Kavanaugh hearing

[Seabass]

Put a clown in the White House, expect a circus.

[Cunt]

Didn't he just secure a juicy trade deal while everyone was watching this sideshow?

[Tero]

All for show?
Vox:
Though the tone was different, the substance of (Rachel) Mitchell’s questions was very similar to what Hill faced in 1991. Again, a woman came before the Senate Judiciary Committee and had her memory, her credibility, and her sanity questioned. Again the hearing turned into a referendum on the woman, although she was neither the one accused of sexual misconduct nor the one hoping to ascend to the Supreme Court. Again, the man got the last word.

Ultimately, Mitchell’s presence seemed like an effort to sugarcoat a basic fact: Many senators are no more interested in taking sexual misconduct allegations seriously than their predecessors were in 1991. And when a woman comes forward with such allegations, too often, her words are still given less weight than a man’s. If Thursday’s hearing was a test of the impact of #MeToo, the results are clear: Our country still has a lot of work to do.
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/9 ... anita-hill

[Svartalf]

Burn!

because Michelle kills all his mistresses and by blopws and feeds the remains to pigs

[pErvinalia]

It's true. They kept pigs in the basement of the white house. [/alex jones]

[Tero]

Forbes:
When one thinks of the sea of strident bitter recriminations that have engulfed this whole Supreme Court nomination process, and the partisan political football the Supreme Court has become, it feels like we’ve completely lost sight of what a Supreme Court ought to be.

It feels, sadly, like we as a nation are losing our way.

Well, cheer up, the good news at least is I think we found someone today with the right temperament to make a fine Supreme Court Justice.

Her name is Christine Blasey Ford.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipm ... today/amp/

[Svartalf]

LOsing? man, you've been totally lost at sea at least since roberts and alito's nominations, possibly a lot earlier.

[cronus]

parallel universes, there are four variants and they are all true. (or not)

[Svartalf]

Schrödinger's Crumple?

[Forty Two]

He's trolling. What would you expect me to do?

Stop it. The common denominator in so many of these exchanges is you.

[Forty Two]

If you are referring to Sean's post, then why the fuck are you responding to him through me? I was explicitly referring to your explicit referral to sexual assault. And again, getting groped by the cock unexpectedly by someone you aren't engaging with in a sexual fashion is by definition sexual assault. That you don't feel too bothered about it doesn't change that it is sexual assault and you could bring charges if you wanted.

Sean said something about her "being raped." I said that she wasn't "being raped." You chimed in that it "clearly was sexual assault." I clarified in response that that's different than "being raped," which shows that your statement that it "clearly was sexual assault" was irrelevant to the conversation you cut in on mid-stream. I did not go "through you." You entered an exchange that wasn't with you.

What the fuck? YOU explicitly referred to sexual assault. That's what I was replying to.

Whatever, man. I referred to it being different from "being raped." And, that was in response to Sean, not you. That's all. You chimed in the middle of it. No worries. Nobody's hurt here. Screw off with your facepalms. You're getting all bunged up again, with your comments about snowflakes and whatnot, and now trying to pick another fight over an irrelevancy. Take a pill and relax.

[Tero]

42, this could happen:
(The Onion)
WASHINGTON—Speaking before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Brett Kavanaugh defended himself against accusations of misconduct Thursday with claims that he never committed sexual assault as it will come to be defined in a future Supreme Court case. “The allegations that I assaulted these women are categorically untrue based on the 2019 case of Sandberg v. Jones, which will establish that only penetrative sex can be classified as assault, and then only in cases with up to four eye-witnesses,” said Kavanaugh, arguing that the upcoming 5-4 decision in which he will write the majority opinion would completely exonerate him. “Admittedly, there are things from my past that cause me to cringe, but I have never done anything that could be considered illegal based on this landmark ruling that will come up in the next few months. Furthermore, these accusations are largely irrelevant as they fall significantly outside the soon-to-be-established statute of limitations of two weeks following an alleged incident.” Kavanaugh added that this whole ordeal had been extremely trying for him and his family, and he looked forward to pursuing legal action against Christine Blasey Ford for violating forthcoming laws against defaming a federal judge.

[Forty Two]

Forbes:
When one thinks of the sea of strident bitter recriminations that have engulfed this whole Supreme Court nomination process, and the partisan political football the Supreme Court has become, it feels like we’ve completely lost sight of what a Supreme Court ought to be.

It feels, sadly, like we as a nation are losing our way.

Well, cheer up, the good news at least is I think we found someone today with the right temperament to make a fine Supreme Court Justice.

Her name is Christine Blasey Ford.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipm ... today/amp/

A supreme court justice should know what the word "exculpatory" means.

[Forty Two]

Burn!

because Michelle kills all his mistresses and by blopws and feeds the remains to pigs

I shake my head sometimes, wondering what has happened to reason and critical thinking.

Nobody alleges "women just make these things up to harm powerful men...."

What is alleged is that women are human beings, and as such what individual women do runs the entire spectrum of truth-telling to lie-telling. Most people who accuse another person of a crime are not lying - most people don't go around making things up about other people. That's because most people are good and at least want to be honest.

However, even though most people who accuse another person of punching them in the face, if someone came forward 36 years later after never having reported previously that a candidate for public appointed office punched them in the face at a party in high school, we would generally want evidence and we would also ask why it was not reported previously. We also know that sometimes, a person lies and when they say they were punched in the face, there are an infinite number of possible reasons a person might have (under varying circumstances) to not report that accurately. Women are not exempt.

