It is possible that David Lat was very young when the Thomas hearings were held, but the thing that allowed him to become a Supreme Court Justice was he played the race card. Mr. Lat should look that up. Joe Biden recently apologized for his mistake in that situation.
1
They can't delay. Trump's position gets worse every day. The GOP in Congress looks utterly craven after Garland/Gorsuch. And the blatant dishonesty of this whole nomination process is making the candidate spoil like milk in the sun. They're all-in on a bad hand. They can do anything but fold.
1
It didn't matter when Clarence Thomas lied through his teeth. Does anyone really think it'll matter to Republicans when Kavanaugh does the same?
2
Why does Christine Blasey Ford deserve to be heard? The hearings on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination gave her an opportunity to be heard. She decided not to take it. That was her decision. She should live with it.
What can Brett Kavanaugh do to clear his name? It's possible that facts will come out to prove this one way or the other. But look at the case of Roy Moore for what is far more likely -- no one will ever know what happened 35 years ago. Just watch the movie Rashomon for the reason why.
1
Obviously, the young man shot to death in his own apartment by an off-duty policewoman who thought it was her apartment
has been put under far more scrutiny than a Supreme Court nominee accused by a credible woman of attempted rape, while concealing his views + relevant documents from the American people. We are in upside down world.
3
In order to be fair to both sides, you have to view Kavanaugh impartially. At the time he was technically a minor and there is little doubt that he scared the heck out of Ms. Ford, who was a totally blameless victim. Still, the issue is what to make of Kavanaugh's conduct. In my mind, Kavanaugh was old enough to be responsible for his actions. And so the issue is less what happened than what was going through his mind at the time.
If Kavanaugh was indifferent to Ms. Ford's terror, his appointment to the Court is clearly in jeopardy. But that is not the end of the story. I would be inclined to discount what happened if he was severely intoxicated and was essentially in a stupor. Adolescents new to drinking are prone to excess and may well drink themselves beyond awareness of their surroundings. We are judging Kavanugh. Ms. Ford has every reason to complain and to be heard. But the issue comes to whether Kavanaugh was in a drunken stupor. If so, this should be viewed more as an alcohol incident than a sexual incident. If not, he is fully culpable. I have no idea how you determine Kavaugh's state of mind 40 years ago. Still, the answer that answers everything for me.
This has obviously been written in defense of Kavanaugh so I'll be kind.
This candidate represents a get-out-of jail free card to a president who should be first to test the "can't indict a sitting president" so-called rule. His extreme views on executive privilege, which doesn't really exist if you read the constitution literally, make him a threat to democracy.
His views on abortion, on the so-called rights of corporation, on class in America suggest that he will be the perfect candidate, in the words of the author, for demolishing the rights of the individual, the little guy, and democracy, in general. He is a perfect tool for the likes of the Koch Brothers.
A more centralists candidate must be found.
5
We hurtle faster toward a more rw Court.
Now if only 85 year old Bader Ginsburg can keep doing her exercise sesssions with her trainer to stay healthy, and not retire until we get a Democratic president.
RBG's trainer should be given an award for service to his country!
2
Re Brett Kavanaugh: what goes around comes around.
3
This is particularly relevant because Those who preach MORALS are often the ones that violated them.
A jock often thinks they have the right to overpower others.
Let all 3 take lie detector tests right in front of the live hearings so we can see who is telling the truth. Ill bet $100 that kavanaugh is LYING.& most likely his friend too.
3
What poetic justice that Kavanaugh be derailed for sexual misconduct after his distasteful all-out, explicit attack on Clinton’s in the 90’s.
Kavanaugh’s alleged misconduct - attempted rape of a minor - is far worse than Clinton’s which was with a consenting adult. If true, he should be removed from district court as well.
Let the truth come out!
5
'Let Justice be done, though the Heavens fall!" The desperately frantic measures employed by the Republican Party to railroad Kavanaugh's nomination through, steadfastly refusing to disclose vitally critical documents previously requested by the Democrats bearing upon the nominee's state of mid regarding race and a woman's right to choose, now suddenly cry foul when Senator Diane Feinstein discloses Ms. Ford's letter is both abjectly hypocritical and cynically obtuse. If the Republicans refuse to hold public hearings on this especially critical matter and ram through the Senate Judiciary Committee vote to confirm, the public perception that the GOP refuses to hear the accuser and lend credence to the seriousness of the allegations only serves to confirm the public perception that the chief executive's moronically lame excuse that 'he said it didn't happen, so I have to believe him" is the mantra of the GOP where Caucasian males occupying capacities of power and influence should remain untouchable. Yet, the very nominee the Republicans so desperately want to install on the High Court to cast a deciding vote to overturn Roe v Wade summarily disregard female victims' protestations of prior violent episodes, albeit decades old, impugning the integrity of their narratives as presumably self serving, wildly concocted. Of course, the besieged chief executive shares the august honour of similar sordid sexual allegations without consequence. This is the pot calling the kettle black!
2
*Dr.* Ford. Not Ms.
4
Hear her, hear him, then confirm Kavanaugh.
This type of smear by the Democrats should not be rewarded.
1
I am guessing that 15yr old Christine was at this underage drinking blowout with a root beer float? And that she was making lots of wise, mature decisions....absolutely no teenage mixed signals were being sent or interpreted while blotto 17yr olds attempted interaction with a rational, worldly wise 15yr old who was mature beyond her years.
1
Judge Kavanaugh claims that it must have been someone else that assaulted Dr. Ford. Not so. The reason that Dr. Ford is so sure that it was Bret Kavanaug, is that she has been carrying his monkey on her back all these years and that the monkey has his FACE. She may not know it, but the reason she is coming forward now is that it may be her last chance to get the MONKEY OFF HER BACK.
6
Throw Kavanaugh out on his sorry, lying behind for
WE THE PEOPLE.
We are not a "land of laws". We are a land of people and the vast majority of us want a socially conscious, secular, socially and financially equitable, relatively peaceful United States of America and world. The Con Don, Kavanuagh, McConnell, all the other old white men who have gotten power and the Robber Barons who own them do not belong to OUR America.
7
Where is Michael Cohen?
Kavanaugh sure could have used him.
1
Kavanaugh was selected because he presented the image that Trump and the GOP wanted to project to citizens of the United States: a family man with a strong set of values, a conservative, and someone who will uphold the Constitution.
I think that this image has just been severely tarnished. And I'd like to know why this information wasn't out there and talked about during the confirmation hearings. This is very reminiscent of the hearings for Clarence Thomas. His response to the whole thing was to claim it was a high tech lynching. I don't want to see a repeat of that here.
4
If it was appropriate for the Senate to entirely deny Merrick Garland a hearing or a vote for the actual offense of being nominated by a Democratic President, then it's appropriate to delay a committee vote on the nominee of a Republican President in the aftermath of these charges.
The committee should and must thoroughly investigate. If Judge Kavanaugh did not do what is alleged, then the matter will be resolved and a vote can be held. If he did, then he's not suitable to sit on the Supreme Court.
It's that simple.
No vote until the allegation is professionally and completely examined.
4
The accusation against Kavanaugh is far worse than the Anita Hill case. Not at all comparable.
Anita Hill was an adult and she accused Thomas of simply saying what she felt were inappropriate things.
There was no accusation of a violent attempted rape against a 15 year old girl, as is the case with Kavanaugh right now.
The cases are not comparable.
In the State of Maryland where the alleged violent attempt of rape against a 15 year old took place, it is a capital crime and there is no statute of limitations.
The two cases are very different with the accusation against Kavanaugh far worse, because Thomas was never accused of attempted violent rape against a 15 year old.
Kavanagh is being accused of just that.
3
1. Kavanaugh was drunk and his memory of the event is therefore unreliable.
2. Kavanaugh hired an attorney. His attorney will tell him what to say and what not to say under oath.
3. Kavanaugh has not taken nor agreed to take a polygraph test.
4. Ford passed a polygraph test administered by the FBI in August.
5. Ford told her husband and therapist about the event in 2012.
4
1. If Ford was drunk, should her account be totally dismissed?
2. I did not know that Kavanaugh had hired an attorney. But certainly Ford has. Has her attorney told her what to say and not say?
3. There is a reason that polygraph test results are not admissible in court. I would not take one either.
4. That Ford in 2012 told a therapist about the incident with details is certainly evidence that an incident of some kind occurred. She may have given some description of the boys; she did not name the boys involved.
I agree totally that there needs to be a full investigation of what happened before any vote on the nomination takes place--and that, as the writer suggests, it is in the interests of everyone involved that the matter not be whitewashed.
But I do have some basic questions for Ford (and, if applicable, for Kavanaugh): When was the party: Where was the party? Who else attended the party? Did you have anything to drink and, if so, what? Did you know Kavanaugh before that night? Did you socialize with him after that night? Did you tell anyone at that time about what happened? What did you do at the party after the incident?
There is no good argument against taking the time to get to the bottom of this.
3
If Kavanaugh's actions in high school are not important because it happened three decades ago when he was teenager, then why did the Republican senators get 65 people from his high school days to sign letters about his good character? And how come Kavanaugh knew 65 high school girls if he went to an all-boys school.
16
The timing issue raised by many, including Sen McConnell and POTUS, is not a relevant argument. The victim of this alleged incident was unwilling to come forward, so we need to honor her wishes. All the talk of what this nominee has done since he became an adult is what he should be judged on, and not something that may/may not have happened in high school. All those arguments are moot when one understands that someone accused or proven of attempted sexual assault (even as a minor) would not likely get into law school or be eligible to sit for and be admitted to the Bar of any state. So, it was in his best interests to "not recall" this or to deny even being at the party or being part of the alleged act. The victim here gains nothing from coming forward....Perhaps motive by this nominee is something everyone should consider....
1
Nothing's going to slow Chairman Grassley down on his "appointed rounds." The man who sat on the 2016 Obama appointment for nearly year trying to think of "rules" to justify his obstruction goes with the postal motto: "Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds."—
For folksy old Chuck it's: "Neither hidden facts, nor serious accusations, or taking time to shed light on a man's partisan governmental record, shall stay his party from rushing through another bad appointment.
1
Kavanaugh may be "qualified" for the Supreme Court per his legal credentials. But this assault allegation, bolstered by a polygraph test, is only one reason -- although an important one -- he should not be confirmed.
First, Neil Gorsuch's seat was stolen by Mitch McConnell, who lied by suggesting that a sitting president shouldn't name his nominee and denied the president's man a hearing. Throughout history, sitting presidents -- even during their lame duck period following an election -- have had their nominees vetted and confirmed.
Second, Kavanaugh's public record is limited by partisans who have decided what material we can see.
Third, until recently, Kavanaugh had zero assets apart from an IRA and equity in a home and as much as $200,000 in credit card debt, much of it to finance season baseball tickets. What sort of successful person in their 50s has no assets and is deep in debt for baseball tickets?
Fourth, Trump clearly nominated this individual as a go-along-to-get-along type who he believes will "protect" him if the so-called president is subject to obstruction of justice or other charges.
Fifth, Kavanaugh has refused to answer questions in a substantive way and is merely bobbing and weaving through his Senate hearings.
Finally, it would appear that Judge Kavanaugh is likely lying under oath.
P.S. Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are illegitimate. Trump very likely committed crimes in pursuit of the presidency, and has continued to do so while in office.
4
I can't believe people are outraged on Kavanaugh's behalf. It doesn't matter when the letters were sent or if this is part of some Democratic ploy. What matters is the truth.
In any case, Trump's presidency may not even be legitimate. He shouldn't be picking judges when he might end up in front of them. Period.
And Republicans gave up their right to outrage when they blocked Garland. If anything, they should be applauding Democrats for finally getting in the game.
(By the way, that's going to be true for all political scandals that occur after Trump. If you voted for Trump, you don't get to complain anymore.)
2
I saw the look on his face when being cornered by Democrats to give a yes or no answer to most of their questions. His decision to be persistently evasive and avoid the answer with a feigned look of not understanding what exactly was being said was clearly disingenuous. I don't need anything else, even if he is given a deserved opportunity to address the accusations.
4
"She passed a polygraph test..."
Interesting. Would love to see Kavanaugh back up his denial with a polygraph. Or even back up his confirmation hearing statements with a polygraph.
6
Unlikely that Blasey-Ford totally fabricated her recollection. What's hard to swallow is that Kavanaugh is denying anything happened at all. That's what's going to sink him. Not that he was a lout many years ago but that he refuses to admit anything occurred at all.
4
@Doug Hill
Never considered that she has mistakenly identified the wrong person? 35 years ago, traumatized as she stated, but can't remember many details of the event.....
Democrats will reap what they sow. Harry Reid changing Senate rules on the number of votes required to appoint Federal Judges. This will come back to haunt you.
I think a professor at a university who has also done work at Stanford might know who she is talking about before she would risk a long career.
Maybe update the files. And let’s have them both testify under oath.
2
It is not unusual for a woman to wait years before she tells her story for a variety of reasons, one of which is what adults would have said 35 years ago.
If Kavanaugh was drunk as Ms. Ford says, he might not even recall the incident, since he might have blacked out but still appeared to be functioning.
That is not an excuse but would explain the possibility of both of them telling the truth as they remember it.
2
The problem with Kavanaugh is that he is a political operative. He served in the Bush Administration and he worked with Ken Starr to bring down Bill Clinton.
Being defined as an arch-partisan is enough to keep you off the bench.
Add to that his stated belief government (he!) is authorized to limit women's access to reproductive care, but not to limit men's options. Where in the Constitution does a justice gets the power to control family medical decisions?
For the Supreme Court, we need justices who are not carrying a lot of partisan baggage and who do not want government making decisions best left to individuals.
Now, what this other thing?
5
@Occupy Government
The Constitution does not give a justice the power to control family medical decisions, until the Democrats moved that decision into the court system. Democrats will reap what they sow. Haven't learned that lesson yet.
1
What I cannot understand is why there is an arbitrary deadline date to this confirmation. The Republican majority congress are fast-tracking Kavanaugh though the nomination process without adequate vetting. Several of them had said during the 2016 election they are willing to obstruct for 4 years any nomination to the Supreme court if Hillary Clinton is elected. By hook or crook they gamed the system and ignore congressional norms when it benefits them. The timing of this accusation is not last or suspect or an 11th hour trick. The accuser was reluctant to go public and did so only because her name was going to be reveled by the media and she wanted to get her story out herself rather than have Kavanaugh supporters spin her story first.
2
As an ardent feminist I believe wholeheartedly in listening to all women who have been abused--whether sexually, emotionally, or physically.
However, although Ms. Ford's alleged experience was no doubt frightening and evidently upsetting to her later psychological life, in this instance, I feel that her allegations should be withdrawn.
Why? Because the whole situation surrounding her coming forward is fraught with a feeling of being overblown as to Mr. Kavanaugh's behavior. Yes, of course his conduct was totally sexist, out of line, and needed to be seriously addressed sometime immediately following that night. Even in the early 1980s sexual harassment was a public issue--whether or not in high school, I don't know, but it was a subject that was around. And certainly in the ensuring decades, of which there have been more than three.
Ms. Ford's coming forward at this juncture seems to be wholly inappropriate and tinged withpossible bad advice given her. I am in sympathy with Ms. Ford's feelings, but the timing seems to be extremely strained here.
5
@Cate
As an "ardent feminist" wouldn't you be in favour of investigating a claim further about an individual who is being considered for one of the highest positions in your country? Especially knowing that his views on women reveal a grown man who is still very much in favour of pushing his will over women? At present, after years of having the opportunity to humble himself and change, he still shows no compassion, or even the slightest understanding of what so many women go through.
5
@Cate
Agreed, with the exception that there has been no decision as to whether the allegations are true, or not.
This is a very transparent act by desperate Democrats. As HRC once said, despicable.
It makes no sense that he got over $100K in debt from buying Nationals tickets. Why is no one questioning that? I live in DC and they can’t fill the games; tickets are given away for free. If he lies about that how can he be trusted on issues like attempted rape?
4
He was 17? That’s no child. He tried to take off her clothes and put his hand over her mouth so she couldn’t scream? And he did this in front of a friend? And this man should be on the high court of the United States, worthy of honor as a judge, and respect as a role model?
Let’s remember that plenty of men of all ages get drunk, but they do NOT try to rape anybody. For some already predisposed, getting drunk loosens their inhibitions and let’s their aggressive, callous and domineering tendencies take over.
7
Clear his name? Are you serious? The Dems and the media will NEVER let his name be 'cleared'.
2
Nay, don't delay the vote. Quash it.
2
The only question to answer is whether we want American Psycho part 2 on SCOTUS?
4
Once there was this guy that wanted to be president. It turned out he was a serial rapist. We elected him president anyway...because well........I'm not sure why. Maybe it was because he was a Democrat.
1
Christine Blasey Ford does not deserve to be heard. She chose not to speak. Instead, she submitted a confidential letter and asked that it not be produced. She had every chance to step forward and testify at the hearings, and chose not to. That should be the end of it.
The hearings before the Judiciary Committee were disrupted and delayed as much as the Democrats could get away with. To now try to prolong the process in this way makes a mockery of it.
The press and the Democrats got away with this kind of thing with Roy Moore. I don't like Roy Moore, or his politics. But when people like Mitt Romney can bleat that "I believe these women" who made accusations against Roy Moore, based solely on what he read in the media, something is wrong with the junction between our political and justice systems.
It will be interesting to see what comes out in the next few days. If Mark Judge, the teenage friend of Brett Kavanaugh, takes as firm a stance as Kavanaugh does, perhaps that may sway some. Regardless, Dianne Feinstein has become a disgrace in my eyes. She acted shamefully -- I never thought she would stoop so low as this.
5
No further vote delay should be allowed! We can not establish the precedent that any nomination vote, or for that matter a vote on any issue in our government can be delayed-defeated, and a victory gained by using the tactic of finding some nut case or professional liar who "repressed memory" accuses someone of something? Doesn't anyone realize that if this now routine false accusation Left wing tactic is allowed to become accepted political practice that the republicans are going to be able to do precisely the same thing to anything that a democratic administration wants to do?
5
Obviously you were asleep while the GOP refused to even consider Merrick Garland's nomination for 8 months!
Trumpsters can be so disgustingly hypocritical.
2
The Democrats had to invent the harassment lie because the death threats against Sen Collins weren’t working
3
Let us see if an inebriated teen Brett Kavanaugh trying to have sexual relations with a teen age girl began his descent into debauchery by stealing Girl Scout cookies in elementary school or playing a game of gynecologist.
Can't stand the hagiographic preamble, but agree with his reasons for postponement. Better: just withdraw your name, justice Kavanaugh, and go back to your partisan hackery.
3
Please...David Lat is a member of the Federalist Society. His praise of Kavanaugh is nothing but self-interested pablum. Anyone from the Federalist Society is vested in an agenda that is not related justice, but to the interests of a small group of self-interested corporate leaders and far right ideologues.
4
I almost think that this is going to be a bit like the Woody Allen film “Match Point”. Or that Robert Redford (directed) film “Quiz Show”.
Right at the moment when the guy is reaching the top of his profession he is going to “sell out”, in the worst way. Rather than telling the truth, something he may vaugely believe that he does, he is going to lie to the entire nation.
He won’t say that he thought she was going to start laughing, because she was drunk too, and then they would have sex. He won’t say that he entirely misjudged the situation. He won’t say that it is, essentially, true, but even so, he is not really a rapist.
Instead he will just lie. Lie to his family, to to Congress, lie to the entire nation.
Because the nation is too stupid to understand the truth.
He will either never be on the Supreme Court, or he will be, but he will always know the truth, that he lied to save face, and not be humiliated in front of the entire nation, and disgrace his wife and kids.
Even if he makes it to the Supreme Court it will be the worst of arrivals, and he will wish that it never even happened.
1
I didn't realize this happened in Palo Alto. I personally know of another incident there, very similar except the girl was raped. Happened 8, 10 years after this one. Nothing happened to the boys/men. Families too important, girl's family too ashamed/frightened. The girl was damaged for life. Makes me wonder about a culture of impunity. We assume cultures are national. But children and adolescent culture can be hyper-local, passed down from 16 year olds to 12 year olds, more or less forgotten as adults. Journalists need to check in on Palo Alto.
1
It didn’t happen in Palo Alto. It happened in Virginia, and it happens everywhere.
1
@Brian. It happened in Maryland. She now lives in CA.
Kavanaugh has no business on the court he is a liar and is determined to end Roe v Wade. His actions show this by way of the abonable seperation of children at the border, in wich Kavanaugh trisd to make a rape victem carry her pregnacy till she would have to cary it to term. Fortunatly there were other judges that finally over rulled his evil attempts to break the law.
Is that wwhat you want? Mofre deaths from nonmedcal abortion will ensue if this fraud gets on the court.
4
A question for the judge:
If one of your teenage daughters went to a party and experienced the same events as described by Christine Blasey Ford, went home and some time later, discovered that she was pregnant, what would you do?
a) arrange a shotgun marriage
b) insist she carry the pregnancy to term
c) take her to the nearest Catholic priest for confession and moral guidance
d) take her to a baseball game
e) have her mother accompany her to the nearest Planned Parenthood facility and ignore the gauntlet of anti-abortion rights demonstrators blocking the door
We'd like to know before Senators vote on your nomination.
6
@JMT .. to answer your question, if this happened to my 15 year old daughter I’d expect to hear about it immediately—not when she was 45.
3
"If ..."
Supreme Court nominees routinely refuse to answer hypothetical questions.
Where will this end? Jr. picked on me in first grade, and I have the Facebook post to prove it? At this rate NO ONE will be “qualified” to serve, except those who have lived there entire life in a protective bubble. And do we want those types to determine our future - cut off from real life with no idea what it is like?
2
Attempted rape by an anti abortionist is more than a first grade tease.
8
@Dave
Most people, of all variances of good and bad, have never sexually assaulted anyone.
People who make good choices live real life as well. And people that make good choices always make the best judges.
@Princess Leia
You assume facts no in evidence.
I have zero sympathy for conservatives complaining about this being cynical ploy by democrats. Remember Merrick Garland? Now that was truly a cynical ploy. After Garland, every single Supreme court appointment under the Trump administration will be considered a stolen one. The Supreme court is a greatly diminished institution, as it has become ever more political it has lost a great deal of credibility and respect.
8
@Mike B
If the Dems take the Senate while Trump is in Office and they refuse to give one of his Nominees a Hearing guess what he will do? He will wait for Congress to go on Recess and then use his Recess Appointment Power to put him or her on the Court Anyway. Same thing Obama Could have done and Chose not to. So how is it a Stolen Seat? If Hillary had won the election she would have chosen her own Nominee and it would not have been Garland, even if he was sitting on the Court from a Recess Appointment.
From my perspective, a 17-year-old Kavanaugh is willing to rape and have unprotected sex with an unwilling girl. Boys an men get women and girls pregnant; yet a 40-year-old-plus Kavanaugh currently 52-years-old is willing to deny an immigrant teen an abortion which is legal medical procedure in the USA.
Ask yourself, if Brett had succeeded and impregnated the young woman, would he deny paternity or insist she have an abortion as not to ruin his future prospects?
I surmise he would insist upon an abortion so that the fetus never becomes a child to stifle his ambition.
We deserve better. We don't need judges who won't actively listen to arguments in court cases but would rather rule based on partisanship, ideology, power and preservation of privilege; preconceived notions.
This not just about Kavanaugh. This is about our country and the American people as well. We must demand our justices are fair and above the fray. When you go to court we all demand fair treatment and Kavannaugh is antithetical to that end.
1
Kavanaugh has proven himself to be a liar on important issues. He has proven himself to be a partisan with opinions on matters of justice determined by who the person being judged happens to be (Clinton vs. Trump, for example). He has been proven to have highly selective memory. He has proven to be completely comfortable with an approval process that is woefully incomplete. His stands on contraception and women's rights suggests he is certain that woman require his help to manage their own "lady parts".
It is unsurprising that in his youth, he demonstrated a fairly common catholic boys school behavior pattern, drinking to excess (apparently documented in his yearbook), and looking for "bad girls" to assault.
I might be able to forgive a confession, with an explanation that he has learned better, and is sincerely sorry for the damage he did. (not "may have done") However, he appears certain that his privilege as a boy/man, and his privilege as a Republican, allows him to lie with impunity and stomp those who do not have his level of privilege and support. This is unforgivable in someone who aspires to judge others.
As a prosecutor, he would be absolutely certain to withhold exculpatory evidence in a trial, hide witnesses, coach witnesses, deliberately seek to bias juries--all to obtain a "win". He has no sense of justice or honesty, just winning for "his" side.
Kavanaugh should be looking for a driveway resealing franchise, not a Supreme Court position.
6
It is unfortunate that this man has been put forward as a potential justice. His personal record signaled his intemperate personality - the large debt, the gambling, the extravagance, the presumed backroom dealing to get on the Trump nominee list and now this allegation. His pious exterior appears to hide a self indulgent, impulsive character who isn't able to control his desires. Hardly what is needed on the SC but seems par for the course these days under the Trump administration.
5
There are holes in her story, and her therapist's notes are at odds with her claims. If this was a Dem. being hit with a last minute drive-by from the GOP, this paper would be up in arms. It will be he said she said, the Dems. on the committee will try all sorts of histrionics, and Kavanaugh will become the next SCOTUS justice. The man has an amazing memory, and he will remember this 'high tech lynching 2.0' quite vividly.
1
If these allegations are proven to be true, the Supreme Court will have a justice capable of altering the reproductive rights and freedoms of American women. Do our elected officials understand that women have valid reason to question this man's judgment and insight?
7
"Do our elected officials understand that women have valid reason to question this man's judgment and insight?"
They aren't just "elected officials", they are US Senators. And *men* can have reasons to oppose Kavanaugh too, so why did you exclude men from your question?
1
@PHM You are correct
Mr. Lat is correct that the allegation by Dr. Ford should be heard. One caveat, though, is worth making about Mr. Lat's point that hearing out Anita Hill back in 1991 "ultimately redounded to Justice Thomas’s benefit." No, it didn't. Justice Thomas suffered deeply, and is still suffering, because of the rather-thin allegations of harassment then, still felt after more than a quarter-century of his diligent, intelligent service on the Court, whether you like his thinking and rulings or not. I'm not sure that Mr. Lat gets how heavy a little scarlet letter like this may weigh on one over the decades. Perhaps Mr. Lat should speak with Justice Thomas and others who know him before presuming that the Hill hearing redounded to the justice's benefit. I doubt that Justice Thomas would agree with Mr. Lat's casual supposition, and certainly Anita Hill would disagree with Mr. Lat.
No matter what happens to Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, he will now also bear his own scarlet letter. That's no reason not to hear out Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, but you shouldn't kid yourself about the high personal toll of such a hearing. The costs will probably be forever for them both, and for their families. In prior times, we had knock-down drag-outs over justices, most prominently including the impeachment and then the acquittal of Justice Samuel Chase in 1805. Then, though, the partisans did not raise fresh charges about stale assaults. Partisanship is being overdone.
1
Because Dr. Ford waited over 40 years to make this accusation the only fair way to use it for Kavanaugh's confirmation would be to search for more recent patterns of abuse. Let this letter serve as a beacon to encourage other women to come forward with similar accusations. There's no way we can forensically verify her claims at this point. Therefore we cannot condemn this man based solely on her statements. This doesn't mean that we don't believe her - it means that we respect the concept of "justice for all": both for the accuser and the accused.
5
Mr Lat seems to think that a teenager (17 is considered adult in many a state for criminal prosecution) is beyond reproach or any substantial consequences for their actions. He also seems to think, without a shred of proof, that Kavanaugh is not guilty. The political games that Mitch has played all along seem to have been lost on Mr Lat. Mitch had no issue keeping the SCOTUS seat vacant for a good eight months despite having a nominee. He refused even to meet with Judge Garland. The republicans in the senate have played the dirtiest of politics, and made a pact with the devil. They don't care how they stay in power, and they are willing to sacrifice every democratic principle and pillar at the alter of greed and corruption. If Mitch had an ounce of integrity or ethical standards, he would have had the hearings on Merrick Garland when President Obama nominated him, and would not have rushed the hearings on Kavanaugh. Perhaps the documents the GOP and the WH are hiding have some more troubling information about Kavanaugh's opinions? What is the rush, Mitch? Going somewhere?
4
@Kalpana
In the USA, you are considered innocent until proven guilty. Unless you are a Republican who is accused by a Democrat. That is the twisted world you live in.
2
This left-leaning progressive lawyer believes there is a reason for a statute of limitations even though it doesn't technically apply here. Memories fade, witnesses disappear, "truth" morphs. This incident was unreported, unalleged, and unproven at the time. I feel for the woman and all like her who have suffered over the years, but there is no point in revisiting it now.
4
@Dick Watson
Yes there is.
Why should the country be assaulted by a would-be rapist?
Do you want his meaty hand covering your mouth?
Do you want his rotten music covering your screams?
Do you want his body grinding against yours?
Do you want to bear his child if he impregnates you?
2
@Pecan
You are correct only if it happened. Why assume either that it did or that it did not.
No to all of us he above. Additionally, I do not want him sitting on the Supreme Court.
Didn't she attend several other parties with boys from the Georgetown school, parties at which Cavanaugh was present, and parties at which she allegedly got drunk, all after the incident? Its disturbing that none of her friends at the time corroborate her story. It's a little too convenient that according to her own testimony she told no one at the time. She also can't recall the date or street address or who hosted the party or how she got there. She may even believe its true, but as she said she was also really drunk, and after 20 years it's hard to believe she can actually recall any detail. It's more likely than not that she embellished and exaggerated the tale till harmless rolling around by drunk teenagers was transformed into an assault. Her story has a strange inconsistency: she claims she tried to scream but he held her mouth. However, after she broke free, she still did not scream or even complain. Let's review. She goes into a room with two drunk boys and there is some rolling around with both boys and she never objects.
Could the boys be faulted for thinking it was consensual and fun all around?
Maybe it was.
4
@Caleb Mars She said she had one beer. One beer does not make someone drunk. Trauma sticks with you. While someone may not recall the exact date something happened, the trauma remains. Her account was overflowing with detail. I find your assertions deeply disturbing. Perhaps she didn't yell once she escaped because she was in shock or scared. Or perhaps she was afraid that people like you would assume she was asking for it and would shame her.
5
@Caleb Mars none of that matters Caleb, because Judge K states nothing remotely like it ever happened. He's sunk because he should have given his own account of events. Instead he has painted himself into a corner. It's highly unlikely that Dr. Blasey-Ford made this recollection up out of whole cloth. If she did, she's a whole other stripe of partisan and no other evidence of that has surfaced.
@Sarah Can anyone corroborate that she had just one beer? Maybe it was two or three or a whole six pack? Maybe she did qualudes with the beer? Maybe she was smoking marijuana before she went to the party. The point is you can't prove it was one beer. Her story leaves a slew of questions unanswered. Who took her there? Who brought her home? No one knows either way what really went on and no one can prove anything one way or the other. These are unsupported and unverifiable allegations. Lies and embellishments are often full of detail no one could reasonably remember as the mind constructs imaginary detail to lend plausibility to a tale it recognizes is weak. What's suspicious about her detailed memory is that it is so selective: anything concrete that could be potentially verified independently she can't recall. I made no assertions at all, but basically tried to point out that her assertions don't really hold water. The realization that she never objected or cried out raises the possibility that it was all consensual and that it became a terrifying nonconsensual incident only after a decade or two. I don't know because I wasn't there and neither were you.
1
It is unclear why a vote delay is required as of today. This article is entitled "Delay the Vote ..." and discusses the matter but not what should be accomplished during a vote delay that can not be accomplished this week, or at least attempted to be accomplished this week. Democrats are confused why Senator Feinstein delayed any disclosure of this matter until late last week. Judge Kavanaugh has stated that he is fully willing to appear again before the Senate Judiciary Committee -- why not schedule Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford to testify tomorrow before broaching the possible need a vote delay. I would think Mark Judge should testify as well since he was identified by Dr. Ford.
2
We have a major problem here; most of the defenses of Kavanaugh start out with "it happened a long time ago and boys will be boys ... (wink wink)"
Mr. Kavanaugh doesn't say anything like that. He says it never happened, nothing even remotely like it happened with Dr. Ford.
If it happened, Kavanaugh is lying today. It's that simple. It's one or the other, nothing in the middle BECAUSE Kavanaugh has made it so.
3
Delay the hearings for a week so this woman can be heard? Sure. Delay the hearings so some unending 'investigation' and then Senate Hearing can occur to push it past the Mid-Term? Not going to happen. This kind of tactic is disgusting and will not be rewarded with any concession. Decency and Democracy deserve nothing less than Kavanaugh getting his seat on the Court without any delay beyond the time it takes to swear her in and let her go under Oath.
6
Remember Garland?
Editor’s note: This comment has been anonymized in accordance with applicable law(s).
1
First, leak to media that 'secret' document exists. Second, leak 'secret' document to media. Third, have 'secret accuser's name leaked to media. Coordinate with media to run stories favorable to 'secret accuser'. The same methodology was used to coordinate the leak of the 'dossier' against Trump, Comey's leak to appoint a Special Prosecutor and the anonymous 'resister' within the White House. it was pre-planned from A-Z.
5
@J House Yep, and thank goodness. Truth, like water, finds a way out.
2
All this talk about 'boys will be boys' .. No, this is not normal. Mr Kavanaugh and I are about the same age. I was 17 too at some point. But at no point would it have occurred to me to force myself onto a girl ripping off her cloths and trying to silence her with my hand. Not at 17, not at 13, not at 28, not now. Not drunk, stoned or sober. Neither was there anyone of my friends who would or could have done this. The few guys I thought would have been capable of acting this way I never had any desire to hang out with. Looking at what became of them 40 years later I have to say I still don't.
