How is someone like Christine Ford supposed to prove her case?

The Democrats are better. This is a brand new phenomenon – until about 2 years ago, the parties were both abysmal on this. But now the Democrats are just barely starting to take sexual assault seriously. It’s not a huge amount of progress, but they’re actually making progress. The Republicans have made zero progress, and if anything, are regressing, on sexual assault.

This is pretty undeniable. Not that the Democrats are suddenly A+ on sexual assault, but that both parties were F until the last year or two, and now the Democrats have moved to D or C-, and the Republians are still abysmal failures. There are numerous examples.

We can all line up by party and testify how our party is better than the other one, because our evidence is “clear” or “undeniable.” But until we see these efforts in action, it’s hard to know. I think they’re hypocrites and I don’t trust any of them.

There is evidence, pro and con for all of these arguments. There was a party in the rose garden for Clinton where the Dems acted poorly, the Republicans didn’t handle Foley all that well at the time either. Weiner and Franken are poor examples because of the trails they left - hell Weiner all but begged to be kicked out. Both parties pressured Craig and Conyers to leave so that’s something.

I don’t trust them, either, and I think it’s very likely the Democrats’ improvement is due to politics (i.e. they think it’s the better political move to be morally good on sexual assault, finally). But doing the right thing is still better than failing to do so, whatever the reason, and the Democrats are doing the right thing on sexual assault far, far more often than the Republicans, in the last year or two. That’s undeniable.

And in direct answer to the OP’s question “How is someone like Christine Ford supposed to prove her case?” The direct answer is without evidence or a confession, she can’t. It comes down to he said/she said, and 35 years is a long to time hold your tongue and still receive what she perceives a justice. There just isn’t going to be a satisfying answer.

The only real way to handle years-old sex crimes is… to not let them get that old.
We need a support infrastructure that will actually help the victims when they report the crime. And they need to report it immediately, not 25 years in the future!
Judging events from 25 years ago is, frankly, ludicrous. Example: just what did you have for breakfast, the second monday of may, 1992? Ok, now prove that your memory is correct.

Lies, grandstanding, character assassination, violations of confidentiality, and believing in unsubstantiated or frankly fantastic allegations without evidence in order to further a partisan agenda, are an interesting definition of “morally good on sexual assault”.


Agreed – those things would not qualify as “morally good on sexual assault”. Not sure what that has to do with anything I’ve said, of course.

Kavanugh was nominated in early July. He was confirmed in early October. That’s 3 months. That’s not particularly fast. The only sitting justice with a longer confirmation process was Clarence Thomas (by a few days).

Are you under the impression that people care about politicians the way they care about SCOTUS nominations?

I suspect I could come up with a list of disgraced Republican politicians that had to resign under a cloud of allegations of sexual misconduct.

We don’t know what Democrats would do because no one ever accused Elena Kagan, or Sotomayor or Garland, etc. of sexual misconduct. But if they were facing a possibility of losing a majority on the bench for Roe v Wade, I suspect that they would find their way to overlooking allegations of sexual misconduct.

For example, Bill Clinton was accused of sexual misconduct with significantly more evidence than what Ford put forward and Democrats rallied around him. IIRC feminists refused to denounce him or even rallied around him in part because of the types of people he was nominating to SCOTUS.

The short answer is, they usually can’t.

The problem with this reasoning is that there was never any danger of this SCOTUS seat going to a liberal judge. The alternative would have been a different conservative judge.

Yes, the Heritage Foundation has a couple dozen other names on the list they gave Trump - but not one who believes Republican Presidents should not be subjected to investigations or prosecutions and would rule that way. At this point in history, he *had *to be Trump’s nominee.

And there was plenty of time to release and vet most of his record, particularly that coming from his work for the Bush White House. That was denied, as you may or may not remember. The demand for a *real *FBI investigation of the Ford charges was also denied. That’s what I meant by railroading.

You claimed "the Democrats are doing the right thing on sexual assault far, far more often than the Republicans, in the last year or two. " In the Kavanaugh hearings, the Democrats engaged in lies, grandstanding, violations of confidentiality, and believing in unsubstantiated or frankly fantastic allegations without evidence in order to further a partisan agenda.

That’s what it has to do with what you said. You claimed the Democrats were morally good on sexual assault, you now agree that doing all those things do not constitute being morally good on sexual assault, therefore the Democrats are not morally good on sexual assault. QED.


Most of these things you said are false, or are, at best, guesses of things you couldn’t possibly know. So what you’re saying about me is false.

Let us be honest here. The Dems fought hard vs Kavanaugh mostly due to his political beliefs.

I am sure Dr Ford wasn’t lying, but honestly, memories that old are quite unreliable. Yes I know traumatic memories do stay with you but even those change over time.

I don’t think Kavanagh was lying either, but his behaviour as a young man was reprehensible and full of the sort of stuff that well could have led to a attack like Ford remembered. He also drank so much that his memory of that time is pretty much worthless.

The Dems were outraged by Fords accusations, certainly (and a few used her as a tool, of course). The GOP was secretly proud of the guy. (Except the Religious Right of course, who were hypocritical in that they swallowed those admitted behaviours in order to get someone on SCOTUS they thought would repeal Roe. )

So this whole Ford vs Kavanaugh thing was very revealing. It showed that the Evangelicals were willing to throw out their professed religious beliefs in order to get what they think they want. And that the GOP, when scared, will do ANYTHING. Poor Dr Ford has been threatened and harrassed.

It also showed that a Female GOp senator has no shame whatsoever.

Somewhat. But they fought a lot harder than against Gorsuch, and that’s because Kavanaugh was a much worse candidate. He’s really the definition of a partisan hack.

I agree. I would basically put no thought into the question of whether she was telling the truth, but I’d not be surprised at all if she both misunderstood the original events when they occurred and has significantly misrecalled the events since that time. It’s entirely possible that everything took place just as she said, but based on what we know about eyewitness testimony, the odds are not bad that it was someone else or that, for example, Kavanaugh just pulled her into the room and held her because, for example, he had been asked to keep her upstairs while the people downstairs were making out or whatever. Fundamentally, we’ll never know since we only have her memory of the event to go by.

It’s very clear that he lied in at least some part of his testimony to Congress, about his drinking, blacking out, etc. And he, himself, brought evidence that the event could have occurred and, as a judge, he should be aware of the fragility of eyewitness testimony including his own, so it’s safe to say that he was lying in saying that there was no such event. If he had said that he didn’t recall the event, then that would be fair. But outright saying that it didn’t happen could only ever be a lie.

If you don’t go to police, don’t tell anyone, don’t write anything down, and then let several decades pass, you probably can’t.

No they fought harder vs Kavanaugh , iirc.

Good points, yes, he lied there. Better answer would be that he couldn’t recall the incident.

That’s what Sage Rat just said. You might have missed the “than” in his statement.