I’m shocked that there are seriously people willing to say that even if they knew a man attempted to rape a 15 year old when he was 17, that doesn’t disqualify him from being a Supreme Court judge.
I suppose I shouldn’t be so surprised but wow. That explains a lot about our society.
I think it explains a lot about our society that people immediately assume a person is guilty based on a vague story told 36 years after the fact. What we know is that the ALLEGATION is that he tried to take off her clothes. I don’t know that it reaches the level of attempted rape- even if it happened. Drunk kids.
If you are responding to my post, please understand that I believe my potentially more “forgiving” inclination toward an abuser, is an inappropriate culturally infused response.
I think it explains a lot about our society that a woman as educated and hardworking as Dr Ford is presumed to have some multi year nefarious plan and shouldn’t be trusted and even if something did happen the guy has moved on and matured so she should just get over being attacked as a kid.
If the girl has been drinking, what did she expect to happen and she should have known better.
If the guy was drinking, well you know, high-spirited boys who couldn’t help themselves.
Double standard.
No one is saying that, Snowball. IF it happened, it’s an unfortunate situation and one that happens all too frequently. But it was 36 friggin’ years ago and there is no verification of any of it. I think it was ridiculous to bring it up now- whatever “it” might be. She had a lot of years to screw up his career- I guess she gambled and found just the right moment to give it a go.
Alcohol is not an excuse to grope and try to undress a 15 year old, while putting your hand over her mouth so she can’t scream. And as your friend turns up the music so people in another room can’t hear what’s happening.
I seriously doubt, if that happened as she has claimed (which more than one person has said even if it happened as claimed shouldn’t disqualify him) that he was just trying to play patty cake.
But what you might think happened really doesn’t matter, does it, because there is absolutely no proof.
Only a double standard if you think a man’s testimony would be treated any differently (men do get assaulted). I don’t think it would be. Same problems with age of all parties, drinking, unclear motivation, time passed since the incident, etc., etc. Since the alleged event is a category 4 sex offense misdemeanor (or possibly, a category 2 assault misdemeanor), per the Washington Post’s interviews of Maryland attorneys, I don’t think it is being treated differently than any other say, category 2 assault. If BK had beaten up another boy, again, without witnesses or corroborating evidence, would it be treated the same? I think yes, it would be.
I’m aware @MomofWildChild
I get the position by those stating that since they can’t know as there is no proof (and not likely to be a thorough investigation to know for sure where there would be any other information about it), that they aren’t comfortable disqualifying him based solely on a he said/ she said.
I don’t get (and never will, so not worth debating to convince me even if this was a debate board) those saying that they wouldn’t change their minds even if it was independently verified. That even if it is true, it still shouldn’t disqualify him. Whether it was a misdemeanor or not. Whether it was attempted rape or “just” drunken molestation… call me an idealist but a Supreme Court Judge should have a cleaner background than that.
I can understand that, mom2twogirls. I like to believe in redemption, and think there are a lot of fine people whose services we would lose under your standard, but I can appreciate your standard. The one thing we are certain of is that the next nominee, of any gender or party, will need to be prepared his/her whole life from allegations, particularly single source allegations. I’m not sure anyone can do that.
No need to be insulting, @busdriver11. Of course, I understand all that but are you honestly of the opinion that we shouldn’t care if this is true or not? I don’t know for certain if it’s true, although given my own experience, I can understand how it could be. And if it’s not, then Kavanaugh and everyone in the country deserves to know that. A plurality of registered voters now oppose his nomination. That has never happened before.
If I’m not mistaken, Justice Thomas is currently sitting on the court. It hasn’t happened to any nominee in the intervening years. Hardly a new standard.
It may be as simple as allowing her to testify next week, which she has agreed to do, under some fairly simple conditions. It looks as though an independent counsel may be brought in to conduct the questioning. At this point, a delay of a few days is worthwhile.
