Is it fair to be bringing up a high school alleged incident forty years later in confirmation hearings?

2seaoat wrote:Sorry, this is stupid.  I will grant all her allegations as being true, and the simple reality is NO prosecutor would have even brought charges for a drunk party where someone alleges what she alleges......the boys would show up and testify to the jury and this case would have been dismissed, yet someone thinks this is proper........sorry, somebody pinch the Democrats because they are talking with the white rabbit.

PkrBum wrote:The woman also claimed Kavanaugh was joined at the time by a friend who turned up music to conceal her protests. But that unnamed classmate reportedly told the New Yorker, “I have no recollection of that.”  
....

“Now I had an opportunity to make some headway [with girls]. Most of the time everyone, including the girls, was drunk. If you could breathe and walk at the same time, you could hook up,” he wrote.

A girl at a party, wrote Judge, asked him: “Do you know Bart O’Kavanaugh? I heard he puked in someone’s car the other night.” Judge responds: “Yeah he passed out on his way back from a party.”

PkrBum wrote:Doesn't remember exactly when... doesn't remember exactly where... and the "witness" doesn't remember at all. ...

2seaoat wrote: ...  the simple reality is NO prosecutor would have even brought charges for a drunk party where someone alleges what she alleges......the boys would show up and testify to the jury and this case would have been dismissed,

bigdog wrote: His so called friend wrote in a yearbook that a woman should be beaten regularly like a gong.

2seaoat wrote:Times have not changed in regard to relevancy.  This entire event is a tempest in a teapot.  The Republicans have been stupid.   They should have allowed the FBI an investigation and bent over backwards to make Dr. Ford comfortable, but I am sorry.......what a bunch of wussies.  A 17 year old who is drunk cops a feel and forty years later this is relevant to a supreme court nomination.......pleaseeeee wake this fricking mob up from their fantasy world.  The nominee is going to be appointed.

Oh, and regard to charges being brought 38 years ago, and I would not know that charges would not have been brought........yes, I completely understand what charges would be brought and would not be brought based on Dr. Ford's descriptions as reported in the media.   Not a fricking thing.  No prosecutor in the early 80s would bring this case NONE, and to try to get a sexual harrassment suit in the work place......totally fricking non existent.  I doubt if the actual act would have gotten a student suspended, but the drinking.....sure.

Sorry I think this is hilarious calling this attempted rape and thinking people would have prosecuted this......has nobody worked in the criminal justice system?  This is a he said she said nonsense which every court in America deals with daily in divorce court.  My wife and daughter at 15 would not have been happy with a drunk feeling them up, and my wife would slug guys and my daughter might have thrown the wimp into the closet, but to call this a life changing experience which changes anything in a confirmation hearing forty years later.......deer in headlights.

2seaoat wrote:I am honored as I love the candy.  However, the ignorance of the law and history makes this better than my getting that senior discount at breakfast......what a bonus to see such dumb logic.  Boneheaded stupid that this was an attempted rape of a 15 year old.......gosh, I am beginning to wonder if anybody here ever got laid, and that Sal is a monk who lives on a fishing boat selling his wares on the dock.  He sells chinese finger handcuffs to members of this forum who think that there was a rape.....sadly Sal has tried his product and has been handcuffed unable to post any longer until a kind stranger on the dock helped him out of chinese handcuffs......so now he is typing again, but will be bitching about the tariffs on chinese goods.  Attempted rape.....political hysteria.

2seaoat wrote: an adolescent boy coping a feel in high school at a drinking party.  

.....   It’s natural to place this sort of accusation within a criminal-justice framework: the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; the presumption of innocence; the right to confront and respond to an accuser. If Judge Kavanaugh stood criminally accused of attempted rape, all of that would apply with full force. But those concepts are a poor fit for Supreme Court confirmation hearings, where there’s no presumption of confirmation, and there’s certainly no burden that facts be established beyond a reasonable doubt. ....

.....  Nominations have failed — that is, been withdrawn or voted down — for various reasons. Sometimes it’s because a majority of the Senate rejects a nominee’s vision of the Constitution and the role of the court. That was the case with Judge Robert Bork, a Reagan nominee whose skepticism about the Constitution’s protection of privacy and liberty convinced a majority of senators that he was simply too far right of the mainstream to be confirmed.

Other nominations have been unsuccessful because of private conduct. Another Reagan nominee, Judge Douglas Ginsburg, withdrew from consideration after the press uncovered reports of marijuana use that the F.B.I. had failed to unearth. And the Senate blocked President Lyndon Johnson’s attempt to elevate Abe Fortas to chief justice after evidence emerged that as a sitting member of the court, Justice Fortas had also been serving as a de facto adviser to the president, and after questions were raised about the propriety of outside payments he had received while on the court.

These allegations weren’t tested with the rigor that would have attached to judicial proceedings; neither evidence nor testimony (where it was given — Judge Ginsburg withdrew before testifying) was subject to the sort of adversarial testing that would occur in a court of law. But in each case, a constellation of considerations, both political and constitutional, operated to defeat nominations of individuals who were certainly qualified, by conventional metrics, to sit on the Supreme Court. ....

PkrBum wrote:She now says that she can't testify Monday because she doesn't want to fly and would rather drive.

Lol... this is just silly now. It's obviously a delay tactic... which was the dem playbook the whole time.

2seaoat wrote:She is telling the truth, but she might as well be telling us about her favorite rock band in High School.....important to her, but not relevant to a confirmation hearing.

2seaoat wrote:Oh please.....stop the hysteria.  I have a strong wife and daughter and in this hysterical environment that women are these tremendous fragile beings who need special protections......watch a lioness in nature deal with unwanted advances from a male lion.  I believe every word that she has said.  I also understand that sexual assault is now becoming a given, but having dealt with the same in the criminal justice system for almost forty years, I find the naive understanding of the law to be hysterical.  Please I do not deserve one person's respect if the litmus test is becoming a lemming where in a Rachel Maddow moment, somebody actually thinks this will be relevant.  It is not.  The confirmation is a slam dunk.   The funny thing is that this same Hubris Michael Moore warned of as Hillary's paradigm  of Hubris has now spread to where the Democratic Party has lost their fricking minds......so desparate......I know the judge in boy scouts would put firecrackers in frogs and watch them blow up......o the horror as the animal rights groups demonstrate and try to convince America that a frog bomber cannot be nominated for the Supreme Court.   When people wake up after the mid terms, then tell me who you respect.  Until then I will call what is irrelevant as would any judge or fair person in America.  Attacking the victim is stupid.  She is telling the truth, but she might as well be telling us about her favorite rock band in High School.....important to her, but not relevant to a confirmation hearing.