The Supreme Court Nominee: Brett Kavanaugh shares certain tastes with Trump.

The current nominee for Supreme Court office, Brett Kavanaugh, has been accused of sexual assault. No surprise- he has been so clear in his belief that he is allowed to control women and their bodies - see his desire to revoke Roe vs. Wade.

He’s more a Trump Boy than ever.

Just so we’re all clear, Donald Trump said

Later, referring to Arianne Zucker, Trump says:

Now that the first of what will undoubtedly be more than one woman has come forth detailing Good 'Ole BadBoy Brett’s taste for rape and gagging a victim ( she states he covered her mouth while attempting rape ), I’ve been wondering how the White House will respond.

But we already know, don’t we? That amoral hump picked a boy JUST like him. Trump will shove this nomination through at all costs.

Because, you know, grabbing 'em by the pussy is what America now stands for. The Executive Branch, and soon the Judicial Branch.

Those of you who voted for Trump, ya’ll must be so proud. Just so very proud.

The problem is, is that they are. They are very proud that they finally have a person as hateful as they are in the white house. They have had to suffer under decades of politicians making it difficult or even criminal in order for them to express their hatred. Now that they have finally elected one of their own, why wouldn’t they be proud?

I for one am shocked, SHOCKED, that the candidate who à propos of nothing produced letters from 65 random women vouchsafing he hadn’t raped them has, in fact, raped a woman.

Surprised this thread isn’t taking off more. I came here to post about it, and then I saw it already here.

I mean, how fucking hard is it to find someone who hasn’t raped someone? And will it finally matter this time? Apparently a previous Justice had the same problem and the woman was ridiculed and attacked. (I wasn’t following politics at the time.) And this is the guy that the Republicans thought had the best chance of passing through? Or was it just Donald picking the person on the list who was most deferential to the executive?

It would be very ironic if this is what prevents criminalizing abortion.

Edit: Maybe the title is too subtle?

This happened when Kavanaugh was in high school. If that’s the most recent report of his sexual assault history, I don’t see how it’s going to carry much weight in the long run.

Not the case. It was not that they went out to collect, it was more general references from lots of people, of which 65 were women.

The problem now is that Kavanaugh is most likely lying now when he told senators that he was not even at the party where the assault took place.

That denial is happening right now. And, it is then likely that he will have to lie under oath, for something that does “not carry much weight”.

This is like a line from a 70’s detective show.

Suspect “I was never at the party where she was assaulted”

Detective “How did you know which party it was, when I never told you that detail? Take him away, boys!”

I agree it’s not going to carry much weight with Senators, but I think it should carry some weight. Yes, high school children do some incredibly stupid things. And yes, the fact it occurred in high school should be a consideration. But can he show that he had remorse for his actions, not only now, but back then after he attempted rape?

I know the Pit is probably the wrong forum for this question, but what the hell: What high school wrongdoings should be forgiven without any repercussions, ands which should at least cause you to question the morality of the person who committed them?

Suppose that instead of being 15 or 16, the victim of his attempted rape was 8 or 9 years old. Does the fact that the person attempting rape was only 17 at the time mean that the incident shouldn’t affect his eligibility now to hold high office?

Suppose that the victim wad 15 or 16, but is male. Does that change your opinion?

Let’s take it out of the arena of sexual assault. What if a 17-year-old had trapped a puppy in a bear trap, and while it was howling in pain doused it with gasoline and set it on fire. Should that incident be written off as unimportant to who he is now as an adult?

Where do you (and by “you” I mean fellow Dopers) draw the line?

Ultimately, the Senate will decide where the line is drawn, and it’s most likely going to be along party lines. Morality will have little to do with it. See Clarence Thomas.

Each Republican voter is going to consider if they’ll lose re-election if they vote for Kav, and no doubt McConnell is going to tell them party unity above all. Even if two Repubs vote against him, it will be a 50-50 tie that Pence will break with a vote for Kav.

It was not “a propos of nothing”, it was not “65 random women” and it was not to “vouchsafe that he hadn’t raped him”. I think you got “I” right in that post, but that’s about it.

