An OP ED worth your time to read

[Value Buy]

by everyone here for a perspective on the nomination.
Whether you agree or not with the author, I think it can give everyone a pause to reflect.
Thank you

www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/for-once-i%E2%80%99m-grateful-for-trump/ar-BBNUIj1?li=BBnb7Kz

[Value Buy]

Part of the op ed:
The second moment, connected to the first: “Boo hoo hoo. Brett Kavanaugh is not a victim.” That’s the title of a column in the Los Angeles Times, which suggests that the possibility of Kavanaugh’s innocence is “infinitesimal.” Yet false allegations of rape, while relatively rare, are at least five times as common as false accusations of other types of crime, according to academic literature.

Since when did the possibility of innocence become, for today’s liberals, something to wave off with an archly unfeeling “boo hoo”?



A third moment, connected to the second: Listening to Cory Booker explain on Tuesday that “ultimately” it doesn’t matter if Kavanaugh is “guilty or innocent,” because “enough questions” had been raised that it was time to “move on to another candidate.”

This is a rhetorical sleight of hand in three acts: Elide the one question that really matters; raise a secondary set of “questions” that are wholly the result of the question you’ve decided to ignore; call for “another candidate” because it will push confirmation hearings past the midterms, which was the Democratic objective long before most anyone had ever heard of Blasey’s allegation.

(there was more, but did not want to quote too  much of the article)

[billisonboard]

Oct 4, 2018 15:22:05 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

by everyone here for a perspective on the nomination.
Whether you agree or not with the author, I think it can give everyone a pause to reflect.
Thank you

www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/for-once-i%E2%80%99m-grateful-for-trump/ar-BBNUIj1?li=BBnb7Kz

Agreed It is worth a read.

[Gardening Grandma]

His conclusion is false.
Tbe FBI “investigation” was a sham. It COULD. have been conclusive, but because the WH dictated the terms, it was a fix. If Kavanaugh is seated, we will have a Supreme Court in which one third of the men serving will have been crediblty accused of sexual misbehavior.

[haapai]

I read it.  It was a bitter and oddly-argued thing.  It read like talking points surrounded by anger. 

[whitney]

VB  ,

interesting to read and i am glad you posted the link.

for me , in law , and having children of both genders ,  i want to have the presumption of innocence approach in a court of criminal law.

this was not a trial so to some degree the focus only on this one charged issue , i think does a disservice to truely considering the nominee overall.

all of a thorough ( and i do not believe it was not hampered ) investigation the more not played in the hearing but prior to the hearing may have spared the people involved and their families so much additional pain. i feel very much for the even more escalated pain the families nominee , dr ford  endured.

coming to all this i think a lot has been building for quite a few years and a reason i think mitch denying a centrist nominee under a former president a hearing appalling and to me mitch furthered the tribalism and i think that was and is counter to the best interest of the nation.  our nation is stonger i think when we respect each other and listen better to each other and compromie more so bipartisanship is so much better than the rage that appears to exist between our two major parties.  i do not belong to either party even i feel so much hostility all around me ( ohio is my state ) and even within my own extended family.  i don't want to live in fear that an explosion could go off when we host extended family over holidays. my husband i think may be coming to the conclusion that our immediate family head on over to Hawaii.

i find this particularly involvement in some of the past partisan work concerning. i would prefer a more conservative right nominee as i think no matter which president  that does the nominating  , getting some semblance of less division would be more helpful to the nation a a whole. since that did not happen i less divisive candidate on the short lisr i would have worked better for mel.

i believe my view on the concern for hyperpartisanship v ideology philosophy per se is in line with what supreme court justice roberts has  expressed.

(as to your comment on roe v wade my best sense is change might be incremental but of course i don't know. i am irish catholic ( fed up with serious child abuse issues ) but i know some foundation is engrained in me. the entire issue of aborton is hard for me. i am also a nurse and i have concluded my firmest view is that medical decisions are best kept between the patient and the medical team and the patients god.

[phil5185]

As for Kavanaugh and Dr Ford - they both sound credible. Kava's plea of not-guilty, along with no collaborating evidence.

And Dr Ford has subjected herself to decades of therapy to try to understand her feelings of guilt from childhood. The repressed memory therapy involves talking about the past while partially unconscious. Then the Dr reviews the session and tries to id events from the past. That process is repeated periodically, over years. The memories (or perceived memories) become 'real'. However, often the 'Real' memories cannot be separated from dreams - especially after years of working on the same repression.

Ie, both Kava and Dr Ford may be telling the truth, as they see it, no one is lying.

The fact that the FBI cannot find supporting evidence is enough for me to say 'no conclusion' - and it may be a relief to Dr Ford after searching for truth all of those years?

[whitney]

Phil

It  is more likely if the FBI did an investigation that was expansive that " no conclusion '  or  ' no certain conclusion '  could be the result.  It is not accurate as there was not a full investigation and that would have to involve a sincere examination of  Judge K and that was not allowed by the WH and / or the Judge himself as it is not a criminal investigation whatsoever , and that is not what was going on as it was suppose to be ' expanded background ' one ,  though it was hampered so the ' expanded ' part is doubtful.

The account that Dr Ford gave was not from repressed memories as she always had the memory she gave the account of in the hearing. She always had the memories given in her account and did not kept her account to herself as is very common for years and years  ( the original memories as she knew the assault person and accomplice get seared in memory much better than might occur with a stranger. She does have memory gaps and that may never be recalled or maybe a bit more will at some point ( if so that would be " recovered  " but then that concern on ' false ' might ( or might not ) apply.