Needless to say that I wouldn't want any of these guys to be in a position to have a say over my life.
10
Given the presentation and cross examination of Kavanaugh to date,
the GOP has failed to prove that this Trump appointee is the best
person to succeed to the Supreme Court bench. If precident is the guide, this president does not choose the best people for anything.
1
Ironically Kavanaugh wants teenage girls who get pregnant to keep the fetus, but he also wants the country to forget/forgive his teenage indiscretion.
60
@Dolly Patterson - you are jumping to the conclusion that this incident did in fact happen. Were you there? Have you seen evidence this alleged event occurred? Why the jump to immediately assume he is guilty?
2
How about: Senator Feinstein held the letter in reserve, respecting the woman’s right to privacy...used it only when it was clear the nomination was being railroaded through without due diligence .
1
@James Kirk bc the accuser is affiliated w Stanford where I worked for yrs and has a great track record professionally of contributing to the common good. Yes, innocent until proven guilty, but it sure looks like the handwriting is on the wall.
The FBI says it isn't investigating any further. I thought that questioning the integrity and judgement of the FBI was "unpatriotic" now, no?
1
Mr. Lat, you're clearly conflicted regarding the political and professional consequences of your stance here, and its clearly reflected in your asides and detours which have a powerful effect on meaning.
At the moment I'm thinking of this parenthetical comment: "...she told nobody contemporaneously (unlike many other alleged victims of sexual assault)" (speaking of parentheses, nice way to toss another "alleged" into the mix).
A better formulation would have acknowledged that fewer than a third of "alleged" victims report incidents to any authority, and only slightly more tell friends or family.
You might better have said" ...she told nobody contemporaneously (like most victims of sexual assault)".
Too much reality? Too accurate for the Supreme Court?
Its OK. I get it.
3
Most folks, including myself are willing to lend a benefit of doubt when hearing such accusations. We think of our daughters, and get angry. But when the accusation is made 35 years later, on the eve of a major political vote, believing these accusations are starting to get tiresome. What makes it a lot worse, is that Feinstein kept this secret for 3 months, then dumps it 4 days before a vote that would have have tremendous political repercussions. If Democrats succeed installing this nomination, then who in their right mind would ever want to run for major political office again, knowing Democrats could pull a fast one on the eve of the vote, destroying your reputation. They did it before and succeeded so they'll do it again. This last minute underhanded character assassination is gone way too far. Just to make a point, Kavanaugh should be confirmed tomorrow, to put an end to this despicable behavior.
6
@Sports Medicine
And a number of people need to be taken to court for character assassination. If found guilty, they should serve time in prison.
"Christine Blasey Ford deserves to be heard. And the judge deserves a chance to clear his name."
Christine Blasey Ford should have brought her allegations forward when Brett Kavanaugh was nominated for his first federal judgeship. Why was it not important then?
2
Mr. Lat,
Thank you for having an open mind despite being a strong Kavanaugh supporter, as you disclosed in your ATL article https:info.breakingmedia.com.
That we all err at one time or another during our youth is a truth universally accepted. However, Kavanaugh’s and Judge’s categorical and unequivocal denials box or lock them in, as your colleague Elie Mystal has wisely opined. This is an important lawyerly strategy given the history of Mark Judge which is well documented by his own memoir and articles, and Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook notation of his membership in a certain “Keg club.”
The accuser has a credible narrative and if this turns out to be true, it would be easier for many people to forgive and accept Kavanaugh’s actions as youthful indiscretions were he to be more circumspect in his pronouncements and wait for the investigation’s outcome.
2
Why do us Supreme Court nominations now disregard all main issues - many of which would exclude this judge from any seat - but are delayed because of a teenage drunken behaviour? Crazy. Dangerous when teenage behaviour outranks adult judgement.
1
You got one critical fact wrong about the "he said - she said" nature of this incident. It's not, as you and several others have suggested, actually "they said -- she said." When asked about it, Judge Kavanaugh's friend, Mark Judge, did not deny that the event happened; rather, he said that he had "no recollection" that such a thing happened. There's a world of difference between denying and not recalling something, particularly since both Kavanaugh and Judge have been so publicly vocal in their fondness for the joys of public drunkenness and the recklessly stupid behavior it tends to engender.
5
Mrs Ford detailed account of sexual assault by a future US Supreme Court contender Mr Brett Kavanaugh should not be taken light and be not dismissed on any false pretext.It is inconsequential that it has happened 35 years ago.This sexual assault, and almost an attempt of alleged rape, is a serious one and therefore must be fully examined.
Mr Kavanaugh confirmation has been rushed through with a supersonoc jet speed.It is unprecedented in Supreme Court judicial scruitiny.
Why such a great hurry? Furthermore, thousands of documents have not been disclosed under the garb of Presidential Executive Privilege.It is a brazen evidence that there are stories on the Kavanaugh that the White House is cogniscent, and that if revealed Kavanaugh is liable to face creditable evidence of malafide which may be difficult to defend.
There are four Republican Senators who have raised voice against Kavanaugh.The oral prononcement looks hollow.What is needed to execute pause on the nomination process is that only two Republican Senators saying that they shall negate Kavanaugh nomination on the Senate floor. If even two Senators do not show moral courage and astute political judgement amongst 50 pigmmies,the Republican Party is doomed .And they shall be responsible for damaging the creditability of the highest court of the land.The history shall judge them most unfavourably.
1
@Prof Anant Malviya
Detailed account of sexual assault? Perhaps you should sign up for a reading comprehension class. Fuzzy details at best, except to accuse Kavanaugh, everything else is a blurr.
1
Delaying the vote was the tactical reason Feinstein had the letter since July and did nothing. This is a cynical ploy on the Democrats' part.
21
@ODIrony
You mean like Merrick Garland?
3
@ODIrony They want to delay the vote until after they are all re-elected. If they reject Kavanaugh now....voter anger will flush them all out of office.
@ODIrony, Ford didn't want to go public but had that choice taken taken away when her name was leaked. It was then she decided from her moral standpoint and despite the virulent backlash to herself and her family, to face the coming storm head on. The only ploy here was the immediately ready character letter which has since, it's being reported, has lost nearly 100% support of it's signers.
1
There must be a renewed hearing, but the great risk is that if Ms. Ford's story isn't persuasive at a hearing, other women may come forward with similar stories about Kavanaugh - to finish the job of delaying and then defeating his confirmation.
May I suggest that Senator Grassley issue a statement advising any women who claim abuse from Judge Kavanaugh to come forward with their stories now - so this entire matter can be dealt with fairly and expeditiously.
Clarence Thomas should not be sitting on the court, nor should Neil Gorsuch.
If McConnell feels reckless enough with our Constitution that he would rush Kavanaugh through the process before the midterms then Democrats should make sure an impeachment hearing for both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh must be considered when democracy is restored to our Nation.
McConnell is a traitor to our Constitution and our Nation.
3
"... Democrats should make sure an impeachment hearing for both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh must be considered ..."
You need to read the US Constitution, because, in the Senate, "no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." (Article I, Section 3)
1
Incredible that what a drunken 17 year old did, gets more publicity and sways more opinions than what the same person 30 years later did to a young woman in distress and incarcerated due to her immigration problems, needing a pregnancy termination.
60
@Sue Where did you get drunken? Did you assume that since she was held down she had overindulged?
Great exercise in victim blaming, but you guys are good at ignoring the majority as you loot and exploit and cheat your way to more power.
@Sue Though I agree that his current crimes are more monstrous, nobody wants to admit that he is a liar and a promoter of torture and demagoguery and vote stealing.
1
@Sue and what about the 15yr old girl engaging in underage drinking and making poor decisions? Same as the 17yr old boy? Do we punish both of them 35 years later? Or is a little forgiveness in order? As far as I am aware, Brett Kavanaugh has not made a life's career out of jumping on women....in fact it sounds like he grew up and understands whatever he did at 17 ...it was wrong. As for the highly successful College professor and DNC fund raiser....I think she's a spoiled rich brat.
1
And while Brett is back on the stand, how about the senators questioning him ask him about his father's activities as a paid lobbyist / flack for Big Pharma? I don't recall that issue being raised during the first farcical go-around. I noticed that Brett likes to talk all about his mother the "judge," but not a word about his daddy, the drug industry stooge. How about opening that can of worms, while you're at it? Talk about a conflict of interest with respect to where Brett's loyalties lie on the national healthcare front!!!!!
2
The fact that Mr. Lat believes that the hearings will lead to the foregone conclusion that Kavanaugh will be confirmed, is indeed problematic.
As Mr. Lat states: She passed a lie detector test and the claims are “disturbing”. Yes, indeed! She was 15, there were two males two years older, turning up music and covering her mouth to keep her from screams from being heard. What!?!
Let’s hope we have evolved from the days of Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill. Maybe the committee and both parties will truly keep an open mind. (Yes, I know, the eternal optimist.) I would not want someone on the supreme court who could do such a thing at any age.
Mr. Lat disparages the Democrats’ positions on Mr. Kavanaugh. We really don’t know what is true and not true about Mr. Kavanaugh. So much is being hidden from the public.
This whole process has been malodorous. We don't need two supreme court justice seats that the majority of Americans think are ill-gotten. This process should be delayed until after the mid-terms.
2
Of course. Anything that will allow Democrats to choose the next justice..
2
So he was a drunken teenager and jumped on top of her.
Apparently he didn't rape her. He was probably too drunk.
These things happen all the time. She said it happened.
He said it didn't. Someone is lying. The committee has to figure which one. This could well be another where the "crime" isn't the problem, it's the cover-up.
Wonder what happened to the other guy in the room?
The republicans don't want to hear the testimony because, in essence, they don't care if it's true. Republicans don't care about the truth...period. All they care about is power. Kavanaugh could assault Christine Ford on the senate floor while they were in session and they would still vote for him.
Clarence Thomas never should have been confirmed. Anita Hill should have been believed back then, but the "old boys" club really didn't care about her. They still don't. And the "old white boys" that constitute the republican majority in the senate won't care any more about Christine Ford than Anita Hill. They want power...and Kavanaugh will give them that power.
So...the trope that David Lat is pushing here is a load of baloney. That letting Ford and Kavanaugh have their say will somehow clear Kavanaugh to sit on the court with dignity. NO. NO IT WON'T.
Kavanaugh would be confirmed even if there was a video tape of the assault because republicans don't care. Kavanaugh will be confirmed even if another dozen women come forward, because republicans don't care.
But Kavanaugh will not be, and Thomas has not been, able to clear their name because Democrats do care, Lat's claim otherwise notwithstanding.
If you care about sexual assault, then you'd better
VOTE OUT ALL REPUBLICANS
3
What message will Senators Collins and Murkowski be sending to their female constituents after learning that Kavanaugh lied about his Roe v. Wade position and after these revelations about his sexual abuse ?
Kavanaugh, appointed by an unindicted co-conspirator, Trump, has a paper trail of lies under oath, and now sexual misconduct. He should withdraw.
Unfortunately, even if these allegations are unfounded, Judge Kavanaugh will never be able to fully clear his name now.
1
I sure as heck wouldn't want someone like Kavanaugh, who increasingly appears to be not only evading legitimate legal precedent questions, but in the same vein seems to be playing the stooge for his conservative political buddies eg. our liar in chief Trump, presiding over my legal case.
This latest charge only makes my already red flagged radar detector for sensing bad actors that much more noisy.
This man is a mess. Not unlike too many already installed in our increasingly corporatized government -for-the-taking halls of shame. God help us all.
3
Why would it be of concern to republicans if this investigation needs to be wrapped up before midterms? Isn't the nominee for the Supreme Court suppose to be so qualified most of both parties would vote for them? Isn't the nominee suppose to be the best for the country; not a political hack for one party or another? Or did Mr. McConnell open a pandoras box by selecting the 'nuclear option' (51% rather than the constitutionally required 60% to affirm in the Senate), thus making nominees more prone to the controlling party's political ideology, and, in effect, destroying the credibility of the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS is teetering on credibility from such decisions as "Citizens" United, Bush v Gore, etc. This will make it a joke to be ignored.
2
I believe Dr. Ford. When I was in high school, when my sister and I returned to our car after a basketball game, we found three upper class men sitting and waiting for us. The refused to leave the car. We knew these boys but not well. For whatever dumb reason, we got into the car, took a third friend home and then were directed by the boys to go park. It was horrible to be with these guys who were eager to have sex. They kept kissing me against my will. After what seemed like hours of arguing with them, they gave up and we managed to get them out of the car and go home.
Obviously, we should have gone to a teacher and asked for help. Obviously, I know to this day all three would deny their behavior or made claims of provocation. That is, after all, what guys do. Basketball and football players are generally believed over teen age girls.
I felt very lucky that things didn't get worse, but even now, 65 years later, I can remember every detail. Do I believe Dr. Ford. Absolutely.
91
@Anonymous So you will convict K based on your own experience, when one has absolutely nothing to do with the other? That’s a rat hole no one would survive.
2
"When I was in high school, ..., we found three upper class men sitting and waiting for us. The refused to leave the car. We knew these boys but not well."
How did they go from "men" to "boys" to "guys"?
"That is, after all, what guys do."
You must have missed all the news stories about *female* school teachers who have an intimate relationship with a student.
@Anonymous Eidetic (unusually vivid, clear and visual) memories are often false. The photographic quality make them all the beguiling or damning.
This pure bias and partisanship. Just gross.
5
This is so crazy! She was 15 years old at a party drinking. It was against the law then and now. There’s no police report of the purported incident. Did she tell her parents? Evidently not, or there would have been repercussions back then. Given these exact factors would any prospective employer prevent a qualified person in their 50s from obtaining a job based upon such flimsy, unsubstantiated allegations? I think not.
Let’s remember that Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill were both ADULTS at the time of their issues. This is very different. Here we’re dealing with 2 or 3 kids at an underage drinking party. This could easily be a case of mistaken identity. Has anybody thought of that? Was there a Burt Kavanaugh at the party? Maybe a Ben Kavanaugh?
This is a crazy circus and the country should not be put through it, no matter what your politics. There is something called “due process” in the constitution, and this is not due process. This is 11th hour political mud slinging. Diane Feinstein you should be ashamed of yourself.
6
Seems to me that due process would include hearings that heard her out and an honest investigation of her claims--but it's pretty laughable to see Trumpists demand "due process," considering the last couple years.
"This could easily be a case of mistaken identity."
No. They all knew each other:
'At the time, Ford said, she knew Kavanaugh and Judge as “friendly acquaintances” in the private-school social circles of suburban Maryland.' (Wash. Post, Sep. 17, 2018)
@Hk Due process would also include providing all documentation about the nominee to all members of the committee, not just the 10% curated by one of the nominee's cronies. Why the rush? SCOTUS had 8 justices for years, thanks to McConnell's craven politicizing. Republicans can wait until ALL of the info about Kavanaugh is made public.
1
Such bald partisan hypocrisy from the GOP:
After stonewalling -- refusing even to hold a single hearing for -- Obama's SCOTUS nominee (Merrick Garland) because it was within a year of a national election...
they are now trying their damndest to ram through the tainted Kavanaugh confirmation quick, quick, quick... before the November midterm elections (when the Dems may regain control of the House.) Totally disgraceful.
7
I am angry that more individuals are not pointing out the use of alcohol by under-aged teens as a significant factor in this situation. Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge were unsupervised teens with access to alcohol and empty houses. It is unlikely to have been a one-time event. Judge wrote a memoir detailing his alcohol abuse and that of Kavanaugh and there are records of Kavanaugh participating in "fun" times during law school which involved alcohol abuse.
These are the type of men who routinely drive after drinking a few at their country clubs or bars believing the laws don't apply to them. And in most cases the laws don't. If the men are pulled over for erratic driving, the police often excuse them with a warning because of who they are. If for some reason they must be charged, their fellow judges cover for them. Most of the justice system regards drinking and driving as a non-crime or a test of "manhood" where fooling the system is a win. The only people punished for alcohol crimes are those without powerful connections.
Kavanaugh was an entitled teen attending a prep school which validated his status as someone special. It is unlikely the assault of Dr. Ford is the only time he went too far when alcohol was involved. His career and the documents he produced but the Republicans are not allowing the public to read or the Senate to consider would undoubtedly show this sense of entitlement and willingness to lie to achieve the ends he wanted. Stop this process.
8
Mr. Lat's claim is patently FALSE: "....whenever Ms. Hill’s sexual harassment allegations are raised, he or his defenders can at least say they were explored by the senators and ultimately found insufficient to deny Mr. Thomas a seat on the Supreme Court."
The Senator committee overseeing the Clarence Thomas nomination NEVER called a second witness Ms. Wright to testify before the committee, and instead simply entered the transcript of her interview into its record ON THE EVE of the final vote!!
Ms. Hill and other victims deserve better.
https://www.salon.com/2010/10/27/anita_hill_clarence_thomas/
2
"The Senator committee overseeing the Clarence Thomas nomination NEVER called a second witness Ms. Wright to testify before the committee, ..."
Angela Wright didn't want to testify:
THE THOMAS NOMINATION; On the Hearing Schedule: Eight Further Witnesses
[No author given]
October 13, 1991
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/13/us/the-thomas-nomination-on-the-heari...
Whether this happened in high school or last week makes no difference! What kind of an upbringing did he have if he felt he could abuse her at the age of 17? That is a character flaw that lasts throughout one's life...this "privilege"....! One could "repent" or try to change, but it's always there. Ask any AA member. Ask any methadone treatment center. Ask anyone who attempts to quit smoking. I do not know of any of my friends who did what he allegedly did at that age. We teach our young not to make mistakes, at least we try. If we don't succeed, the young person ultimately is the one who makes the decision.
2
@Carol
Oh. So "innocent until proven guilty" not so much?
One could also ask what kind of upbringing someone had if she feels she can make baseless claims with no proof against someone. That is also a character flaw that lasts throughout one's life. Seems similar to Munchausen by proxy.
2
@Joe Pike
Baseless claims? You're missing the point, Joe. Women were not believed. If they brought charges, what proof could they bring? Yes it WAS innocent until proven guilty....because no one believed women. Entire football teams were believed rather than the girl. And it hasn't stopped. Therefore boys and men have done what they've wanted all these years with no consequences. And they don't want to change that.
There are two things difficult to understand here. First, the accuser supposedly wanted to stay anonymous. But that automatically means the accusation doesn’t go anywhere; the FBI could not start an investigation. Then what was the point to make the accusation ?
Shockingly, the accuser ends by revealing herself, as if anybody could have had any doubts that that would happen, in such a high impact case.
The second issue that’s hard to understand: The only witness, Mr. Judge, has already declared no such thing happened. What is the evidence that the accuser counts on ? Apparently the alleged incident was not in any way reported at the time, so it’s difficult to imagine what the evidence would be now.
So the second question is: unless the accuser has some convincing evidence that has been totally kept secret, why would she come forward with an accusation that will turn to be only a “she said, he said ?” Why would somebody who apparently highly values their privacy, relinquish it only to make an accusation that looks like the longest shot possible ? If no compelling evidence surfaces, this will be a damning question.
3
@Gimme A. Break Why would she come forward under such daunting circumstances you ask. Why not consider the obvious: Because she is telling the truth and truth matters.
2
@Gimme A. Break
Why did the opposition party in Canada bang on the table to stop Doug Ford from using the Notwithstanding Clause to reduce the size of city council from 47 to 25? Why did this woman come forward with a clearly bogus claim after 40 years if it wasn't true? Same reason for both? The left has imagined the world is crashing to end if either of these things happens and there is no limit to what they will do to prevent it. At any cost necessary is the mantra and you will see more and more of it going forward from the left.
Mr. Kavanaugh should buy himself more seasons' tickets to baseball and football games. Hopefully, he will be spending more time away from judicial responsibilities and just watch others "call balls and strikes."
3
I don’t want Kavanaugh on the court because of his extreme right-wing views. But it simply is not so that all accusations of this type are true or, if possessed of some truth, are accurately recounted. The boys are said to have been drunk. Was the accuser? Did they know each other before? If so, under what circumstances? If not, how can she be sure of her identification? Did she ever see Kavanaugh again? Why can’t she remember the year? I remember the year of all significant events when I was a teenager, just not those which happened later in life. Did she tell her therapist in 2012 the name of the boy who assaulted her? When did she figure that out? These are just a few of the questions that need to be asked.
4
@Richard Cohen
I am a person who never remembers the year I did anything. Ask me--- when did you go to Paris? (don't remember!). In what year did you have a foot operation? (don't know), miscarriages (forgot!).
The only dates I can remember are the birth dates of my children. After that--- just about nothing. I have vivid, detailed memory, just no memory for dates.
5
"I don’t want Kavanaugh on the court because of his extreme right-wing views."
Kavanaugh doesn't have "extreme right-wing views". Try to come up with a better reason to oppose him.
"These are just a few of the questions that need to be asked."
You didn't propose any questions to ask Kavanaugh, such as:
* "Have you ever been so drunk that the next day you couldn't remember what happened while you were drunk?"
* "When was the last time you drank alcohol?"
* "Do you know how to tell whether someone is drunk?"
We already have one Supreme Court Justice whose seating is the result of a broken process, a seat denied to President Obama's nominee, who did not even get a hearing, because of brazen partisan political sedition by Mitch McConnell and Republicans. We the People do not need another Justice seated under a cloud, whose integrity and veracity will always be doubted. There needs to be a thorough investigation, to determine if these allegations have any merit, or to conclusively clear judge Kavanaugh's name for good. Should Republicans push through this nominee without first investigating, they will have further damaged the reputation and honor of the Court, and further damaged our democracy and our nation's future. How Republicans proceed here will show very clearly whether they are truly "patriots" or instead are craven political animals, grasping onto power any way they can without regard for Constitution, democracy, or our nation's future. Republicans -- choose wisely... We the People surely will in November.
3
"We already have one Supreme Court Justice whose seating is the result of a broken process, ..."
Gorsuch has a name. And Federal law requires only six justices on the Supreme Court, so you are wrong about "a broken process":
"The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum." (28 U.S. Code § 1 - Number of justices; quorum)
You should follow the lead of Lat and compare the Kavanaugh confirmation with the Thomas confirmation:
"The object lesson here is the 1991 confirmation for Justice Clarence Thomas."
Democrats:
Delay the vote, let's find out what happened, let Justice prevail.
Republicans:
Let's find another witness who was a teen at this party to clear Kavanaugh, and let's attack Ms. Ford's character and question her sanity while we're at it. Also, let's distract America with a new Trump move.
1
@Anne
Right..."justice"
Actually the Dem line is: sit on this "bombshell" information for eight weeks, try other stalling tactics in committee, then when it becomes clear they can't stop Kavanaugh, throw this Hail Mary and demand a delay.
Also, ignore that there is no one to corroborate her claims, while there is a witness to corroborate Kavanaugh's; she can't remember any details of this seminal event - including what year it happened; she never went to any authorities, then or now; told no one about it at the time; is a big Democrat donor and far left activist; reached out to a powerful DC lawyer first; and took the proactive step of a private polygraph despite having the wishes to "remain anonymous."
3
@M. good point; McConnell knew the 2016 election would be tipped and defied the Constitution in refusing advise and consent on Garland. This time around, without advance knowledge of 2018 election outcomes, he’s not so sure, hence the hatchet job on Kavanaugh’s “advise and consent”.
2
The timing of this seems awfully suspicious given that Feinstein knew about this months ago and she and other Dems would like nothing better than to derail or at least delay confirmation. I believe Ford's motives are probably honest, sincere and not politically motivated. She deserves to be heard, and within the next day or so would be nice, and Kavanaugh should be allowed to speak as well. That's only fair. Yet, we are still left with an occurrence that happened over thirty years ago with Kavanaugh and friend stumbling drunk according to Ford, perhaps to the point of not even remembering their own names. Was Ford equally inebriated? We don't know but Ford cannot remember key facts which is troubling. There is no evidence, actual or circumstantial, supporting Ford's allegation or Kavanaugh's denial except for a third person, a friend who also likely drunk out of his mind. Ford reportedly passed a lie detector test but individuals can be trained to fool lie detectors which is why such test results cannot be used in court. I believe Ford really thinks the event did happen and if so, could have easily passed the test. The Vulcan mind-meld is not currently available. Ford's recollection could be false memory syndrome (Google it) where a person constructs a memory that is not true to fill in the blanks the way the person would like them to be. Bottom line: unsupported allegations should never be enough to charge or ruin a person or we have regressed to the Sen. McCarthy era.
4
To understand how this is an 11th hour plan (campaign) by design, you have to think of the only motive why Senator Feinstein would hold back the information before the hearings, rather than release it....it would have quashed the plan, leaving no arrow in their quiver.
2
The only legitimate candidate for the Supreme Court is Merrick Garland.
8
@jdvnew
Win the House in 2018 and then the Senate and the Presidency in 2020 and elect someone who will Nominate him. That's what you have to do to get Garland on the Court. Will you do it or just ask for miracles?
Foisting a Supreme Court justice on the nation who has been credibly accused of rape would indelibly tarnish the court, which is already suffering under a cloud of partisan Republican extremism.
How many other women wanted to testify that Justice Thomas had harassed and groped them? Congressmen from both parties prevented them from testifying, and pilloried Ms. Hill who was, as we now know, telling the truth.
The Trump Republican good old boys tell us, "boys will be boys." Nonsense. Boys who rape underage girls have committed a felony. After all, how many of the men reading this comment ever tried to rape an underage girl who was years younger than they were?
The vast majority of victims of sexual assault never receive justice, but most rapists are never brought to justice. In that light, the courageous Dr. Blasey should be given every opportunity to obtain justice in a fair and unbiased public space.
The smallest non-zero probability that this attack might have occurred should permanently disqualify Mr. Kavanaugh.
The office of the presidency has already been irreparably damaged. This Congress has altogether abandoned its Constitutional oversight duties. Our democracy is in jeopardy. There is nothing that the Trump Republican party would not do in the service of power.
3
@Robert
If only there was a credible allegation in this case.
1
Most arguments raised by the players on both sides to delay or proceed are too conveniently well prepared and aligned with political preferences to be credible.
Now the matter has been raised, give it due process and give Judge K the opportunity defend himself. Surely his the most ardent opponent would concede that to be fair.
As with other similar cases, the key thing is whether or not other cases emerge to establish a pattern or it remains an outlier.
2
@Paul
Nonsense. One attempt to rape another human being is one attempt too many, for a Supreme Court nominee.
Paul wrote:
"... As with other similar cases, the key thing is whether or not other cases emerge to establish a pattern or it remains an outlier."
1
Nigh on 50 years ago, I was facing the draft and consulted a famous war-resister attorney, an elderly gent with a goatee, a vest, a pipe and a consultative style to match. I told him I was troubled; I wasn't sure if my desire to avoid the draft was motivated entirely by principled opposition to the Viet Nam war, or by a combination of fear, and other considerations. He told me, "You have a lifetime ahead of youto work that out, but right now nobody should be joining the Army to fight in Viet Nam, and if you can avoid it, you should." I took his more specific advice and managed to avoid conscription.
Fifty years later, I have the same sort of reaction to the new allegations about Kavanaugh as a reason for rejecting his nomination. There are so many valid reasons why he should be rejected, and the ominous portents for the Nation if he is confirmed, are reason enough to reject him, but I am not sure allegations of what he did to a young woman when full of booze at a drunken high school party ought to be considered grounds for rejection, even if we accept the trauma of the event affected the woman for years thereafter.
On the other hand, we have a lifetime, as a Nation, to ponder the validity of that motive, but for the time being, nobody with Kavanaugh's record in government and academe should be on the Supreme Court of the United States, and if this charge helps avoid that, let's swallow conscience and use whatever "evidence" helps.
5
"she told nobody contemporaneously (unlike many other alleged victims of sexual assault)"
Many, but by no means all; and certainly not in the period under discussion. Whatever the facts in regard to this case, I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that not disclosing an assault of that nature at the age of 15 somehow weakens its credibility.
I was sexually assaulted at that age; it took me more than 30 years to even begin addressing its bitter legacy. Christine Blasey Ford would not be the first victim of sexual aggression to have lived with its consequences for decades.
5
I'm more concerned with his recent lying to get into the judgeships he's been in, including to Congress during his SC hearings.
1
Have the hearings, delay the vote and do whatever it takes to keep him off of SCOTUS.
1
“These claims should have been thoroughly and discreetly investigated weeks ago, by nonpartisan F.B.I. agents and bipartisan Senate investigators, in a way that protected Christine Ford’s privacy and Brett Kavanaugh’s good name. But here we are.”
But why are we here? Who made the decision to not examine this completely as part of the Congressional process to vet this candidate for the SCOTUS?
3
It's sadly appropriate that Kavanaugh may have literally done to a woman in the past what he wants to do figuratively to all woman in the future!
7
I want to hear more about what the D.C. attorney Katz told or offered Dr. Ford, including indirect hints about friends of hers with extra cash.
There was no collusion, a phrase with which one would have thought Trumpists would be familiar.
4
Delay the confirmation's conclusion until after November 6. Let the voters have a say, as in the case with the previous SCOTUS nomination.
2
No matter what is said in the hearings, Judge Kavanaugh , if confirmed, will always be under a cloud of suspicion. Named by a president who is under investigation, who has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator, who was surrounded by people either indicted, or those who have agreed to testify, the judge, who himself is accused of sexual assault, will not escape unscathed. Is this battle really worth the destruction of his reputation? A wise man would withdraw his name.
1
"Mr. Kavanaugh, now 53, has strongly denied her claims..."
Somehow, conservatives fall for this every single time.
"Putin denied it strongly..." and so on.
Look, no-one ever said Kavanaugh is stupid; of course he denied it.
But no one with eyes ever said he was particularly patriotic or moral, either.
Unless you boys want to change jurisprudence across the board to credit such powerful defenses as "Well, Judge, I was drunk at the time..." and ""What's she bringing this up now for?", I suggest you give Dr. Ford a hearing and, if you must, allow the judge to respond.
Why is that so hard?
5
For all except the most violent and dangerous offenders, those who have been subject to conviction and punishment under the juvenile justice system have their records sealed and are not subject to public examination once they have reached the age of majority. The reason for this is that the character of young people is assumed to be malleable and thus amenable to reformation. It is reasonably believed that a person should not be subject to the consequences of the taint of criminal conviction for their entire adult lives, especially when they have learned their lessons and reformed their lives.
I am not going to comment here on Judge Kavanaugh or the merits of the accusations against him. I am however, going to pose this question: What if a criminal complaint had been filed against him in a timely manner? What if he had been found guilty? Unless he was tried as an adult, his record under the juvenile criminal system would have been sealed once he had reached the age of majority. It seems to me that we should consider how we would proceed if such had been the case. Would any accusation brought against any public figure concerning any mis-behavior committed while a juvenile be considered "in bounds" when the relevant evidence was now under seal and not available for examination? It seems to me only right that we should have a consistent rule governing such cases, rather than making it up as we go along.
Why would this woman, who has accomplished enough in her own right to be a full professor at a major university, make this up out of whole cloth - knowing full well the scrutiny she would face? Kavanaugh's explanation is, "Nothing happened and she's just lying," but does that explanation make any sense? Senators should probe this explanation by asking Kavanaugh if he recalls the party and being there with Mr. Judge, if he knows Prof. Ford or remembers her from high school, and if so whether there is any reason she would make up this story, among other things. Sorry folks but there are too many details that ring true here. Kavanaugh's blanket, reflexive denial does not appear credible.
1
@Arthur Larkin
Better do some more reading. Palo Alto University is not a major university, the accuser has already scrubbed (i.e. revised and deleted ) her social media and Linked-In profile and there is a trail of former students questioning her professionalism and normalcy.
2
Similar to the Clinton emails resurfacing when they did, the timing of it fails to meet the credulity test. Even if the allegation is absolutely true, and I'm not saying whether or not it is or should matter to anyone except Kavanaugh, it bears the taint of an attempt to discredit a potential US Supreme Court justice.
I am aware that past traumas resurface when an incident or reminder triggers them, so something being re-experienced after 30 years is not automatically suspect. I'm also aware that there are ways of resolving them short of playing them out in a very public manner.
#Me Too is doing a lot to help those who suffered have a voice and a face, if they choose. I agree that it is a good and healthy thing for a lot of victims of sexual exploitation. Most, I would expect, prefer to resolve the traumas privately, with a therapist or supportive friends/family.
Girls are shamed when they're treated like objects.
Boys brag.
I bet there were other boys at that party who heard every detail. I hope they have the conscience to speak up.
5
The hormones of teenage youngsters are uncontrollable, who among us have not forced ourselves on girls short of rape, with the coy approval the girls.What did she think was going to happen when she willingly went into the room with two boys..Let those without guilt throw the first stone.This whole thing is ridiculous, I am against the nomination of Kavanaugh,but I would not want this episode to ruin his chances.Those that are pushing this through are the culprits, and viciously cruel.I am sorry for the horror this is for his wife & daughters.
3
@Joe Blow
You are admitting you assaulted girls when you were a teenager. Most men/boys did and do not. You do not speak for all men. You speak for yourself alone.
7
@Joe Blow
“Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room,” Dr. Blasey wrote.
2
@Joe Blow Um, there's a lot wrong with this post here. If the standard is "didn't force ourselves on girls short of rape," a lot of us can throw that first stone. Besides, someone who is "uncontrollable" doesn't belong on the Supreme Court - ever.
It's baffling to me that you read an accusation of sexual assault and the party you feel sorry for is the accused's wife/daughters. Really?
2
During the Clarence Thomas Hearing — otherwise known as the Anita Hill Trial — I heard, on good authority from a top legal expert who knew many people in Thomas' orbit, that the nominee was notorious for his serial sexual misconduct with multiple women. So, I asked this legal expert (who happened to be a friend): "Do you think Thomas is sitting in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee perfectly aware that he's lying, knowingly perjuring himself?"