If a candidate or nominee were accused of embezzling funds from a high school club, or stealing his bandmate's guitar, or cheating on a test, we would ask why we are only hearing about it now and what's the evidence. Women are not exempt. We would ask for witnesses. We would wonder, if four named witnesses deny the accusations, if it actually occurred at all. Nobody uncritically believes the victim in any other circumstance to the point of crediting the allegations and disqualifying someone based on the accusation under those circumstances.

That's not because we are saying that people make things up to harm powerful men - not in any other context of wrongful or criminal conduct. We know most accusations are generally true. But, we also know that human beings have a propensity to lie. In fact, it's true that everybody in the world lies in some form or another from time to time. We also know that they can and are wrong, mistaken, and even mentally unstable or mentally ill from time to time. Women are not exempt.

We know that where there is a motive to lie (financial, political, personal, whatever), that some people will lie. We know that to credit accusation which conveniently are disclosed at a key moment to harm another person, that there is reason to require proof or reason to believe the allegations. Women are not exempt.

Saying person John Smith's allegation needs to be corroborated before we act in reliance on it is not saying that "all men lie to harm other people..." Why would we think differently when the allegation is made by a woman?

It is completely irrational and illogical to say that we should believe without corroboration the word of accuser John Smith because the vast majority of men do not lie about criminal accusations. Why in the world would we think it's rational and logical to say that we should believe without corroboration the word of accuser Jane Doe because the vast majority of women do not lie about criminal accusations?

What this meme and this thought process (which has infected so many people these days) does is say that we should take a statistic (most people accused of crime are guilty) and attribute it to individual cases (since most people accused of crime are guilty, it's reasonable to assume or conclude that an individual accused person is guilty). Then we can say "if a few men are hurt by the few false allegations that might from time to time occur, so be it." It is a reversal of the burden of proof, and not just the criminal burden of proof in trials, but the burden of proof of reason and skepticism - that a person making an epistemological claim, an empirical claim, a circumstantial claim, an claim about a phenomenon or an event - a claim that reality is X -- that claim will not be accepted unless verified, corroborated, tested, or supported by convincing proof, evidence or reason.

[Forty Two]

All for show?
Vox:
Though the tone was different, the substance of (Rachel) Mitchell’s questions was very similar to what Hill faced in 1991. Again, a woman came before the Senate Judiciary Committee and had her memory, her credibility, and her sanity questioned.

Rightly so, as did Kavanaugh. His memory. His credibility.
His sanity. It was far more than questioned. It was attacked - hard. He was accused of lying - of being a black-out drunk, of taking drugs, of distributing drugs or helping to conspire to do so, of standing in line at 10 parties to be in a train of gang rapists, assaulting and raping young girls. His memory was questioned with biting and loaded questions about events that occurred 36 years ago.

Kavanaugh was treated with kid gloves, given all the courtesy in the world. Hardly challenged. Very little follow-up and questions that any good cross-examining attorney would ask were left on the table. Her conflicting stories were barely scratched. The time she was actually questioned was so limited, that it was difficult for the attorney to get through her questions, and the witness statements that contradict Ford's account were hardly explored.

Again the hearing turned into a referendum on the woman, although she was neither the one accused of sexual misconduct nor the one hoping to ascend to the Supreme Court. Again, the man got the last word.

This is madness. The "man" was grilled for hours. Raked over the coals about the quotes in his yearbook - chosen when he was about 16 years old. His fucking yearbook quotes. The fact that he drank beer was offered as proof that he was likely a rapist.

It wasn't a "referendum on a woman." The person in question here brought allegations to the table, naming four people as witnesses to some or all of the events. Every one of them refuted her allegations. She raised 36 year old allegations which were recovered as "trauma" in psychotherapy sessions.

Are we to expect that because she's a woman and because these are sexual allegations that her statements are not to be questioned? Not to be tested? Not to be inquired about? She can't be wrong? She can't be mistaken? She can't be lying?

Ultimately, Mitchell’s presence seemed like an effort to sugarcoat a basic fact: Many senators are no more interested in taking sexual misconduct allegations seriously than their predecessors were in 1991. And when a woman comes forward with such allegations, too often, her words are still given less weight than a man’s. If Thursday’s hearing was a test of the impact of #MeToo, the results are clear: Our country still has a lot of work to do.
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/9 ... anita-hill

Mitchell's presence was obviously to have one person ask most of the questions, rather than a row of senators, and make the mouth asking the questions female, so as to avoid the process being characterized as a bunch of old men ganging up on a meek little woman.

And, the article ends with a platitude - our country still has a lot of work to do. O.k., vox - tell us what a good, valid and well-set-up process would be like under these circumstance? How would the allegation be received by a committee to appoint a SCOTUS Justice? Would it be done by letter or other communication? Exactly how? Once received, what should be done with an allegation of sexual assault? (use Ford's allegation as an example). Should there be testimony taken? Should anyone ask her questions? Should problems and issues with her story be raised? Should inconsistencies be explored? Should contrary witness statements be explored? Should she be asked what evidence is there?

Should we just take the allegation and not test it, and any nominee faced with an accusation like that is toast? If not, why not? And if not, how should the Senate handle such accusations in order to determine what to do with them?