I’d say putting your flaws out there yourself. Owning up to them, apologizing, and showing you’ve done the work to change your ways would go a long ways. Some people do that, you know.
I actually don’t believe that most men and women have committed sexual offenses of some sort in their lives. I think we can find qualified people for high positions in government who have always been able to keep their hands to themselves, whether drunk, sober, young or old.
I think redemption is possible but not without admission of actions, remorse and an attempt at reparations for those actions if true. And that still wouldn’t likely sway me to think that all career options should be open afterward.
One of her friends at the time noticed a change in her. He did not know of the assault but he noticed her absence from the social group.
'…After the alleged attack on Dr. Blasey, a male friend said, she “fell off the face of the earth socially,” failing to appear at parties and events she’d previously attended. “All I remember is after my junior year thinking, ‘Where’s Chrissy Blasey?’” he recalled.
“She was the sort of person a lot of people paid attention to — she was a leader, she was great. I was like, where did she go?”…
The paragraphs preceding that quote are interesting too. Seems that social group had a real problem with the girls being assaulted. I won’t quote more because of not wanting to run up against what is acceptable in terms of lengths of quotes.
I maybe believe in redemption, maybe not. I hold grudges for really serious things like child abuse.
However, I don’t think that even if he repented and fessed up that this should wipe the slate clean. There have been too many last minute appeals for forgiveness that I have seen that smack of doing the expedient rather than heartfelt.
I have a hard time believing that Kavanaugh worked for Kozinksy and was somehow oblivious to the toxic culture of that office. Hundreds of people were on his crude “jokes” email list as a start. After Kozinsky was finally pushed out Kavanaugh would phone him to offer support. Why didn’t he cut the man out of his life? Then afterwards he still felt close enough to the Kozinsky family to have the son clerk for him. This is the man who wants to make us believe he will advocate for women.
I think if he’d repented and fessed up long ago, that would go a long ways on this particular topic for me to say it is not disqualifying for a SCOTUS seat. But there are other reasons I do not support his nomination.
I did see something the other day about some people in the legal community who had issues with Kozinsky saying they’d been trying to reach Feinstein because members of the legal community wanted to talk about some things related to Kozinsky & Kavanaugh - I got the impression that maybe Kavanaugh had been aware of some of Kozinskly’s behavior and done nothing. But that was a few days ago, and no more reporting has come up on this that I’ve seen.
I also saw an article about women going in to interview for clerkships with Kavanaugh being coached to present themselves in ways that made them uncomfortable, and they didn’t get that coaching for any of the other judges they interviewed with. They were told to dress and make up “like models” for his interviews to improve their chances of getting hired. There are multiple articles out there, this one seems to have a little more info than the others:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/amy-chua-advice-brett-kavanaugh-clerks-report.html
He was also a member of a Yale frat with a really poor reputation for how they treated women. The frat was banned for several years at Yale starting in 2011 after members stood in front of the Yale Women’s Center and chanted, “No means yes, yes means <don’t think=”" i=“” can=“” say=“” it=“” here=“”>".</don’t>
All in all, I’d say “smarmy” (in the sleazy sense) comes to mind.
Parent of daughters or parent of sons?
How does that influence your thoughts of assault and/or harassment?
I look at things from the viewpoint of being a woman and the mother of daughters.
What one does as a youth and the punishments for misdeeds are certainly open to discussion. I believe in redemption, I believe that people deserve another chance, but I also believe that being in a position of great authority, be it lifetime judgeship or corporate executive, requires truth and honesty and perhaps youthful “misdeeds” should be considered. Especially when the person in question is supposed to be working with men and women and should be treating them equitably.
I predict this is not going to go as anticipated. The hyperbole and “guilty until proven innocent” is not going to go down well with many people. My own mother has already decried him as an abuser and predator who raped her. People can see right through this…going too far with exaggeration will not have the desired result.
Is she or is she not going to testify?