To which my friend replied: "I think people tend to create in their minds, without necessarily conscious intent, a version of events they can live with. And over time, it becomes so engrained that they come to believe it as truth."
That struck me as a very interesting insight. And I wonder if such a person (including Kavanaugh) would ultimately believe the version in his/her head enough to pass a polygraph test. In Kavanaugh's case, after all, the alleged events happened so many decades ago — at a time when he was most likely drunk + perhaps left with no real recollection. So, even if he's entirely guilty as claimed, he might pass a lie-detector test with flying colors! (In general, polygraph tests aren't known to be 100% reliable, anyway.) Just saying....
3
Enough.
The judiciary in this country is a joke.
Here's four reasons why:
1) If Joe Biden had done his legally required job back during the Clarence Thomas nomination, then he would have ALSO had the other 3 women testify against Thomas on sexual harassment.
As it was, it was only Anita Hill alone up there. Thomas should never have been put on the Court, nor should he be there now.
2) Nor should Gorsuch be there after the illegal game that McConnell played. I'm a Progressive and the incompetence by the "main-stream" Democrats on allowing that theft to happen, I consider unforgivable. Given that Republicans are criminal and Democrats are weak-kneed, there is no hope for this nation.
3) The legal profession, itself, is bankrupt. It offered no reaction to Scalia's "Originalism", a trumped-up, phony piece of fantasy, dreamed up by a Patriarch who never met a woman he respected - and don't bring up Ginsberg. She never gave a peep, either. Indeed, she swore that if we all just went to the opera with him, that we'd adore him! Scalia got a good laugh over that one! Nor did even one of those "Supremes" howl over what McConnell pulled.
4) The "judiciary backlog" that Republicans forced on the Obama administration. Ah, but now that we have trump, why we'll fill them, willy-nilly! And they will all be from that secret cult, the Federalist Society, the lackys of Koch, Heritage and Cato.
So, here comes another Clarence Thomas.
Wow.
Ethical osteoporosis.
We're done for.
7
Is there nobody else that remembers the party that night? Can we at least establish that Kavanaugh was there? Is it possible this woman WAS assaulted, but it was a different guy(s)? The timing of this stinks to high heaven.
3
The writer cites the Thomas hearings, wherein by his own admission, several of Ms Hill’s witnesses were denied the opportunity to be heard; as an example of the due process he seeks?
Sounds like typical Republican justice, to me...walks like Putin, and quacks like Putin....
1
Appointment to the Supreme Court is not a right and taking the time to have the judge and his accuser testify is not a
"delay" except for those who have a political motive in rushing this nomination through as quickly as posdi
4
Should read "possible"
The key point to the story is that young Kavanaugh told his friend to turn up the music so no one could hear her and he put his hand over her mouth. That is the difference between drunken wrestling and premeditated assault. I'm not a lawyer, but I think it goes to intent.
6
Yes, that’s the story. It has to be proven. If somebody makes something up, why not throw in the most damning details ?
“... deserves a chance to clear his name...”. implies that Kavanaugh is innocent, that his “name” just needs to be “cleared.” How about “deserves a chance to respond to the charges?”
6
How about the accuser deserving to prove their accusations ? Last time I’ve checked, it was “innocent until proven guilty”. Or maybe this works only for people who are “on the right side of history” ?
1
I suggest we let Kavanaugh's nomination be approved, with a huge cloud over it with both this woman's claim that he tried to rape her as a drunken teen and the Garza case in the foreground--you remember, the raped teenage Latina immigrant who went through all the legal hoops to get an abortion, only to have Judge Kavanaugh try to place a bunch more hoops in front of her so that she would be forced to carry that pregnancy, having reached Texas's 20-week limit for abortions. That was recent, that was Kavanaugh in action against a teenaged rape victim.
There is some justice in having on the SCOTUS a justice whose every word about sexuality and females' right to abortion will be doubted, shaded, shadowed, for the rest of his life. Because of this incident from his past that he denies.
We deserve better on the Court. But if Kavanaugh's hands are so tied with innuendo, I can accept that.
1
Just how did the Republicans know that they would need statements from 65 of Kavanaugh's high school classmates? That must have taken some time. Perhaps the Republicans knew about this way before anyone else? Why do you suppose they were hiding it?
7
Ms Ford, in addition to Kavanaugh's attempt, have there any other boys/men who attempted this? And their names are....?
Whoa! Young Kavanaugh knew 65 women well enough from his all boy high school and college days that they can now vouch for his character? Either young Kavanaugh was the captain of his school football team and the Don Juan of his classes year after year or Mr. Grassley is taking all of us for idiots. 65?, I attended a very small coed boarding school in Europe and recently saw a picture of my class and I couldn’ t recall the names of more than a handful of my classmates, male and female.
And I was once young, fairly good looking, and popular with girls, or at least I thought I was.
Let these women come forward and also take a lie detector test. There is no hurry to vote.
8
The key point to the story is that young Kavanaugh told his friend to turn up the music so no one could hear her and he put his hand over her mouth. That is the difference between drunken wrestling and premeditated assault. I'm not a lawyer, but I think it goes to intent.
115
@Chazak
Nailed it.
1
@Chazak You should caveat that by saying the accuser claims that it happened, but the two other people she said were in the room say it didn't.
1
@Chazak I think it was Mother Jones that stated that there were four guys at the party. Two were in the room...........one being Mark Judge who wrote a book that he was pretty much drunk his whole high school career.......I'd love to hear from the other two guys that were outside of the room. They know what happened that night.
Dr. Ford's inability to recall some key details, such as location and the exact date of the incident, as well as the fact that she didn't inform her parents or school authorities, is regrettable. But those facets of her story are entirely understandable given her situation at the time.
In the first place, she was 15, or thereabouts. At that point in psychological development, adolescents are typically wary of disappointing adults and warier still of potential consequences meted out by parents or others in authority. Add to that the shame and guilt that could go along with reporting a sexual assault fueled by underage drinking, and it's not difficult to fathom why a teenage Dr. Ford told no one.
Further, it is not uncommon for details to be lost to memory in the wake of a personally traumatic event, even for adults. Sometimes, an entire trauma can be at least temporarily forgotten in a phenomenon called psychogenic amnesia. To forget a few details surrounding, but not integral to, a temporally distant trauma is hardly unusual.
7
Democratic Senators, including Diane Feinstein and Patrick Leahy, had must stronger evidence than this that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick and they ignored. In fact, they defended Bill Clinton and excused his obstruction of justice and lying under oath and voted not guilty during the impeachment trial. They will defend a Democratic rapist and smear an honorable judge with a forty year old charge that is impossible to defend against, because the alleged victim cannot even remember where it took place. The hypocrisy and dishonest of the Democrats knows no bounds.
2
There are two flaws in blaming Democrats for applying different standards to President Clinton and Judge Kavanaugh. First, Clinton's impeachment was pushed by a House leadership with at least three morally dubious figures and was tried in the Senate in 1999, when Clinton was a lame duck with barely two years left in his term and two houses of Congress controlled by the Republicans; by contrast, Democrats now face the prospect of Kavanaugh sitting on the Supreme Court for thirty years or more. The stakes of a rushed decision for an unelected lifetime Justice are much higher than a two-year countdown on a lame duck. Second, the various charges against Clinton failed to get a majority of the Senate, with five or more Republicans joining Democrats in a Senate that had a 55-45 GOP majority. It may well be that Senators of both parties weighed Clinton's sexual conduct as just one factor in considering whether removal from office was appropriate for him or future presidents.
Typical.
Too clever by half.
Using weasel to do can’t do on the merits because have no power due to generations of wrestling. Fake piety. Convinced no one. Slimes democracy.
If he’s voted in, maybe he’ll sit next to Uncle Thomas and they can share stories of the women they’ve known.
2
Anything to delay this SC pick by an illegitimate president and his right wing cronies.
I want to see this guy's nomination shot down but not in this way. A drunken teenage party. Overly aggressive with a girl who was also by her own admission also drunk. Attempted rape?
Unless there are other accusers out there, who are willing to come forward, I fear that Republicans are going to ram this guy through anyway and run Ms. Ford's reputation through the wringer to do so. Unlike Democrats Republicans are not going to sacrifice one of their own to placate #Me Too.
There should, must be a hearing on this but it's not going to be pretty.
1
@Brooklyncowgirl
A hearing, huh? Unless there was a security camera in the room back in the 80's, we will have two drunken teenagers words against another drunken teenager. And if drunken teenage groping is a crime, then all America would be a prison (to misquote Hamlet).
1
Just now on CNN, a spokesperson for Women for Trump, a woman, said that it doesn’t matter to her if Kavanaugh raped a woman.
Wrap your head around that.
3
"She passed a polygraph test administered by a former F.B.I. agent" How about asking Judge Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge to take lie detector tests, as well.
Lying is the issue, I think. Denial is the issue.
This is how Trump operates, with lies, distortions, and denials.
===============================================
Perhaps one can excuse some teenage misbehavior.
But what about now? Kavanaugh needs honesty, now.
How can you run a government without trust?
If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed, he will then escape scrutiny!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Lat, methinks thou doth protest too much!
You wrote:
"During and after his confirmation hearings, many unfair and unfounded charges were made against him. Democratic senators accused Judge Kavanaugh of committing perjury at his two prior confirmation hearings — charges that do not withstand scrutiny."
Your link there goes to an opinion piece written by *you* in which you make your case by copying several of your tweets on Twitter!
LOL! That's hardly a credible approach.
As to your unsubstantiated claim that "Memogate" is much ado about nothing, people need to read this:
"I Wrote Some of the Stolen Memos That Brett Kavanaugh Lied to the Senate About.
He should be impeached, not elevated."
Ms. Graves, the author, is "the former chief counsel for nominations for the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and was deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice".
See https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/judge-brett-kavanaugh-should...
Her piece is evidence-based and far more persuasive than your series of tweets!
4
Good save America from #MeToo.
1
@IllWind How about God save America from the men who make #MeToo necessary?
4
It would be nice if Kavanaugh's confirmation can at least be delayed until after the midterms. Ideally, it woild be better if he were "Borked,"
Either way, it would be karma for the Obama/Garland debacle.
2
OH Mr. Lat. Good day from the City of Reason. I appreciate the NYT for having you aboard. Luckily for us who have reason, see your slanted article as nothing but even MORE reason to not vote JK in.
While skimming your diatribe, I didn't see you mention the GOP's failure to even consider a hearing for Merrick Garland.
In addition, how about the thousands of documents withheld from US regarding JK's time during the W administration?
What is your end game sir?
Regards,
Citizens of Reason
1
Is the “equivocal” in the final paragraph a Freudian slip?
We've got enough perverts and judges of questionable morality and qualifications on the Supreme Court, we don't need another one.
3
This is a desperate propaganda attack to stop what the cultural Marxists, to include the NYT Editorial Board, believe will be the end of Roe v. Wade.
As the San Jose Mercury story makes clear--a Feinstein constituent and Meditation and Psychology professor at Palo Alto "University"--Ford remains "dazed and confused" about the high school event, which makes this more absurd than it already is.
According to the San Jose Mercury: "The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room."
1
What choice for the DNC Politburo members? If not Ford, then back to Anita Hill.
1
May our senators do what is right and get to the truth.
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. (Isaiah 5:20)
3
While they’re at it, some other areas need revisited. He also needs to be questioned about Kozinski again. Appears to be lying. He needs to be asked how his debts disappeared. Where did the money come from? Very slimy and Trumpy.
No reason to have two known sexual abusers on the court.
The legitimacy of the Supreme Court was lost the moment Injustice Gorsuch took a seat that was stolen from President Obama, a majority president, the millions of Americans who voted for him, and Merrick Garland.
Kavanaugh is a liar who was nominated by a lying sexual predator who will get a vote from a Senate controlled by a bunch of lying thieves.
We the People deserve better than this which means we have to remember in November and make lying thieving craven political hack Mitch McConnell minority leader again.
Give control of Congress to the Democrats.
3
So let me get it straight about the latest in the Kavanough nomination process.
The woman, obviously after painful reflections, came forward to the press, and took polygraph test.
According to her Kavanaugh had attempted to rape her being drunk, back in HS years.
Let me ask everyone a question: Is it not enough to have a president who was accused of rape by his ex wife still sitting in a Oval Office, now we have to face a Supreme Court justice nominee for life, accused of attempted rape with all the physical assault details.
Talking about Mexicans who shouldn't be allowed to the country, because according to sexual abuser in chief they are all rapists.
First of all, my immense admiration goes to this remarkable woman, who decided to speak out in order to try and preserve our justice system in a light of our collapsing democracy.
You're a great role model!!!
Second, any decent person at this point would withdraw his nomination, but not Kavanaugh.
We live in the age of utter indecency.
"Have you no sense of decency sir?"
3
Would Kavanaugh and his fellow would-be rapist friend be willing to take a polygraph as Ms. Ford has already done?
This is part of a pattern. He is a liar. He is unfit.
1
Yes, she deserves a chance to testify & David Lat has mentioned specifics in her favor. As for Brett Kavanaugh, it's much to his credit that he is willing to testify (as recently reported.)
Consider the recklessness of the Republicans, it is possible they might disregard this. It will be a huge mistake.
After almost three decades, Anita Hill v. Clarence Thomas saga has just begun to gain currency with the #MeToo movement: if Kavanaugh is confirmed, it will permanently break the SCOTUS.
But like I said at the open, the Reps are going to jam anything and everything through in the next two months, so one should not underestimate their total disregard.
It would be interesting if Kavanaugh followed Samuel Chase's footstep
Christine Blasey Ford deserves to be heard. And the judge deserves a chance to clear his name. - Aye.
The American people need to weigh in on all of this, considering this is the ''standard'' that republicans set for Democrats for the last pick.
Otherwise, republicans are hypocritically just making up a different set of rules for themselves and different ones for anyone else.
Let's get her under oath and subject to a good cross-examiner. The claim that she passed a lie detector test, conducted by someone selected by her attorney, is meaningless as to truth but it does expose the lie that she intended to "remain anonymous" but has been outed against her will. Hiring a D.C. sex-attack specialist attorney back in the Summer and taking a lie detector tests in August are not the actions of someone who intended to remain anonymous.
Let's see if the FBI can find anyone who will even verify such an evening occurred, and if so, who was present and what they think about the accuser and the accused.
Let's get on with tearing down a man who for 35 years has lived an exemplary life, helping women advance in their careers, based on what the accuser says is conduct while "stumbling drunk."
Already the accuser's attorney has made a despicable and laughable comment that if the boys were not drunk, the accused would have been raped. How about the obvious contrary: if the boys were not stumbling drunk, this playful episode would not have occurred at all.
Let the Spanish Inquisition begin.
1
Christine Blasey Ford deserves to be heard. And the judge deserves a chance to clear his name. - Aye.
The American people need to weigh in on all of this, considering this is the ''standard'' that republicans set for Democrats for the last pick.
Otherwise, republicans are hypocritically just making up a different set of rules for themselves and different ones for anyone else.
3
Maybe, I'm wrong but hasn't Kavanaugh been proven to have lied about other things, like knowledge of papers stolen from Democrats before other hearings on court appointments? Isn't his character already in question because he has said Roe V Wade is settled law? Had these things not become more apparent through the hearings already held, then his credibility would never have been questioned. Justice will be served, here or in the hereafter. The day of reckoning is coming.
1
It gives you a wonderful insight into how important the judicial system is for the leftists in this country. They can't win over the majority, nor can they gain control of the legislature, but they can, through judicial tyranny, effect their will on the people. There's is no bottom to the morals of the left and no limits to what they will do to derail this and future nominations. Their tactics are despicable. They must be fought against tooth and nail, to the. very end, until their ideology is crushed once and for all.
2
@Samuel Wilson - "they cannot win over the majority?"
HRC won the popular vote. The majority of votes cast for federal legislators (both house and senate) went to Democratic candidates.
Everything else you say is better said about the Republicans.
1
@Samuel Wilson
As someone who is not an American citizen, I don't have a dog in this race; I am, however, struck by how often I hear Trump supporters talking about 'crushing' their political opponents: as you yourself state, in your view "leftists'" ideology mut be "crushed once and for all".
That's the bombast of tyrants and tin-pot dictators in banana republics, not the discourse of a people who are the political heirs of men of the stature of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. For shame, sir.
2
The one sure thing that you can conclude based on the exchanges to date is that either Ms. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh is lying.
The specifics of the alleged event are obviously subject to further evaluation - who did precisely what... and when did they do it? That's important but Kavanaugh's response was categorical. In so doing, he has made this easy or, at least, easier.
This is not he said/she said about the specifics. According to Kavanaugh the alleged event never even took place.
His position has been no where, no way, and not ever. If the incident did happen he would be in a position of having to provide his side of the story. But the discussion has shifted. The unequivocal issue is the decisively important matter of - is the next Justice of the Supreme Court going to be someone following on the model of Clarence Thomas - a liar.
When is comes to Thomas - I believed Anita Hill. That makes Thomas a liar. Is Kavanaugh also a liar? This is not a minor question and what the Democrats did or did not do in bringing this to the attention of the Senate is completely secondary.
I'm not a fan of Judge Kavanaugh but that's also a subordinate matter. The central concern should now be - is the man a liar and should a liar be elevated to the Supreme Court?
The question has been posed and it very definitely deserves a carefully considered response. Everything else (one way or the other) is becoming partisan subterfuge and a diversion.
2
I'm conservative. My hero was Justice Scalia. I'm pro-life. The politicization of the Supreme Court process is the fault of Democrats when the Borked Bork solely based on his judicial views.
That said, the Committee should delay and reopen the hearing. A woman wants to testify she was sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh when he was 17. People go to jail for life for things they do when they are 17! What justifies not hearing from her? Because she didn’t come up sooner? Yes, some staffers on the Democrats side played very dirty by deliberately only leaking the existence of the letter very late in the process (not to the benefit of Mrs. Ford) but that doesn’t speak to her integrity. She came forward early and wanted to remain anonymous. She gave up on her anonymity only after the press showed up on her door. I don’t think any Senator needs to make up their mind yet (other than most Democrat Senators because they were not voting for him anyway based on his judicial philosophy alone) but how can you not hear her out?!?
If after investigation it is more than a he said/she said situation (e.g., corroborating evidence), Senators need to decide if a drunken 17 year old who assaulted a woman should be penalized after many years if he led an exemplary life afterwards. I say if so, he should not be on the Supreme Court. It kills me because this may prevent a conservative majority on the Court but sexual assault is sexual assault. What have we come to if we just overlook that?
8
@armaniatt -- Bork was borked because he was Nixon's eager toady in the "Saturday Night Massacre" and rewarding him with a supreme court judgeship was, and remains, unconscionable.
1
Feinstein needs to answer why she hid this from the public for so long.
This is a critical issue that should have been addressed not buried.
Not a serious senator (maybe even incompetent) to do such a disservice to the country.
1
@Matt
Maybe they were trying to persuade Dr. Blasey Ford that she could safely go public. Do you think that could be it?
1
I am a left wing liberal, a social democrat. I'm depressed and upset by the fact that Trump gets to choose two supreme court justices.
However, the idea that a possible sexual misconduct in high school (35 years ago!! Who hasn't done wrong things of one sort or another in her/his life especially at that age?) becomes the central and possibly only element of real debate in the confirmation hearings is disturbing.
The sacrosanct women's rights movement has become an obsession: a grotesque and explosive mix of Puritanism, prurient curiosity, hypocrisy, inquisition, self righteousness and sex obsessed stupidity.
Rights of women are a very important issue. There is a long way to go, not just in developing country but also here in the US. There are rules to be set firmly for everyone's behaviors from now on. However, this way of defending women's rights through some sort of tabloid scandals allegations from remote past, even adolescence, is an insult: it is an insult to the law, to reason and to women themselves.
2
Has anyone thought of asking the President what his definition of 'best' is?
seems his confirmation would be in line with his nominator.
and those who support the latter, not the sharpest sticks in the woods.
3
How ironic - the GOP, drunk on their own power and privilege, are forcing their hugely unpopular agenda and SC nominee on an unsuspecting public, as the equally drunk Republican electorate cheers them on. Hopefully, as they jump on top of each other to join in on the assault on democracy, they'll all come tumbling down and the American public can escape this rapacious GOP. And we'll never forget either...
Kavanaugh's best witness, Mark Judge, posts some interesting things on the internet. He's been taking them down, but some have been saved:
https://twitter.com/ashleyfeinberg/status/1041516195999088640
This account rescued a bunch of the videos that were on his YouTube channel until today. (NB: "Bart O'Kavanaugh" is the name Judge gave to Brett Kavanaugh in his memoir of teenage alcoholism and womanizing in which he describes Kavanaugh vomiting in his car.)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrhgfsHU61NSESRx2kmOLig/videos
3
And Senator Feinstein hung onto this allegation for months, not turning it over to the Justice department, waiting until now, when a complete investigation cannot be completed ber fore the vote . . . why?
Not to seek justice, but for maximum effect. Or, more likely, to not allow the allegations to be disproved before the hearing.
The timing is more than suspicious. It reeks.
1
No, she does not deserve to be heard. Her story is too easy to have made up. I'm not saying she's lying or even misremembering. I'm saying that any claim indistinguishable by evidence from a lie cannot be taken seriously lest liars cite its being taken seriously as precedent.
Already, the media - I mean Mika B. - is distorting the story. This morning she pluralized the onlookers - like in that Jodi Foster movie - and called the alleged event an attempted "rape," which she immediately restated as "attack." But the word was out there to be heard, and Mika knows it, and the bell can't be unrung.
Prof. Ford says she came forward because the press was hounding her. How did that happen? Sen. Feinstein pretends to have honored Prof. Ford's alleged request for confidentiality, and yet her identity leaked out. Surely, the GOP didn't want her name to come out; while she remained anonymous, she was no threat. Cui bono, Senator Feinstein? Not Professor Ford's.
Feinstein withheld her knowledge of the issue until it suited her tactically to release it. Politics ain't beanbag, but women should understand that even a woman senator will ignore their pleas for privacy if there is politics to be played. If there was a plea for privacy.
The whole thing stinks, even if the story is true.
1
If young Brett was as drunk as Ms. Blasely Ford says, it may be he really doesn't remember anything about the party at all, and thus could pass a lie detector test himself. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Oh, and btw, I hardly think Clarence Thomas was exonerated by the hearings. AND Joe Biden's stewardship of those hearings ... not letting the other women testify ... will come back to bite him if he tries to run for President again.
Based on the two bios and some knowledge of the times, I consider the accuser's account 'more likely than not.' Unfortunately, my basis for so doing would disqualify any male with a similar bio -- so we are not talking about truth in the abstract here. Nor are we taliking about due process -- any comparison between what the Senate has done on Supreme Court nominations since the Obama administration and due process can only induce sick laughter. No hearing is likely to still this storm. I conclude the only way that anyone can come out of this with some dignity and honour is if Judge Kavanaugh withdraws his consent to the nomination. Mitch McConnell could also consider resigning in shame, but that is only collateral damage.
@Publius - Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because "there is no allegation that this was a habit in any way" doesn't mean there were no other allegations. This is one very good reason why there must be a delay to allow time to see if anyone else comes forward with similar or related allegations. Anyone with any experience with the nature of sexual assault charges knows that frequently there are others and it takes a reasonable amount of time for due process to give any other complainants the time to come forward. Anything else is an unseemly rush that would discredit the credibility of the highest court in the land.
4
Boys will be boys. And SOME boys will be drunken, grabby and RAPEY. Considering the origin of his nomination, it would be extremely foolhardy to proceed with this nomination, without a full and complete investigation. What’s the big rush ??? Oh, yeah. It’s because the GOP is expecting a well earned LOSS at the Midterms. This is a LIFETIME appointment. There is NO do-over or “ oops “. STOP this Fiasco, NOW. Party OR Country, GOP.
The whole World is watching, and waiting.
15
Much too little. Way too late. How a single incident in youth, if it occurred, should define the entirety of the man as an adult is lost on me. Statute of limitations exist for a reason.
Vote. Up or down. But vote.
4
@Doug. I disagree. The actions of a seventeen year old go to character. If he were killing small animals, would that get your attention? A sexual assault would get my attention. That teen becomes the man.
2
This article raises some serious questions. Why did Ford wait until now to come forward? She states that it's her duty to tell her story. Why wasn't it her duty previously when Kavanaugh was considered for & appointed to other important positions? Is this accusation proof of guilt? Criminal accusations need evidence where is it? We will never know what really happened. It occurred almost four decades ago. All the parties in this incident were extremely drunk. Inebriated people are not reliable witnesses. We are left with a he said she said dispute. The delay & timing in disclosing this bothers me. But suppose what Ms. Ford is claiming is accurate. Should Kavanaugh’s behavior in high school in the early 80's...when he was a minor... should that have bearing upon his fitness for the high court in 2018? And if it does is the rest of Congress willing to let this be the litmus test on their ability to serve? Because if Kavanaugh is forced to withdraw isn't it reasonable that they be forced to resign if similar allegations come to light? Where is the cut off point? High school, Junior high school, elementary school? Everyone knows if we open this Pandora's box where 40 year old allegations can ruin someone's career it will be a non stop witch hunt. This is why we have statute of limitations. The purpose of these rules is to make sure convictions occur based on evidence that hasn't deteriorated over time. It's not a perfect system. But it's a reasonable one given the alternative
55
@celia I am positive there are things that happened to you 40 years ago that the people around you remember quite differently. In fact I bet there are things that happened to you yesterday that the people around you would swear under oath happened differently than you saw it. And that's assuming nobody was drinking. Different recollections do not automatically indicate lying or an attempt to deceive.
@gBill Brown
The accuser was not drunk.
I agree that a remote crime committed at 17 might be overlooked if the nominee took responsibility and showed how he has changed in his adult life.
But he is denying it happened, which is really not believable, so he is lying, and that is disqualifying for the SC,because I believe her not him. We are talking about the SC here! Surely the R's can find a nominee without this baggage...or can they?
1
@Bill Brown You raise reasonable questions. However, as to why Mrs. Ford would come out now, and not when Kavanaugh was considered for other appointments = SCOTUS is much more public and important. Frankly, I never heard of Kavanaugh before he was put forth as a candidate for SCOTUS. Mrs. Ford may not have been following his career through the intervening years.
1
There consequences to every action. Timing of the action does not lessen the gravity of the action.
5
>
Point 1: Everyone involved must be under oath. If not, all that is said is just nonsense off into the ether;
Point 2: Feinstein is incompetent; The dems are a party of old goats that don't know it is their time for the pasture; they're all stuck in yesterday's politics and ways;
Point 3: No matter what.... the GOP's female pro-choice Senators will allow themselves to be fooled about this guy;
Point 4: This guy is a bad dude, without even accounting for anything he allegedly did in high school.
Prognosis: Dems get rolled again by GOP.
5
What in God's name can Kavanaugh say to clear his name except call her a liar?
I believe Christine Blasey Ford.
12
This melodrama makes for great social media chatter and some yellow journalism on the part of the legitimate media but it will have no impact on Mr. Kavanaugh's confirmation. Case in point: Clarence Thomas.
2
Trump sure likes to destroy things. If Kavanaugh is confirmed he will have effectively destroyed the credibility of the Supreme Court. He will then have destroyed two of the three legs of the democratic stool. The GOP has destroyed the third, at least until November. Vote!
7
If Kavanaugh's nomination is rammed through after this, the GOP will be known, now and forevermore, as the party of sex offenders. This will understandably infuriate a huge percentage of female voters, who will have the chance to make their displeasure known on November 6th.
9
Delay the vote for America.
4
Yes, let's hear from one of the witnesses in Kavanaugh's defense, Mark Judge, whose high school year book quote reads "Certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs."
Stop the vote.
12
Christine Blasey Ford needs to be heard. Senator Feinstein needs to be fired. Senator Feinstein makes Inspector Clouseau look like Sherlock Holmes.
6
What a vintage Trumpian circus! But by god McConnell is going to get his confirmation vote on Thursday. Perfect Mitch, just perfect: in the interests of congressional expediency we’ll just skip the evidence and move right on to the pre-determined outcome. How about you subpoena Mark Judge and have him testify with Dr. Ford by then too?
24 hours after Dr. Ford’s accusations go viral the republicans have a letter signed by 65 women who said that they knew Kavanaugh in high school and that he had “always treated women with decency and respect.” REALLY? He went to an all boys high school….and in 24 hours the republicans are able to talk to 65 women who knew him well in high school? NUTS! The republicans KNEW this was coming; they’ve had this in the safe deposit box for MONTHS.
The always vivacious, virtuous and veracity-driven Kelly Ann Conway this morning said Trump wants Dr. Ford to be heard. Really? ….Oh, but that was this morning so who knows what tire-burning 180 will be issued by nightfall.
And where is Ivanca “laser-focused-on-empowering-women” Trump in this? SILENCE! indisposed securing more Chinese copyrights no doubt.
Good grief people, what’s so egregious and unfair about taking a couple additional weeks to get a lifetime appointment right?
12
@John Poggendorf. My thoughts exactly. When I was 16 years old, I did not know 65 teenage women, let alone that number of women who would know me well enough to say how I would behave with another 16 year old. Let's face it, teenagers make judgemental errors. However, LYING about it when you are 53, is inexcusable. So for the sake of the accuser or Kavanaugh, it is important to get the bottom of this. Now that Kavanaugh knows the name of the accuser, I'm waiting to hear him say, that he did not know her, was never at that party, and that another person can corroborate that he was therefore nowhere near in the bedroom with her on the night of the alleged incident. I'm of the same age, and could easily remember an incident like that, were it to have occurred, as I easily remember parties where no such behaviour occurred.
4
@John Poggendorf
And let's not forget Merrick Garland and how these same people in this Repubs group delayed and took his option for hearings or anything off the shelf and had no problem with a SC with 8 members..Remember that?
2
'pinned her to a bed, groped her and attempted to remove her clothes. When she tried to scream, she says he put his hand over her mouth'.
Mr. Lat, you left out the part about first locking the door, among other disturbing details. By the way, put together it sounds more like sexual assault, than being groped, to me.
11
Cut to the quick! The Federalist Society has a list s mile long of white males who will vote the way Trump tells them to vote. We have a womanizer in the White House and another on the Supreme Court. We don’t need a third. Please put us out of our misery and find another Federalist lackey. I’m sure you will have no problems!
9
Disagree.
How convenient that this miraculously popped up at the last moment, in the hands of a leftist senator from California, instead of a newspaper or law enforcement official.
Move ahead with the confirmation vote.
This exercise is just another disgusting example of Dianne Feinstein's lack of a moral compass.
3
This is a bit of poetic justice. The guy that was obsessed with the details of Clinton's sex with Monica is now accused of attacking a young woman in his youth.
13
An alleged incident of a 15 year old high school girl, who was at a at a party drinking with other teenagers, and may have gotten groped by a 17 year old boy. But, admittedly, the details are kind of foggy since, you know, it was over 30 years ago, and wasn’t reported to the police, or any other adult, or friends or acquaintances until she told her therapist about it in 2012. Mainly because she was 15, and at a party drinking, which is why she didn’t report it immediately. Yeah, we’re going to need more concrete information than that. Will the Dems be applying the “Clinton” standard for what constitutes proper sexual conduct? Or will they be creating a new standard to judge others to fit their liberal narrative?
Bring in the accuser, and let her testify before the Judicial Comm. about the alleged high school incident. Allow Kavanaugh to offer a rebuttal. But, get it done this week, and hold a full vote next week.
After Kavanaugh is confirmed (and he will be), open a full investigation into Sen. Feinstein concerning her ties to China, how her husband has clearly benefited financially from those ties, and how she could unknowingly (yeah, right) have a Chinese spy in her employ for two decades.
Where is the NYT’s investigative prowess when it comes to that story?
4
@TheRealJR60 "Groped"? What is described is attempted rape. There is nothing trivial about it. And what one does at age seventeen is indicative of adult character.
2
To those who see this as an 11th-hour attempt to undermine Kavanaugh's nomination: you are not fully informed. To the writer of this piece: why did you not include a timeline with the facts, which would have presented a less partisan-seeming piece?
Ms. Ford notified her congresswoman in July of the incident.
The polygraph, which she passed, by the way, was performed in August.
8
What a shame what the democrats are doing to the country. This is disgraceful dirtiest politics I've ever seen. They've had this info sine June and held onto it until the bitter end. What's next going back to the 7th grade when a candidate pulled somebody's hair?. What's next - sickening dirty politics.
2
I'm sorry, but if an incident from a high school party decades ago becomes the new standard, nobody is going to subject themselves to public service. There isn't a police report. And no, I don't automatically believe a woman.
8
If I tried to rape a girl in high school. I would NOT run for elected office without knowing I will have to fess up. Really.
If I were to go for I dunno, ups worker... manage a retail operation... start a small business. Ok
Supreme Court? Nah
3
@Dave
Would attempted rape be an "incident" if it were your daughter?
1
In checkers, power of the two-piece king is limited to going backward...
In chess, power of the one-piece King is limited to being the object of others' aggressions – and in doing so, so luring opponents into traps and failed gambits...
In life, the power of the half-mad king is limited to stirring things to frenzy – to where whiplash, serendipity, and immolation are equally likely outcomes....
“...White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway said Monday on “Fox & Friends” that both Ford and Kavanaugh should be heard on the accusations....
Pure checkers-level advice...Will get both her – and her boss – fired, before too long...
If she upped her game and recommended ramrodding the nomination ahead, and – win or lose – leveraging the outcome beyond the First Week in October...
...to the First Week in November, since whoever loses the battle at hand will accrue an “aggrievance dividend” of some consequence – but expiring in 45 days
Now that would be chess-level advice...For her – since that’d only get her boss fired...
