Mormon Women's Group Call on LDS Senators to Investigate Allegations Against Kavanaugh

[halconero]

The calendar thing I'm actually fine with. My uncle keeps a calendar-journal like that, and I find it believeable.

My bigger concern has always been Kavanaugh's views on privacy, presidential authority, and human rights. Those should concern any conservative who like limited government.

That and his handling of stolen documents from the Democratic Senate Nomination Committee during the more recent Bush Administration. They were taken by a Republican mole on the committee, and were discussed as being stolen on the exchange of emails to Kavanaugh, to the extent that it's unbelievable he wouldn't have known.

Yet nobody is talking about this to a great extent. That should be more than enough of a "nope" for anyone who wants an ethical nominee more than they want a win on SCOTUS.

[BlueDreams]

On 9/26/2018 at 9:41 AM, bluebell said:

Can we at least try not to make this political?   Let's focus on the last quote from the WFEG-

“Stop pushing forward despite the clear objections of....millions of other women across the country,” the group wrote Tuesday. “Women comprise half of your constituents. If you truly respect women, then demonstrate it by honoring our requests to go slowly here. The appalling audacity of some of your colleagues in declaring their intention to simply take this seat with or without the broad support of women everywhere is just as troubling as the allegations against Kavanaugh. In fact, the irony is chilling.”

Do LDS politicians (given their professed spiritual beliefs) have a responsibility to care about what LDS members want?  Do LDS senators (given their professed spiritual beliefs) have a responsibility to care about what women want?  

I know this has moved way to another place....but I think lds members and like-minded people from any group have a right to try and have their views heard by politicians. I do think any politician has the responsibility to move thoroughly and without political haste. 

 

I would hope that LDS senators have a responsibility to care for half of their constituents. I think, as LDS, we should (based on our beliefs) hope for a fair process that protects those they have any form of stewardship over. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Anijen]

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

it's a general statement, people that get assaulted and will get assaulted form here on in, I worry for them if he gets in but we'll see what happens

Just a digression to defend my neighbors above [Canadians]. I love them, always will.

• My Mission President was Canadian
• The ALCAN [Alaska Canada Highway] is the most beautiful drive I have ever made (six times, 3 of those times it was unpaved at the time. Yeah, it has been some time, 1972-1980.
• I travel to North Dakota about once a month. The Canadian flag flies next to a slightly raised American flag (sometimes at equal heights) at many places. The same in Montana.
• The greens of the trees and the many shades of blues in their waters is breath-taking.
• The beauty makes Canada a great place (despite their socialism).

[Walden]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A thoughtful piece from the Wall Street Journal positing that a Kavanaugh defeat based on the unproven allegations against him will divide the country for a generation:

Opinion: The Kavanaugh Standard - The Wall Street Journal https://apple.news/AA_KGYmSQTBmjdzU4cvNylA

 

Too late, the country is already bitterly divided.

[Anijen]

26 minutes ago, Duncan said:

you don't need to be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court? what is the rational for that? 

Only age, citizenship and residency requirements were made. The Presidents nominates a person who he thinks would be a good choice if he/she meets the age, citizenship, and residency requirements, then he/she is then voted on by the Senate. Back then, a Judge's value and capabilities was evaluated by their honesty and integrity over their knowledge of law.

Edited to add: I cannot recall any Supreme Court Justice who was not a lawyer, although I know of many (SCOTUS) who never went to law school or did not pass a bar exam. Of those, most "read for the law" meaning was apprenticed under a lawyer before practicing. One still can become a lawyer today by the same way (reading) in about five states and then can transfer to another state after practicing for a time. However some states now require either have gone to an accredited law school or pass a state bar first. One can also become a "Corporate Attorney" without passing a bar exam, but that is because corporate attorneys are in-house-counsel only.  Too me, the most popular of the SCOTUS Justices who did not graduate from a law school is Justice Robert Jackson, who also was the Cheif Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Anijen

[bsjkki]

6 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I know this has moved way to another place....but I think lds members and like-minded people from any group have a right to try and have their views heard by politicians. I do think any politician has the responsibility to move thoroughly and without political haste. 

 

I would hope that LDS senators have a responsibility to care for half of their constituents. I think, as LDS, we should (based on our beliefs) hope for a fair process that protects those they have any form of stewardship over. 

