A note: I have tried to refrain from posting political opinions here. There are enough writers, many more knowledgable than I, who post such observations. But after the last few weeks, I find myself unable to keep silent. I will return to my practice of restraint, but had to get this off my chest.
Degrading. Dirty. Disgusting. It sounds even more effective in French. Degoutant.
Those are a few of the kinder words that come to mind as I have followed the antics of our senators and much of the mainstream media in Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings.
Here is a man who meets every qualification for Supreme Court Justice. He is experienced, highly respected by his courtroom peers, praised until now by friends and foes alike for his decisions from the bench. From all indications, he is an exemplary man who loves his family, volunteers in the community, and has many friends.
He has one major flaw.
Degrading. Dirty. Disgusting. It sounds even more effective in French. Degoutant.
Those are a few of the kinder words that come to mind as I have followed the antics of our senators and much of the mainstream media in Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings.
Here is a man who meets every qualification for Supreme Court Justice. He is experienced, highly respected by his courtroom peers, praised until now by friends and foes alike for his decisions from the bench. From all indications, he is an exemplary man who loves his family, volunteers in the community, and has many friends.
He has one major flaw.
He believes in interpreting the law via the Constitution.
Now Christine Ford, a California research psychologist, has accused Kavanaugh of a sexual assault that occurred 36 years ago, when she was fifteen, the judge seventeen.
Ford, a progressive and an activist, gave Senator Diane Feinstein this information back in July. While the senators were raking Kavanaugh over the coals, some of them primping like peacocks, Feinstein never raised Ford’s accusation during the hearings. No, she waited until after the questioning ended, then delivered her bombshell.
We are a society that once believed—at least on paper—that an accused person was presumed innocent until guilt could be established. That guilt demanded evidence. So let’s look at the evidence provided by Christine Ford.
She can’t remember the home where the alleged assault took place. (Does she remember how she got there? How she got back to her own home?)
She can’t remember when the party took place.
She was a fifteen year old at a party, apparently without chaperones.
She had likely been drinking. (That was the point, apparently, of the party.)
She has named two other men at the party, one of whom was supposedly in the room where the allege assault occurred. Both men have denied being at the party.
She informed no adult at the time about the assault—not the police, not her parents.
She shared details of the assault with her therapist in 2012, but some of this information does not match what she wrote in her letter to Feinstein.
Meanwhile, Kavanaugh has denied the event ever occurred and has no other history of similar behavior anywhere in his past.
Sixty-five women who knew Kavanaugh in high school—some, Democrats and Republicans, have maintained their friendship with him over the years—have issued a public letter supporting Kavanaugh. (Another 101 women who have worked with Kavanaugh have also written similar letters.)
Invited to testify before the senate committee, the accuser keeps trying to set conditions for that testimony. She claims she suffers from fear of flying, for example, and must drive from California to D.C., yet somehow she at least once flew from California to Hawaii to take an internship.
In a situation like this one, 36 years in the past and with no corroborating evidence whatsoever, it all boils down as to whom we believe: the accuser or the accused. Unlike some in our universities, most Americans still demand evidence—facts, witnesses, details—before passing judgment.
Meanwhile, Feinstein and several other senators have behaved despicably.
The Senate should censure Feinstein for withholding this information during the hearings.
Clearly hoping to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation until after the November elections, several senators continue asking for more time to examine Kavanaugh, though they have already stated they will vote against him.
These people have made a charade of the hearings.
They have besmirched, without a shred of hard evidence, the reputation of a man.
They have blighted the process by which we choose our justices.
An anonymous ancient proverb ran “Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”
May it be so.
A last note: Some bloggers have posted parts of Kavanaugh’s online high school year yearbooks, revealing a culture of drinking and partying. Meanwhile, someone has scrubbed Christine Ford’s online yearbooks. Unfortunately for Ford, some prescient folks at a site unknown to me, Cult of the First Amendment, suspected this scrubbing might occur, downloaded the yearbooks before they disappeared, and cached a good number of the pages. Her high school annuals reveal a similar culture of drinking and partying.
Take a look.
Some commentators have said that these high school yearbooks in no way reflect poorly on Christine Ford. Okay. But then ask yourself a question. Why were they taken down and removed from public access?
http://cultofthe1st.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-christine-blasey-fords-high-school_19.html?m=1
Now Christine Ford, a California research psychologist, has accused Kavanaugh of a sexual assault that occurred 36 years ago, when she was fifteen, the judge seventeen.
Ford, a progressive and an activist, gave Senator Diane Feinstein this information back in July. While the senators were raking Kavanaugh over the coals, some of them primping like peacocks, Feinstein never raised Ford’s accusation during the hearings. No, she waited until after the questioning ended, then delivered her bombshell.
We are a society that once believed—at least on paper—that an accused person was presumed innocent until guilt could be established. That guilt demanded evidence. So let’s look at the evidence provided by Christine Ford.
She can’t remember the home where the alleged assault took place. (Does she remember how she got there? How she got back to her own home?)
She can’t remember when the party took place.
She was a fifteen year old at a party, apparently without chaperones.
She had likely been drinking. (That was the point, apparently, of the party.)
She has named two other men at the party, one of whom was supposedly in the room where the allege assault occurred. Both men have denied being at the party.
She informed no adult at the time about the assault—not the police, not her parents.
She shared details of the assault with her therapist in 2012, but some of this information does not match what she wrote in her letter to Feinstein.
Meanwhile, Kavanaugh has denied the event ever occurred and has no other history of similar behavior anywhere in his past.
Sixty-five women who knew Kavanaugh in high school—some, Democrats and Republicans, have maintained their friendship with him over the years—have issued a public letter supporting Kavanaugh. (Another 101 women who have worked with Kavanaugh have also written similar letters.)
Invited to testify before the senate committee, the accuser keeps trying to set conditions for that testimony. She claims she suffers from fear of flying, for example, and must drive from California to D.C., yet somehow she at least once flew from California to Hawaii to take an internship.
In a situation like this one, 36 years in the past and with no corroborating evidence whatsoever, it all boils down as to whom we believe: the accuser or the accused. Unlike some in our universities, most Americans still demand evidence—facts, witnesses, details—before passing judgment.
Meanwhile, Feinstein and several other senators have behaved despicably.
The Senate should censure Feinstein for withholding this information during the hearings.
Clearly hoping to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation until after the November elections, several senators continue asking for more time to examine Kavanaugh, though they have already stated they will vote against him.
These people have made a charade of the hearings.
They have besmirched, without a shred of hard evidence, the reputation of a man.
They have blighted the process by which we choose our justices.
An anonymous ancient proverb ran “Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”
May it be so.
A last note: Some bloggers have posted parts of Kavanaugh’s online high school year yearbooks, revealing a culture of drinking and partying. Meanwhile, someone has scrubbed Christine Ford’s online yearbooks. Unfortunately for Ford, some prescient folks at a site unknown to me, Cult of the First Amendment, suspected this scrubbing might occur, downloaded the yearbooks before they disappeared, and cached a good number of the pages. Her high school annuals reveal a similar culture of drinking and partying.
Take a look.
Some commentators have said that these high school yearbooks in no way reflect poorly on Christine Ford. Okay. But then ask yourself a question. Why were they taken down and removed from public access?
http://cultofthe1st.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-christine-blasey-fords-high-school_19.html?m=1
RSS Feed