If she explained that asking Kavanaugh to withdraw and take the AG spot – and then nominating Merrick Garland for the SCOTUS spot – might gain him a “reverence dividend” that could propel him to a second term...
That would be life-level advice...
PS
For go-level advice, beyond my – or my bot’s – pay grade...
Have to talk to Sergey about that one – he seems to have an intuition for the game...
Let's listen in on Friday...
3
Interesting – how Palo Alto at the middle of everything, these days...
Whether a billion eyeballs – or flapping of a single butterfly’s wings...
Two weeks ago, you’d opined...
*ttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/opinion/twitter-facebook-senate-hearing.html
“...The Politicians Are Coming for Si Valley...
Now, on Internet time – Si Valley is Coming for The Politicians...
Game on...
Democracy is noisy – like the fans in a giant computer center...
Analytics are silent – like the solid-state drives in a giant computer center...
Sometimes, though, when the analytics are especially intense – can hear the fans blow noisier...
We have seen women accusing powerful men of criminal behavior before, and in all cases but one, once the initial accusation was made others followed. If we rush the confirmation forward as Sen. McConnell would like, and a second or third woman steps forward to accuse Mr. Kavanaugh of similar acts of depravity, or even worse, we will have a justice whose presence mocks the legitimacy of the court. Since the perceived impartiality of the court is a bulwark against what Rene Girard calls "spiraling acts of reciprocal violence," it might be a good idea to stop the clock on this process. In this instance clarity is more precious than decisiveness.
3
The "Boys Club" is circling the wagons. This incident may not be the only one. There may be others who haven't come forward but the GOP wants to believe the male in the group. Don Jr. tweet was childish & shows the mentality of the "Boys Club" to belittle the woman. Even if it was 35 years ago Kavanaugh needs to say yeah I did that & apologize to the woman. "Man Up" & stop denying you might have done it. Those who deny the loudest are usually found to be guilty of not just this but of other incidents. Bully the woman into silence & then brag about the victory of not being found guilty. If he is truly a Christian he will apologized to this woman even if it was a misunderstanding. Not much of a judge if he can't admit he might have done it & can't remember because he was a drunken teenager.
11
@Nostradamus Said So
Man-up by asking questions rather than knee jerk support for your political opponent's bearer of false witness.
Looks like the privacy of the minor accused is not recognized here . . . could the accuser be just a jilted female?
1
I do not think it is as simple as ‘he said, she said.’
She took a polygraph and passed. She has put her reputation on the line.
Now he should take a polygraph, if he wants to clear his name.
6
If the boys that held Ford down had succeeded at their plan, and if Ford had become pregnant, would they have stood by that child?
A teen/man who forces a woman to have sex against her will has no right to judge a woman who then becomes pregnant. None at all, ever.
Multiply this scenario by millions. I had a very similar experience happen to me in high school. I was jumped by two boys at a party and I fought like hell to get away from them. I succeeded in getting away, but I was shaken and hurt by them. What if they had impregnated me? Who would have stood by me?
This type of thing happens to more women than we will ever know.
If Kavanaugh did this, and I believe Ford is telling the truth, he has no right to be in the position he is seeking.
142
"A teen/man who forces a woman to have sex against her will ..."
There are no allegations of rape.
"If Kavanaugh did this ... he has no right to be in the position he is seeking."
Why? Do you want to be judged for something dumb or bad you did as a child or as a teenager?
@KLC
Ms. KLC, why do you believe the accuser? Why do you think your story substantiates the witness of the accuser? How is it that the FBI has not uncovered this blemish of Mr. Kavanaugh in the background checks for other offices? It is time for the JFK/MLK conservative voices to be raised about this page of the extreme Democrat Party's playbook -- let's be sober Citizens like Justice Ginsberg.
1
I believe this allegation needs thorough investigation. Time should be taken with it because the details reveal a character that has callous regard toward a woman who was being forced to do something she clearly did not want to do.
What we do know for sure is, even now, Kavanaugh seeks to control the will of women. Past rulings reveal he does not understand (or care) about their experience.
If Kavanaugh's opinions and actions toward women (and their bodies) are even slightly ignorant, or lacking in compassion, he should not be awarded the power that this position wields.
Department of Justice defines sexual assault:
The term “sexual assault” means - any nonconsensual sexual act - proscribed by Federal, tribal, or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent.
I agree with Mr. Lat that Mrs. Ford should be heard out, on television if she chooses, or with only an audio feed of her testimony being made available if she prefers. Mr. Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge, I am sure, will have no problem with televised testimony.
But I don’t agree that the process should be significantly delayed. Mr. Ford and the therapist have only hearsay testimony to offer. Their stories can adequately be told by affidavit.
To delay a vote past the November election would only play into the Democrats’ hands, and their conduct, both at the hearings and with regard to this late-breaking story, has been disgraceful. Eshoo, Feinstein and probably all the Judiciary Committee Democrats have known about these allegations for months, and have waited until the last possible minute to ignore Mrs. Ford’s putative desire for confidentiality by predictable (and possibly choreographed) leak. This all bears an uncanny resemblance to the Anita Hill episode.
As Mr. Lat acknowledges, Mrs. Ford’s allegations merit a healthy skepticism. They should provide the Democrats no delay to search for something else with which to push this into the next Congress, which they hope to control.
3
@Howard F Jaeckel
Oh? The Democrats' conduct has been disgraceful? How dare they wish to push this into the next Congress, following an election? The cads.
I have a two word answer for you: Merrick Garland.
Astounding hypocrisy.
2
@BLH.
The Republicans denied Judge Garland a hearing, which was another way of rejecting his nomination, which they were perfectly entitled to do. They didn’t engage in character assasination and, if memory serves, quite a few of them made clear that their rejection of Garland was not based on his personal character or record as a judge. That’s not what the desperate and, yes, disgraceful Democrats are doing here.
Was the Republicans’ rejection of Garland political? Sure, and here’s why there’s nothing wrong with that. When the Supreme Court decides, by a 5-4 vote, that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage (which I support as a matter of policy), thus changing, without benefit of voters, the nature of a fundamental institution as it’s been understood in all societies for millennia, they’re not acting as judges, but as legislators and politicians. And if they’re going to arrogate to themselves the powers that properly belong with the political branches, it’s completely proper to act politically to try to set things straight.
The Republicans had the political power to reject Garland, an Obama appointee whom they didn’t trust not to be a knee-jerk “progressive” vote in high profile cases that should be decided on the law. The Democrats don’t have the political power to reject Kavanaugh. So lacking fair means, they have resorted to means most foul.
Just a few thoughts;
(1) I might as well confess it. There's a huge amount of Schadenfreude floating around in me.
Early in 2016, Mr. Obama nominated another upstanding jurist to the Supreme Court.
In a move of unprecedented arrogance and bad manners, the then senate majority leader refused to consider that nomination. No hearings. No discussion. No nothing.
My anger at this despicable move is unabated.
And so 2016 crawled by. With eight justices on the court.
And now--
--such a hurry! Mr. McConnell--the same man who treated our then President with such egregious disrespect--has now chidden the Democrats for "politicizing the process." And he is, of course, in a goll-darn hurry. He's got November elections coming.
Well--I bear Mr. Kavanaugh no ill will personally.
But you Republicans!
Suck it up! You have it coming.
Sorry--for this little show of spite. But there it is.
(2) Considering these allegations ... .considering Mr. Trump's parlous position legally--
--even should Mr. Kavanaugh be confirmed--
--will he not be a shadowy, dubious figure on the Court?
Will not the Court itself be thought shadowy, dubious?
Is it not already?
19
@Susan Fitzwater
See my reply to BLH above.
I don’t think the Republicans are going to “suck it up,” Ms. Fitzwater. I think they are going to play hardball to turn aside the Democrats’ despicable maneuver. And as some one who has voted mostly for Democrats in presidential elections and who did not and will not vote for Donald Trump, I will be cheering them on.
You know why? Because I believe in democracy, which means that the voters and their representatives, not judges, decide issues of public policy unless the constitution puts the matter (e.g. freedom of speech) beyond majority rule.
The conservative Justices have also sometimes been guilty of overreaching (e.g., Citizens United) but not as blatantly and egregiously as the “progressives.” By way of example, several federal appellate courts have recently held the prohibitions against sex discrimination in the Civil Rights Act as extending to gender identification — meaning that boys can use the girls’ room— despite the clearest indications that Congress intended no such thing. These decisions are as legally indefensible as they come, but I don’t trust the Court’s liberal bloc to decide the matter on the basis of the law that is, rather than what they think it should be.
Yes, it may be worth delaying the vote to protect the integrity of the court, if the court had any integrity left. They don't. It's been a long time since the court represented common decent people, in any significant way. It's been a while since morals and ethics mattered. Clarence Thomas is still a judge; why not Kavanaugh?
I'm a liberal who believes the women, not the men, but you know what truth tellers? Your timing really sucks, and even if the Judge did this thing, you don't speak until now? This makes us look bad. If we are going to be the party of equal rights, than last minute character assassination isn't the way to go, whether or not he is guilty. Me too doesn't mean reveal information as a last result once the party had lost because it lacks a vision of economic and social justice.
Democrats, you need to wake up. The incessant shock and awe character assassination makes us look foolish, and weak, like we can't defend our historical platform through strength of argument or having the facts on our side. Plus, if you think a little revulsion toward a once teenager's behavior is going to derail the ambitions of conservative politicians, you couldn't be more ignorant. It won't. Careful you don't carefully find a way to lose, like when the character assassination strategy got fat Don elected.
5
Undoubtedly, Mr. Kavanaugh is highly qualified experienced to be a SCOTUS. But his character is also very important factor in qualification. He is still relatively unknown to us. Hundreds of thousands of documents were hidden from scrutiny which may be very vital and volatile. In this era of Me Too movement, when scores of very famous and genius people lost their jobs. President Clinton was in so much trouble for consensual inappropriate behavior with an intern. But in spite Me Too plea from Anita Hill, Thomas Clarence still has job as SCOTUS and Bret Kavanaugh may get a job as SCOTUS without a fair day from the victim, Christine Ford. No wonder , American people do not trust and have no respect for the Supreme Court.
7
Being stone-drunk as a teenager and trying to rape a classmate show a serious flaw of character, even for a teenager. Unless Kavanaugh faces up to the allegation and repents, he is not fit for the highest office of the Supreme Court.
Did Blasey Ford make her teacher(s) or the principal aware of this ugly episode at the time of its occurrence? If not, why is she digging dirt from 35 yrs ago?
20
@Kenell Touryan Mrs. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh did not go to the same school and the incident allegedly took place at someone's home, so bringing in a teacher or principal is not relevant. Still, 35 years is much too long.
Why do you assume he is guilty and must repent? So, if he repents, he is fit for the Supreme Court, but not if he claims to be innocent?
@Kenell Touryan
Since when is speaking up about a act of aggression .. digging dirt? And, why does it mater whether it was 35 yrs ago, or a week ago? And, why would "repentance" be the least bit relevant?
50
@Kenell Touryan
Victims of abuse often suppress what happened to them. They feel dirty are are terrified that no one will believe them. it was wrong 35 years ago and it is wrong today? You just called it "dirt" - and made my point.
48
He remembers.
3
"I was also initially skeptical when word leaked late last week that a woman who had known Kavanaugh in high school had accused him of sexual misconduct. The allegation was old and anonymous."
"Mr. Kavanaugh, now 53, has strongly denied her claims: “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.” Mr. Judge has also denied the claims."
-----
Right. Well, then, he should take a polygraph along with the friend who is alleged to have joined in on the sexual assault. If Christine Blasey Ford found the courage to take one, I can't imagine why this pair wouldn't also be willing.
Hook them up, hook them up . . .
7
Oddly, in a case where the fact is stranger than fiction, it could have just been a big misunderstanding.
Perhaps she is telling the exact truth, 100%. And it happened exactly like that. As she says. But for his side, he knew that she wasn't really in any danger. He was just "joking around with her".
Women might say that I am detestable for even suggesting such a thing.
And for myself, I would never, even at age 17, "joke around" with a woman like that. And I would find it amazingly stupid to "joke around" with a woman like that.
But I think that it is theoretically possible that she wasn't really in any danger. Or maybe she was.
But both possibilities seem possible to me. Knowing how stupid men can be.
4
@David Martin I agree, AND how stupid drunk teenage girls can be. She didn't say he forced her into that bedroom, now did she? Peopl are ridiculous, and memories that were foggy the next DAY, can be way foggier 35 years later. Maybe she wanted to neck with him, and when he crawled on top of her, she freaked out? Perhaps 2 drunk teenagers, both interested in each other, had differing ideas on how far to go? It happens.
2
Can we ask Mr. Kavanaugh all those lurid questions that he wanted to ask of President Clinton?
8
This is probably enough to delay (but not derail) the confirmation. The danger here is that it could turn the judge into another embittered Clarence Thomas--who seeks revenge against the Left at every turn. Judge Kavanaugh is young and and gravitating toward the middle like Kennedy is not out of question. Roughly used, he will most certainly harden. On any given day, there would be enough to put a good number of teenage boys in any high school behind bars if all their horseplay bore the full weight of adult law. In our gang things often got out of hand, but our disciplinarians usually looked more helpless than vindictive. They knew they were riding a youthful whirlwind and looked forward to calmer days--as did their parents.
3
Democrats and the left will stop at nothing to try and derail Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court...I don't believe a word that woman says nor do I care even it were true it does not matter.
4
@Richard at least he is getting a hearing
1
No confirmation votes unless Kavanaugh passes a lie detector test like Christine Blasey Ford did.
And just how fast did ole Grassley whip out that "list" of Kavanaugh's female friends attempting to show that he's never attacked them.
4
Republicans face a stark choice. They can ram this guy thru and the backlash will probably cost them the Senate, even in this cycle. Or they can pretend to hold a hearing and ram this guy thru and maybe they survive until 2020. But the country, except of course the MAGAts and a portion of the elite Beltway media, can see thru this charade. Kavanaugh is at best an ideologically driven serial liar who deserves not elevation but impeachment and removal from the court he already sits on or at worst a sexual predator nominated by a sexual predator to join a sexual predator on the highest court in the land, destroying what ever is left of the facade of legitimacy the court retains after years of partisan rulings by Republican appointed justices.
5
I agree with the author. But is it possible that the 11 all-white male Republicans on this committee are blind to the optics of this and refuse to delay the process until they speak with Ms. Ford? Let's hope they are not so dumb and blind.
4
they impeach justices, don’t they?
1
Nonsense!
Kavanaugh's teenage trysts are irrelevant to the confirmation process. Nothing will be proved in airing them.
Kavanaugh shouldn't be confirmed because his "conservative" viewpoint is contrary to the constitutional protection of personal liberty.
1
Compared to most of the world, we live in a country that is mostly ruled by imperfect people according to ideals of liberty and accountability enshrined in law. Our system of governance has been the most powerful engine of positive social good and economic prosperity in the world; again, on a comparative basis. No man is (theoretically) above the law and every person has an opportunity to achieve his or her destiny.
Ok, there's a million holes in what I just said, but compared to most of the world, the broad statements are more true than not.
So what?
The "so what" is that those of us who are able to succeed the most in our system owe something back to the people who put their trust in that system. They must be held to higher standards, not the same standards. Like Pompeia, they ought to be above suspicion. Otherwise, cynicism sets in and undermines the whole system. Just look at the Catholic Church and its pedophiles.
Well, being "above suspicion" is not possible in this age and partisanship. But holding those who benefit the most to a higher standard of character than strict compliance with statutes ought to be within our grasp.
It's really not too much to ask of both our elected leaders and ourselves.
1
This is deja vu all over again.
Kavanaugh is going to be ordained in a position of life-long power on the United States Supreme Court. The Republicans don't care and their base doesn't care what sex crimes are in his past. They believe a man who is on tape bragging about his success in habitually sexually assaulting women is fit to be President. You think they care what Kavanaugh or any other man for that matter got away with when a drunk teenager?
I know how this tragedy ends. I almost wish they would just rush his confirmation through to get it over with -- spare us more details about the degenerates in power.
2
Allegations of what someone did decades ago when he was a teenager ? Wow that's pretty desperate. But look what the republicans did to Geitner. Politics is nasty. Don't know how this witch is going to prove it?
1
You’ve already prejudged the case to be based on “equivocal evidence.” Yes, there needs must be a judicial investigation into allegations against Kavanaugh; however, Christine Blasey Ford’s charges are quite credible, whereas Kavanaugh’s denials are not.
How would he like a drunken upperclassmen with a friend egging him on sexually accost through physical violence one of his daughters? If 65 other young women thought that this drunken young man was of a high moral character, would Kavanaugh see to let the behavior be excused? I think not. He is a hypocrite who was chosen by Trump for one reason alone:to not face charges against him. Each of them are power hungry, sexist miscreants. Both should be stripped of all vestiges of power, and pay the price for their high crimes and misdemeanors.
2
The whole point of the # MeYoo is that women are not believed and the proof is hard since it becomes a "he said/she said".
But the therapists notes and the lie detector test seems to be enough proof to land on the she said side. She deserves the benefit of the doubt.
To me the real question is whether the accused behavior is enough to derail a Supreme Court Nomination. If this was a DWI or shop lifting in high school, the Judge Kavanugh would get a pass.
But it's not, it's potentially attempted rape. He pinned a girl down on a bed, she scream and he put his hand over her mouth and tried to rape her
Isn't there a higher standard for our Supreme Court Justices whether he was in high school or not?
She should be heard and if she is believed, Judge Kavanaugh should withdraw.
5
I predict that if they go forward and confirm him, women will be marching in the streets.
3
This is low, underhanded, and the work of radicals. Feinstein knew this was garbage. If it is really so imperatively important, she would have scurried this letter to the FBI the second it was delivered to her. She held it to the last second. We all know why. If there was anything to this, there would have been plenty of time to name another nominee. Feigning concern over Kavanaugh clearing his name is all part of the act. By rights, Kavanagh should be confirmed tomorrow, to send a message that this type of behavior wont be tolerated in the future.
4
@Sports Medicine
Again, Professor Ford was not ready to come out to the world when she wrote the letter to Feinstein.
As press reports grew, she wanted to be able to tell Her story. Her way. Not by conjecture--which is what your comment is.
It is misogynistic to reduce a woman's complaint of a near-rape by a drunk 17 year old. It needs the bleach of sunlight. You are wrong. And you have no clue about the process of trauma recovery.
This should be investigated. Mr. Kavanaugh is portrayed as a squeeky clean guy who never has done anything wrong. The background checks confirm it. But the reports I have read also say Mr. Kavanaugh was a guy who liked to party in high school. Apparently he even admits it in his high school yearbook. I was a fun loving guy in high school. In fact I was your mother's worst nightmare (I turned out OK, though. Not because I assaulted anyone, just engaged in over consumption. ). I doubt any background check would have any problem discovering that fact about me. Why Mr. Kavanaugh's past was not uncovered is a mystery. I am not saying it is pertinent to who he is now. What I am saying is if he added it to his profile in his yearbook and other people refer to it as well, does anyone think he was a one time drunk back then? That no other incidents happened? Certainly wasn't the case in my past. This story should be looked at and a closer look at who he was back then should be done to prevent a guy from being confirmed if he has multiple skeletons in the closet and no one bothered to open that door. Especially if it is true and he has lied about it.It could also turn out to be a sad case of someone who is struggling with her own past. But we do need to make sure we have the right picture of this guy. Especially in an age where lying about assaulting women is the way around taking responsibility for your past.
2
The Ken Starr Rule should apply here. (yeah, like the Biden Rule, the Executive Order that Chuck Grassley kept on about, just make it up).
2
But mostly for America. The scotus is far to political. That is not what the founders intended. We need True bipartisanship. This should not be a ugly battle from ugly politicians
4
Like Kavanaugh or not, this story is a tragedy for his FAMILY. And, the NYT never mentions whether the woman had been drinking...and that she was wearing a bathing suit under her coverup at the party, and that this all-came out in 2012 in “couples therapy,”. Are any of us, any of us, so perfect that we have not had lapses in our youth? What kind of country are we living in, where every little mishap is a lifelong black mark on our very being?? If Kavanaugh did do this, it would be a tragic mistake. After a long career being revered for his legal mind, etc, it just seems that the Democrats are so desperate, they will stop at nothing, even ruining families. How sad for the children. Every Republican and Democrat has done things in their youth and adulthood (Clinton) to be ashamed of. God forgives.
4
@Susan
If she had been drinking and IF she had been wearing a bathing suit under a cover up? Men and boys CAN restrain themselves you know. This comment has zero regard for males in general. Shame on you.
1
@Susan
Clearly you have no clue that couples therapy involves sexuality and the issue could come up. It's all part of recovery from personal trauma--- and you clearly are no therapist. Nor understand "turning points" in couples therapy.
@Susan You say if he did it, it would be a tragic mistake then proceed to make excuses for him, victim blame, express concern for his family and not hers, belittle the source of “couples therapy (your quotes),” and even invoke God’s approval. And you call Democrats desperate. Are you so desperate to overturn Roe v. Wade that you endorse someone who allegedly tried to rape a 15 year old? Ms. Ford is one of my daughters professors at University and she is a credible, genuine and earnest person who tried mightily to avoid this very spotlight. You might just want to listen to her account before passing yours and God’s judgement.
1
It's amazing and sad how easily women can be used as political pawns. And it's usually done by the Democrats who at the same time are guilty of protecting their own male rogues. Sick stuff.
1
Well what a shocker; a spoiled rich kid gets raised thinking he's special, and then goes off to an exclusive prep school to become even more insufferably entitled.
8
It's almost humorous to watch the prudes, puritans, and hypocrites behind the Bill Clinton impeachment try and justify a 15 year old girl being sexually accosted. But that is today's Republican Party in a nutshell. They will forgive ANYTHING in their unholy quest for power.
5
Mr. Lat: You lost me with your very first sentence. A perfect nominee would not be groomed for years by the right wing to fill a non-partisan job with a partisan hack.
6
After what happened to Anita Hill, I'd say Christine Ford is pretty brave for stepping forward. Republicans should respect her and listen to what she has to say. Don't drag her name through the mud. Don't accuse her of political sabotage without any evidence.
What rubs me wrong is Kavanaugh's denial. Without specifying details, he just says 'no, didn't happen'. Ok, let's take a leaf out of the Kavanaugh playbook: what did happen then? Are you saying nothing at all happened or that it just didn't happen the way she says? Did you know this woman in high school? Were you attracted to her? Did you approach her in a sexual manner? Was drinking involved? Did you, perhaps, simply remember the encounter differently or not at all due to intoxication? We have to have more to go on than 'I deny'.
7
And we wonder why the cream never rises to the top whether it be Democrat or Republican. My son pinched a girl's arm in 6th grade. He had a perfect SAT score and graduated college at 19. He will never serve politically because he was "abusive" to a girl in 6th grade. I keep wondering when someone will look at Schumer's grade school records.
6
A 17 year old attacks a 15 year old? Is that statutory rape in some states? Instead of denials, he should seek atonement, not seek to sit in judgement of others. This is the new normal for the Rapeublican Party.
4
@Tibby Elgato
Yes, I think atonement is key here. Many of us do things that we later regret. We need to admit what we've done and offer restitution.
If it turns out that she is right and he continues to deny it, he should not sit on the Supreme Court. -- thegamesmenplay.com
1
I am a 68 year old female. When I was about 9 years I went to pick up milk from a relative's home in my tiny Caribbean Island community. As I was returning home with the milk bottles in my satchel, walking along the road with cane fields on either side, I was startled by a man who jumped out from the cane fields and grabbed me from behind and tried to raise my skirt. I screamed as loud as I could and was able to fight my way out of this person's grasp. I ran until I could reach a house and shared what happened. I share all these details to say that when something as traumatic as this happens to any person, we may not remember every detail, but we remember enough--I know it was early morning on a Sunday, I know exactly where it happened and can pinpoint the location now 58 years later. This experience is seared in my consciousness!
8
I hope Justice Kavanaugh is confirmed. However, since the accuser is now on record, we need to take some time ( a couple of weeks) to review her claims -if for no other reason to see if there are others out there with similar claims. Assuming there are no other credible accusations or more troubling details, then both should testify and the Senate should vote to confirm Mr. Kavanaugh.
Although Presidents are not lifetime appointments, Republicans and conservatives should not fall into the same trap that the did with Trump or the Democrats did with Clinton.
2
I still haven't recovered from the way Anita Hill was treated when she testified against Clarence Thomas. I watched as men with checkered pasts regarding women like Ted Kennedy whose politics I admired but not his relationship to women sat mute. It was just so horrible and now a horrible justice sits on the Supreme Court for life. He is mute too, never asking pertinent questions and to my knowledge never wrote an important opinion in either the majority or in dissent. He sits there and just name the case and you will know how we will vote. This is the sad case with most justices. However much I deplore what happened to Anita Hill and Thomas' elevation to the bench I agree with Jay Orchard that this is 40 years too late to derail Kavanaugh even though I wish he were not the nominee. They were teenagers not professionals in a working relationship. Kavanaugh and his friend probably don't remember the incident because they were drunk. This is the sort of revelation that will turn people against the #MeToo movement which would be unfortunate.
3
She should be addressed Dr. Ford, or more precisely Prof. Ford, not Ms. Ford.
10
@DP How about the Lying Ms. Ford? #Truth.
@DP
People are not discussing her in her professional capacity, so Ms. Ford is perfectly correct.
1
I disagree. This is a pre-meditated character assassination. Nothing more. Delaying the vote will simply reward the left for its unseemly (albeit characteristic) behavior.
9
@Wendell Jones
Merrick Garland had his character omitted from purview.
There are quite a few men out there who have been accused decades later - you know, priests, doctors, teachers, CEOs. Honorable men, till they weren't.
This allegation speaks to the character of Kavanaugh. Even as a teenager, character is revealed. Using physical force to get sex is not something most teenage boys do, even when drunk. And getting by with it, unpunished, is a lesson Kavanaugh would carry with him into his adult life onto the Supreme Court. The lesson being that a male, at least of a certain social standing, is protected from the consequences of his actions in regard to women. What would this mean for his rulings on laws involving women's rights of any kind but especially rights involving sex and reproduction, domestic violence, rape, stalking, and harrassment? If he did what his accuser says and escaped any kind of censure, social or legal, instead rising to the heights of his career, I can imagine his decisions would be colored by a male entitlement attitude and paternalism. I can imagine he would be more concerned about men's rights than women's when those rights collide.
10
@abigail49: You are assuming that the woman is telling the truth about an incident over 30 years old. That is the problem with the MeToo movement. If a woman accuses a man of sexual assault, she is always, always telling the truth.
Even if something did happen, you assume that people never change, or more accurately men never change. I don't want Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court because of his far right political views and his willingness to override existing decisions.
22
@abigail49, So you ASSUMED this false allegation is TRUE?? WHY did that idiot Feinstein hold onto this fabricated story for MONTHS, and not raise the concern even throughout the hearings, OR the one-on-one meeting she had with Kavanaugh? Something is really rotten in Sacramento...
2
@Jeff The real problem is how many women are assaulted, harassed, threatened and frightened and frankly killed every day in our country. Women being believed, getting a hearing, and coming forward is not the problem. I know many men may be worried and afraid that they will somehow have to be accountable for what they did in the past, and I hope they are right. When half the nation is continually under intense sexual pressure and faces violence and has had little recourse over the decades, the healing and reckoning that has to happen will hurt some and make many uncomfortable. Though you may better be able to identify with Kavanaugh, for a moment try and identify with Ms. Ford.
1
Why? Judge Kavanagh is a tried and true conservative. Plus, if you are a Republican, you can grab-em by the kitty and still get to the highest office in the land. This is a travesty.
5
Let the vote go through. When it does it means the Republicans will then have the votes in the SCOTUS to repeal Roe v. Wade, making it illegal for women to have an abortion, and also they'll reverse Planned Parenthood taking away much need services it provides for women. Needless to say women all across the country will vote out of office any Republican they can to try and offset this as much as possible and to make sure they're not in control of anything going forward.
Republicans have no idea of the amount of hatred there is out there for Trump and his Republican boot lickers and for those that do they don't care. They have acquired Trump's philosophy of having no respect for anything except themselves.
1
he should simply take his name off the list. if he doesn't this accusation will haunt him for ever...
3
"The judge deserves a chance to clear his name?" And just how does he disprove a non-disprovable allegation from over 30 years ago? His only defense is to say this didn't happen, which he has already done. If he attacks the woman's credibility he will be accused of shaming her for speaking up. And even if he actually did what he was accused of at the age of 17, it should be expunged and irrelevant given his life over the ensuing 30 years.
Kavanaugh's nomination should be rejected because of his record as an adult lawyer and judge, his refusal to answer questions, his apparent lying, and his biased, religion-addled opinion on the issues, not because of some alleged teenage, alcohol fueled groping.
4
@Crusader Rabbit
Actually no, he should be ejected for all the reasons you mentioned, especially including his deviancy as a teenager. Character counts ....
Everyone should know that Anita Hill was speaking the truth about Clarence Thomas, for no one would go through what she did over a fabrication. Ms Ford must be allowed to speak before there is any movement on the Kavanaugh nomination.
5
I'm reminded of the Roy Moore election. A racist, malevolent, hateful person was manifestly unfit to be dog catcher. That didn't matter. Only his lecherous past brought him down. In terms of lives damaged, Moore's actions devastated workers, defendants, minorities. These didn't count.
Kavanaugh will force poor women to get dangerous illegal abortions. Some will die. He'll enable the right-wing's cruelty against labor. People will be poorer. He'll protect Trump. Our country will suffer.
These don't matter. Only a woman's pain may cause him a problem. Perhaps this is just, but I think it shows extraordinary political immaturity. The real issues don't matter to too many people.
If we give something with little substance more credence than what manifestly matters, it will come to haunt us. Ms. Ford's allegations aren't last minute, really, given the circumstances. Republicans will ignore those. Their takeaway: last minute #metoo attacks can change political outcomes.
The right-wing machine is busy, collecting stories.
2
@Brian, REALLY? Good grief. What a bunch of nonsensical drama! Now tell me again, WHICH SIDE is (and has been), attempting to collect "stories" (LIES)?? Not the Right, obviously. And the timing of this idiocy does not bother you? That D.F. had this info for MONTHS, and said nothing during the hearings???
Ridiculous.
1
While the author (whom I believe has been affiliated with the Federalist Society much like Kavanaugh) calls for hearing out Professor Blasey Ford, he only does so after thoroughly praising Kavanaugh and his publicly available record (without mention of his hidden staff secretary records) and assailing any negative questioning of the nominee. His primary goal in advocating for a hearing seems to be able to bolster Kavanaugh’s reputation and appointment.
Interestingly, after seeming to claim that Kavanaugh’s public record is unimpeachable, the author closes with the phrasing: “hearings won’t prevent Brett Kavanaugh from being confirmed given the EQUIVOCAL evidence against him” (caps added). Is that a Freudian slip? Unequivocal would seem the intended word choice given the overall tone of the piece.
2
Teenagers do stupid things. When a person is harmed and is a victim of an accident or physical abuse and/or sexual assault, it is no longer teenage stupidity. It does not matter to victims how long ago the event happened. It does not matter if the accused teenager was drunk or high at the time. Not all teenage crime translates to adult criminal behavior, but some does.
A victim of crime should be afforded the chance to tell his or her story and judgement of how a crime impacted him or her psychologically and emotionally over time falls to a judge or a jury or the public or a congressional committee. The same should apply to the accused by scrutinizing all documents, evidence, and witness testimony to judge criminality, corruption, immoral and/or questionable judgement.
The public has one real-time venue to make judgements regarding congressional testimony - publicly televised congressional hearings. Viewers can judge not only the relevance of questions asked, whether or not the questions were broad enough or too politically narrow, but whether responses are credible or misleading. Having watched all of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination hearings, I found his testimony deceptive enough to disqualify him based on credible questions posed and incredible answers. His selective “recall” does not translate to the honesty and competence expected for a seat on the Supreme Court. Let the victim tell her story and demand a response under oath from Judge Kavanaugh.
63
@Kathy White
Better yet, there is enough other evidence to disqualify Kavanaugh. This is the icing on the cake.
Either lie detector test or withdraw nomination.
I have a feeling that this nomination is on the rocks. I predict that Kavanaugh will withdraw.
If so, then he should also withdraw from the seat that he now holds at the Federal court.
Rape is about power and we don't need the power-hungry running our system of Justice.
1
Feinstein is a real hardball partisan. The letter and lack of detail at this time is troublesome. This should have been raised much before this. The stated goal of Democrats in Congress was to delay. Even if the Democrats win and the vote is delayed, a successor nominee will be made and voted on before the November elections. If not, Trump will still be President and will not appoint anyone with a different view of the law. We may be two years without a Supreme Court of 9. Let the lady be heard and Kavanaugh reply immediately. Poor guy should have had a chance to reply at the time the wicked witch of California received the letter.
4
"'You've got to deny, deny, deny and push back on these women,' he said. . . .'You've got to deny anything that's said about you. Never admit.'" So Trump (Woodward, Fear, p. 175).
"I categorically and unequivocally deny this accusation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time." Kavanaugh's response, released by the White House.
Help me here. I feel like there is some resemblance, but I can't quite figure it out.
Okay, enough sacrcasm. Now again I see misogyny raising its ugly head. Kavanaugh gets called "Judge Kavanaugh" while Ford is "Mrs. Ford" or "Ms. Ford" -- as if she, as a professor with a PhD, were not equal to him in education and status and deserving of just as much respect. Republicans decry the "last-minute" surfacing of her accusation and the damage to Kavanaugh's brilliant career, ignoring the fact that she was so damaged herself that twenty plus years later she needed therapy to tell her husband about an event that shadowed her life. The narrative being developed to protect him turns on "she said/they said" -- forgetting that Mark Judge did not "deny" that the assault occurred but rather took refuge in that cavernous shelter of so many men who are involved in bad acts toward women: "I don't remember." This narrative erases Ford's husband and therapist by asserting the only "reliable" witnesses would be people actually present, meaning that even had Ford told someone at the time, that person could be dismissed because not an eye-witness.
