• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kavanaugh accuser breaks silence about sexual misconduct allegations detailed in letter to Senate De

Atheist 2020 said:
He will never be found guilty of the attempted gang rape. Time has pass to long to get a convictions. Second, it happened during the 1980's were people would say during that time -- you went to a party with drunk boys. During that era, they are going to college and you are going to get married and have babies. It's the 2010's and women can go to college too and they do not need children to make them complete. Women do not need to have a man. We are in the era of single mothers and a teenage boys from a single mother does not need a father figure
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of finding him guilty as in a court of law. Ethical standards for SCOTUS associate justices are a different ball of wax. There should at least be hearings with the woman & the male witnesses.
 
The Democrats may indeed derail this judge's confirmation bid.

And they may then end up with someone whom they really come to loathe.


The Democrats may be hoist by their own petard.
 
joko104 said:
[FONT="]"Christine Blasey Ford, now a 51-year-old [U][B]professor at Palo Alto University in California[/B][/U]...[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#2B2C30][FONT="]Ford told the Post that she hasn’t spoken with Kavanaugh since the alleged incident and didn’t tell anyone about it until 2012, when she discussed it in couple’s therapy."

That seems to tell the motive of telling this story. The reason she didn't tell anyone about the high school kid she now claims tried to rape and murder her over 3 decades ago was... [/FONT]
Click to expand...

From what I have read- Ford is NOT saying he tried to murder her. She does express that she thought she might die - inadvertently - from Kavanaugh supposedly trying to cover her mouth and I imagine she had trouble breathing then.
 
eohrnberger said:
"At the heart of this dispute is the so-called Ginsburg Rule, a term used in confirmation hearings to argue that when answering questions from the senators, nominees must avoid offering “hints,” “forecasts” or “previews” — as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put it in her confirmation hearing — into how they might rule on ...Jul 9, 2018"

“hints,” “forecasts” or “previews” as to how Kavanaugh might rule would appear to be the only questions they are asking anymore.

The Senate Democrats have politicized the SCOTUS nomination process, as anyone watching these proceedings is witness to, because they want activist court members to institute the social policies they can't get through the regular legislative process, as they, more often than not, far too extreme. In other words, yet another form of fascism from the left.

Kavanaugh, and previous nominees, are quite right in not answering those types of questions.
Click to expand...

And this so called GINSBURG RULE ned to be trashed and smashed into oblivion.
 
joko104 said:
It should have been brought up before the hearing was over.
Click to expand...

The vote is not yet taken and there is plenty of time to hear this charge before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
 
gdgyva said:
No...

That just opens up anyone with a claim coming forward 30-40 years later with zero proof needed

So the next democratic nominee may have 10 of these come out in October right before the election....and of course you are going to want to hear all of their stories....right?

Sexual harassment sucks....but this is and has gotten out of hand. Women have to come forward before the person is coming up for election, or the bench, or whatever....

He has been on the federal bench for 12 years....why not then?

She is a professor not some uneducated waitress someplace....

This is just another in a long series of sad attempts to thwart the GOP from placing their judges on the bench

And we all know it....
Click to expand...

It does not matter why not then 12 years ago. Let Ford answer that in a hearing. No matter what though, this is a serious charge and deserves a full hearing and Kavanaugh must be afforded the opportunity to respond to it.
 
Captain Adverse said:
You mean you want to turn the Senate into a kangaroo court hearing decade old allegations and finding someone "guilty" until proven innocent.

This is another delaying tactic. The BIG question is why didn't Feinstein bring this up during the original hearing period? She had this "damning" info MONTHS before.

There is no valid excuse, she did it intentionally for just that purpose.
Click to expand...

The Senator has said she wanted to respect the privacy wishes of the letter writer who at that time wished to remain in the shadows and out of the spotlight.
 
We know her goal is saying anything to destroy Kavanaugh by her extreme exaggeration of "he could have inadvertently killed me!" - when nothing even in her own story supports that accusation.
 
haymarket said:
And this so called GINSBURG RULE ned to be trashed and smashed into oblivion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right, so that the left can get their judicial activism on SCOTUS, rather than good, sound, legal constitutionally compliant rulings. :roll:

None the less, Ginsburg rules are what we are currently operating under, so, so be it.
 
haymarket said:
It does not matter why not then 12 years ago. Let Ford answer that in a hearing. No matter what though, this is a serious charge and deserves a full hearing and Kavanaugh must be afforded the opportunity to respond to it.
Click to expand...