 

With luv,

BD

The problem I have with MWEG and their name and statements is they do not represent me. I feel their name attempts to co opt all Mormon women. Who is not for ethical government? This is why my sister was upset too. Her Facebook feed blew up with their statement and she feels they are attempting to speak for all “Mormon women” when they do not speak for her.

Like I said before, I was asked to join this group and discovered they are left leaning and I do not share their belief set. I don’t want anyone to mistakenly believe they represent the views of all “Mormon women” 

[Duncan]

11 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Just a digression to defend my neighbors above [Canadians]. I love them, always will.

• My Mission President was Canadian
• The ALCAN [Alaska Canada Highway] is the most beautiful drive I have ever made (six times, 3 of those times it was unpaved at the time. Yeah, it has been some time, 1972-1980.
• I travel to North Dakota about once a month. The Canadian flag flies next to a slightly raised American flag (sometimes at equal heights) at many places. The same in Montana.
• The greens of the trees and the many shades of blues in their waters is breath-taking.
• The beauty makes Canada a great place (despite their socialism).

we love you!!!!!!!!!!

[Walden]

38 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Jeff Flake announced he is a “yes” for Kavanaugh. 

I do find it interesting there are four members of the CJCLDS on the judiciary committee. All are going to vote for Kavanaugh. That is statistically a lot of representation. I guess MWEG failed in their influence campaign. https://www.mediaite.com/politics/breaking-jeff-flake-says-hell-vote-to-confirm-brett-kavanaugh/

And this is surprising? Given the track record of the CJCLDS's stance on women's rights, voices, equality, etc. throughout history, would one expect anything less?

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Glad to see you still in the thread. Still waiting in my CFR or retraction. I believe the board rules state you need to substantiate your claim (that I said anything like women can never be questioned) or withdraw it. Thanks

 

Here you go.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Walden said:

And this is surprising? Given the track record of the CJCLDS's stance on women's rights, voices, equality, etc. throughout history, would one expect anything less?

A vote for Judge Kavanaugh is inconsistent with "women's rights, voices, equality, etc.?"

🤨

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, smac97 said:

A vote for Judge Kavanaugh is inconsistent with "women's rights, voices, equality, etc.?"

🤨

-Smac

I believe there is only one key to determining how they will vote. It’s the “D” or “R” that comes after their name. 

[bsjkki]

2 minutes ago, Walden said:

And this is surprising? Given the track record of the CJCLDS's stance on women's rights, voices, equality, etc. throughout history, would one expect anything less?

I was happy with his decision. She was heard yesterday. Her stated witnesses refuted her claims officially under threat of a felony charge. I found her statements inconsistent. Is she afraid of flying or not? Did her lawyers not tell her all the options she had for the committee to receive her testimony? I read the statements and they offered to fly to her numerous times before yesterday’s hearing. She first contacted the Washington post in July. She hired a lawyer and had a polygraph in August. She scrubbed her internet footprint before her name was released in September. She refuses to release all the evidence into the public record that would support her claim. 

I want to believe her but it just doesn’t all add up for me.

 

[Anijen]

16 minutes ago, Walden said:

And this is surprising? Given the track record of the CJCLDS's stance on women's rights, voices, equality, etc. throughout history, would one expect anything less?

Actually the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has an excellent history regarding women's rights, their voice, and equality. Please do not confuse the priesthood issue as a negative diminisher for the female members of the Church. 

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I believe there is only one key to determining how they will vote. It’s the “D” or “R” that comes after their name. 

And that's a shame, because Judge Kavanaugh is a stellar reputation and record.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here you go.

Thanks,

-Smac

Okay. So it’s your opinion that calling out the mockery (look how dumb she is, I mean the way this statement works, best case she’s a monster - hahaha) of a potential assault victim is the equivalent of saying never question women. Got it. 

Thanks,

-John

[Walden]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And that's a shame, because Judge Kavanaugh is a stellar reputation and record.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, sure, except for that time he lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2007 regarding his involvement in formulating interrogation and detention policies for Islamic terror suspects while he was in the Bush White House, or that time he lied to a different Senate Judiciary Committee about his possession and handling of stolen Democratic documents. 

But yes, other than those two times he was untruthful in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he is a stand-up guy.