piss in a goddamn playground at night.
Any felony at all in numerous states.
Any person trying to get a job with a criminal record.
…And so on and so forth. I can’t be the only person here noticing that the people most eager to give the man a pass on ATTEMPTED RAPE are the same people eager to vilify the victims of police brutality, who apparently had it coming.
That tactic might seem smart before the hearing, but I could also see it backfiring. Democrats will surely call out the Republican senators for being cowards, which they damn well should. Also, hiring an experienced sex crimes prosecutor, one might assume that she might have at least some sympathy for Blasey Ford, fully aware that victims often come forward years after the fact. Assuming that it’s the prosecutor writing her own questions without guidance from the individual senators, it’s entirely possible this doesn’t go down the way Grassley et al think it might.
If you can think of it, be sure the staff on the Committee has done so
Maybe the Democrats need to bring Avenatti to the hearings, since they’re not really hearings but cross examinations and all.
I have no doubt she’s probably getting trolled and receiving all kinds of harassment and threats from anonymous right wing apes - and it wasn’t like she was seeking the spotlight. It’s the result of an arrogant bastard who believes he’s entitled to a lifetime on the bench, in spite of his…“youthful indiscretions” (Kavanaugh channels his inner Henry Hyde).
As an outsider in this, I can’t help wondering why background checks at an early stage wouldn’t have turned up that much, at least (even without the specific allegations of assault), and to flag up that this might need further investigation with him - if only to dig a bit deeper as to whether there was anything that could cause political embarrassment to the President and his supporters, once the confirmation process started?
I suppose no system of positive vetting would turn up everything that might need to be considered, let alone a specific allegation that hadn’t come to light at that stage, but this does seem like someone, or more than one someone, wasn’t doing their job properly. Or is that stating the bleedin’ obvious?