Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
No! Just, No!
Sorry, but with all due respect to everyone trying to be respectful and even-handed, the Senate should not devote a single second, a tenth of a second, a microsecond, to the supposed charges against Brett Kavanaugh.
Line it up. Senator Feinstein has for over a month sat on an unsubstantiated 30-year-old allegation of teenage misconduct brought by a progressive activist against a respected jurist, and then brought it forward at the last minute in an attempt to stall the process and if not thwart the nomination, to smear the integrity of the nominee so that he is forever tainted.
Considering the circumstances, the burden of proof should be entirely on the accuser and her supporters. When the return on a successful lie is so high, the presumption should be that the accuser is lying. Until there is overwhelming proof not only of the instant allegation but a pattern of behavior, the Senate should adamantly refuse any consideration whatsoever.
Published in Law
Ah, but you’re overlooking the old TomFoley/Democrat rule … it’s not the evidence or lack of evidence that matters, it’s “the seriousness of the charge.”
As near as I am aware, there have been no other accusations leveled at Kavanaugh, the timing of the stunt seems convenient and is definitely contrived. The FBI has said there isn’t enough there to investigate. I agree with you.
Me. too.
Give her 24 hours to present persuasive evidence. When did the party occur. Who was there. Who took her home. Where were her parents. In the absence of this, sanction DiFi for wasting our time (I can dream, can’t I?).
Amen.
For the sake of argument, let us say that Mark Judge, the person who stopped the alleged attack, comes forward and confirms Ford’s story. Then what?
I don’t think it happened, at least not as described.
That said, if every last word of the accusation is true, that 30 years ago as a high school student at a drinking party he tried to kiss her and take of her clothing ( but failed, completely), even then I say this is not worthy of any attention.
I realize everyone on the left was a picture of virtue in their teen years, but for the rest of us, it is absolutely an injustice to hold the adult responsible for the actions of the minor. That is pretty commonly understood in law, is it not?
If every teen aged boy that tried unsuccessfully to make out with a girl while drunk is now to be considered pariah, few of us will remain. What matters is how we conduct ourselves once we reach adult age, not what mistakes we may have made while in puberty.
Shoot him and blame it on the Democrats. That’s the kind of thing they do.
Then Judge Kavanaugh will have lied in his categorical denial. The charge is so old, however, that he could at least claim to have forgotten. Absent a subsequent pattern of behavior, which has not apparently been evident, no discussion. If there is any credibility to the charge, the Democrats will have evidence. If they don’t bring it forward, all they’re entitled to is the single finger wave.
If it is true, every last word, then he lied about it, right? Or he was so drunk he doesn’t remember.
Right, as I said, I doubt it is true.
I’m just saying that even if it were true, it isn’t significant.
Mark Judge told The Weekly Standard on Friday that the assault allegations were “just absolutely nuts.”
Kavanaugh Denies Presence at Scene of Alleged Assault
I absolutely agree with the OP, sadly, that is not going to be the course of action by the cuckolded Republican majority. They have folded and will offer faint defense while the Liberals smear this amazing man. There are too many Republicans who really don’t want conservative judges, and others who might be termed “never Trump’ers” who are eager to find an excuse to jump off and vote no.
Thanks for that. Good info…
My response to the post by <span class="atwho-inserted" contenteditable="false" data-atwho-at-query="@mikeh“>@mikeh; agree with you 100%!
Anita Hill. Does that name ring a very loud bell, by any chance? With all due respect to the right of all to have their own ideas about this (one more!) filthy, rotten, despicable, sleazy, gross, attempt at flinging slime all over a person who is clearly one of the most qualified persons to ever be nominated for the Supreme Court, the suggestion that a man of this caliber should be forced to withdraw because of something he did when he was 16 years old with a 15 year old girl at a drinking party so well described by @goldwaterwoman, true or not, is so deeply antithetical to everything I have ever learned about, and spent much of a lifetime advocating about, that I simply cannot get a handle on it. Judge Kavanaugh is “toast” because of something he did or did not do, pardon me if I insert my own personal opinion here and say I do not believe a word this California Professor of Feel Goodery says in her 37 year old account that, all of a sudden, she is “duty-bound” to make public– to use the old tattered phrase in modern usage, give ma a break! And, some of our “leaders” are now talking about “inviting” her in for a nice little chat, over tea and crumpets I am sure. Really? Do we actually want to give Spartacus another run at it; do we really want The Right Honourable Kamala Harris to throw some more of her apparently endless supply of unsubstantiated innuendos out there in the air and let’s just see where they land? Is there not some end to this pure, unadulterated lunacy? Mr. Welch said it best in addressing the fountainhead of McCarthyism, “have you at long last, Sir, no decency?” I just find it impossible to understand how in the world we are actually talking about bringing back the modern version of the woman who came very close to stopping the nomination of a man who is becoming, in the opinion of many legal scholars who are brave enough to say it (in itself, a national tragedy) potentially one of the great Justices to ever sit on the Supreme Court, The Hon. Clarence Thomas.