Can you quote the part you are talking about?

I suspect it’s this part:

To close it in a little tighter:

“the party”

The party that the accuser has been unable to pin down to a location or a date. Kavanaugh seems to believe he knows what party she was assaulted at, despite the fact he wasn’t there.

The fact that this happened in high school is irrelevant to the discussion whether we should allow a man who sexually assaulted a girl onto the Supreme Court, especially when it should be easy to find a qualified candidate who did not attempt rape while in high school.

There are “shenanigans” and there are crimes. Pantsing somebody is a shenanigan. Dining and dashing is on the border (I lean towards ‘crime’). Attempted rape is a crime. We don’t need criminals sitting on the highest court in the land or, to be honest, on lower courts as well.

The “it was in high school” defense is such a moral fail on the part of the speaker that every single person who uses it should hang their heads in shame, go to confession, and beg public forgiveness for losing their goddamned minds. No wonder women abandon this board because of the outright sexism.

If you’re referring to Clarence Thomas, he was never accused of rape, just of telling lewd jokes and repeatedly asking someone he was supervising for a date. (That the charges were so mild is one reason that it was clear Anita Hill was telling the truth.) Inappropriate enough to disqualify? Maybe. But he wasn’t accused of rape nor, for that matter, anything worse than many of the Senators questioning him had done.

I watched much of those hearings. The Senators pretended to be outraged at the charges, but in the absence of corroboration had to give Thomas the benefit of the doubt. Especially after Thomas delivered a long diatribe about how he didn’t even want to be Justice anymore but wanted to defend himself from scurrilous lies. All for one lewd joke and asking to date a subordinate.

Contrast this with Kavanaugh. He’s accused of rape and is, IIUC, almost surely guilty of felony perjury, but the attitude is “Ho-hum. Boys will be boys. And if we excluded felons, wouldn’t it be overly difficult to fill the Scotus vacancy?”

Wake me up from this long nightmare; this can’t possibly be the America I used to love.

It was something more than that - asking Hill to watch a porno with him, putting a pubic hair on her Coke can, some more stuff that nobody could make up - but no, still not physical force. So it’s all good, right?

Remember too that Thomas played the race card, largely neutralizing further questioning and adeptly putting the focus on the questioners instead, by calling the inquiry a “high-tech lynching”.

It was always there. But now the cover has been ripped off.

Yeah, we sure do see where you’re coming from here. Let me just see if I follow the logic of your argument here.

It was high school. It doesn’t carry much weight in the long run.

Copy that… Now we know what kind of person you are.

In today’s Tom the Dancing Bug, Ruben Bolling weighs in on the long history between Trump and Kavanaugh…

And what would that be? One with realistic expectations of how this whole sordid process is going to conclude?

Can you show me where I said I fully support Kavanaugh and think rape isn’t a crime?

The guys is a lawyer. Don’t give me a paraphrase of something he said and then tell me he lied. He might very well have said “I was not at any such party during the summer of 1982”.

If somebody killed another when he was 17, I’d consider him for the Supreme Court 30 years later if he had turned his life around and showed remorse for the act.

If somebody committed rape when they were 17 (NOT what is alleged here), kept quiet about it, and kept a cool silence while the victim’s name was dragged through the mud 30 years later, I would not seat him to an appeals court.

Jeet Heer: [INDENT] I’m fascinated by the “teenage rapists deserve a pass” strand of conservatism that is emerging.

Old line: No collusion, and anyways collusion isn’t a crime.
New line: no attempted rape, and anyways if there was attempted rape in high school he should still be confirmed.

I want a venn diagram of people willing to argue “Give Kavanaugh a break, he was only 17” and “Trayvon Martin got what he deserved.”

It’s true, as @ebruenig & others have said, that we don’t really have a culture of forgiveness. But maybe that’s because we also don’t have a culture of contrition and repentance.

I’m all for forgiveness & restorations but there has to be contrition and repentance first. If the accusation against Kavanaugh is accurate (on which it’s proper to remain agnostic until further investigation), then there has been no contrition and repentance. [/INDENT]