2
When we elected Donald Trump President we threw American morality and women under the bus. Don’t think for a moment that the GOP will make amens by blocking Mr Kavanaugh’s nomination.
2
Even as recently as the 1990's, this was a professionally-managed process in the Senate. But like everything else that progressives have gotten hold of, inominations to the Supreme Court are just another Democrat circus.
Just as Spartacus or Kamala the Embarrassment.
2
@L'osservatore
You mean the Merrick Garland circus?
Or the Devin Nunes and Jim Jordan Inquisitions to tank the DOJ and the FBI for Trump?
Do you mean the circus where Trump threw paper towels at Puerto Ricans after Hurricane Maria?
Or do you mean the Trump Tower meeting with Russians circus?
or do you mean Trump vouching for Roy Moore - the child dater -circus?
Dr. Ford voluntarily took a polygraph and the results showed she was being truthful. Offer Kavanaugh the same opportunity.
Although polygraph results aren’t admissible in Court, they are commonly used by employers for hiring and firing decisions, and that’s what we have here to the nth degree.
Surviving rape can affect a woman's entire life. The healing process can last decades. I read some of these dismissive comments from men here, and see little understanding of how sexual assault is a particularly traumatizing event and a potential life struggle. The narrow minded perspectives are mind-boggling.
2
No, a 11th hour accusation from 35 years ago does not deserve a hearing, and Mr. Lat is being disingenuous. No hearing will enable Judge Kavanaugh to clear his name. A phony plea. The idea that this type of tactic is OK needs to be rejected. We do not and should not review and vet candidates in this way. Diane Feinstein should apologize to Judge Kavanaugh.
4
One more time:
No others--just this one based on a "dazed and confused" teenage "party of four" [San Jose Mercury] from a person now a Meditation and Psychology instructor who lives all but next door to Feinstein. Too convenient, too improbable to be credible.
4
Delay the confirmation until the investigation (to the extent one can be done) but with one caveat. Pass a law clarifying that any false accusations of rape/sexual assault are a capital offense. If you are assaulted, come forward so that we can adequately punish sex offenders. But if you lie about it, we will send you to the gallows. That should adequately deter the Crystal Gail Mangums of the world.
1
With Garland on my mind, all is fair. Also, I can't imagine finding 65 women who knew me in high school (and there were about 750 in my graduating class) and continued to know my for decades afterwards. Seriously?! Buckle up folks.
1
If you were Ms. Ford, are you prepared to put your entire life under the microscope in exchange for this charge? Why would she do that?
Because she knows her credibility will be attacked, every indiscretion revealed.
Maybe she believes that a young man, even drunk, cannot attempt rape and deserve to hold one of the highest positions of power. I agree with the author, put it in front of the senate. Flesh it out.
3
@Steve Just MAYBE, she is going to be compensated with a life-changing amount of CASH. That ever enter your mind? It's the Lib/Dem way, they've been paying false witnesses to lie and fabricate stories for decades.
1
Several points merit mention:
First, it isn’t clear that the behavior in question—even if true—merits the (mostly partisan) reaction engendered. It wasn’t rape, it wouldn’t even have been treated as assault in 1982 for two minors. That they were supposedly 17 and 15 and drunk suggests there are likely two (three including the other boy) honestly different views of what happened—again if anything. And should a high school mistake (36 years ago) disqualify someone for life? Depends on what it is. Democrats should tread carefully as this will boomerang to their candidates quickly enough.
Second, this confirmation hearing has been a partisan circus from the start. Attempts to catch Kavanaugh out and smear him have failed (and commenters love taking his quotes out of context so as to attribute positions to him that he hasn’t espoused). He has a long judicial record; progressives may not like his philosophy, but it is there to see.
Now this. Kind of like the old line: “When did you stop beating your wife?” There is no good answer. Kavanaugh is now tainted for life, fairly or not. The accuser, a democratic college professor, raised the incident in 2012 with her therapist, but did not name Kavanaugh or the school. She can’t remember the year it happened or how old she was (if she was 15 it would be 1982). There is no evidence. There is not any contemporaneous record.
One can imagine a lot of scenarios, but the real point is—like Rashomon—no one will ever know the truth.
2
Thinking back to Clarence Thomas, and how his appointment was confirmed throws this situation into a bitter irony. The scary part is that if Kavanaugh's appointment is not confirmed (and I am definitely no fan of more conservative members sitting on the court), we could get someone much worse, and then where will we be? This whole thing has been lopsided from day one, and just shows than when you try to rush an appointment without real and careful oversight, this is what you end up with--a big mess.
I'm sorry, what ego isn't insurmountably evil? those who need not answer to anyone make it to the top.
Is Judge Kavanaugh now penned in by his previous statements to the FBI during his background investigation? Did he make denials to the FBI or not raise it because he did not recall it? If he did not recall it, can he legitimately deny it now? Can he face possible criminal charges for lying to the FBI? A lot of questions remain unanswered.
Another alternative might be to require Judge Kavanaugh to testify under oath about the alleged incident with the understanding that, if an investigation finds out that he lied about it, then he would be impeached and tried for perjury. Then Kavanaugh would have the options of (1) denying or admitting the allegations, (2) giving a different recollection of the incident, or (4) withdrawing his nomination. Presuming Kavanaugh will continue to deny the allegations, the confirmation vote could proceed concurrent with the full investigation of the matter.
Dirty politics should not be allowed to delay the confirmation vote. And Sen. Feinstein's conduct, on the heels of Sen. Schumer's announcement that the Democrats would engage in a "brutal fight" against the Supreme Court nominee, even before Kavanaugh was nominated, certainly has the appearance of dirty politics.
5
Can someone please explain to me and America
how you are going to discover the truth of this matter.
You have two people who say it never happened
and you have someone who says it did happen,
though it happened some 30 years ago.
Passing a Lie Detector Exam only indicates that
you believe what you said, not that you said the truth.
One can wonder why Ms. Ford did not come forth when
Kavanaugh was nominated to the Federal Courts ?
One can wonder if what Mr. Kavanaugh was said to have
done was as serious as it seemed to Ms. Ford.
Is there anyone who was at this gathering that can
support either person(s).
Is there anyone who can prove that Mr. Kavanaugh
attempt to force himself upon them in the past 30 years ?
If Mr. Kavanaugh is rejected, can we go back and
strip Mr. Clinton of his Presidential protection and pension
as he does not, under the same standard, deserve them, likewise, LBJ and JFK in terms of any buildings named for them and images on our currency ?
And if Mr. Kavanaugh is rejected can we please have
a Middle of the Road nominee ?
7
How can he be "the perfect nominee" when we don't even have the Archive material on him??
Now this- let's thoroughly vet someone for a change.
1
Absolutely not, this is simply ploy to delay the conformation until after the mid term elections.
Confirm him now!
The republican will never wait on this giving the Dems a chance to block, you jest of course right?
Nice try.....
2
I don't want Brett "The Hitman" to "clear his name", I want him to suffer for daring to throw away that name to collude with the "covfefe" GOP in their war on democracy and basic rights.
Let Ford speak, let the new Sane Congress expand the Court, and let him Spend More Time With The Family.
2
As to the 65 women who Kavanaugh evidently treated with respect, even Ted Bundy had character witnesses.
4
I knew Brett Kavanaugh in third grade and he couldn't do math very well... DELAY THE VOTE
5
A chance to clear his name? What a novel idea!
Doesn't Lat know that #MeToo has repealed due process?
6
Can Mitch Mc C apologize for obstructing justice with his refusal to grant Obama's nominee? You all remember what I'm talking about .
2
Based on research into his past, Kavanaugh has shown himself to be a compulsive liar. Every documented lie of his related to his government service during the Bush years should be fully investigated before he is even considered to serve on the highest court in our land.
2
This reminds me of when Republicans were demanding due process for Al Franken after he was accused of misconduct by a known GOP operative who had done a comedy tour with him and intentionally posed for a uncouth picture with him. Oh, no wait, it doesn't at all.
@Jim
A little bit different - there were pictures and Al Franken admitted it happened. And, Al Franken did not resign because of Republican pressure, but from pressure on the left. Due process, or lack thereof, had nothing to do with that.
2
@r - The lack of due process had everything to do with it, and yes much of it was from the left and the right. With regards to the left, I believe it was Kristin Gillibrand's "Iraq War Vote" moment, where she cast aside principle for a temporary political win that will come back to haunt her.
That you have no appreciation for why a woman would seek to suppress the memory of this incident and conceal it from public view for years is the most troubling aspect of your piece. And it is that very attitude that will result in similar mistreatment and abuse at the hands of Republican senatorial inquisitors that Ms. Ford will, like Anita Hill, have to endure, with the result that we will have another deeply tainted Justice on our esteemed Court.
1
the probative evidence supports the likelihood that Judge Kavenaugh assaulted Dr. Ford in High School.
Of course Kavenaugh and his high school buddy deny they jumped Dr. Ford.
The buddy just wrote a book admitting the two were drinking buddies in high school, who couldn't stop after one beer, but routinely got plastered.
And this is not a jane-come-lately- dredged up to blacklist a Trump appointee.
Dr. Ford's case is documented over time under natural, believable circumstances.
Her husband states she told him about it in 2002. It was documented by a psychiatrist
in a marriage conference years ago, as well.
Dr. Ford submitted this to Senator Feinstein under instructions that Dr. Ford declined to go public or testify.
Only after it leaked, and Dr. Ford was being harrassed by reporters did she, supported by her husband, decide to bring this to a head.
This is, obviously, not late game playing by politicians.''
2
@Aunty W Bush Aunty, that is pure bunk. What probative evidence. This is no better than any recovered memory case.
1
Of course the vote should be delayed until this issue is cleared up. My take on it is it did happen however Kavanaugh and pals have a poor remembrance of it because of alcohol, time and shame. I believe the incident in itself tells little about the man as he was a drunken teen ager, however the fact that he has evolved into a man that seems willing to do and say anything to gain power is alarming. That said the GOP Congress allows their president to lie, cheat, be a sexual predator, sell his office while doing nothing so why should we think they will address a judge?
2
The GOP better not cave here. This is an obvious cheap ploy. The “accuser” is a leftist Dem operative who is a self-described part of the “resistance”.
Read her account. Beside the fact that it is 35 yrs old, it is full of major inconsistencies. This is the lowest cheapest political ploy ever. And why exactly did Feinstein sit on it?
6
A despicable attempt by the Democrats to character assasinate Judge Kavanaugh. An alleged incident in the 1980s that she recalled in 2012 during therapy? Enough is enough. They threw the kitchen sink at him and nothing stuck. So in desperation, this comes out. The FBI did not come across this in all the background checks they did on him for the last 20+ years? Despicable. This will certainly rile up the Republican base in November.
4
a high ranking republican who is accused of assaulting a woman and denies it -- just another day. who of them hasn't?
1
I agree with your assessment that a vote should be delayed until this matter is better understood. That said, I don't believe it will happen. McConnell is a ruthless partisan and he is not going to let something like this stand in the way. In addition if this get's stalled for any reason this will put again in the forefront - the sex thing - harassment, assault, inappropriate behavior, etc. Trump will go nuts on the Republicans and they are too spineless to deal with his ire. It would serve to remind voters once again of Trumps behavior toward women throughout his life. This has nothing to do with Kavanaugh, Ms. Ford, or the nation. This is 100% political as evaluated by wins and losses and McConnell will not accept a loss.
2
Finally, the Democrats are “ going low”. It’s about time.
"In many ways, Judge Brett Kavanaugh is the perfect Supreme Court nominee."
In your dreams, David.
2
If every Federal public official who 'groped a girl in High School' had to face a tribunal the Government would grind to a halt. This is nonsense of the first order.
5
Forcing yourself on a young girl and trying to remove her clothing is not "groping."
The comments from many males dismissing the professor's recollections is appalling. Not one of you understands trauma recovery which is complex and ongoing over a lifetime.
1
@ scg
If it's true, Kavanaugh didn't just grope her. he dragged her into a room, locked the door, pushed her on the bed, pinned her down, did some grinding against her, tried to take her clothes off but was too drunk to handle the unexpected one-piece swim suit, clapped his hand over her mouth when she screamed.....Groping doesn't cover it.
Yes yes yes. Mr. Kavanaugh's a fine man who doesn't concern himself with his present reality; that he's being confirmed IN AN ELECTION YEAR! It's like the coach's son who gets to start every game regardless of who is on the team. Oh sure, he's got a mighty arm and he's a fast runner... But that doesn't mean squat when the parents of every other kid see the glaring double standard. And that coach's kid? He couldn't care less that his Dad is playing favorites. For every argument for Kavanaugh, there's that double standard that had better come back to bite the Republicans. Lest we hear them whine when they suffer the fate of appointments "in an election year."
2
If we all had to answer for our actions as 17 year olds, the workforce would be entirely composed of Mormons...and even then maybe not all of them would qualify.
Sure is easy to throw rocks behind our screens, lest we forget we all live in glass houses
3
@Arturo
If this is true, I guess it explains how so many adult men got themselves into trouble in the #metoo movement. 17-years shouldn’t be holding down younger teenaged girls trying to get their clothes off, covering their mouths to keep them from screaming. Please teach your children about consent and assault.
@Arturo - 17-year-old bad behaviors range from lying to your high school teacher about your missing homework to lying to your Mom that you didn't ruin your appetite before dinner by eating those chips to driving a car too fast to taking illicit drugs to shoplifting, cheating on a test, assaulting people on Instagram, stealing from your parents, stealing from people other than your parents, setting fires, throwing rocks at cars off the overpass, hurting animals, sexually assaulting others, and even murder. This isn't a case of leaving chewing gum on the sidewalk to be stepped in. Which poor behavior did you exhibit as a teen? And I simply refuse to believe that all Mormons are exempted from the ability to behave poorly and believe your attempt to consider this a possibility a problem with the situation we're debating. There's an issue of patriarchy here, as well, and the LDS Church has an abhorrent problem with its power structure in this regard.
The less important question is whether Brett Kavanaugh behaved like an aggressive drunken teenager 35 years ago, causing someone else psychological but not physical harm.
The more important question is whether -- if he did -- Kavanaugh would acknowledge his mistake and apologize for it. We don't need a(n additional) Justice who won't admit frailty and tell the truth, but would instead lie his way to power.
4
Ha. I wonder if Sen Feinstein would agree to a polygraph test?
Ask her why she delayed releasing the letter for 3 months?
Ask her if Democrat operatives crafted this story with Ford to make it a bit more salacious then what really happened?
Ask if her Democrat Senators are coaching Ms Ford at this minute for her upcoming performance in front of the Senate?
Ask her who was the retired FBI agent who administered the polygraph?
These are the same folks who got caught by WikiLeaks lying, cheating, colluding with the media, passing debate questions to Hillary, and fixing their own primary. These are the same folks, like Kamala Harris for example, who blatantly lied by editing a video to defame Kavanaugh. These are the same folks who paid for a dossier, then got the FBI to obtain a FISA warrant based on that paid for dossier. These are the same folks who orchestrated a parade of women who did the exact same thing to Trump - allegations of sexual misconduct from 30 years ago, suddenly made weeks before the election. Give me a break.
3
@Sports Medicine - EXACTLY. It is the Dem Hail Mary attempt, and it shows they have reached a new LOW.
Disgusting and horrible people on the left. Feinstein needs to be given the boot form any committees for her deceit, deception, and decrepit actions. Awful.
Rarely does a man attempt to rape only one woman.
If there are others out there who were also raped or attacked by Kavanaugh, I hope they will come forward.
I fully understand why they would not want to do that, especially in this climate of Trumpian woman disrespect and distrust.
But I hope they will consider coming forward for the good of the country.
2
I shouldn't need to point out that the title is a tad off. Kavanaugh can only clear his "good name" if the letter writer is lying. Maybe his name isnt good. So to speak.
I should add that Kavanaugh's opposition is motivated by more than his far right judicial leanings. He is a partisan hack. Intentionally misleading (at best) under oath.
1
Mr. Lat,
I believe you did not mean what you wrote, and in fact, what you wrote is truly ambiguous: "that hearings won’t prevent Brett Kavanaugh from being confirmed given the equivocal evidence against him . . ."
I believe that what you meant to convey is: "that hearings won't prevent Brett Kavanaugh from being confirmed given the equivocal nature of the evidence against him . . ."
The Senate made a grave mistake years ago when it did not believe a woman and put Justice Thomas on the Court. His voice has been, and will forever be, tainted by inappropriate sexual behavior in his previous position. So, of course, let’s have a rush to judgment for a candidate who has already been shown to have not been truthful before Congress, and all his old records haven’t been made available to the Committee. Let the Republican Senate show us what really old men do to get their way: they ignore the rules because they can break them, they denigrate all women by refusing to hear testimony from even one, and they flip the bird to the rest of the women in the nation.
Way to go, Republicans! Unethical, immoral, unprincipled reprobates.
3
Honestly, Kavanaugh should simply withdrawal his name and resign from his current judgeship on the 6th circuit. He's lied already about other issues. Let's spare the nation more drama. Brett - just do the right thing here and admit what you did
2
Yes, delay the vote by any means, giving Democrats an opportunity to take over the Senate and block the nomination. Smart move to delay "coming out" until the week the vote was to take place, leaving no time to reschedule the vote. If Kavanaugh was nominated by a Republican president then Kavanaugh must be Borked. (sarcasm alert off)
It's Simple;
The walls are closing in on Donald Trump.
Kavanaugh is "his shot" NOT to get yanked out of the White House.
How is it that a "likely criminal himself" - Trump can wield the power of his mob - GOP to be allowed to "make a move" like this, until he is cleared of all wrong doing ?
4
Mr. Kavanaugh: Tell the truth!
3
@Robert - He Did. Just because it doesn't fit YOUR political wishes, does not mean it is not the truth.
1
This from Taylor Foythe spokesman for the GOP-led Senate Judiciary Committee, according to Politco: it was "disturbing that these uncorroborated allegations ... would surface on the eve of a committee vote after Democrats sat on them since July."
It's not disturbing that a woman might have been sexually assaulted as a teenager. Or that that accused perpetrator could become a SCOTUS justice. No, what's disturbing to Taylor is that this is coming to light now so close to a vote. Priorities.
Whatever you do, please don't delay the vote, Mitch!
It's all the Democrats need to take back the Senate in November, and vote you "female-deniers" out of office.
Agree with many posters that there is a Good chance the Neanderthal GOP Senate leadership will try to steamroll a vote. We will know by mid week what McConnell will have Grassley do. This is all about maintaining power, by cementing in a generation of hard right Christian white male control of the courts. What’s equally troubling & perhaps more easily proven is Kavanaugh’s dirty, unseemly dealings while working for Ken Starr & GW Bush, particularly his responses before the committee regarding his involvement with stolen documents.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-confirmat...
I’ve been alive long enough to remember when there was a good chance that I’d ‘split my ticket’ when voting & I remember when SCOTUS selection by POTUS & the advise & consent activities of the Senate were reasonably bi-partisan & generally devoid of the drama & political power positioning so clearly ascendant. Split my ticket ? Ancient history now. Republicans have turned into the party of rich old white men intent on dumbing down John Q. Public & their offspring, breaking unions & redistributing the collective wealth of the nation to the top 10%. That they’ve been able to succeed at all of these priorities while winning over the votes of the very people that their policies hurt the most is the most frustrating & difficult fact to process. Surely it’s proof that critical thinking is just about extinct. Frightening. Sad.
1
If we are going to be respectful to women, it should be noted that the woman is not “Ms. Ford.” She holds a doctorate and is therefore Dr. Ford.
1
Do not delay the vote.
If the accuser was serious about her accusation she would have come out the day after Trump's nomination, not the day before the vote in full knowing ( that is by identifying herself, only after, as i read, she's submitted a letter to other ex-peer of high school ).
Clearly she was in the best position for doing it ( whenever there was such a favourite climate as this of #metoo to come forward and tell it plain and loud?), except that as Ms. Argento demonstrated not always what is loud is also plain, plus sometimes it's not going anywhere from the hearsaying or the he-says/ she says dispute.
I think the timing is the very troubling part in this story, too late and also in two stesp (the anonymous and identifiable parts ).
Maybe she is right, then she can pursue it even after the confirmation vote. People from every step of the economical ladder have been forced to resign from their jobs ( public or private ), but to give in to everyone's saying ( without proof/witness up until now) is to deny the established rule of law of the land. If you do that once you do it for all, whatever their political and social status is, republican or democrat, in the future, with the consequence of reducing politics and administration to a gossip review.
2
Agreed. We don’t need an Anita Hill debacle redux.
14
@GH The debacle is that Clarence Thomas is on the supreme court after having harassed a woman for a long period of time. Society is saying enough, women have a right to be heard. This is a lifetime appointment and a hearing should be had. This is a very serious matter and should not be rushed.
@GH
His name is clear to you, but not to my standards! If it is so, let him prove it!
@GH
Yes we do need another Monica Lewinsky debacle redux..
Just ask Mitch McConnell, Benjamin Netanyahu, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.
MAGA!
Kavanaugh is tainted, he should withdraw voluntarily his nomination. This is worse than Anita Hill, an incident that despite what this author says should have disqualified Clarence Thomas. Every future decision by Kavanaugh will be viewed through the lens of what is quite likely his attempted rape of Ms Ford. When Roe is overturned this accusation will be there as well as when Kavanaugh as is likely makes other findings contrary to women rights. Can't wait for the first sexual harassment case to come before Judges Kavanaugh and Thomas.
He is already on record of what is essentially an type of assault from the bench. His vote in the case of Jane Doe, the undocumented 17 year old rape victim who needed and requested an abortion.
He re-victimised Jane Doe, he will do it again. He is likely to re-victimese Ms Ford.
3
I’m going to assume he did it. And I say this action so many years ago at a young age in a drunken condition (which he probably doesn’t remember) is no reason to deprive this nation of ours of his service and good judgment as an adult. Get on with it. No more crybabies.
1
Can one ever clear his name with the "I was drunk and don't remember so I can't be held accountable" defense?
Because I think we're past the "she's lying about me raping her" defense.
3
Memories recovered in psychotherapy sessions many years later may be useful to helping the patient, but they are very unreliable guides to what happened in the real world. Quite a few men have been unjustly accused, and now everyone regards such memories with great scepticism.
Testimony from many other women who knew Kavanaugh when he was 17 indicates that these events are unlikely to have happened at all, or may have happened with some other teenage boys. Recovered memories are just too unreliable to use in any sort of real-world proceedings.
2
Many people keep arguing that Christine Blasey Ford's allegations can't possibly be true because she waited so long to come forward. Haven't they learned anything from the cases of sexual assault and sexual abuse at the hands of Catholic priests that have come to the fore in recent times - many of them dating back 30 years and yet found to be credible accusations upon - finally - proper investigation? Haven't they learned anything from the victims of Jerry Sandusky, many of whom also waited years before coming forward and - finally - having their claims properly investigated?
The literature on why victims and alleged victims don't come forward in a timely manner, especially if they are young at the time of the incidents, is vast and has been reported on again and again as all these cases of abuse came into the spotlight. This shouldn't be used as an excuse anymore not to investigate or to dismiss out of hand allegations of assault or abuse that may have taken place in the past simply because "that was so long ago." As we've seen from previous cases that particular excuse enabled sexual abuse to go undetected and to continue for years.
Ford has documented evidence from therapy sessions several years ago that discusses this incident in detail. And she has passed a polygraph test. That should be enough to warrant a proper investigation of her claims against Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh.
4
@Pamela Yes. At some point, the need for an accounting outweights shame and the need for privacy.
1
A well balanced article. Unfortunately, the intent of this revelation will be mired against the political backdrop. The Democrats had this information and sat on it for months, only revealing this information at the 11th hour. If the true intent was to encounter Mr Kavanaugh and provide some relief or resolution or Ms Ford, why did it first have to go through Feinstein? Why wasn't this handled by her own family or close friends and the information directly given to the proper authorities or media outlets? In the end, I fear that Ms Ford stands the most to lose, since her detractors have plenty of valid reasons to debunk her intent. Kavanaugh stands accused of attempted rape, but the Democrats are complicit in using this information for political gain.
2
Question:
Is anybody concerned about the grating dishonesty in the "delay" argument. Delay's purpose is to give a motivation to the base to vote and than to deny Trump a nomination if the Senate is won. Politics is not a beanbag and fair enough, but conflating this agenda with giving Kavanaugh "chance to be heard and clear his name" is not believable and makes this a totally partisan undertaking and Republicans have the votes on those basis.
2
Too bad! It's the Republicans who sank below this level when they denied any consideration whatsoever to Obama's fully qualified nominee, Merrick Garland. Let them reap what they have sowed... and choke on it.
3
@justasking
So what you're saying is Democrats are doing exactly what Republicans just did to Garland, but for a better reason and with less arrogance and contempt.
I can buy that.
Consider this! Polygraphs may be inadmissible in court but this is not a court of law. If Mr. Kavanaugh and Mr Judge wish to claim that nothing happened then let them also submit to polygraphs. The truth should be heard
2
Even if the allegations are true, we are talking about a one-time event that happened while the then-boy was allegedly “stumbling drunk” decades ago. Assuming the allegation is 100% true, there is no allegation this was a habit in any way. It was never repeated, and the man went on to implement what is essentially an affirmative-action program to ensure female clerks were hired in his chambers over men. Someone should have the courage to say that this accusation should not derail a career decades later. What is next, an accusation he pulled a pigtail in elementary school?
23
@Publius
“...even if it’s true”. ???
If it’s true, then he is now lying about it, and, if questioned by the Committee, would lie under oath. Is that no longer a crime for this crop of Republicans?
4
@Publius How do you know it was never repeated? Besides, if it did happen, the fact that he has now denied it is certain grounds to deny him the confirmation.
@Publius Let's say we can let this go for the reasons you cite, he's still lying about it. Then what kind of courage does Kavanaugh have?
Judge Kavanaugh, will probably not remember what happened long ago at a party in high school. Especially, since there were no consequences. However, victims do remember for a life time. Should he be given a pass? I don't think so. He prides himself in hiring many women law clerks in his position of authority as a judge. But does he intend to allow all women the right to decide for themselves what is best for their bodies? Thus giving up his power of domination? His record and comments are clear he will not. He still feels he has the divine right to dominate women, to hold them down, just as he did way back in high school. It is very important that we recognize this significant moment.
1
No, no, no.
An alleged drunken incident from when he was 17 years old is not a relevant event. How is he to defend himself? And - probably more importantly - does anyone really think that such a single episode is somehow enlightening about how he would conduct himself as a justice? Are you really suggesting that everything a person does as a child should be part of his permanent record and subject to review 30 years later in a job interview? Don't we seal juvenile records for precisely this reason?
This is pure politics and beyond ridiculous.
7
@Citizen
Well, the straw men are a-massing, eh?
Of course, as you imply, "everything a person does as a child should (not) be part of his permanent record and subject to review 30 years later in a job interview".
But this isn't everything Kavanaugh ever did as a child.
And this is not a "job interview", this is a process with the goal of installing a person, for life, in a position to determine the course of our legal system and our culture for decades to come.
He is to defend himself with a modicum of integrity he will tell the truth, stating he does not recall what he does not recall, and with some humility and openness.
On those grounds, Mr. Kavanaugh is failing already.
When a person is nominated to one of the most powerful legal positions on the planet precisely because of his presumed views on sex, gender, health, yeah, I would say involvement in a sexual assault is germane regardless of when it occurred.
And I would say the question of if it did occur is important enough to supersede petty political concerns and squeals of favoritism and obstruction.
Let her speak.
Let him respond.
Let's see where we are when we're done with that.
3
Just in case no one knows:
“While Lat mentioned his background as a former federal judicial clerk from a top law school, he gave the readers the impression that the author was a female lawyer at a large law firm. The blog became widely popular when it conducted a poll on the "Superhotties of the Federal Judiciary",[7] and several federal judges, including Alex Kozinski and Richard Posner, corresponded with Article III Groupie. The blog interviewed several judges and gained national media coverage in the wake of the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts, Harriet Miers, and Samuel Alito. The blog also served as a clearinghouse for news and gossip about clerks for the Supreme Court, whom A3G called "the Elect."”
The additional hearing will give the loud, old white men on the Judiciary Committee another opportunity to show Americans how fundamentally hateful they can be, a chance to belittle the accuser, embarrass her and hold her up to scorn. And for what? Certainly nothing remotely associated with truth or fairness. Just another trampling on the rights of a citizen to be heard and one more shot at undermining the U.S. Constitution.
Voters need to retire these tired and relatively useless fellows, letting them pasture peacefully in the autumn of their years.
I am truly disgusted for my country. I know that the democrats will stop at nothing to get their way but this is a new low. A very very sad time in this country.
9
@JP Not as low as Repubs denying Barack Obama's choice of supremely qualified Merick Garland a hearing for over 9 months. That really was a very very sad time for this country.
3
@JP - Wow. Psychological projection is a powerful force...
3
@JPBefore you write this accusation off as partisan maneuvering, please consider these points: Why would a respected academic whose reputation is important to her career make an accusation which if untruthful would ruin that reputation? Even if the Democrats on the committee aim is to block the Kavanaugh appointment, does that mean that the accuser's story, which she obviously reluctantly revealed, has no relevance as to the character of a life-time appointee? And even if Kavanaugh goes down, aren't there lots of rightwing replacements available, assuming the GOP retains control of the Senate?
David, the Groper-in-Chief Trump and his nominee for S.C.O.T.U.S. Kavanaugh needed to go to jails for forcing themselves on helpless women.
Neither of them didn't deserve second chances when their victims suffered for their entire lives.
Listening to my above statement, I hope 51 Republican Senators will vote "No" to judge Kavanaugh's nomination for the Supreme Court.
Although the situation is still very fluid with the accuser Christine Blasey Ford just coming forward with her claim not having filed a police report against Kavanaugh when they were teenagers.
I certainly believe that Ms. Ford should be called to the Senate Judiciary Committee first and testify her claim in front of Kavanaugh telling him that what he did at a summer party in the early 1980s was not right.
Yes, she should be allowed to say before the whole world that "a drunken 17 year old Brett Kavanaugh pinned her down in a bed, groped her and attempted to remove her clothes" as you wrote here.
Ms. Ford also told the WP that "when she was about to scream," a young drunken Kavanaugh "put his hand over her mouth" as per your Op-Ed.
Not only that, now we know that "Kavanaugh was about to inadvertently kill me" as Ms. Ford described in her statement to WP.
Now the question that comes before all the Americans whether the Republicans should confirm Kavanaugh as a Justice on the bench of SC without explaining right on Ms. Ford's face that "it never happened" like he said in a statement.
Our verdict : Delay.
1
This may have happened when Kavanaugh was a minor and drunk and that was a long time ago.
But Kavanaugh is not a minor now, and his lying about it now is not something that happened a long time ago, if he is lying about it now. That disqualifies him right there.
Who do you believe?
1
While I am not a big fan of Judge Kavanaugh by any means, I think the article makes a very good point. This has to be heard out and if it is not, it will be a dark shadow hanging over the court and Kavanuagh for decades.
Most women do not make up false allegations. Women and teenagers are subject to male sexual harassment throughout their lives. We know this and can only hope the culture will change. This is not about the MeToo movement. It is about Ms. Ford bringing forth a disturbing incident. She did this a couple of months ago and aimed to remain anonymous. As things unraveled, it became apparent to her that she needed to come forward.
Do all teenage boys, in drunken states, pin girls down to a bed and try to remove their clothes? No, they definitely do not. Mr. Judge seems to paint a pretty raucous climate at Georgetown Prep and whether B. Kavanaugh was a part of that we do not know.
This is the reason why all parties involved need to be heard. There needs to be clarity. As stated, he didn't commit a crime. He may almost have committed a crime, but he didn't. Does this go against his moral fiber? Is it something of the past that needs to remain in the past? Obviously, it had a deep impact on Ms. Ford as she was terrified for her life. Who wouldn't have been, especially is he put his hand on her mouth.
I was a victim in my teens and yes, it deeply affected me. Do I think the incident speaks volumes about the moral fiber of the perpetrator, yes.
3
Kavanaugh, remembers it just fine, and now he is lying just like the guy who nominated him. He's not the type that got a grouping opportunity every day. Let him take a lie detector test, and he never will. This reminds me of the Woody Alan debacle, where he took a lie detector test, and passed, (risking career ruination), while his accuser refused. It's so easy to make an accusation, but to be caught lying is pure humiliation, and right now that is the position Judge Kavanaugh is in. Perfect.
1
I am not happy about the Kavanaugh nomination. However, I find this last minute claim by Ford apparently brought up in therapy worthless. The NY Times and many of the commentators need to read the literature on false memories and therapist. I concede that most accusations are real. However, this one has all the marks of a false accusation and the right motivation. Finally, I'd hate my clumsy make-out sessions as a teenager be turned into attempted rape accusations.
4
Trump's horrible record in his dealings with women was well known during the campaign and he was elected president. One peccadillo that may or may not have happened forty years ago is not going to prevent Kavanaugh being confirmed. We might as well get the show on the road and be done with it.
Sure, fine, hearings for the sake of Kavanaugh and his accuser.
For SCOTUS, all credibility, all authority long, long gone, I'm afraid you're too late.
1
Due process ought to matter all the time.
Mr. Lat fails to disclose he that like his icon, Judge Kavanaugh, he graduated from Yale Law School and is a member of the ultra-conservative Federalist Society.