What is happening to us, when we will, as in this case, almost instantaneously, start talking about “if this is true”, about a situation which is so obviously a ploy to derail the investiture of a man who will almost certainly become one of the real intellectuals on the Court? The key to all this tawdriness is quite simple: we will never know if it’s true or not. But, even if it is true, this should not be allowed to stand–not in America.
What is happening to our sense of justice?
As transparently manipulative as this strange high schooler accusation is, it’s a mistake to barge ahead and ignore it.
The whole point of bringing out the charge of overzealous teenage boy Kavanaugh is to make Republicans look heartless and like they will protect predators. Any rational person in normal circumstances would not think a non-criminal act by a 17 year old would be anything to even speak about in public let alone derail a Supreme Court vote… but then there’s this election coming up.
This is about the war on women war. And getting out that vote for the midterms.
The plan was put out this allegation of two kids fumbling around at a party in the 1980s, be sure the Republicans ignore it, and make hay out of the heartless Republicans, drive up resistance vote. I don’t believe Kavanaugh did any such thing as described, but I think this lady may have talked herself into believing it happened that way, she was after all probably drinking, maybe for the first time… 36 year old memories blur.
Republicans should be a sympathy as possible… so should Kavanaugh. “OH my, she thinks that happened, poor little her… she must have confused that memory with me somehow, poor little her…”
Call their bluff, because this lady put genitals on her head and walked around town… she can’t be credible, let’s televise this thing… she’ll prove to be a full blown nutcase… she’s in her 50s and marched with genitals on her head! No sane woman would be caught dead with genitals on her head.
Can you imagine if men put their genitals on their heads and marched down the street?… the woman is a nutcase, I guarantee it.
Disagree. Even if true, though, it just means it is time to quit being reasonable and raise a little hell.
Well … you do know … that does happen on Folsom Street in S.F.
The “Mike Pence Rule” doesn’t look so stupid now, does it?
Hopefully you all saw my post this morning…?
Agreed. But not on the Senate’s time.
I second this. She has a lot to gain. It is a fact, stated by her husband that they don’t want him on the Supreme Court. According to them, it is just because of this high school episode. According to Democrats, it is because he is pro life and pro second amendment. Republicans have been more than fair in this by offering to interview her.
Her story and proof are thin.
She walked around with genitals on her head? I wish I had been there to see that. I like to see strange sights.
The blowback from Republicans (and all people of sense) should be strong and persistent. Shame her and shame Feinstein. Keep calling it the smear that it is. Don’t let up.
And shame everyone who wants to derail his nomination.
They should be ashamed of themselves!
What has the Democratic Party become? My goodness what a farce.
So, you would still need to hold a senate hearing to enter this all into the record and have her do it under oath? Isn’t this what is happening now? Or at least is in the works?
The timing and roll out of the accusations is certainly overly convenient, but oh well. Thems the breaks, and unless you plan for Republicans to give up the opportunity to drop bombshell accusations on future Democratic judicial nominees. I don’t see what there is to do other than take her testimony, and question he under oath before the Senate Committee and allow Kavanaugh to then rebut. Then the Senators can make up their minds about him.
Agreed, and good post.
If we had more Republican Senators, we might be able to pull it off. Unfortunately, we’re a few solid Senators shy.
My response was to the post last night by <span class="atwho-inserted" contenteditable="false" data-atwho-at-query="@nickh“>@nickh, not @mikeh— I apologize for the mistake and plead Senioritis in mitigation. Jim.
Dream away.
What a farce this all is.
And more than a few conservatives shy.
No, a Senate hearing is not necessary. Senator Grassley could play hardball and have a team of FBI agents sent to interview both the Judge and the accuser under oath. Immediately.
Then release the findings to the Committee and full Senate. Feinstein and the Washington Post sat on this over two months and it is about political power and November elections.
The Republicans should play hardball now. Not at some later time. Another Republican choice for a SCOTUS pick might not exist later this year.