Let's run a test case. Scrap Kavanaugh, nominate Garland then see what if anything comes out of the wood work. Have the FBI investigate him.
I griped at IUJIM on another thread but he is raising a valid observation here.
Here is what I think. Given that previous sexual abuses ala Kavanaugh are going to be disqualifying, in the future a significant fraction (probably well above 10 and probably not higher than 20%) of American men are well advised not to accept a nomination to the Supreme Court.
There are plenty of people who are both highly qualified and who don't have this stuff on their character who are more than capable and willing to do these jobs. If nominated, they'd sail through . . . guys with character like Rosenstein, for example . . . that's exactly what Trump is afraid of.
Power, wealth and position seem like they are pretty significant motivations for people. Many people, men and women, put themselves in positions in which they risk having to endure abuse in exchange for being admitted into the club. Think of the abuse in the form of hazing that men and women have been forced to endure to join fraternities and sororities for eons. All sworn to secrecy of course.
Girls continue to go to parties at fraternities where there have been those kind of attacks happening.
I have been saying that I think "stooge" is the proper name for the Kavanaugh type so desirable to Trump. They become willing accomplices to corruption by doing corrupt acts themselves. Kavanaugh debases himself while elevating Trump by allowing Trump to claim that the allegations are "fake" or unimportant.
I'm trying to avoid labels; they make me lazy about having to explain what I'm thinking.
Why is that? It makes zero sense to this old white guy . . . there must be something about those situations that I just don't get.
Stooge is a label, true, but it is also a phenomena. My preference is to have a shorthand to refer to the phenomena.
Were you drunk then?*
* I wanted to say "too", but resisted my baser instincts.
You were wearing suggestive knickers, weren't you?
Didn't Kavanaugh already have six fbi investigations to get to where he is today? And none of them investigations came up with any of this smut that is being sprung on us now? It took Stormy Daniel's lawyer Avenanti or however you spell it, to find the truth and the fbi could not?
Seriously? People take risks in the hopes of reaping rewards. Think about all the actresses who went to "meetings" with Harvey Weinstein. They may have heard of the risks but thought the possibility of reward was large enough to make it worth it. Think about all the rationalizations people make for putting themselves in really risky positions...it just doesn't seem that strange.
It isn't a trial, but if they are sworn and put under oath doesn't it act in such a way? Are we talking about getting the truth or are we not?
Do you charge the liberals on here the same way? Or are you only partisan when you are conservative?
That's straightforward garbage. They "wanted"
What are we arguing here? My claim was that people routinely endure humiliating abuse in order to gain admittance to elite clubs. I don't think that people want to be part of these clubs either to be abused or to abuse...but they do want to part of the in-group.
No. It's a hearing to determine the fitness of a SCOTUS candidate for confirmation by the Senate. It isn't a trial, and the rules applicable to trials - including the rules of evidence - don't apply in the hearing.
It looks very much like girls that age don't care so much if it happens not to them but instead to other girls that age. It's really hard to promote the rights of "women," because "women" is not the name of a monolithic group that agrees within itself on lots of stuff. For example, look at how many women voted for Trump despite unmistakable signs what he thought of women and how he thinks of women.
Well, I think the argument that the victims had it coming is quite frequently used. I suspect this argument prevents a great many victims of rape from ever coming forward. My take is that a girl's willingness to drink, even in excess, at a party does not mitigate the rapist's guilt. I suppose if the girl were, for example, suing the hosts of the party, her decision to get very drunk might mitigate their liability for troubles that followed due in part to her drinking. What do you think?
Yeah, I get that . . . my sense is that you're looking at the issues from a meta level. I'm inquiring at a more granular level . . . a specific girl who attended these kinds of parties 10 or so times, apparently witnessed sexual assaults at each of them and continued to attend the parties ultimately becoming a sexual assault victim herself. I can see where getting raped on the first visit to such a party is more solely the perpetrator's fault/responsibility.
And there we have it. One more misogynist to join the boys club. Congratulations, moron.
Beats me. I expect that the number of cases in which two people got stoned or drunk and then had sex is very large.
Well, I think that the "victim had it coming" argument is made too often and too early, to the point where it has been all but entirely discredited . . . and for the most part with good reason. That's why I'm wanting to look at it again, because the fact of its overuse doesn't necessarily mean that it has no value, depending on the facts of the case.
I sure don't have all the answers. My understanding is that people are not legally obligated to help others in distress. There are circumstances, I guess were people are legally required to report crimes. For example Teachers are obligated to report crimes against children of which they become aware. But i don't think there is a broader legal obligation is there? Should there be?