2
I am not a fan of Trump.I am not a fan of The GOP. I am not a fan of the judge. Saying all that I must also add once upon a time long ago I did stupid stuff as a kid. I must admit there was a few times me and a few buddies grabbed a few candy bars at the local candy store and rode off on our bicycles to a secluded area to eat them. Is there anyone among us who can say they didn't do something real stupid as an adolescent.Ms. Ford deserves to be heard and should be heard. If it is deemed the judge made some real bonehead mistakes as a teenager but led an exemplary life afterwards how should he be judged? I must add some of my fellow childhood candy bandits went on to become police officers and some like myself fought for this country in Foreign wars. I could be a left wing radical who think people learn from their mistakes and that everyone deserves a second chance. Sue me if I think Al Franken should still have senator before his name. There is a story in a wildly read book of when the villagers were going to stone a lady at a well for her transgressions a wise gentleman stood up and said he who is without sin cast the first stone. I hope the judge does not get confirmed because I think he is to far right to be fair. I also think teenagers make really bonehead mistakes and should be judged accordingly.Will this seemingly good man who has won the admiration of many females in the law profession be judged by the life he has led or by the current climate?
3
@Steven McCain
I have read so many similar comments—we were boneheaded kids, didn’t we all do stupid stuff.
Did you ever lie on top of a girl, cover her mouth so she couldn’t scream, and try to take her clothes off? Something that traumatized the girl and made her afraid for her life? Don’t you think that’s beyond a stupid kid thing? It’s not the same thing as swiping a candy bar.
Sure it's a "dirty trick" , so what. This is how the Republicans play ball so why is anyone upset. Is it only the GOP has the right to smear ? No this guy is sitting on the highest court of the land and we have a complete right to explore the man. An adult being didnt move in suddenly at age 21. In fact reading of his rightous zeal in promoting a much more aggressive cross examination of Clinton concerning his sexual piccadilios, this grope incident, if true, is totally consistent with the Star investigation AND reports that he has had some kind of contact with Trump's lawyers. Now is this the incident theybwere going to hold over him to ensure his continued support or WHAT ELSE IS THERE.
1
The judge deserves justice rather than a chance to clear his name.
I wonder where the money will be hidden in this last ditch effort by the left wingers. Anyone who believes this is not the bright light on their block.
3
No, a 11th hour accusation from 35 years ago does not deserve a hearing, and the New York Times is being disingenuous. No hearing will enable Judge Kavanaugh to clear his name. A phony plea. The idea that this type of tactic is OK needs to be rejected. We do not and should not review and vet candidates in this way. Diane Feinstein should apologize to Judge Kavanaugh.
3
There are only two outcomes to a hearing---both bad for the GOP: 1) committee members listen to both sides and the Republicans end up either calling Ms Ford a liar or democratic operative planted to derail the nomination; or 2) the most dangerous defense, the boys will be boys defense---you know Brett was young, drunk, at a party, you know how that goes---what I term the Donald Trump defense. In this me-too environment, both 1 and 2 would not sit well with white suburban women, who are already leaving the GOP in droves. Of course, and the Republican senators should see this coming, you know Trump will lose it over the hearing and say and/or tweet comments that will put the women Senators on the committee over the cliff. The politically safe way out of this mess is for Judge Kavanaugh to quietly withdraw his nomination--playing the Thomas media lynch mob card won't work today.
2
I think it is ridiculous that we should even discuss some 35 year old accusation about something the guy might have done when he was in high school.
5
Lawyer Lat got one point exactly wrong. This one: :... she told nobody contemporaneously (unlike many other alleged victims of sexual assault)..." No, Mr. Lat, it is not uncommon, unusual or unbelievable that this woman, as a young woman just barely past puberty, was not only badly scared but deeply ashamed, and she dealt with it by smothering the assault with silence.
I do not expect this to derail Kavanaugh's steam train into the Supreme Court, no more than did Clarence Thomas's pubic hair in Anita Hill's can of Coke. As Lat inadvertently intimates here, Thomas's elevation to the Supremes set a precedent. And precedent must be respected.
Al Franken gets run out of office by #me too. Kavanaugh is going to get the Bork/Thomas treatment. Keith Ellison is accused of doing worse than both and gets a pass
How do the #me too folks and Democrat leftist determine who gets punished and who does not?
The selection process appears similar to capricious mob behavior.
1
Mr. Lat wrote:
"But due process, which ought to matter when it comes to filling the critical seat on the highest court in the land, calls for nothing less."
Mr. Lat, did you speak out about "due process" when Mitch McConnell and the Republicans igtnored due process and refused to even consider Pres Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland (thereby stealing a seat on the Supreme Court)?
Did you speak out against John McCain, when he declared that Republicans wouldn't consider ANY nominees that Hillary Clinton put forth if she was elected?
If not, then you're nothing more than a hypocritical and partisan gossip-blogger (which is pretty much all your present "work" amounts to).
2
@Paul-A
It might be a good idea to figure out what due process means before making comments like this. Due process is a legal term relating to ensuring that someone accused of a misdeed is entitled to a fair process before a decision is made. It has no relevance whatsoever to a political decision (good or bad) such as denying a confirmation vote for Merrick Garland.
1
I don’t blame Ford for not telling anyone until now.
Who would ? She will be dragged through the mud as best the Republicans can do. They will try to portray her as “nutty and slutty.”
Ford wisely acted proactively—the therapist’s notes, the lie detector test, her solid reputation as a college professor.
She is very brave for speaking out.
Teenage boys do lots of dumb things. But that rough behavior—using his strength against her—makes this case troubling for a potential Supreme Court justice.
Mr. Lat writes of Anita Hill’s hearing, “The hearings had their flaws. Most notably, several witnesses on Ms. Hill’s side never got to testify.”
‘Nuff said.
1
I agree with Mr. Lat, but not for the reason he has stated.
This is not an accusation of sexual misconduct. This is an accusation of rape — and even “gang rape” as the second man apparently attempted to join in the assault of the young woman.
Why these accusations are not taken seriously by the Republicans on the committee is beyond me. Why would they want to vote for anyone if these accusations are true?
All three parties should, at minimum, be put under oath to find out what exactly happened that night. Just because they are white men of power, they should not be allowed to simply deny it and walk away.
That is not justice. And it surely isn’t supreme justice.
1
"Democratic senators accused Judge Kavanaugh of committing perjury at his two prior confirmation hearings — charges that do not withstand scrutiny," says David Lat who references an article he himself wrote. Sorry Mr. Lat, Kavanaugh did commit perjury.
When accusations were made Judge Kavanaugh's response could be to deny all, or claim it was the stupidity of youth and drink, Then apologize sincerely for any harm done. Judge Kavanaugh has flatly denied any involvement, should the accusation prove credible, it would show that the judge lied. Also, the accuser should be addressed as Doctor Christine Ford, not Ms Ford.
1
This writer’s (mis)understanding of sexual assault bears response. The fact that Prof. Blasey did not tell friends or family about the attack at the time is TYPICAL. Example: My closest friend in high school was molested by our other friend’s dad. She and I were like sisters and talked every day for hours, and she didn’t tell me about the abuse until years after we had all moved away.
This is familiar to those of us who experienced sexual assault. No one wanted to hear it and no one did anything If we did say something, so we didn’t talk about it.
Prof. Blasey has an extremely credible case. And suggesting there are ‘holes’ in her argument because she doesn’t remember every detail about the party or didn’t tell others at the time is absurd and betrays how little this author understands about this issue. And yet he’s quite confident making that case loudly in the NYTimes.. how classic!
I suspect the mostly old, male Senate GOP will argue that what someone did in high school isn’t relevant. But even if one took that position, he’s lying about it NOW. Just like he lied about multiple other issues like the Miranda papers. He clearly lacks integrity and this is another example. How many do we need to move on from this nomination so ill-conceived that McConnell didn’t want it from the start?
If Kavanaugh is now confirmed in the peak of the Me Too movement, god help us all.
2
There are plenty of reasons that the Senate should seek someone other than Judge Kavanaugh to fill Judge Kennedy's vacant seat. And there are many that brought us to this place and time.
First, you have the Republican Senate that prevented a hearing of Judge Garland for the seat that Judge Scalia once held because the "people" should decide. We all knew that would come back to bite them.
Second, you have Judge Kennedy how thought it wise to throw a monkey wrench into our already dysfunctional Senate by resigning this summer instead of waiting until the "people" decided at the ballot box this November.
Third, you Trump who against McConnell's wishes chose a jurist who had a very long and detailed record. McConnell knew that Kavanaugh would not be a shoe-in even with the GOP's majority control over the Senate. But if I were Trump and most likely guilty of wrongdoings, I guess Kavanaugh would have been my pick too.
I am sorry for Kavanaugh that now will have to face an accuser from his late teens. And I am sorry for Ms. Ford who as a teen had to cover this up and live with it.
The real stink will come from the likely fact that yes, Kavanaugh did do this way back when. His downfall will not be because he was a drunk and stupid kid. Instead it will be because he wouldn't today take responsibility for his actions.
I believe that our "Trump" nation has already suffered through enough of that line of thinking. It is time for Kavanaugh to take his name out of consideration.
7
@RichardS.....thanks for your good sum up that gives the context for this mess.
Now if only 85 year old Bader Ginsburg can keep doing her exercise sesssions with her trainer to stay healthy, and not retire until we get a Democratic president.
RBG's trainer should be given an award for service to his country!
One more thought.
If Clarence Thomas were up for nomination to the High Court today, would he have survived Anita Hill?
Lets have the vote and get this wonderful brilliant man to work, enough political games. 35 years, than this pops up in the 11th hours. I am not buying it, and the American people are sick of these decade old delays in reporting.
2
A Senate vote on Kavanaugh should not take place until after the election and any new senators are sworn in.
2
"In many ways, Judge Brett Kavanaugh is the perfect Supreme Court nominee"
if you are a far right wing ideologue.
2
NYT readers need to read the San Jose Mercury piece on same:
"The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room."
Seems she's having a little trouble remembering her "dazed and confused" high school party years. Undoubtedly confused about the specifics of the event, too, delusional from "party" to "therapist's" notes three decades later.
Historical point: Anita Hill's story was better.
6
DonaldTrump has shown for his entire presidency that he nominates people to destroy institutions. Edication, environment, treasury, energy, trade, diplomacy, transportation, and now the Supreme Court.
1
We should mobilize for 2020 to not only take down Drumpf, but McConnell as well.
Whatever it takes.
We will never forget his infamous 2009 fatwa " my job is to ensure Obama fails". He couldn't bring himself to call Obama president!
Nor his self-serving stubborn unconstitutional denial of Judge Garland hearing.
McConnell must pay back.
6
Mr. Lat makes a very gratuitous statement: Ms. Ford "told nobody contemporaneously (unlike many other alleged victims of sexual assault)..." thus suggesting she is not telling the truth.
What do you know Mr. Lat about how victims of sexual assault react? Are you a specialist in sexual assault cases? Have you worked with sexual assault victims? How extensive is you experience?
You say Ms. Ford did not tell anyone "unlike many" victims who do. Are you a psychologist who has studied teenage girls traumatized by sexual attacks? If SOME young girls to tell others, is "some" "many" in your mind?
I have seen this line of defense too often. Because a frightened young girl did not contemporaneously tell others what happened to her, you undermine her veracity. In your mind every victim would speak up right away.
The truth is the opposite. Victims often are afraid, embarrassed, confused, self-doubting - had they done something to lead the attacker on? Young victims do not have fully developed reasoning capacity.
But none of this fits nicely with the defendant's denials. Delay in speaking up is used as proof of falsity.
Mr. Lat joins MANY others who glibly assume delay proves the victim is lying. He and his MANY others do a tremendous disservice to victims and they discourage victims from ever speaking up.
Whether a victim speaks up about an assault that took place today or 50 years ago, the time of speaking up does not make the victim a liar. Mr. Lat is biased to say otherwise.
3
This whole process is a sham. Evidence of perjury, withholding 100,000 documents, and gambling debts. Who cares, since he's going to take away our freedom, right? sigh.
"This ultimately redounded to Justice Thomas’s benefit. Now, whenever Ms. Hill’s sexual harassment allegations are raised, he or his defenders can at least say they were explored by the senators and ultimately found insufficient to deny Mr. Thomas a seat on the Supreme Court."
That, sir, is hogwash.
The senate made a mockery of Ms Hill's claims and publicly humiliated her.
This is likely to be handled in much the same way. Long Dong Silver 2.0.
2
how many young men have gotten away with assault in America over the decades, hushed by alcohol, parents, and money?
2
You know what a grownup does after 35 years of keeping something quiet and never telling anyone what happened when you were in high school?
If you are a grown up you let it go.
You didn't report it to anyone. You can barely remember any of the important details. There is no 'due process' or 'investigation' that is even possible.
Get on with your life.
3
I am a yellow dog Democrat, and I yield to no one in my disdain for what Mitch McConnell and his crew did to Merrick Garland. But this Democratic maneuver is silly. Let's assume for purposes of argument that Kavanaugh actually did what this woman says he did. Are we really going to start holding candidates for high public positions in their 50's accountable for what they did in high school? How about middle school, then?
3
Let's see what his kindergarten classmates have to say about his behavior on the playground. Did he pull their pigtails and call them names?
The Democrats should be ashamed of themselves. Why do "the people" hold politicians in contempt? Because of stunts like this.
Does anyone think that "under oath" means anything? Democrats have partisans that are willing to say and do anything. And the "victim" is straight out of central casting: white, female, professional, with apparent integrity. I'm sure she can cry when necessary as well.
4
Let's not forget another side to this.
Secretary of Education Betsy De Vos is changing guidelines to make it harder for colleges to deal with rape accusations, on the grounds that men are being unfairly targeted.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/us/devos-colleges-sex-assault.html
I guess De Vos is worried about future Brett Kavanaughs and their political ambitions.
1
Another last-ditch effort by Democrats, who turn to either accusations of racism or sexual misconduct when they're against the wall, as seen in the Clarence Thomas nomination.
Statutes of limitations exist for a reason, as does innocence until guilt is proven in court.
Polygraphs are junk science, and are even more useless in that the questioning has not been released. Telling stories to therapists about events 30 years ago doesn't count for much, either. There simply is no evidence to this event ever occurring.
The Times' past coverage of alleged sexual assault in the Duke Lacrosse or Mattress Girl at Columbia cases should give readers pause, if for some reason they cannot see the political hackery behind the suggestion to delay confirmation hearings.
Republicans cannot afford to fall for this trick. Democrats are still hopping mad over Garland and will resort to lies, slander and Borking until the very last minute.
3
There may be others besides Ford. I recall there were several other women who came forward about Clarence Thomas but were suppressed. And I remember thinking that his video store porn rental records could be used to blackmail him over judicial opinions.
1
Trump is a blatantly corrupt president. He does not even pretend to put the interests of We the People above his own interests. The president is supposed to faithfully execute the law of the land. Trump does and says whatever he feels like, without thought to the letter or spirit of the law, and openly attacks the judiciary, Department of Justice, FBI, etc. While taking the side of a hostile intelligence service over our own intelligence services on foreign soil.
He even nominated a Supreme Court Justice specifically to o defend him from investigation. That is a corrupt reason to pick a Supreme Court Nominee. This nomination must not be allowed to stand because it was made by a corrupt president for a corrupt reason. Debating the merits of Kavanaugh normalises this corrupt act. Kavanaugh is not the issue.
The corrupt intent by Trump in making this nomination amounts to obstruction of justice. A Supreme Court Justice picked only to obstruct justice is an attack on the Constitution and the Republic.
If you Democrats want Psople to vote for you, you must oppose Trump's corruption, not help him obstruct justice by treating him as a normal president, debating the merits of Garland instead of attacking the corruption of the Court by Trump.
Many of us are trying to talk ourselves into voting for Democrats to stop Trump, but Democrats keep making it obvious that you are not ready, willing, or able to actually stop him from doing anything. You even announce it.
Fight or lose!
Yes vote must be delayed. Bring this woman on so she can be methodically shredded. This is easy breezy.
No, don't delay; impeach him now. This is no longer about teenage sexual assault over 30 years ago. It's about lying about it now. Before Dr. Ford came forward with credible charges about Judge Kavanaugh, there were equally credible concerns raised by Democratic senators and a former lawyer who worked for them that Kavanaugh had lied under oath, that is, committed perjury, about his actions in the Bush White House. Now it appears that Kavanaugh has lied again about the incident raised by Christine Ford. Lying should be enough to disqualify anyone from the bench, and the senators clearly know that. It's time for Susan Collins to stop dissembling and recognize that Judge Kavanaugh is a serial liar who will, as the recent Jane Doe case demonstrated, work to undermine Roe. It's time for Lisa Murkowski to join her not just about Roe, but Kavanaugh's blatant racist antipathy to indigenous peoples like those who got her elected in Alaska in the first place. It's time for Republicans to admit the truth about Brett Kavanaugh and terminate his nomination.
1
Many commenters have questioned how republicans were able to come up with a letter signed by 65 women supporting Kavanaugh so quickly. My guess is they had that letter for months because, unfortunately, the typical Democrat M.O. lately is to use gender and/or racial politics to try to defeat anyone they can't defeat through normal means. I wouldn't doubt that Republicans also have a letter signed by dozens of non-whites stating Kavanaugh is also not a racist.
As far as re-opening the hearings so Kavanaugh can 'clear his name', exactly how does one do that? It's essentially impossible to prove he didn't do something decades ago, especially since his accuser doesn't remember the exact date of the attack.
As a registered Democrat, I fear this is another case where Democrat's actions are going to come back to bite them.
3
@Dave
Or, because they knew there was something about Brett? Just all this suburban soccer dad image stuff was enough to make me suspicious. The Clinton-Lewinsky prurience? Ick.
1
@Dave
Please spend maybe two minutes looking into something before repeating some scurrilous accusations that you probably heard on MSNB.
Really, the answer to your question is very easy to find with a simple Google search.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/virginia-hume/about-that-letter-from-wome...
Even if it happened, how in the world do you “investigate” a drunken teenage groping at a high school party 36 years ago?? Allowing her to testify would be a farce and accomplish nothing.
8
It is obvious how this will play out. Anti-Trumpers and people still smarting over the Merrick Garland outrage will believe her, and the Trump enablers won't -- or they won't care.
There will be people (not me) who silently won't care what he did once when he was a hormone-fueled drunk teenager with a buddy egging him on. They will overlook the fact that if Dr. Ford isn't making all of this up, then she suffered for decades and required professional help to recover from this sexual attack and near-rape experience.
The President is on tape bragging about his success in habitually sexually assaulting women, and over a third of the country doesn't care about any of those victims. We will see that indifference played out again.
5
Ms. Ford gains nothing in her revelations. We, the public have much at stake allowing this nomination to proceed.
3
A fair-minded, balanced analysis, and the last line nails it:
"But due process, which ought to matter when it comes to filling the critical seat on the highest court in the land, calls for nothing less."
Yes, it is not only the outcome that matters in getting Judge Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, although, most unfortunately, that is how Mitch McConnell and the GOP are treating the Kavanaugh nomination.
The process and how the outcome is achieved makes all the difference in the legitimacy and effectiveness of a decision, which couldn't be more important than when dealing with a nomination for the Supreme Court.
However, the GOP's determination to ram through Kavanaugh's nomination as fast as humanly possible has already done Kavanaugh's credibility and respect a serious disservice.
Withholding documents from the Democrats on the committee only cast suspicion and indicates there is something serious to hide in Kavanaugh's background—legal, personal, or both. What's the rush, especially for a lifetime appointment to the most important court in the land?
I doubt Ms. Ford would have come forward and put herself in jeopardy if the whole process of mishandling Kavanaugh's appointment by Grassley and McConnell hadn't been so blatantly partisan and ham-handed.
Thanks to the GOP's rush, everyone loses: Kavanaugh, Ford, the GOP, the Supreme Court, justice, and our nation.
Process matters!
3
After reading this opinion, Lat's linked to piece in defense of Kavanaugh, and his lengthy tweet threads, it seems to me that though he makes some good points, others are far less sound, yet all are made with the intention of supporting Kavanaugh, regardless of what he may or may not have done. It's hard not to smell a whiff of political bias behind the veneer of disinterested rationality.
3
The rush to confirm, the immediacy of the letter of 85 supporters, the 2012 record, etc. - background information - all suggest that this background was known. The explosive nature of it was known, and the fear was evident that with more time devoted to the hearings that this incident would come to light. It could not only be a delaying factor, pushing it possibly to after the November elections, but might be enough to deny confirmation given the nature of the cases that will most likely come before the Supreme Court in the next few years. There is a much greater tendency now to believe women, to give such allegations the credence they have always deserved. And we are also seeing powerful figures more often use the "denial" tactic. This incident has been denied. If a "rushed" investigation "proves" that there is simply not enough evidence to verify Ford's claims, Kananaugh will almost certainly get confirmed. If a "rushed" investigation leaves doubt or shows it indeed happened, I would predict he will get confirmed anyway. And where does that leave us as a society? An attested to and self-affirmed nation of laws and democratic values? No one expects perfection. But this? Who are we if we do not confront this "moment" fairly and with much less of the heavy overlay of politics? Why does it have to be this one man ? There are many other qualified candidates. Why taint this candidate, this accuser, the confirmation process, and the Supreme Court itself? For what?
6
I'd love to hear Merrick Garland speak out publicly. Now that would get media attention.
53
"I'd love to hear Merrick Garland speak out publicly."
"Speak out" about what?
1
@Tom
In order to placate the Confederate son of Alabama Mitch McConnell, President Barack Obama foolishly nominated an old moderate center right Democrat in Merrick Garland. And Mitch kicked him in his partisan political teeth.
While Barry and Michelle went high in supporting Hillary, Donald went low with Jeff Sessions, Julian Assange, James Comey, Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin.
MAGA!
I'm an equal opportunity skeptic so the first bias I'll identify is my own: I'm opposed to Judge Kavanaugh's elevation to the Supreme Court for reason's that have nothing to do with his qualifications. My disgust is based on the GOP's obvious contamination of what should be a prompt and orderly process by first prolonging the vacancy and then withholding documents that could be pertinent to Senate deliberations.
Insofar as Ms. Ford's allegation is concerned, factors of timing, conflicting testimony and basic rules of evidence could reduce it to a nullity at law. That does not eliminate what may be its greater cultural significance in the public's long-term confidence in the integrity of their government. As Mr. Lat suggests, a suspension of the confirmation process pending a more thorough investigation and public hearing would be in order.
But... I doubt the GOP power faction in the Senate will be able to resist continuing to run this debacle like a bulldozer until it sinks in the bog it has dug for itself. Ultimately, time, character and consequences will tell.
13
The invocation of the Anita Hill debacle is both shocking and instructive. It's shocking to find that some Republicans still think that her outrageous mistreatment redounds to the credit of any of her opponents. But of course it's highly instructive to learn that this is still a viable position on the right, twenty-seven years later.
I highly recommend John Oliver's recent interview with Anita Hill, which at the very least had the virtue of being conducted in good faith.
Please with this Me Too stuff. If any of you men can remember way back to when you were a young teenager and were not trying to talk a blouse from a girls back, have short memories.
We're all to quick to condemn young boys for being young boys. In this instance anyway.
And I'm not a fan of Kavanaugh being a Supreme Court Justice either.
21
@jfr - I distinctly DON'T remember throwing a girl on a bed, turning up the stereo to drown her out, locking the door, and having my buddy watch while I pinned her down and tried to strip her. There is a world of difference between that and making out with a girl in the front seat of your dad's car.
4
@jfr
Young boys (and young girls) make plenty of mistakes. Touching someone against their will is not a mistake, it is assault. It is never okay. When you normalize that behavior you help perpetuate it.
2
@jfr I condemn our society of the past, as well as the "good old boys" that still exist in our contemporary culture and others that support and encourage the behavior of young boys who believe it is acceptable to "talk a blouse from a girl's back". This mentality of "boys will be boys" is not only destructive for an egalitarian society ~ which I will always work and vote for ~ it destroys so much possibility for young boys and men to live a life in which respect for all women is at the forefront of their behavior. And I have to say that after your comment you make it real easy for me to condemn you because if this is what you did as a young boy, what kind of man have you become? How will you raise your boys?
2
I don't want to see Kavanaugh confirmed for many reasons. The victim's story is scary and sickening. However, it occurred so many years ago and in High School. I know sometimes people are afraid to come forward for varied reasons but there are consequences to not coming forward immediately after and that's that people tend to doubt the motivations and veracity of the claims. What's to stop every vengeful or scorned ex-girlfriend (or boyfriend for that matter) from coming out of the wood work 30 years later and making claims of abuse, valid or invalid. I don't have an answer here. It all is very unfortunate. The candidate should withdraw and a new candidate should be presented. Probably the best answer for all. Surely there has to be a creditable judge out there with out the baggage.
3
@Doug
This was not a consensual act that Dr. Ford described. This was assault, and that is never okay, not 30 minutes later, not 30 days later, not 30 years later. Get it?
I believed then and believe now Anita Hill's charges against Clarence Thomas. Her testimony and the supporting testimony of others who were never given the opportunity to testify has undermined the faith of many Americans in Mr. Thomas' judgment and legitimacy.
The people of the United States don't need saints on the Supreme Court, but they do need people who have learned that some of their past personal behaviors, biases, and beliefs were wrong and that all people make mistakes.
Those with a lifetime appointment and the power to pass judgements that will affect others for generations must approach every decision with the humility to know that the beliefs they hold could be wrong.
Ideologues need not apply.
2
This is strictly a political maneuver by Republicans aimed at protecting their flank against claims of gender bias. While they may hold the hearings, this will be done to quell the charge of treating women unfairly which would surely be leveled against them before the midterms were they not to hold hearings. This will be a rubber-stamp approval with the added bonus of bolstering the Republican’s image of caring about women, when history has clearly shown anything but, starting with the ignominious occupant of the Oval Office.
4
Actually, I agree.
The accusation, even against an inebriated high school student decades ago, even only once in a lifetime of notable concern for the legitimate rights of women (as testified to by 65 women who have worked for and with Kavanaugh), even when the timing of the accusation by a registered Democrat basically on the eve of a confirmation vote is SO suspicious for a distinguished conservative whose seating on the Supreme Court is viewed so universally by Democrats as a prospective catastrophe, even given the hatred that is so evident on the left at the cheating of Merrick Garland by Mitch McConnell … is serious enough that the need for another Clarence-Thomas / Anita Hill show-trial becomes compelling.
However, if it turns out that after Charles Koch and Sheldon Adelson pour millions into a DNA-level investigation of the details of the matter that this was a put-up without sufficient evidence to be credible, then I’d want to see every single Democrat involved tossed in the pokey—including Dianne Feinstein. At the very least, I’d support amassing the political contributions necessary to make sure that every elected representative having anything to do with it is never elected to anything again above head of a Rotary chapter.
However, while I accept the need for a delay, I suspect that Kavanaugh will be confirmed before the end of this month anyway; and that the investigation will take place while he’s seated as a Supreme Court justice.
3
@Richard Luettgen
You need to catch up ... the deviancy of people like Kavanaugh, Trump and many others are being exposed every day. Those coming forward, and their supporters, should be praised, not "tossed in the pokey" as you so ineloquently put it.
4
@Richard Luettgen
In your opinion, then, the Democrats who feel that this woman's accusations should rightly be investigated to discern whether there is anything there should be jailed for bothering to press for clarification?
Is the problem you see that when a woman reports something like this, at great risk to her reputation as well as the reputation of the accused, that somebody in a position to act listens to her and authorizes an investigation?
Regardless of the strength of her accusations, and certainly there is reason to believe she is not making it up (lie detector test AND her willing admission that she escaped before being raped), it is incumbent on those in positions of responsibility to whom she has reported it to take it seriously enough to look into it. Remember, it is in the current times that Kavanaugh continues to deny it happened as he awaits approval for a job in which his honesty should be unassailable.
4
@Fern
Actually, to both my responders: the charges by one (1) woman are sufficiently serious to me to warrant further investigation. But like many, I find the circumstances suspicious given the fact that decades have passed, these charges were against a minor which, if pressed then would have been sealed by a court regardless of disposition on his 18th birthday, and plenty of opportunities existed to present them earlier, including a nomination (confirmed) to the most visible federal appeals court in America.
It has all the cess of a desperation move by desperate people indeed.
"Deviancy" indeed. Obviously, some people have no concept of the meaning of the word.
Don’t you find it curious that 65 women from Kavanaugh’s days in high school were all found and recruited to sign a letter on his behalf a few hours after the accusation was first made public?
That is a little fast isn’t it?
It makes you think that they were ready for the attack on Kavanaugh, as if they knew it was coming.
30
@
Absolutely, that was why these old men were hiding all of the paperwork associated with Kavanaugh. Ken Starr the failed president of Baylor University who was removed because he allowed female students to be assaulted by the male students. Only after female students sued did he acknowledge the environment he created. Winning at football was all that mattered to him not the safety of other people's children. Everyone else needs to follow the law but the elite connected people don't. Prep school drunk who would never be given the benefit of the doubt if he was a male of color. Kavanaugh needs to withdraw his nomination before this conversation further tears the Supreme Court apart. The GOP overplayed their hand this time and their is a backlash that is not going away.
3
@Robert
What investigation..assuming any of this has any validity - which is very very doubtful.. they were minors .. this was 35 years ago.. give me a break !
This is deja vu when I think back at Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. And look where that vote got the nation....a Supreme Court Justice who seemingly is among our most biased and resistant to anything of decency which will help the common man. His tenure can not end soon enough for me.
I do not know who is telling the truth in this present situation, but this woman needs to be heard. And I must admit that anyone that Mr. Trump “recommends” immediately sets off sirens in my mind and red flags in my mind’s eye.
6
This should be a one day process; Call Ms. Ford, call Judge Kavanaugh, call Mr. Judge; let each testify and let the Senators decide who sounds more credible. They are the only witnesses to the alleged event, that should be sufficient. Neither the therapist nor Ms. Ford's husband have any first hand knowledge, so theirs is only hearsay evidence which should not be allowed.
3
@mikecody
And call up the others who were also present, downstairs at the home, when the attack happened.
@JM Difficult to figure out who they would be, since she is not certain what year it happened.
Overall I agree with Mr. Lat’s statements with the exception that the woman making the accusation failed to tell others contemporaneously as happens in most situations. WRONG. That was long ago when the unspoken and spoken assumption was if a girl or woman was assaulted she was asking for it. We were shamed into silence even with our closest friends and family.
I am not surprised she did not speak. My surprise was when I was in nursing school and heard from a large number of my class mates of sexual abuse and assault in preteen and teen years. Most never told anyone.
Let’s not shame this woman with the assumption that if it had happened she would have told someone.
11
A cross-examination will not prove anything. Our own president brags about lying.
Polygraph him. And while questioning him about this sexual assault, ask about any other sexual assaults, because, if he is guilty, it's unlikely this was the only attack.
And polygraph her again, with an employed law enforcement official.
Work with facts.
4
Ms. Ford must be heard and the confirmation hearing delayed until this is cleared up one way or another or this will be an unforgivable stain on our Justice system and the Republican Party.
5
The question really has to be asked.
Justice Kavanaugh attended an all boys high school. Yet, within hours of the letter becoming public, Senator Grassley had statements from 65 women who claimed they knew the teenager Kavanaugh and that the teenager they knew well could never have perpetrated such an act. How in the world would Grassley perform that feat without weeks or months of digging and looking for these 65 then teenagers?
Perhaps the answer is that he, and Kavanaugh were well aware of the skeleton(s) in the closet.
15
@John David James
CONTACT your Senators and Senate Leader, McConnell. Demand they stop this confirmation process.
https://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Contact
1
Every day, politics in "the Swamp" reads more and more like an episode from "I Claudius."
In this instance, playing the innocent and in an abundance of caution, Sen. Feinstein holds off tossing a bombshell over to the impeccably independent F.B.I. until the last minute. Of course Feinstein had no thought of delaying the hearings until after the election. "Dianne" would never stoop so low
But never so low as her esteemed colleague, Mitch McConnell, stooped when, with hypocrisy wreaking of pretext and shame, he delayed Garland's nomination until after the election.
I can hardly object when Republicans are forced to swallow their own medicine. Republicans and Democrats deserve one another. The American people deserve better than either.
Or do we?
6
A couple of things:
* Given that Mr. Kavanaugh will spend likely at least 30 years on the SCOTUS, unless they expect him to help cover violations of law or are committing some sort of scam, why the hurry to confirm? Senate Republicans themselves stated when they refused even to hold hearings for Mr. Garland that the SCOTUS would "work just fine with 8 justices." So, there shouldn't be a rush to get Kavanaugh confirmed, would you agree?
* Mr. Kavanaugh and his friend both admitted they were drinking during the episode of the allegation. Okay - why isn't anyone calling Mr. Kavanaugh out on his obvious lack of restraint and clear lack of responsibility for his admitting to underage drinking? I personally know hundreds of people who didn't drink as teens (including myself) and are no where near having the position or authority of Mr. Kavanaugh, so don't try to dismiss me with the refrain that irresponsibility is somehow normal among teens; too many poor people didn't have the options Mr. Kavanaugh has had and had to pay for any irresponsibility their whole lives; Mr. Kavanaugh shoudn't get a break either. Don't Republicans like to label themselves as the "Law and Order" party?
8
I consider any truly inappropriate behavior to be questioned in terms of fitness for a position or continued employment- not to mention criminal consequences for assault.I also do not want to see another conservative appointed However there is a difference between this and Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill. Had Justice Thomas been in conformation hearings today, it is highly likely he would not be confirmed and Ms Hill believed.
The episode regarding Judge Kavanaugh deserves a closer look. I have no doubt that Ms Ford and Judge Kavanaugh are telling the truth - as they each recall it, and would both be able to pass lie detector tests. It is apparent they both were under the influence-therefore memory or lack of memory are completely believable. Are their memories correct or memories of feelings that may or may not be actuality. I am NOT blaming the victim , nor am I accusing Judge Kavanaugh of fabrication.