Given the accounts of heavy and frequent drinking in terms of a possible assaulter may play a role in that person(s)  memory.

Again of course never will there be a video so that is just the how it is.

I know this is a superficial overview as ' memory '  and explaining all that would be involved with that complex area is

too much for me at this time and probably ever as new reserach is contining to evolve.

Probablhy , the best for all people involved , might have been the judge saying z' if I was plastered and my memory is impaired , I sincerely am sorry if I acted in an assaultive way."  or something like that.  Then not have this agony for either of them or their family played out in the public.  jmho.

[Opti]

Oct 4, 2018 15:33:04 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Part of the op ed:
The second moment, connected to the first: “Boo hoo hoo. Brett Kavanaugh is not a victim.” That’s the title of a column in the Los Angeles Times, which suggests that the possibility of Kavanaugh’s innocence is “infinitesimal.” Yet false allegations of rape, while relatively rare, are at least five times as common as false accusations of other types of crime, according to academic literature.

Since when did the possibility of innocence become, for today’s liberals, something to wave off with an archly unfeeling “boo hoo”?



A third moment, connected to the second: Listening to Cory Booker explain on Tuesday that “ultimately” it doesn’t matter if Kavanaugh is “guilty or innocent,” because “enough questions” had been raised that it was time to “move on to another candidate.”

This is a rhetorical sleight of hand in three acts: Elide the one question that really matters; raise a secondary set of “questions” that are wholly the result of the question you’ve decided to ignore; call for “another candidate” because it will push confirmation hearings past the midterms, which was the Democratic objective long before most anyone had ever heard of Blasey’s allegation.

(there was more, but did not want to quote too  much of the article)

Correct the man lied under oath multiple times about his drinking. Four people have now written op eds on that subject alone. One was his college roommate freshman year in college. I believe the article is in Slate. Three others co-authored another op ed.

I believe the confirmation hearing always should have been pushed past the midterms. This is the most rushed SC justice appointment I believe in my entire voting life. The Senate is highly likely to remain GOP leaning, so the push must be for a different reason, IMO. A lifetime appointment should not be rushed just because Trump wants a favorable ruling for himself this October.

So, at least for me, Kavanaugh's behavior *recently* alone makes him a horrible choice.

[Tennesseer]

At this point, should Kavanaugh be confirmed, any SCOTUS case which directly or indirectly involves trump, Kavanaugh must recuse himself from involvement based upon his opening comments during his hearing.

Kavanaugh's impartiality is now beyond suspect.

[Knee Deep in Water Chloe]

I did find it an interesting read. There are parts with which I agree and parts with which I don’t.
I actually agree with Cory Booker.

I agree with the author on the fourth point. Having that accusation was just adding to the circus.

Point eight could have been deleted completely. Was he trying to make a word count?

[zibazinski]

Oct 4, 2018 15:33:04 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Part of the op ed:
The second moment, connected to the first: “Boo hoo hoo. Brett Kavanaugh is not a victim.” That’s the title of a column in the Los Angeles Times, which suggests that the possibility of Kavanaugh’s innocence is “infinitesimal.” Yet false allegations of rape, while relatively rare, are at least five times as common as false accusations of other types of crime, according to academic literature.

Since when did the possibility of innocence become, for today’s liberals, something to wave off with an archly unfeeling “boo hoo”?



A third moment, connected to the second: Listening to Cory Booker explain on Tuesday that “ultimately” it doesn’t matter if Kavanaugh is “guilty or innocent,” because “enough questions” had been raised that it was time to “move on to another candidate.”

This is a rhetorical sleight of hand in three acts: Elide the one question that really matters; raise a secondary set of “questions” that are wholly the result of the question you’ve decided to ignore; call for “another candidate” because it will push confirmation hearings past the midterms, which was the Democratic objective long before most anyone had ever heard of Blasey’s allegation.

(there was more, but did not want to quote too  much of the article)

Cory Booker!!omg

[happyhoix]

Oct 4, 2018 23:01:17 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

At this point, should Kavanaugh be confirmed, any SCOTUS case which directly or indirectly involves trump, Kavanaugh must recuse himself from involvement based upon his opening comments during his hearing.

Kavanaugh's impartiality is now beyond suspect.

Kavanaugh's rant during the hearing, claiming the angry Dems and the 'deep state' are after him, along with his documented lies on a variety of questions, as well as his hostile and rude response to the female Senator's questions (for which he later apologized) made him temperamentally unsuited for the SCOTUS.  And if he had simply said that, during his prep school years, he did sometimes drink too much and could have behaved like an ass, the whole Ford thing could have been defused, but the fact that he couldn't bring himself to make that kind of acknowledgement further makes me believe he does not have the temperament to be on the SCOTUS. The American Bar association agrees with me.

Any other president would have quietly asked Kavanagh to step back so he could submit a different conservative judge, but we currently have a president who not only always has to 'win' - he has to win by grinding his opponents faces into the mud, then putting their heads on pikes to display at the town gate.

IMHO, Trump did not do Kavanagh any favors, and he degraded the SCOTUS by not only allowing but encouraging this circus sideshow to take place, tainting that dignified branch of government with his sweaty, nasty, win-at-all-costs form of government.