Not really. I said the issue is that she was drinking, and that’s a problem for her story. That doesn’t mean she wasn’t assaulted (I believe her when she says she was) but it does mean that her memory of the details could have been affected. It would be better for her story had she not been drinking. I don’t see how that can be disputed.
Frankly, I don’t believe anyone can reliably remember how much drinking they did on a given night, 35 years ago. Trauma or no trauma. If she does testify, we probably will see just how confident she is in that memory.
First of all, what does science say about the effect of alcohol on the brain of a 15-year-old?
But I don’t think it serves her cause to go down the road of what psychological trauma does to memory. Science doesn’t tell us it necessarily goes in a the direction you think.
As I said earlier, though, this is based on the little we know from the recent article. She should be allowed to give a fuller account of what she remembers in front of the Senate Committee. And others who she claims were at the party should be able to speak, as well. That includes Kavanaugh, who should be allowed to respond to the accusation.
Yes, because that went so well for the accuser last time we did this circus:*Hill endured hours of questioning by Senators who made it clear they doubted her testimony. “Are you a woman scorned?” asked Senator Howell Heflin during a memorable moment in the confirmation hearing. “Do you have a martyr complex?”
Despite all this Hill believed in her cause. “Telling the world is the most difficult experience of my life,” Hill testified. “It would have been more comfortable to have remained silent.”
…
Suddenly, the idea of sexual harassment was front-page news—and so was Hill. The repercussions were immediate: She was mocked and parodied in the press and accused of trying to bring down Thomas. Her life was threatened, and angry members of the public barraged the University of Oklahoma, demanding that she lose her job.
“The backlash was as horrific as it was predictable,” says Karla Holloway, a Duke University expert in gender and law and author of Codes of Conduct: Race, Ethics, and the Color of Our Character. “I do not think this was as much about racism as it was sexism. Those who anointed Thomas were men who would not be corrected.”
Now a household name, Hill was excoriated. She was even the subject of a book that claimed she was a liar and mocked her as “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.” (Its author, David Brock, later apologized and admitted to libeling Hill.)*
Even without testimnoy in front of the Senate, there is enough reason to question the fitness of Kavanaugh for appointment to the Supreme Court to at least delay hearings if not withdrawal the nomination. Not that this will stop Senate Republicans from pushing forward a vote to confirm as long as they can pressure their collegues to fall in line. At this point Kavanaugh’s confirmation basically depends on Susan Collins’ willingness to fall on her sword, regardless of any testimony about rape allegations.
It might be amusing to learn what Kavanaugh’s apologists think/thought of the allegations by Anita Hill against Clarence Thomas.
I remember thinking — based simply on details and imagining possible motives — that Anita Hill was obviously telling the truth. I felt sure that most of the Senators also knew this but had to pretend otherwise since it was just a he says-she says story.
Later I read David Brock’s The Real Anita Hill. (Not a book I’d ever be likely to pick to read but drinking beer in an Asian beach resort, I noticed a “Swap your books for ours” sign … Brock’s book was one of the few that had any interest!) Brock seemed convincing. Later, of course, he confessed that he was a Rove-type operator and that almost every sentence in the book was a deliberate lie.
TL;DR: At this point I save time by assuming the Republicans are the liars. I’ll be right at least 99% of the time.
As I said earlier I couldn’t remember how old I am this year.
But I know exactly what I drunk one night on a trip to Fiji in 1989. Or 88, I can’t remember which.
If I can remember what I was drinking one night many years ago (but can forget some other details that one might expect me to remember) then why do you hold the belief that someone else cannot? I’m anecdotal evidence that of course it is possible. And I’m sure I’m not alone.
You could save even more time by assuming all politicians are liars.
I find the allegations very hard to believe. She’s had decades to go to the police and did not. She made the allegations to the Democrat party not the police. The Democrats sat on the allegations. And the FBI have declined to investigate. The allegation is pretty much impossible to prove and people - even SCOTUS nominees - are entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Whatever you think of Grassley’s sense of duty to country, he can at least fucking count. If the votes aren’t going to be there, there won’t be a vote - Kavanaugh will make a short speech about having his honor impugned, and will withdraw.
Interesting to see that you’re missing the two things judges are supposed to put first there - the constitution and the law. If the constitution, or a constitutional law, is unfair or unjust, or even bad for the country, a judge must uphold it, or they have no function.
The law can be understood only in the context of justice. The law is just a tool to Establish Justice. Following the letter of the law is what trial and appeal courts do, but the Supremes *make *law. Wouldn’t you rather they do so justly?
I would have been about 18 at the time. Or 17, or 19, I’m not quite good with dates. Living in New Zealand. With no real understanding of what “the US Supreme Court” was or did. All I knew back then was the name “Anita Hill” was mentioned on TV enough for the name to register, and that whatever it was she was accusing someone else of doing she probably wasn’t telling the truth.
I used to think lots of things back then. Used to think that people like Ashley Judd or Halle Berry were actually difficult to work with. I used to think that people like Rebecca Watson were everything that was wrong with the skeptics industry. I was once on the jury (it may have been 1998 or 1997, I can’t remember) where I voted against the accuser because part of me thought it was a false allegation. I even convinced some of the other jurors to change their mind.
There are a lot of things I used to think. There are are a lot of things that I regret, and some things (like that jury decision) that I wish I could go back in time and tell my younger self what an idiot I was, and to consider the evidence again.
A quote from the senior yearbook photo/blurb of Kavanaugh’s alleged accomplice in the attempted rape: “Certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs”
The nomination will be pulled this week. Mitch McConnell knows how to count votes, and when he finds he does not have them, there will be no vote. Once more the Republican Party is exposed as the party of sexual predators, having one in the White House, one in the Supreme Court, and now attempting to put another on the Supreme Court. Thanks for motivating Democratic women right before the midterm, suckers!
According to the TV, Murkowski also said she isn’t comfortable voting “yes” before hearing from the accuser.
The betting markets for Kavanaugh have gone nuts in the last 24 hours. From about a 10% chance of not being confirmed by the end of October to around a 40% chance, last time I checked.
Yes, good. And it will be equally interesting to hear Kavanaugh’s story, as well as the story of other folks who were allegedly at the party. Not el drunko, but the other one or two people who were supposed to have been there. If Kavanaugh or anyone else remembers him being at this party, drunk, then things won’t look too good for him.
Not clear what you mean by that, except that maybe you’re denigrating the concept of justice itself, perhaps implying that believing in its existence as distinct from the law is simple woolyheadedness; is that it, M’Lud?