Although it is not an equivalent memory, I recall being lost at my grandparents house when I was about three. I recall terror yet I was ten feet from my grandparents' house and they were standing there, watching me and had no idea of my fear but it is my feeling I could pass a lie detector test although I was not lost.
2
This person, who claims to have credentials to address the subject, ought to recognize that this allegation is not inly attempted rape; it is also statutory rape because the victims age at the time. His primary argument here is to glorify Kavanagh and argue that two people lying under oath is better than one person telling the truth.
1
There is something else there in Kavanaugh’s high school years. Why else would the Republicans be ready with endorsements from 35 women who were students at the time.
7
@Stephen
Wait, didn't Kavanaugh go to an all boys school?
Who were all these female "students"?
1
Correction: 65 women not 35.
If Mitch McConnell has any sense of decency left, he should commence with the investigation of this charge against the candidate for the Supreme Court. There is a much larger reason for this. It would help to heal the wound that his handling of the Merritt Garland nomination created in this country. Not just to a large percentage of the population alone, but also to the democratic process of selecting members of the Supreme Court. At some point we need to get back on track and this would be a good start.
2
@Jane McConnell has no sense of decency... a fact he has proven time and again for decades on end.
2
Were the parties reversed, and the Republicans were seeking to delay a Democratic nominee with a last minute revelation of decades-old, un-provable teenage misconduct, would you not feel that this was an incredibly cynical attempt to derail the political process?
.
An investigation is very unlikely to provide any information we don't already have. Will dragging this out for a month help the victim, or accused, or the American people? No. The time for this investigation was when she was 15 and he was 17. There is no legal fix for this now; there will be no justice handed down by the system. If this flimsy accusation were enough to defeat a nomination, any nomination could be defeated. There is no good end to this.
6
@Tom I am willing to entertain cynical attempts to derail the political process when that political process has been influenced by foreign adversaries to install a criminal in the Oval Office who is in turn using that office to appoint members to the very body that can remove/entrench him.
1
@Tom
A sexual attack is a life-altering event no matter when it happened.
Guys just don't seem to get it.
Delay the vote for at least the 400-odd days that Mitch McConnell refused to consider Garland's nomination (talk about anti-democratic). Let the Mueller investigation release its report, then consider whether or not anyone Trump nominates could be legitimate.
47
I would love nothing more than to see Kavanaugh's nomination fail, but not on the grounds that he engaged in boorish, drunken behavior three-plus decades ago as a teenager.
Even giving his accuser full benefit of the doubt, and assuming that she is telling the truth and Kavanaugh and the other gentleman involved are flat-out and consciously lying (as opposed to simply not remembering), the events described do not nearly rise to the level, either in severity or the timeframe involved, to outweigh the true issues in considering a Supreme Court nomination.
Deny him a seat on the court because it's painfully obvious he's a plant intended to tilt the court towards a favorable decision for Trump if and when this country decides to hold Trump accountable for his crimes and in the here and now he has telegraphed time and again his willingness to play that role. Deny him a seat on the court because despite his claims of fair and unbiased thinking and respect for the Constitution, his prejudices and lack of inclination to elevate the Constitution above his personal beliefs was obvious in the hearings we witnessed just in the last few weeks. But don't deny him a seat on the court because of something someone he used to be did so long ago that even the accuser herself can't remember what year it was and that, again, even assuming the woman's claims are completely accurate, really shows us nothing more than that he exhibited poor judgment and lack of empathy as a drunk teenager.
6
@Kristin " would love nothing more than to see Kavanaugh's nomination fail, but not on the grounds that he engaged in boorish, drunken behavior three-plus decades ago as a teenager."
Really? He is accused of forcibly pinning a 15 year old girl down, trying to rip off her clothing, and covering her mouth when she screamed for help. That is attempted rape. If he actually did this, not only should he not be on the supreme court, he should be removed from his current judicial position. It's too late to prosecute him for this conduct, but back then he could have been tried as an adult for sexual assault. That is far from "boorish" behavior.
1
@Kristin I agree that the event long was long ago when Kavanaugh was a stupid male teenager, and so the assault might be forgivable (if the woman assaulted is willing). However, if Kavanaugh is lying about it NOW then he's committing perjury now, and for that reason should not be confirmed.
1
@Kristin
I just ran your argument by my sixteen year old son who is home sick today. He says you're wrong. He says anyone who would jump a girl and force her to have sex against her will is messed up somewhere deep inside. He says that Kavanaugh probably hasn't changed very much because he is still trying to force his will over women.
Smart boy. He is from a generation of kids who are being openly taught about what consent means.
3
Traumatized young women remember, FOREVER. Drunk young boys hoping, but failing to score, not so much. Judge Kavanaugh now has 2 daughters one of whom is 13. I hope that privately he is reflecting on the conduct he has been accused of. No matter the age, women deserve more than a tally mark. Conduct, postings and pictures, even as a youth,can derail future hopes and dreams.
24
"Drunk young boys ..."
Alcoholic blackouts can affect anyone:
'I hadn’t known it at the time, but this was my first introduction to the aspirational “blackout.” That is, intentionally drinking with the goal of submersing yourself in so much alcohol that you can’t remember what happened and the only vestiges that remain from the night before are the videos on your friends’ phones.'
On Campus
Drinking to Blackout
By Ashton Katherine Carrick
Sept. 19, 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/19/opinion/drinking-to-blackout.html
1
@vickie
Your already assuming he is guility .. ? Is that fair ?
2
“He who is without guilt, cast the first stone.” What any 17 year old does should be judged on the basis of a 17 year old mentality. My personal feeling regarding Judge Kavanaugh isn’t based on this new discovery. If you have to be a “perfect” human being in order to be confirmed to the Supreme Court, then God help all of us. Wake up America. The Pendulum of the so-called Me too Movement has swung so far to the extreme that it’s lost it’s original purpose and that was to protect women from abuses of powerful men towards the opposite sex.
I don’t want Judge Kavanaugh confirmed because of ideological differences, not for something that he may or may not have done at a party when he was drunk and 17 years old even if it did happen.
6
@Eric Cosh
The age of reason is 7. So if a child has some ability to tell right from wrong, then a 17-year old teenager is even better equipped to decide what is morally unacceptable. It's tragic that white teenage boys have for so long, been given a carte blanche to behave without a conscience. They hide in the power of their privilege. And history just keeps repeating itself; let's not forget Brock Turner. I do believe people can change and learn from their mistakes, charting a new course. But only if there is accountability. The problem here is not the act that happened 30 years ago; the problem is that the lack of accountability may have created a monster we do not wish to have in the Supreme Court.
3
@Eric Cosh
Apparently you weren't the victim of an unspeakable horror when you were a teenager. I remember it vividly and I remember the person's name. If he were to come up as a Supreme Court nominee, I hope I would have the courage Ms. Ford has to tell the story.
1
@Eric Cosh But, if he's lying about it now?
1
The coverage of this story will drive millions of male voters to the Republican side. Thank you to the Times for swaying the next election.
3
@Shamrock Wow! My opinion of men just sunk even lower.
@Shamrock - Nope. It won't change a single vote. Because many of us are old enough to remember the Bill Clinton witch hunts, and the rank hypocrisy of Republican moralists.
There are plenty of good reasons Kavanaugh shouldn’t be on the bench, but true or not, the timing of the story’s release makes it clear that this is a last minute attempt to delay the confirmation vote until after the mid-terms, and the author’s feigned concern for Kavanaugh’s name is almost laughable. There’s no way he can ever clear his name beyond the shadow of a doubt, likewise, there’s no way Ms. Ford can ever prove her story.
Ms. Ford deserves to be heard, and she's being heard, realistically though, other than a polygraph (which is inadmissible everywhere except the Maury Povich show), and what she told her therapist, what little evidence there is seems to favor Kavanaugh. She never told her friends or family, she doesn’t remember the year, and the only witness denies it ever happened.
It was unfair when the Republicans delayed Garland’s nomination and this is equally unfair, so I guess that makes it justifiable, but if this is the new standard we’ve fallen pretty far.
2
There are better qualified judges.
Part of our implied contract with Donald Trump is that we would make America great again. In so doing, we didn’t expect to see persons with such a stain on their character appointed to our Supreme Court.
11
How about if someone accused you of something that you didn't do? What about "the stain on your record"? I don't know if he did it or not, but to throw this out there with 4 days to go and no way to prove or disprove it, is heinous. Do the confirmation. If it is somehow proven correct, get him out of there. This country was not built on unproven accusations.
1
@Mike Edwards
You assume facts not in evidence
@Mike Edwards I sure never expected America to elect a President with such a stain on their character, but alas, here we are.
Kavanaugh should do the honorable thing and withdraw his name, and Clarence Thomas should resign.
We can't have their histories of sexual assault and harassment casting a cloud over the entire Court, especially when it will be ruling on women's freedoms.
10
A Senate hearing for Ford is an unjustly motivated public inquisition intended to smear the Kavanaugh’s character. A cross-examination of him will include questions no one can answer with any certitude but which only beg more questions, more doubts about his veracity. Instead, the Senate Committee ought to demand proof or corroborating witnesses to Ford’s allegations. What’s the value of her repeating in open session what we already now know of her claims? None. Let the burden of proof be on her and her supporters.
There is no “due process” in allegations that are defamatory in the very publicity of the allegations. The nature of sexual encounters between two teenagers could be rape assault, consensual sex, initiated by either girl or boy, or it could be only suggestive, in an inebriated state, enhanced and reinvented in distant memory as an act. And whether she has made similar allegations against other boys or men of sexually assaulting her, after consuming alcohol or drugs, is highly relevant to her veracity. If there are such, what were the circumstances and outcomes of her charges?
4
They should delay the vote for on every important reason, and there may very well be more women who will come forward now with their own Kavanaugh assault stories. But, at a very minimum the Senate needs to resolve this specific case one way or the other. Either this woman is lying or Kavanaugh is.
4
"Christine Blasey Ford deserves to be heard. And the judge deserves a chance to clear his name"
All accusations deserve to be heard.
All accused deserve that chance to clear their name.
I am not so sure both criteria have been met in key cases over the past 18 months . . .
2
I’m not sure which is more frightening, what we know about Kavanaugh or what we don’t know about him.
37
If Kavanaugh is confirmed, then a sexual assaulter nominated by a sexual assaulter joins a justice who ruled freezing to death is legal but abandoning company property is not (also nominated by a sexual assaulter), and joins a serial sexual harasser on what was the highest court in the land.
THIS is the court that is supposed to be PRO-LIFE.
22
Even if B.K. was a Boy Scout all through high school, he should not be taken seriously as a nominee for Supreme Court Justice based solely on his recent terrifying and bizarre dissent opinion in which he stated that "...the government has permissible interests in maintaining fetal life." (This was case regarding an undocumented teenager seeking an abortion.) All you "Originalists," please show me where in the Constitution you can find the basis for such an attack on a woman's right to privacy in her own body. Anything that can stop the nomination of this theocrat is OK by me.
14
@Cedar Hill Farm
Kavanaugh would be devastating to women's rights for decades and decades.
This allegation of his early character reveals his inherent disrespect for women.
High school? Thank God we have Twitter now and can record everything now.
5
"These claims should have been thoroughly and discreetly investigated weeks ago, by nonpartisan F.B.I. agents and bipartisan Senate investigators, in a way that protected Christine Ford’s privacy and Brett Kavanaugh’s good name. But here we are."
Yes, indeed here we are. And it is easy to say how it should have
been done, but this is really not helpful. In Nebraska, there is
a farmer's saying about someone like Mr. Lat. "He's the kind of guy who will tell you how you should have done it."
6
Even if Christine Ford’s allegations are true, the alleged offense occurred when Brett Kavanaugh was a minor. He has had 35 years to demonstrate the moment should not define him.
Conducting a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the allegations would be pointless. Ford’s allegations are sufficiently vague to eliminate any chance Kavanaugh might have of clearing himself. She cannot remember when or where or even in what year the alleged assault occurred. Republican senators will give Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt while Democratic senators will proclaim that the allegation alone disqualifies him.
5
@William Case
A sexual attack is not a "moment". '
It is a life altering nightmare that the victim endures her/his whole life.
As a young 14 year old girl, the terror Christine felt during this assault by actually two boys who locked her in a bedroom, has obviously haunted her her whole life.
2
@JM
She wasn't 14. She says she can't remember what year the allege attack occurred, but she was a high school student. The room wasn't locked. She claims she was able to escape by running from the room. Most women would be justifiably angry, but few wouldn't be "haunted the rest of their lives" by an incident such as she described. The alleged attackers say the incident never happen. If it did, it should be weighed against Kavanaugh's behavior in the 36 years of his adulthood.
@William Case
Problem is, even now, as a grown man, Kavanaugh reveals a deep desire to force his will over women. He has not changed.
1
Two questions come to mind:
Why would she lie?
Why is she only coming forward now?
Yes, she should testify and be cross examined, as should Kavanaugh and the witness.
But at the end of the day, if there is no corroboration and it’s her word against his (and the witness) this should not stop his confirmation.
Even if you believe her (and I probably will) we don’t assume someone is guilty without proof, and 35 years later, any such proof is awfully stale. But let’s see what she has to offer.
If she can offer proof, not only should he not be confirmed, he should be thrown of the bench altogether. First for lying. That should disqualify him from ever serving as a judge again. And second for what he did 35 years ago. I was a once 17 year old boy, and I can’t imagine even drunk that I would ever have done what he is alleged to have done.
4
We don't need her testimony to conclude that Kavanuagh is unqualified for the Court.
He lied repeatedly under oath on several important matters and has a far rightwing judicial philosophy that is so far out of the mainstream it renders him unfit for the court.
He would accede to corporations and the presidency in far too deferential a fashion and has no respect for women's rights -- not only would he overturn Roe v. Wade and deny equal pay for equal work, he tried to stop a poor immigrant from having an abortion by delaying her procedure, trying to intervene for a third time, mandating a guardian be appointed (though that had already been tried), and claiming that none of that, even though it would threaten her health and make the procedure riskier, would be an "undue burden"!
He was NOT properly vetted; over 100,000 documents remain secret and they were vetted by a friend and protege of his, Bill Burck!
Release the documents, revisit the lies, and hold new hearings *after* this November's elections. That's the only way for this to be a fair process.
2
@Steven Roth
Why would she lie?
Shes a liberal antiTrump resistance activist. She participated in an antiTrump science rally, signed an antiTrump petition protesting his border policy, and she donated to Berne Sanders and the DNC.
Why didnt she say something when it supposedly happened? Why hasnt she said something in the past 35 years? Kavanaugh has been in high profile positions for a while now. And if this has any crfedibility at all to it, why didnt Feinstein hand this to the FBI the second she got it - 3 months ago?
Dont bother answering. You know why.
3
As a former prosecutor, I am flabbergasted that Mr. Lat would characterize the Anita Hill allegations as being handled in a sufficient, fair, legally acceptable manner by the Senate Judiciary Committee years ago. While admitting that “several witnesses” for Ms. Hill were not given the opportunity to testify, he disingenuously fails to state the crucial importance for them to have been afforded the opportunity to do so. As corroborating witnesses in that “he said, she said” context, their testimony was vital to help support Ms. Hill’s claims. Instead that committee hearing, chaired by then-Senator Joe Biden, was just arbitrarily shut down. One of those witnesses, having travelled to D.C. from many miles away, had been left waiting for days to testify only to be finally denied the chance to do so. I fervently hope that Ms. Ford does not receive an attempted similar treatment by Grassley and the Republican majority on the current Judiciary Committee, and in the process denied the due process that she is entitled to.
20
This isn’t just some guy being denied an average job because of a high school incident that may not be provable beyond a reasonable doubt. The position he is asking for is one of the dozen or so most consequential to all of humanity, sitting atop the legal system of world’s most powerful nation. In weighing the ethical impact of denying him this position, erring on the side of the national interest is always the correct choice. “Fairness” to him is a far distant consideration.
34
I concur with this well-balanced, thoughtful opinion piece.
As unfortunate as the circumstances are of the release of Ms. Ford's accusation, ignoring it now would do a disservice to all involved as well as to the judicial confirmation process, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the American people.
As excrutiating as it will be for Judge Kavanaugh, Ms. Ford, and the Judiciary Committee to go through a hearing on this matter, just leaving Ms. Ford's story hanging out there, without examination or resolution with regards to its relevance as to whether Judge Kavanaugh's nomination should be confirmed, would ultimately be worse.
As contentious as Judge Kavanaugh's nomination has been, and as high as the stakes are for this country, let this matter be resolved in a professional manner, and with decency, with all involved conducting themselves in a way befitting the seriousness and sensitivity of the issues involved.
16
@Teg Laer
The matter has been resolved. A sitting federal judge, nominee for SCOTUS, has denied the allegation. Apparently, there was another witness.
The only thing left (pun) to do, is confirm; or nominate an ultra-conservative protestant as a replacement.
1
Years ago, I was driving home from work. The Chicago traffic around me was unusually docile. I think we were all listening to the riveting testimony of Anita Hill on Public Radio.
In the days following, the steam roller moved along and confirmed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. I could not understand how that happened.
A past triumph of the Federalist Society over the people?
23
"A past triumph of the Federalist Society over the people?"
You will need to do more work than that if you intend to promote a conspiracy theory.
1
Mr. Lat glosses over the issue of possible perjury committed by Judge Kavanaugh. In true GOP partisan manner, the author fails to acknowledge the obstruction of truth by the GOP. Trump and Grassley need to release ALL the documents related to Judge Kavanaugh's prior work to fully and openly determine if in fact Judge Kavanuagh committed perjury or not.
I would not want a SC Justice who had LIED knowingly.
So let ALL matters be aired in a completely transparent manner.
That that is too much for the GOP to handle as they try to ram through the confirmation is a stain on the reputation of the Supreme Court.
In this way the GOP is functioning much like Trump in that they are willing to tear up decency and the fundamental foundation of the stature of the Supreme Court to get what they want.
28
@Elizabeth
How convenient, an unsubstantiated 35 year old accusation by a Democrat, given to a Democrat months ago who sat on it until the last minute to delay a confirmation vote. Really?
The "possible" issue is the only thing you got right. So let's put both parties under oath today, hear them out, and make a decision. Democrat attempts to delay the vote demonstrate hod desperate the party without a message has become.
3
@Steve this has nothing to do with her being a democrat. This is a case of men circling the wagons against female attacks. This is the typical person trump wants to put into a powerful office. trump does not pick pure & spotless men for positions as we are learning daily. He needs to be more fully examined since he would not answer basic but important questions. His approval should not be a done deal until he is thoroughly investigated. There may be more women to come forward.
@Steve
Do you really not understand why the document was not released? Are you that biased, that dense, sexist, or uninformed that you missed the key part that she wanted to remain anonymous?
Plus, the Republicans clearly knew about it already as they quickly released a letter signed by his classmates claiming he had an outstanding character! Yeah, right! The beer guzzling, bawdy, snooty preppie was just wonderful.
In any case, claiming the Democrats are being unfair is truly laughable! I suppose you missed the fact that the Kavanaugh's documents and emails were screened by a friend of his, a protege, a lawyer who was his assistant in the White House! That's unethical, clear violation of basic norms, and a glaring conflict of interest.
With over 100,000 documents and emails still being kept secret, hidden from the Committee and the public, it's the Republicans who have rigged the process.
No doubt they'll give a perfunctory listen to Professor Ford, thank her politely for her testimony, and vote to confirm the miscreant anyway.
We can only hope that a couple of Republicans wake up, remember their oath to the Constitution, and their love of country and the rule of law, and vote Kavanaugh down!
1
There is no ideal outcome to this cntroversary.The unfortunate result of this information will taint the reputation of two people.The best we can do is to listen carefully and respectfully and give all voices their “day in court.”Everyday day ordinary citizens have to appear before Justices and juries and must accept the judgments , fair or in question.
8
I don't want anyone to get onto the Supreme Court without expressing a clear understanding that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is a blanket prohibition of legislation that treats any unprovable article of faith as fact relevant to the real world. This phrase is the entire basis of separation of church and state in the US.
23
"... any unprovable article of faith ..."
What is that? Cite a reliable legal source.
"This phrase is the entire basis of separation of church and state in the US."
No. There are TWO clauses related to religion in the 1st amendment -- the "establishment" clause and the "free exercise" clause.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."
@PHM Until the government starts mandating abortions, which ain't gonna happen and which has never happened up to this point, there's no prohibition on the free exercise of religion on this issue. If your religion is anti-abortion, don't have one. "Establishment" becomes the problem when, because of an article of religious faith, the government starts telling everyone what to do. Which HAS happened.
Yes, Ms. Ford and the accused should be given a hearing and, yes, the 11th-hour accusation smells bad. We should remember,though, that we are now living in an era of a stolen Supreme Court seat, withheld evidence and a cynically rushed confirmation process that flies in the face of Mitch McConnell's rationale for denying a hearing fir Merrick Garland.
When only one side flouts long-established constitutional norms, the other side is forced to wage battle in any way it can.
34
@John lebaron
You're referring of course to Harry Reid changing the number of votes required to confirm Federal Judges. You reap what you sow.
2
It seems that you failed to read my comment, Steve. It had nothing to do with the senatorial voting threshold for judicial appointments. You must have been replying to something else.
The woman must get a fair and unbiased hearing, not a rerun of the Anita Hill fiasco. If the Republicans on the committee do not treat her fairly, and if Kavanaugh is not recalled to testify to the charges, under oath, just like his accuser, the perfidy of the Republican party will be there for all to see and to judge - especially women.
30
@Redux I agree with you. But good luck with that - with senile Grassley at the helm pounding his gavel at anything he doesn't like, such as Senator Harris.
Judge Kavanaugh already has a seat on an Appeals Court. That was enough to frighten even the victim years ago.
Should he be confirmed for the Supreme Court, that would mean that over 20% of the Court was confirmed with a cloud of behaving poorly toward a woman hanging FOREVER over their heads.
Must our highest court be so tarnished?
27
"She passed a polygraph test administered by a former F.B.I. agent..."
Hmmm... The name of that FBI agent wouldn't be Peter Strzok, would it? Sorry, but when it comes to matters political, the FBI long ago destroyed its own integrity and demonstrated that it can't be trusted.
"...her therapist provided The Washington Post with notes reflecting that Ms. Ford described the alleged incident in 2012."
Yeah, the "therapist" waited for the ink to dry on the "notes" and gave them to WaPo.
Sorry, but this is just all too convenient and the Democratic Party Dirty Tricks Department--the people who provided the Steele "dossier," provided Hillary with an advance copy of the debate topics, and rigged their own primary--has an extensive recent history of playing dirty tricks.
And the Democrats are desperate. They're looking at 30 or 40 years of being of the Supreme Court rejecting "Chevron deference" as being a way of maintaining an unconstitutional "administrative state" Big Government. They're looking at 30 or 40 years of stare decisis being rejected as a defence of unconstitutional federal usurpation of powers "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Basically, between a Supreme Court moving to the right and Democrats concentrating themselves in cities, thus giving an Electoral College advantage to the Republicans, the Democrats are seeing themselves go the way of the Federalists and they're scared enough to do anything, no matter how dishonest.
7
@Henry Miller, Libertarian
Carrying on where Alex Jones left off....
10
Henry, that's satire, right?!
Because if you are serious, you've been sleeping under a rock somewhere.
"Democratic Dirty Tricks"?!
You're watching too much Fox Fake News!
This entire judicial process has been rigged. It began with McConnell blocking President Obama's pick for the Court for nearly a year. They didn't hold hearings at all. McConnell (and others) even intimated that they would block ALL of Hillary Clinton's nominees if she were elected president! They've kept 100,00 documents and emails secret; Kavanaugh's own protege and buddy vetted them; they're rushing his no,inaction through fearful of what might happen in November.
Add in gerrymandering, voter suppression, false claims of voter fraud, unwarranted purges of voting rolls, attacks on the press as the "enemy of the people" (Trump's own words), collusion with the Russians, obstruction of justice (Trump even drafted the fake cover up memo of the meeting in Trump Tower), money laundering, and outright corruption (Trump's Cabinet is the most corrupt in U.S. history; five of his top aides have pled guilty or been found guilty of criminal activities; Trump has repeatedly violated the Emoluments Clause,), etc., and you have a cesspool of unethical, illegal, and undemocratic governance.
Those are the real *dirty tricks*!
2
Passing a lie detector test doesn't indicate to me that Ms Ford is lying and I don't believe for one minute that her claims should be set aside. These are serious charges that deserve a full investigation. Charges of sexual misconduct that Trump bragged about and were ignored are not a reason to stop the investigating of Kavanaugh.
We threw honor out the window when we elected Trump and will be doing the same thing with Kavanaugh if we let him skate through these charges without examining them closely.
From the article, I understand that an good exam could be done quickly. If that is the case, do it. Don't let the gravelly-voiced Chuck Grassley shake his long finger at this investigation.
16
Delay the vote by all means....let Ms. Ford be heard. If she is not heard then people will just file her accusation under "Boys will be Boys," and that will not only be the end of it, but she will be dragged through the mud to boot. While the delay is in progress, maybe the Repubs can find the thousands of Kavanaugh papers that they seem to have been privy to but have withheld from the Dems.
21
@Amy White I wonder how many of those secret papers are about other assaults committed by Kav...
At some point the Republicans are going to have to drop sexual assault as an acceptable Republican practice (its never acceptable if committed by a Democrat) from their Party Platform.
Under the law there is a doctrine called laches under which a defendant may assert that a claim against him/her should be barred because the plaintiff waited too long to assert it, thereby depriving the defendant of a reasonable opportunity to gather evidence, which may now be lost, to refute the plaintiff's claims. The defense of laches is based on fundamental fairness. If ever there was a situation where laches should be applied it is this one where the accuser waited 40+ years to assert her claim against Judge Kavanaugh, thereby depriving him of the ability to refute her claim with evidence. Whatever merit Ms. Ford's claim may have had, it is fundamentally unfair for it to be raised now.
58
@Jay Orchard the nomination is a political and not a legal process.
29
@Jay Orchard
No, time does not diminish a crime. Crimes almost inevitably get found out, though not always in time. In this case, in which the stakes are so high, the truth needs to be determined. One can make all sorts of charges that she waited too long, she didn't tell anyone at the time, etc. etc. This was a fifteen year old girl. Fifteen year olds are in ninth grade. Do you know how young that is? Young enough to be badly traumatized for life; young enough to be too embarrassed and ashamed to tell anyone. Young enough to be hurt and not have the experience and judgment to know what to do. And how could she possibly foresee that she needed to come forward in to prevent a wrongful Supreme Court nomination thirty years later? This is an issue of character for Kavanaugh. If he is truly innocent, let him call for a delay so that this can be investigated. On top of his demonstrable falsehoods during his testimony, it's time for everyone to step back and take a long second look at this man.
75
@Jay Orchard
But very useful for the DNC Politburo's effort to block his nomination to the Court. The whole point--high school, no less--of Feinstein holding it so long. Trying to play her Trump card. Too late. Republican slam sends him to the Court.
6
What exactly does it mean to argue for"due process" in the context of an essay that also attempts to reassure the Republicans that they could get this messy business all done within their fake time limit?
2
I am not sorry to see this appointment go off the rails, for I have no use for judge Kavanaugh. However, bringing up ancient bad behavior in high school is really beyond the pale. If everyone who behaved badly in high school was disqualified from holding public office or any other position of responsibility there will be nobody left. This at me too nonsense has gotten completely out of control.
5
@Linda Totally agree. There are many and manifest other reasons for Kavanaugh to not be approved.
Let's assume that this incident did happen as stated and that the police were called. This was inexcusable drunken behavior. After whatever the juvenile court did, the issue would be sealed. The law recognizes that young people should not have such things hanging over their adult lives.
2
Women of a certain age (my age, for instance) are having Anita Hill flashbacks and it isn't fun. This is out there now and I fear for Ms. Ford and wish her the best, I am glad she has a good lawyer. However this plays out, can we all try to be kind? Crazy thought, I know.
6
As one commentator of this article states, there is the problem of memory blackout or repression. It is amazing how the mind will protect itself when it goes into shock over a traumatic incident.
Half of Dr. Ford's mind as a young teenager was going over what happened to her over and over again, but the other half of her mind was trying to shut it all down, and this led to her confusion right afterward. Confusion typical for a young teenager who was afraid to tell her parents and others of what happened because of her own bad decision to attend this party.
In Dr. Ford's case the memories were not entirely blocked during her lifetime, and in all fairness maybe Kavanaugh is still blocking as well and being 'drunk out of his mind' at the time of the attempted rape may all factor in to repression of this memory of male aggression and sexual attack.
The allegation needs further investigation and his nomination needs to remain on hold for all the reasons cited. If Kavanaugh is aware of what he did and lying about it he should not be on our Supreme Court for a lifetime.
2
Though I agree with Mr. Lat's assertion that the proceedings should be delayed, this piece is highly flawed and biased. Free use of descriptors such as "honorable" with regard to Mr. Kavanaugh seem, at best, presumptive; "honorable" men do not attempt sexual assault. The column also assume that this is the sole reason why a confirmation vote should be delayed, ignoring the exceedingly rushed, irregular, and non-transparent process that led to this point. The tone of this piece suggests that the delay would be a mere "check-box" exercise. I think there are millions of Americans that would disagree.
17
By all means, delay. By a couple of days. Maybe a week.
Feinstein sat on this for three months. That was enough delay. You have issues with the timing, take it up with Dianne.
Hear the evidence and any witnesses. If it remains no more than “he said, she said”, move to a confirmation vote.
3
It is not at all difficult to understand why a victim of a sex crime would choose not to bring the issue to the police. We have seen some encouraging progressive district attorney elections (Larry Krasner, etc) and I would think this could be an issue these new DAs take up.
#MeToo incidents are crimes, and given the judicial context here, this situation feels like an especially poignant illustration of the problems we encounter when incidents are not addressed in the legal system to begin with. If Trump has taught us anything, it is that the court of unsubstantiated public opinion is our existential threat.
Looking at this from a distance, it is entirely plausible that Judge Kavanaugh was, like George W. Bush when he was young, "young and irresponsible" -- so many of us were. We did not, however, aspire to be appointed to SCOTUS and settled for much less. And: in the event it came out, it was irrelevant to our work. It's not what he did or didn't do, it's about lying about it NOW!
On the other hand: what prompted Ms. Ford to consult a therapist six years ago? What changed between 1982 and 2012 besides three decades of general history?
Assuming Ms. Ford is telling the truth: If the Judge were to come clean and apologize, would he be appointed?
Questions. Questions.
IMHO, there are legitimate reasons for delaying the vote on Kavanaugh. Should a President who is facing potential impeachment or indictment be allowed to appoint a candidate for SCOTUS? I'm a liberal Democrat and at 85 not terribly excited over the MeToo movement. If Kavanaugh did what Mrs. Ford is claiming it doesn't necessarily disqualify him but lying about it would disqualify him - but how are we to know for sure? But it does bring back memories of the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill fiasco.
2
How about everyone who has been sold on these accusations just admit they don't want Kavanaugh confirmed?
This is one accuser, 36 years after the fact, with no mention of it for 30 years until telling a therapist without including a name. Dianne Feinstein held onto this knowledge for weeks, not bringing it up in dozens of public and private opportunities until a week before the vote to confirm. This is a clear attempt to delay the vote until after the midterms. Challenge the man on his principles and his rulings. Don't make a politically charged sexual assault allegation with far less credibility than the one levied against Clarence Thomas.
Personally, I think he's a bad nominee. He, by most accounts, is expected to be a partisan hack of a SCOTUS judge. I have no use for that. However, factoring into that equation is not, nor should it be, a sole accusation at such a politically expedient time against a man from when he was 17, 36 years ago.
2
In the photo, look at that geriatric central lineup—
The middle three are all either 84 or 85.
You want process and decorum? Any talk of "process" or "decorum" is long dead. Strenuous objections are just ignored by the bulldozing now-85-year-old Grassley.
But once Kavanaugh is blocked (he's the greatest risk right now, with a 30-year lifetime on the Supreme Court in the balance), we need to swiftly move to not just "clean House" but also "clean Senate" in November.
11
@srwdm
And there is not one female Republican assigned to the Judiciary committee. All males. Chuck Grassley has mangled the running of this committee! Look how dictatorial he presents in this picture!
Being universally praised by his former clerks and being a devoted husband and father does not qualify Mr. Kavanaugh to sit on the Supreme Court. The sanctity of the Court is at stake here.
It’s the Republicans who politicized the Court in 2016 when Mitch McConnell usurped the duty of an elected president to block Merrick Garland simply because he was nominated by a Democratic president. It’s the GOP’s stated purpose to push the Court far right and their Republican majority have abused their power.
Ms. Christine Blasey Ford deserves to be heard, as was Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Nothing was lost then, and the Republicans carried the day. The same could happen again but a sexual assault by two drunken men and what seems like an attempted gang rape of a teenage girl by a Court nominee should give even McConnell and Senate Republicans pause.
A fair hearing would satisfy the American people, and Mr. Judge should be called in to testify under oath about the accusations. Truth matters more than partisan politics. The Senate owes it to the American people to get to the bottom of this matter once and for all.
13
Elections have consequences.
In 2008, the first black was elected President. With a Democratic majority in the Senate, many of Obama's nominees, including Federal judgeships, were filibustered by the Republican minority. Harry Reid started Nuclear War I and a simple majority vote was rquired to confirm nominees except for Supreme Court vacancies.
When the Senate turned, Mitch McConnell announced that his number 1 prioirty was to make Obama a one term President. And then in a continuing tit for tat, McConnell refused to allow Merrick Garland a hearing.
Trump was elected and McConnell started Nuclear War II, and Gorsuch was confirmed by a simple majority vote.