No, can't wait for a hearing to be over and then say "wait, there is information we have held back in case the hearing didn't go how we wanted, so we demand a 2nd hearing."

The hearing is over. Over is over. Same for trials. The prosecution can not wait until the jury is deliberating, decide its not going well, and declare "your honor, we have new evidence we want to present, so restart the trial. Doesn't work that way. Over is over.
 
joko104 said:
We know her goal is saying anything to destroy Kavanaugh by her extreme exaggeration of "he could have inadvertently killed me!" - when nothing even in her own story supports that accusation.
Click to expand...

Now, who's motto is it 'By any means necessary' again?
 
JacksinPA said:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...-about-sexual-misconduct-allegations-detailed

The woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct has identified herself and is speaking publicly about her allegations against Kavanaugh for the first time, according to a Washington Post investigation published Sunday.

Christine Blasey Ford, now a 51-year-old professor at Palo Alto University in California, described an incident between the two in high school, alleging that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed one summer in the 1980s and forced himself on her.

Ford told the Post that Kavanaugh "groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it."

She also said Kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth when she attempted to scream for help.
================================================
This SCOTUS nominee is a real class act. A drunken attempted rapist. What a man!

She should be given the chance to testify before the nomination vote.
Click to expand...

Amazing how the WH had 68? Rebuttals the day after.
Did you know 68 people in high school.?
They must have been expecting it
 
haymarket said:
And this so called GINSBURG RULE ned to be trashed and smashed into oblivion.
Click to expand...

Any topic a judge or judge candidate expresses how s/he would rule on a case automatically disqualified that judge from ever hearing the case. It is not just the "Ginsberg" rule. It is the Judicial Canon of Ethics rule too.
 
YorkshirePete said:
Amazing how the WH had 68? Rebuttals the day after.
Did you know 68 people in high school.?
They must have been expecting it
Click to expand...

Of course it was expected. This is the new Democratic Party attack against all Republicans.
 
eohrnberger said:
Yeah, right, so that the left can get their judicial activism on SCOTUS, rather than good, sound, legal constitutionally compliant rulings. :roll:

None the less, Ginsburg rules are what we are currently operating under, so, so be it.
Click to expand...

First, there is no RULE. Its simply the way things have been allowed to evolve to. It was not always this way and does not have to be this way.

Second, when nominees refuse to discuss their own views, positions and beliefs, the inevitable result is going to be trying to attack them from other avenues and this is but one example.
 
joko104 said:
Any topic a judge or judge candidate expresses how s/he would rule on a case automatically disqualified that judge from ever hearing the case. It is not just the "Ginsberg" rule. It is the Judicial Canon of Ethics rule too.
Click to expand...

And when was that Judicial Canon changed before the Ginsburg hearings?
 
joko104 said:
No, can't wait for a hearing to be over and then say "wait, there is information we have held back in case the hearing didn't go how we wanted, so we demand a 2nd hearing."

The hearing is over. Over is over. Same for trials. The prosecution can not wait until the jury is deliberating, decide its not going well, and declare "your honor, we have new evidence we want to present, so restart the trial. Doesn't work that way. Over is over.
Click to expand...

The hearings were rushed and you damn well know it and would say so if you were honest about this.

There is plenty of time to have a hearing on this and still take the committee vote in a few weeks and the Senate full confirmation vote after that.

What is the rush?
 
haymarket said:
All those factors you mentioned need to be brought up in a formal hearing and examined. I am not saying I believe this woman and I am not saying I do not believe this woman. She and the nation deserves the opportunity to hear her story and Kavanaugh deserves the opportunity to respond to it.
Click to expand...

Nope, that is why we have courts and very few of them allow cameras in them. Criminal allegations are not decided by the court of public opinion and must be brought by the state having jurisdiction (usually with grand jury approval). The 'deal' that you offer here seems to be to use the civil standard of a preponderance of the evidence (none of it physical?) to 'prove' that a criminal offense just might have occurred (35?) years ago. Of course, he is being asked to prove a negative but that is no problem for those that see this a way to shame anyone that dare not allow this 'public hearing' of a serious criminal accusation to take place ASAP.
 
JacksinPA said:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...-about-sexual-misconduct-allegations-detailed

The woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct has identified herself and is speaking publicly about her allegations against Kavanaugh for the first time, according to a Washington Post investigation published Sunday.

Christine Blasey Ford, now a 51-year-old professor at Palo Alto University in California, described an incident between the two in high school, alleging that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed one summer in the 1980s and forced himself on her.