This Kavanaugh circus is, and I admit that I am speculating, the tit for tat that the Democrats are implementing for Garland and Gorsuch.
Elections have consequences, as we are all reminded by the right wingers. Obviously, the consequences are different for a "black, Muslim, Socialist, Kenyan" and a racist, xenophobic, narrcisistic white man.
Elections have consequences, and there is an election in less than two months.
4
Let's not forget that Republicans humiliated Judge Merrick Garland for 400 days, refusing to meet with him and conduct themselves in accordance with the Constitution. As a citizen who learned to revere the Supreme Court in law school, I have absolutely no problem if Kavanaugh is humiliated. He chose, like Gorsuch, to contribute to the disintegration of the federal judiciary and participate in a process to elevate himself. If he had a modicum of regard for the Court and the legal profession, he would withdraw his name from consideration.
It looks like the law of karma is working here: the racist treatment of President Obama and his nominee will not go unpunished, nor will the travesties of Citizens United and Shelby County v Holder stand over time. A Congress that does its duty will be elected this November, and all those who gleefully rode the Trump train to disaster will exit so America can salvage its government and its climate for future generations.
25
Mr Kavanaugh is most certainly caught up in political payback as the democrats do their best to punish republicans for their intransigence over Merrick Garland.
This payback is necessary in this partisan atmosphere. Mr Kavanaugh's nomination must be opposed for no other reason. The republicans started, maintained and intensified the process of abusing judicial and political appointees in order to undermine President Obama. They should pay a price.
The actual reasoning to hold Mr Kavanaugh accountable for his behavior as a high school student is more problematic. While I am a strong proponent that people are accountable for their actions, and that includes teens as well as the over-21 crowd, this strikes me as something of a Pandora's Box.
That said, the critical issue is that Mr Kavanaugh has been nominated to the highest court of the land. He has been adamant that he did not assault the woman who has accused him of doing so. So the issue is not only whether or not he did assault her, but whether he is steadfastly lying about assaulting her.
We do not need more liars in positions of leadership.
So Mr Kavanaugh should take a polygraph as Ms Ford has done. The he should reappear before the committee. If he's wrongly accused, then he should be confirmed. If he turns out to be a liar, he should be rejected.
1
Kavanaugh is deeply and intellectually dishonest, for even if doesn't remember getting drunk and pinning Ms. Ford down on a bed and wrestling, on the bed, with Mark Judge, he knows it could have happened. In fact, Kavanaugh is bright enough to know that teenage boys, unsupervised at a party, where alcohol is being consumed, aren't always models of self-restraint. Kavanaugh knows it was possible and that his denial is self-serving. As an adult, he should be serving the office for which he has been nominated and he has failed at doing that by patently denying what could have happened, even if he doesn't remember, and that he stands accused. Even David Brooks, the conservative voice in these pages, stated last Friday on TV, that if these allegations are substantiated then Kavanaugh ought not to be confirmed.
5
"... it could have happened."
Facts are what matter, not possibilities.
2
I'm beginning to think that if one digs deeply enough into the history of most heterosexual males, one will find an incident, or incidents, like this. They would be found in the histories of the majority of the members of said group, or at least in the histories of quite a substantial minority. (Not in mine, fortunately--but then I am a card carrying member of Nerds Unlimited, and our membership was generally too frightened and awed by women to even approach them; we certainly lacked a sense of "male entitlement" or whatever trait seems to result in these incidents.)
The situation simply reflects the normative behavior for the group for a very long time. Fortunately, that "normative" behavior is now being questioned and subjected to much more withering examination.
3
Dr Ford states that there is a witness to her being assaulted. Why does she refuse to name this witness?
1
@FREDERICK Vaquer Perhaps to build up the suspense and drama of taking him down?
The witness, a possible accessory to attempted rape, was a guy named Judge.
I wonder if Kavanaugh would still be so devoutly anti-abortion if he had forcibly impregnated a fifteen-year-old.
@FREDERICK Vaquer She does name him. Read the information.
This is a serious, credible allegation from a credible person, with evidence that this was discussed with her husband and therapist long before Kavanaugh was a nominee. This issue, along with concerns that he may have been misleading in his prior testimony, and the thousands of documents that have not been reviewed, mandates that this nomination be put on hold until a full and fair investigation can be conducted. What Ms Ford described is a serious assault, particularly in light of attempts to restrain her, keep her from being heard by turning up music, and most egregiously, clamping a hand over her mouth to silence her. There is a violent as well as sexual aspect to the assault that should not be minimized . Nothing less than full investigation is warranted.
20
@Michele Let's not forget Judge Kavanaugh has gone through six background and two Senate confirmation hearings and now this person comes out with this unproven assault 30 years later.
that tells me two things one this wasn't important to anyone until politics and two there are some pretty desperate people in Washington
2
@davidlat I'm troubled by your statement "she told nobody contemporaneously (unlike many other alleged victims of sexual assault)." On the contrary, it's very common for sexual assault survivors not to tell anyone at the time. I waited 35 years. Your implication is that somehow that makes her less credible.
9
Here is a man who recently pontificated on whether a teenage girl could have an abortion, perhaps as a result of a rape; and yet he might have been guilty of a rape himself if circumstances had not intervened then. How is he remotely qualified to pass judgment of any kind on the former, which he did, wondering if she had the support system to sustain her?
Where was and is his concern for the hurt, anguish and fear that this young 15 year old girl endured at his hands almost literally?
He is unfit for the current DC court much less the highest court in our country.
20
@Franklin
You make so many assumptions "perhaps as a result of rape", "might have been guilty of rape himself".
You falsely state as fact that this young girl suppered hurt anguish and fear when this has not been proven, only a questionable accusation has been made.
You conveniently mention that the teenage girl who has questionable rights to an abortion is an illegal alien, who got pregnant in another country and broke the law coming her to get an abortion.
So transparent and biased.
1
Having 8 scotus’ instead of 9 would throw back most cases to the states for decision, which is where most should be. Also, future appointees should take place behind closed doors to avoid the theatrics of the politicians and eliminating the protesters, or “ barbarians” at the gate.
1
Unless there is real "evidence" presented immediately, this is a prelude to opening the flood gates of trouble. Everywhere there is any motive to do so, false accusations will become the latest of tribal tactics to make any form of cultural and political revenge seem appropriate.
2
Mark, it's already happening. Sexual harassment/assault charges are now weapons. Even from 30 years ago with not a peep before now. And an old school mate gets dragged into it also.
1
@BorisRoberts It will not be long before we will need to know the political views of every last prosecutor. Just because I would not "vote" for Kavanaugh, does not mean he is not entitled to the same level of protection afforded to each of us. The FBI did the background checks. That is how it works.
@Mark
Examples:
Harry Reid lying about Mitt Romney's taxes.
Jon Tester lying about Ronny Jackson.
Totally disagree with your opinion that Kavanaugh should be confirmed. He has not been straight-forward on his views. Evidence has been shown that he misled Congress both in the past and present. His close friend is the one releasing written information on him. Republicans and Trump have refused to release countless documents regarding him while rushing through his confirmation.
He's the worst Supreme Court candidate ever.
5
We deserve better !
We deserve a Congress that functions efficently and with the common goal of bettering the interests of the citizens of the United States. We certainly don't need the disgraceful behavior we have wittnessed in the last several weeks. From Senators declaring they are Spartacus and releasing confidential Senate intelligence to the last minute hatchet job perpetrated by an 85 year old Senator who should have been term limited from the Senate years ago.
Where was Miss Ford when Judge Kavanugh was previously vetted for judicial positions ?
I believe she should be heard, however due to the length of time since the childhood event transpired it showed be weighed with strong reservations and balanced against all other positive considerations. This is not an Anita Hill moment, Judge Kavanagh is a man of integrity and proven abilities.
4
@Tom ,Retired Florida Junkman you’re right. We deserve better. We deserve to have Merrick Garland serving on the Supreme Court.
1
again the democrats have engaged in behavior that will one day come back to bite them. Biden rule ? nuclear option ?
Now all it takes is a 30 year old accusation that has been refuted by the only other person in the room, that feinstein held until the last minute in to cause delay and confusion for what is an unquestionably qualified supreme court pick. Whether or not you agree with his politics, this is not how the process is supposed to work, and ONCE AGAIN, the democrats have lowered the bar on the political process and long standing rules in the senate.
Their turn will come and now that this sort of IRRELEVANT information becomes a stumbling block for a court nominee.
4
@rocket
The woman, Christine Ford, wrote a letter to Senator Diane Feinstein about her allegations earlier this summer. It was this week she decided to come forward in person and appear before the committee.
Her story was "being told in the press"---and she decided to come out and tell her OWN story.
She has that absolute right.
This is brave, compelling and important.
8
It is breathtaking that Mr. Lat would use the Anita Hill farce as an example of how Kavanaugh's appointment should proceed. Lat writes as though Hill was given a fair hearing and Thomas was exonerated. He writes, "Now, whenever Ms. Hill’s sexual harassment allegations are raised, he or his defenders can at least say they were explored by the senators and ultimately found insufficient to deny Mr. Thomas a seat on the Supreme Court."
Any sentient human who watched that disgusting circus knows that the allegations were not "explored by the senators." They breezed through a terrible victim blaming exercise in order to put their conservative, barely competent, flak on the court, and we have suffered the consequences ever since.
Christine Ford should not be placed in Anita Hill's vulnerable chair to be attacked and demeaned by partisan, entitled males.
I see no motivation for a respected professional woman to slander a nominee. I see every reason that Kavanaugh and his friend would "deny" that it ever happened.
This is more than sufficient cause to reject the nominee.
I have no patience for the idea that it is not "so serious." Perhaps Kavanaugh and his supporters feel it is a high price to pay for a mistake of youth. Yep. It's a high price to pay. Tough. Young men, particularly black men, have been incarcerated and had their voting rights and future employment jeopardized for far less serious youthful indiscretions.
21
Excellent!
The fact that Mrs. Ford can’t remember details like the date of her assault is irrelevant. I was raped in college and, with the passage of close to 30 years, cannot remember the date or whether it happened in my apartment or my attacker’s. Doesn’t change the fact that I was raped or that my (well thought of family man and distinguished lawyer) rapist would deny what he did if I came forward today.
6
What will a delay accomplish? What could an "investigation" possibly discover? This accusation was known to the Democrats and certain media outlets months ago and was not brought up until after the hearings because there is no evidence and probably no credibility to it.
Enough is enough with the efforts to smear Judge Kavanaugh.
2
May you live in interesting times.
An old Chinese saying that certainly rings true as a curse today,
Donald J. Trump receives 2.9 million votes fewer than Hillary Clinton and is elected President.
He promises to appoint Supreme Court Justices who will be pro-life, a matter that does not appear to have concerned him greatly before he embarked on his political career.
His first two choices are Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Men who can be counted on to limit or entirely negate the extent to which Presidents can be held accountable for their criminal actions.
Trump has promised to sue women who have accused him of sexual assault, but hasn’t followed through. Why?
Trump is expecting Mueller to soon file criminal charges against him and members of his family, but hasn’t yet fired him. Why?
Because Trump has been busy packing the Supreme Court with Judges who will rule in his favor regardless of the merits of the cases against him and doesn’t need to.
4
Yes, she should be heard, but also those tens of thousands of White House papers should also be released and seen.
This isn’t a presidential election where voters have every right to overlook character flaws: greed, corruption, self-serving, groping, philandering, or courseness.
This is a lifetime appointment where it is paramount that character and past actions be examined fully.
Interesting that it took sexual assault allegations to even consider slowing the Kavanaugh freight train. Meanwhile, withholding and sitting on a complete record of service is seen as no reason not to continue full speed ahead.
28
When I first heard this story last week, I thought it was a hatchet job put out by the Democrats to muddle Kavanaugh's nomination process. The story did not seem plausible in its telling from an unsubstantiated source. But now the source is known; the full account is in the press. It rings true. Judge Kavanaugh needs to answer to the people before we place him on ur highest court for a life term. How did Senator Grassley produce a letter signed by 65 female classmates defending Judge Kavanaugh if there is no truth to this tale? Why was the letter produced, and who thought it was needed?
14
Polygraph HIM. Have the FBI (or the same examiner who did hers) polygraph HIM. Will HE and his buddy take a polygraph? We don't need decades more of yet another Supreme Court justice with such a history.
This isn't about timing, or politics, or letting her repeat this in public. It's not even just about "hearing" her. It's about believing her and treating this as an unacceptable character flaw. (As opposed to the tired old "boys will be boys" diminishment.) It's about refusing as a society to elevate such a person.
POLYGRAPH HIM.
19
A polygraph is not admissible in court, why is it even brought up? It has been proven to be unreliable, with the operator being able to influence and the readings open to interpretation. If it is not admissible in court, why should it be admissible anywhere?
1
Judge Kavanaugh was suspect the moment he was selected by Trump and did not acknowledge the way Garland was treated.
13
Do you honestly think that a non partisan investigation would have been possible weeks ago? Ms. Ford has come forward publicly because she is aghast that it looks like Kavanaugh's nomination is being rammed through. Keep in mind, Sen. Grassley bottled her letter but released the letter signed by 26 women in favor of Kavanaugh. If Kavanaugh & Judge were blind drunk teenagers, they are not going to remember. But Ms. Ford was not blind drunk , remembers the assault vividly, told a therapist 6 years ago, and passed a lie detector test. So, investigate or call the whole thing off & nominate someone who didn't sexually assault a 15 year old girl.
8
I believe her. Her response at the time, and her subsequent periods of PTSD reactions and therapy, are all consistent of the long term effects of a sexual assault. I also understand why she was, and is, reluctant to come forward. The GOP are waiting like jackals to tear her apart for pure political reasons. It is like a sport for them.
But no matter what happens with the nomination, Kavanaugh's Justice position will forever be tainted by these allegations, as well as his radical positions.This nomination should prove once and for all the basic anti-woman position of the Republican Party. They supported the assaulter-in-chief, Trump, they failed to renew the Violence Against Women Act, the supported a child molester for the Senate, and they have never defended women over Trump who assaults women whenever he wants, because "He Can".
The Republican Party is just like the Catholic Church in its attitude of non defense of women and Party's attitude that they can do as they please, just as the Catholic Church has supported their priests over the young girls and boys in their charge from being molested for decades. The paternalistic and anti-woman attitude of the GOP has been one of Party's pillars of belief for decades. Their actions in support of Kavanaugh is proof beyond doubt that for the Republicans, anything goes, and that the stench of Trump covers the men of GOP.
5
cancel the hearing and open a session for merrick garland, the previous nominee, who was never heard.
7
It’s “not good” that possibly the most contentious Supreme Court nominee ever is being rushed through the confirmation process at lighting speed. It been painful to watch the confirmation hearings. The GOP members of the committee should be ashamed.
4
What the author proposes may seem sensible, however, after detailing Kavanaugh's purportedly sterling credentials, followed by a very brief recounting of the victims story, we get this: "Her case is far from ironclad. For example, she can’t remember or remains uncertain about many key details; she told nobody contemporaneously (unlike many other alleged victims of sexual assault); and both Mr. Kavanaugh and his friend deny it. There is, as far as we know, no physical evidence. It’s a true "she said, he said”-or, rather, "they said,” since two people deny this incident ever happened." Lat appears to concede the point that the vote should be delayed so he can lay out how the victim should be prosecuted by Republicans misrepresenting what we already know. The two people who say it never happened are the perpetrators of the crime. Lat makes sure to say it's her word against what "they" say; an insidious argument in an attempted gang rape case. Lat knows there's ample corroboration of the victims story, so he makes it about a purported lack of physical evidence, and how "many" victims of sexual assaults 30 years ago immediately told people about such a crime, when in fact they didn't, and still don't. It makes sense knowing who Lat actually is. A long-time supporter of right-wing justices like Kavanaugh, Lat's fame comes from creating a notorious blog in which he impersonated a sexually depraved, left-wing woman, and then exploited the persona to shill for right-wing justices.
2
“Let the little ones come to me.”
Surely an assaulted young woman qualifies.
A Solomonic decision would take into account that two drunk young men, so intoxicated they could hardly walk cannot reliably “tell the truth.”
The teenage “onlooker” has written a book, admitting he drank heavily in high school and had blackouts. It was apparently his home and parents were absent.
The statute of limitations has run out. So the two males cannot be charged with a crime. (Yes, sexual assault is a crime! Even for teenagers.)
Heavy drinkers tend to hang around with other heavy drinkers. Kavanaugh’s friend was a heavy drinker. Black-outs destroy recall for events. But they do not prevent people from “acting” - even acting criminally.
Should we not take great care before putting on the Supreme Court another man accused of acting improperly by a woman wronged and traumatized? Nine is a small number. 2 out of 9 is nearly 20%.
12
@TheraP
So many unproven assumptions. Desperate measures being taken by Democrats.
Where was your outrage when I known sexual predator and rapist was nominated and elected as POTUS, by the name of William Jefferson Clinton?
Hypocrite
My father used to say that a person is responsible for his or her face by the time they were a teenager. Character is like Jello. For a while it is a hot liquid and then after a certain time it jells and it is what it is. Abe Lincoln as a teenager had the makings of the great man who he became as an adult.
In what passed for high school (in Trump’s case a military school) the young Trump was a lying, racist, show off, bully and remained so throughout his life. The chances are that if a high school age young man was a lying, self serving bully with contempt for women, a sneak and a preditor with authoritarian opinions, the chances are that such a person will possess the same character flaws as an adult as he did as a teenager with skill in hiding them from the public.
In short if the teenager was a lying racist with contempt for women so shall the adult be and Judge Kavanaugh's character as a teenager is very relevant to his character today and should be explored by the Senate in detail and the fact that time has passed should not be relevant to his conformation for this powerful lifetime position.
5
We should not be having this discussion -- the bigger picture is that any supreme court nominee by an illegitimate president is itself illegitimate and therefor null and void.
This by no means diminishes the charge of sexual assault that has come to light, not at all. My only thought is that leveling the charge of sexual assault places the nomination within the twisted context of "the new normal" -- the accusation itself helping to "normalize" a supreme court candidate who should not exist to begin with because the president who nominated him should not exist.
Not to mention ...
The considerable faction of Trump's base who still regards the degradation of women as a masculine birthright will have no more problem with the story of teenage groping than they did Trump's recorded and summarily disregarded boasts of groping -- no, in the minds of many men that's a trait to be admired.
I mean I get behind any reason to put the brakes on this nominee, don't get me wrong. But when Trump gets dumped, does this, do any of his mandates stick?
Why is a supreme court nominee being handled as something reasonable when there is nothing whatsoever reasonable about the administration that produced it?
3
This is nonsense. The strategy of delay and defeat is transparent. The vote should proceed.
4
The legitimacy of anyone appointed by Trump is under question until it's proven that he did not win through conspiring with Putin.
5
Muscling through an arch conservative nominee after the recent complete obstruction of the highly distinguished Merrick Garland was always an insult. Far more Americans voted for constitutional lawyer and former senator Barrack Obama twice than ever voted for Trump.
This nominee pours salt in the wound. Highly partisan, and yes, possibly committing perjury about at least two incidents in the past or at the very least being weaselly and parsing words was bad enough. Add in the rush and the lack of documents and something reeks to high heaven.
An accusation of a sexual crime against a 15-year-old girl is one more straw.
Cannot Trump find someone not so extreme and not so compromised on multiple levels? Right now the man who boasted about getting away with sexual assaults due to money and power, who had around 19 women come forward to accuse him and who paid hush money to women directly before the election, has nominated another powerful white man who has been accused of sexual assaults and lack of truthfulness to join the highest court on the land.
Several GOP men sit on the Senate committee, the same ones who have been rushing this through and who refused to consider Garland.
Kavanaugh would sit on the SC beside another conservative justice also credibly accused of sexual harassment.
The most basic right for women -- controlling their own bodies--will likely be determined in part by two men accused of harming women in the past.
'Me too' meets 'Et tu, Brett?'
4
There's something rotten in Denmark.
First we had Senate Republicans' wholesale suppression of documents bearing on Kavanaugh's fitness to serve on the Supreme Court, evidently to manipulate and truncate full Senate review.
Then we had the repudiation of the National Archives' traditional role in the confirmation process.
Then, within minutes of Ms. Ford's allegations becoming public, we were given a letter signed by 65 women attesting to Kavanaugh's sterling character. How could such a letter be produced so quickly? Maybe it wasn't; maybe the senators trying to ram this deeply problematic nomination through the Senate have known about Ms. Ford's allegations all along, and accordingly schemed (a) to keep them confidential, and thus (b) were ready immediately to try to discredit them should their efforts to obliterate them prove unavailing.
Only Ms. Ford, Kavanaugh, and Kavanaugh's friend Judge -- the three people Ms. Ford alleges were involved -- know whether Ms. Ford or Kavanaugh is telling the truth. This man's nomination cannot go forward under these circumstances. He will be tainted for his lifetime on the Supreme Court if his masters get their way and complete their disreputable rush job without investigation.
What are Kavanaugh and Senate Republicans hiding?
15
The timing of the release of Ms. Ford's accusations is troubling. Coming out at this late stage - with no forensic evidence beyond her verbal recollections, with no corroborative evidence from others to whom she might have spoken at the time of the alleged assault - makes the accusations incapable of being proven. Her silence through the years is also another factor that any court would take into consideration.
If Mr. Lat, the author of this opinion piece, has some skeletons in his closet, maybe he should not be writing this type of article. He should prove it, by listing at the end of the article every single person with whom he has had an interaction in his lifetime - with an affidavit by each and every one of them confirming that he has not acted in an inappropriate manner. Well, maybe not his whole lifetime - but stretching back 50 years would be adequate.
2
I am disgusted by this entire process and the effort taken by the Democrats to do anything to destroy a candidate they do not like. This is compounded by the media with their desire for qlicks and ratings, not the truth. This is someone who under any objective standards is qualified who Democrats want to prove a negative, that an incident didn't occur. The worse part of this is that we have codified the fact that only empty suits going forward will be supreme Supreme Court nominees. What rational person would put themselves and their family through this nonsense? Once again democrats have changed the rules if engagement and as a country we will pay the price.
3
This is nothing more than a cheap delay tactic by the Dems. They couldn't Bork him so they came up with this.
3
@James based on what McConnell did to Merrill Garland you don’t have a leg to stand on. If you want to feel confident in Kavanaugh, then you should be supporting the release of tens of thousands of files that would confirm his selection for the Supreme Court. Without full disclosure his position as SCOTUS judge will be forever tainted.
2
@Anon
There is is a difference b/t using the rules as McConnell did and cheap smear tactics like this.
My most immediate thought upon learning of Ms. Ford's accusation and that she took and passed a lie detector test: if Mr. Kavanaugh did actually sexually assault Ms. Ford, hopefully for him, it was an aberration caused in part by excessive alcohol consumption. The short history of the "me too" movement is characterized by instances in which the first accuser's brave decision to take action becomes contagious--if there were other victims.
When Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, I thought I had witnessed the most cynical American political act in my life. Two asterisk-judges later, we now have to consider a nominee who is accused of attempted rape, by a victim who has now given her real name and passed a polygraph test which tested her accusations. I find it hard to believe there were people who watched the hearings with Anita Hill who didn't believe her. I agree with Mr. Lat: let them both testify under oath. I'll make my judgement then.
9
Having had quite direct experience with Mr. Kavanaugh's teenage social milieu, it wouldn't surprise me a bit that he did what Ms. Ford accuses, that he was drunk while doing it and has no memory of it because of his drunkenness.
I also feel that unless the Democrats have a solid case, this reeks of desperation on their part. There is plenty of other issues with Kavanaugh's credibility that should be put to the test.
My biggest concern about Kavanaugh's pending confirmation is that he is a Boy Scout errand boy for big business, religionists and right-wing politics. But elections have consequences, right, Democrats, DNC, entitled Clintons, etc. Right? Are you listening? Democrats, demand more of your party! It has been shooting itself in the foot regularly for half a century. It's time for competence and to shed the Rockefeller Republicanism the "Democrats" adopted.
The Republican determination to ram Kavanaugh’s nomination through to confirmation by withholding critical information has, fortunately, backfired. The Republican lawmakers made the decision to gloss over his time as a Bush 2 advisor, and that tells us that they were determined to hide something political, not sexual. For example, perhaps Kavanaugh was somehow involved with the Brooks Brothers Riot, which was the first time I saw the Republican Party steal a presidential election in broad daylight.
It’s clear that Trump sees Kavanaugh as a get-out-of-jail-free card. That alone should be grounds for rejection.
5
When an airplane is ready for takeoff and the pilot notices an abnormal reading on a meter, what's the right thing to do? Ignore the meter and full speed ahead? Decide that the meter is faulty and go for it? Or, return to the gate and have things checked out? Oh, perhaps a supreme Court appointment is less important, you say?
21
@Max duPont Well if you are a Republican pilot, you can ignore that meter reading even if the meter is for "catastrophic climate change". You have a schedule to keep - otherwise you are losing money for the big corporations.
1
Dr. Ford has now announced that she is ready to come before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify as regards her allegations.
This is another "Anita Hill moment" and the Republicans would be wise to handle this matter with suitable care and consideration.
If they fail to do that, they risk losing the votes of women for a generation or more.
In addition, they would risk putting the reputation of the Senate and the Supreme Court in jeopardy.
For the record, I am an over 70 year old white hetero guy, who has been married to the same lady for over 50 years.
The times they ARE a-changin.'
2
The whole process should be paused until the Republicans produce thousands and thousands of withheld documents. This whole process is a sham, this is only the latest proof.
7
Judge Kavanaugh's denials may be authentic...if he was that
intoxicated, he would possibly not remember. And back then,it would have likely been considered a "boys will be boys" harmless incident.
As a woman I know that his accuser has never forgotten and was obviously harmed psychologically by this. As a woman I understand why she didn't come forth at the time...women were often shamed and blamed for such assaults. ("What was she wearing?") As a woman I understand the courage it must take to come forward with her name at this time.
Remember Anita Hill?
Please let's not repeat history. Let's give this accusation the respect and seriousness it deserves. Let's take the time to get this one right. Women are paying attention.
8
17 year old Kavanaugh could have been so inebriated that he doesn't remember his actions.
If Judge Kavanaugh has any sense of justice he should encourage the judiciary committee to allow Dr. Ford to testify.
2
When Merrick Garland was proposed as the candidate to fill Scalia's vacant seat, Republicans refused to consider him for months, making the argument that so close to an election it was important to "let the people decide." Well the people elected Hillary Clinton, even if the Electoral College overrode their choice. Trump proposed the corporatist Gorsuch, and the people were overridden once again.
The same logic then must be applied to the Kavanaugh nomination. There is simply too much in his record that is questionable and even more that has been redacted, deliberately hidden, or unexamined. The people will vote again in November. Let us wait at least until then.
10
Very well stated. There actually are two issues here: Fairness to all parties involved and the credibility of the witnesses. Reports today indicate that the third-party witness who denies this happened was a "blackout drunk" during high school; the woman involved has told her story to others and they, too, need to testify; and most important is Judge Kavanaugh's forthrightness in dealing with the allegations. Two questions: If he was part of a "blackout drunk group" (an issue to which we have no sworn testimony or other evidence other than his friend's book), then his denial has no credibility because he may honestly have no memory of the incident; if he does have a memory and denies it rather than apologizing and asking for forgivness and offering restitution for what at the time would likely have ben treated as a sealed juvenile case he must both withdraw his nomination and resign his current seat. If he did it and now acknowldges it and sincerely apologizes and takes concerete steps to recitify the wrongs--he ought to have that opportunity.
2
I agree with then-Senator Robert Byrd, who said in 1991, during the Clarence Thomas hearings, "No individual has a particular right to a Supreme Court seat. . . If we are going to give the benefit of the doubt, let us give it to the court. Let us give it to the country.”
Brett Kavanaugh isn't the one and only person in this country qualified for a SCOTUS seat. Being a SCOTUS justice is a privilege not a right. Let's give the benefit of the doubt to the court and the country, delay the vote, and hold hearings regarding this matter to determine if he is of fit character to be a SCOTUS justice.
10
In the context of confirmation, it is a far more serious matter that he may have committed perjury. This question, more than any other, must be settled.
The cloud of a sitting Supreme Court justice who would be on record as having lied under oath speaks volumes to the injustice of a justice system.
1
I'm a female professional who votes issues not political party. If the GOP wants to make sure that the millions of women just like me never vote GOP, let an accused sexual abuser onto the highest court in the land without careful consideration of his past behavior.
I, for one, will vote against all things GOP until Kavanaugh (and alleged abuser Justice Thomas) draw their last breaths.
If it takes more time to get to the bottom of the nominee's past, Mitch, you had better put your arrogance aside and take it.
241
@Sarah Seriously. You must be naive to think that any woman who has already voted for Trump and/or many Republicans is going to suddenly have this be the time when she stops voting for the GOP. What Kavanaugh has been accused of doing is truly minor league (pending any future revelations) compared to Trump, Bill Clinton, and numerous other politicians. I think the likelihood of you having voted - or intending to vote - for anyone in the Republican party was already zero or very close to it.
1
@Sarah
And it makes no never mind to you that Feinstein held this for 3 months, throughout all that Senate testimony and multiple FBI background checks, then decided to release it 4 days before the scheduled vote?
If thats who youd like to side with, thats your prerogative, just spare us the holier then thou routine.
2
Kavanaugh will be confirmed no matter what comes out of these hearing. Even if his frat buddies confirmed her story, he'd be confirmed. I supposed he won't be involved in the first few cases of this USSC session, though. I'm half surprised they haven't just voted to have hearings after the confirmation.
1
The Republican Senate never even considered Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court. To me, the logical conclusion about that should have been that the Senate waived their right to consent to the nomination and Garland should have been seated. It would follow that the Republican's subsequent nomination of Kavanaugh was unlawful. The Supreme Court should so hold but would no doubt weasel out of such a finding, yet another example of the weakness of our federal government. None of this conforms to the Constitution.
17
When a person is suppose to sit in judgment, on the highest court of the land, their legal and personal record should be clean and free of controversy. Ms. Ford has brought into question Mr. Kavanaugh's background. Effectively, he is accused of sexual assault, bordering on rape. This is one story that is know, how many else are there?
We have seen a number of prominent people being fired, or resigning, over similar incidents, in the last few months. This is no different.Mr. Kavanaugh, based on this evidence should withdraw himself from consideration, or not be confirmed.
The GOP is trying to rush this nomination, to placate Trump and they know, that a possible switch to a Democratic controlled House or Senate, would prevent Trump's nominee from ever getting confirmed.
This is no longer about politics. It is about a sexual assault of a woman by a man. This man is part of the wealthy elite, and feels he doe snot live by the same law, as 99% of the rest of America. His job is to uphold "rule of law", and if he does not withdraw, or is confirmed, then we have a judge, on the highest court in the land, who will selectively enforce "rule of law". This is a major attack on the very heart of the Constitution. Also. if he sits on the court, then the transformation of the Supreme Court to a political arm, of the ruling political party, would be complete.
12
I think having Kavanaugh on the court is a terrible outcome. It will make the court even more of an anti-democratic, pro-corporate institution than it has already become. All this, until the Democrats have the opportunity to enlarge the court. Hold on RBG!
That being said,, even if Ms Ford's allegations are proven, this is a 35 year old high school age event. Apparently, since then Kavanaugh has lived the personal life of a boy scout. It's hard to see how these allegations should reasonably disqualify Kavanaugh for the court.
3
@LennyM
"this is a 35 year old high school age event"
But he lied about it just a few days ago.
Perhaps he was so drunk, and assaulting a woman was such a minor event for him, that he honestly doesn't remember,
But knowing that he drank often and to excess in HS, he could at least have had the decency to say, wow, I don't remember, but if I did this 35 years ago when drunk and it had such a powerful effect on her life, I owe Mrs. Ford a deeply felt and horrified apology for my behavior. Instead, he called her a liar.
13
I had 4 glasses on wine on Friday night, Saturday morning I could not remember much of what I said. Its quite possible Kavanaugh genuinely can't remember the event... but it doesn't mean he didn't do this. Maybe he should say "I can't remember but maybe I did do this and I am sorry."
3
@laughoutoud I see your point, however, if this attack is true, I doubt it was his only one. I've served on quite a few juries and a defense of "I was drunk, I don't remember" doesn't hold up if the evidence proves a crime was committed.
2
@laughoutoud
OK. Then the same goes for his accuser. Maybe she should let it go.
The premise that he is well educated, family man, held high level jobs, very likable person, etc., doesn’t mean anything, because most of the sex offenders fall into that category, starting with Trump. When does these characteristics is a proof of not being guilty of sexual offense. When there is a serious allegation, the case need to be resolved before proceeding to vote on the nomination.
3
If not now, when?? Once again, silence = death. Women's truths have been silenced over and over again by a patriarchal "entitlement" to preserve its power and its choices. This is a case in point, and it MUST be heard, and it MUST be prevented. If not now, when? .
9
Cheap. Last minute desperation. If this were to be raised,
it should have been done during the hearings. I am shocked to learn that Ms. Ford is a Bernie Sanders supporter, as well as a contributor to the Democratic National Committee.
6
“After a former colleague, Anita Hill, raised allegations of multiple instances of sexual harassment against Mr. Thomas, the senators heard from both key parties before the confirmation vote.
The hearings had their flaws. ”
This glosses over the disgraceful and hostile treatment of Ms. Hill by the committee then. Can Kavanaugh’s accuser expect any better treatment? Kavanaugh already appears to have financial, gambling and alcohol problems which would rule him out from any respectable job, let alone the Supreme Court. Surely the Federalist Society can do better than this?
13
@gk Unfortunately, I don't think the Federalist Society can do better. They shouldn't be the ones putting forth names for SCOTUS.
1