Ford told the Post that Kavanaugh "groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it."

She also said Kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth when she attempted to scream for help.
================================================
This SCOTUS nominee is a real class act. A drunken attempted rapist. What a man!

She should be given the chance to testify before the nomination vote.
Click to expand...

If these #metoo incidents have taught me anything, it's that there is never just one!
 
The response should be this, have Kavanaugh withdraw his nomination, then immediately nominate Judge Barett on a straight vote with no hearing. the democrats already got their circus.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, that is why we have courts and very few of them allow cameras in them. Criminal allegations are not decided by the court of public opinion and must be brought by the state having jurisdiction (usually with grand jury approval). The 'deal' that you offer here seems to be to use the civil standard of a preponderance of the evidence (none of it physical?) to 'prove' that a criminal offense just might have occurred (35?) years ago. Of course, he is being asked to prove a negative but that is no problem for those that see this a way to shame anyone that dare not allow this 'public hearing' of a serious criminal accusation to take place ASAP.
Click to expand...

You are a smart person and I suspect you are well aware that any statute of limitations has long since expired as to criminal prosecution and trial.

The nation watched the Thomas - Hill hearings a few decades ago (I remember well because my Government classes watched every minute of them live) and the people deserve to see these should they happen - and they most certainly should happen.
 
JacksinPA said:
It's not a matter of finding him guilty as in a court of law. Ethical standards for SCOTUS associate justices are a different ball of wax. There should at least be hearings with the woman & the male witnesses.
Click to expand...

Anything to delay delay delay, amirite?

You lot just can't stand it that Trump is putting another Conservative on the court, so you'll do whatever it takes to stop it. Your side IS PATHETIC!
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
If these #metoo incidents have taught me anything, it's that there is never just one!
Click to expand...

Allow me to speak up for Kavanaugh here. I do not think it is fair or right or proper to judge Kavanaugh by the behavior of anyone else. He must be afforded the opportunity to reply and nothing outside of this case should come into play here.

We need a hearing on this and - if I were Kavanaugh - I would be the first to demand one and want it on TV.
 
haymarket said:
First, there is no RULE. Its simply the way things have been allowed to evolve to. It was not always this way and does not have to be this way.

Second, when nominees refuse to discuss their own views, positions and beliefs, the inevitable result is going to be trying to attack them from other avenues and this is but one example.
Click to expand...

haymarket said:
And when was that Judicial Canon changed before the Ginsburg hearings?
Click to expand...

haymarket said:
The hearings were rushed and you damn well know it and would say so if you were honest about this.

There is plenty of time to have a hearing on this and still take the committee vote in a few weeks and the Senate full confirmation vote after that.

What is the rush?
Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, that is why we have courts and very few of them allow cameras in them. Criminal allegations are not decided by the court of public opinion and must be brought by the state having jurisdiction (usually with grand jury approval). The 'deal' that you offer here seems to be to use the civil standard of a preponderance of the evidence (none of it physical?) to 'prove' that a criminal offense just might have occurred (35?) years ago. Of course, he is being asked to prove a negative but that is no problem for those that see this a way to shame anyone that dare not allow this 'public hearing' of a serious criminal accusation to take place ASAP.
Click to expand...

Face it haymarket, you are just pissed off that yet another constitutional textualist is being nominated with a high likelihood of being confirmed, and this just chaps your ass because you can't get the SCOTUS judicial activism that you'd prefer.

Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is primarily based on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as: intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law.[SUP][1][/SUP]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism
Click to expand...

Seems to be that SCOTUS ruling on the cases brought before them measured against the constitution is exactly what they are supposed to do, and what they were designed to do.

Sorry that you find that so upsetting, but I take solace in the fact that it exists as it does, and that more textualist are being nominated to SCOTUS, less subject to the non-textualist interpretations that you and the left would prefer. :shrug:

I see SCOTUS textualist as the anchor to the original intent of the constitution. Too bad that you see the constitution as something that should bend to yours, and the left's, political will, but with 2 textualist being nominated to SCOTUS, seems that the future continuation of constitutional adherence is safe for at least a generation, and I take solace in that as well, regardless of hour their individual rulings turn out.
 
Roadvirus said:
Anything to delay delay delay, amirite?
Click to expand...

Delay for what exactly? It is only mid September and this Congress, and the Senate specifically, is still in office for three more months. There is plenty of time to give this a proper hearing and still have the necessary votes during this session.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom