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

[alter idem]

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure what the group's funding has to really do with their request though.  Regardless of their motives, all they've asked for is that the senators move slowly.  That seems like a reasonable thing to do regardless of who asks that it be done.

To 'move slowly' sounds reasonable right?  But there is motive on their part.  This is a delay tactic to push Kavanaugh's confirmation vote until after the midterm election. Democrats are hoping they will gain the majority in the Senate and can then vote him down.     This information was kept until the last minute precisely so that it could be used to delay the confirmation--if they were not able to get the votes to vote him down.  This group is supporting the efforts of the democrats to keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme court and they are being true to their reason for organizing--to impede Pres. Trump from being able to govern the nation.

[clarkgoble]

Just now, snowflake said:

My prediction........Ford never shows up to testify...all political theater by the Dems. 

Suspect this thread will get closed soon. However while that seemed likely over the weekend, it now seems pretty clear she will testify and has found four people willing to collaborate her claims.

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

He should definitely not go to prison just based on this. But there is more than enough evidence to disqualify from him from the supreme court

Hard to see him being disqualified from SCOTUS yet still able to maintain his position as a judge. This really will destroy his career. On the other hand if he did do these things, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Unlike some I have zero confidence in what happened. I think this all quickly became less about Kavanaugh and more people projecting existing political anger and anger about trauma to them or their friends. Still there's more than enough smoke to require some investigation. 

18 minutes ago, Walden said:

Yes, both parties play games with the Supreme Court nomination process...the GOP wouldn't even allow Obama's nomination for the Supreme Court to be vetted, instead pushing it off/slow-walking it until they could get their own President in office.

Because the SCOTUS bench has been so politicized by both parties, I would think it in the best interest of the country as a whole to rescind the lifelong appointment of SCOTUS judges; make it a 12-year or 16-year appointment instead. 

Under Bush Democrats delayed some appointments (not to SCOTUS but to the appeals court) for eight years until a D could be appointed. So both sides have done this sort of thing regularly. I think they should have had a vote on Garland rather than just delaying it. GOP could easily just vote against him on party grounds as arguably happened with Bork. 

That said the reason the courts have become politicized is because congress really hasn't been doing their job. Since nothing gets done in congress people look to where it does get done. 

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, alter idem said:

To 'move slowly' sounds reasonable right?  But there is motive on their part.  This is a delay tactic to push Kavanaugh's confirmation vote until after the midterm election. Democrats are hoping they will gain the majority in the Senate and can then vote him down.     This information was kept until the last minute precisely so that it could be used to delay the confirmation--if they were not able to get the votes to vote him down.  This group is supporting the efforts of the democrats to keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme court and they are being true to their reason for organizing--to impede Pres. Trump from being able to govern the nation.

two words, Merrick Garland.

[PacMan]

48 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I thought that the allegations are in the process of being investigated.  Did the investigation actually conclude months ago?

Diane Feinstein had the allegations in her possession months ago but sat on them until the vote was ready to take place.  That is the political gamesmanship that we should not tolerate.

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Diane Feinstein had the allegations in her possession months ago but sat on them until the vote was ready to take place.  That is the political gamesmanship that we should not tolerate.

neither is normalizing sexual assault, what the senators are saying is why people don't say anything earlier, they won't believed, etc. Besides you don't bring out a murder weapon until trial, I think it's the perfect time

Edited September 26, 2018 by Duncan

[Kenngo1969]

57 minutes ago, Walden said:

Yes, both parties play games with the Supreme Court nomination process...the GOP wouldn't even allow Obama's nomination for the Supreme Court to be vetted, instead pushing it off/slow-walking it until they could get their own President in office.

Because the SCOTUS bench has been so politicized by both parties, I would think it in the best interest of the country as a whole to rescind the lifelong appointment of SCOTUS judges; make it a 12-year or 16-year appointment instead. 

Yes, both parties play politics with nominations.  However, I do think it is telling that nominees to the Supreme Court by Democrat presidents are confirmed by such margins as 95-5 or 90-10 ("We may not agree with the nominee's positions, but one of the consequences of presidential elections is that the winner gets to make such appointments") while those by Republican presidents are lucky to be confirmed by bare majorities.  And, while you may disagree, there is one crucial difference between the Senate's handling of Judge Garland's nomination and what's going on here: Judge Garland's character and reputation remain unblemished.  Even if Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed, his character and reputation have been destroyed forever.

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Diane Feinstein had the allegations in her possession months ago but sat on them until the vote was ready to take place.  That is the political gamesmanship that we should not tolerate.

I agree.  But I'm not sure how that has any bearing on the requests made by the MWFEG group?

[cinepro]

13 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Yes, both parties play politics with nominations.  However, I do think it is telling that nominees to the Supreme Court by Democrat presidents are confirmed by such margins as 95-5 or 90-10 ("We may not agree with the nominee's positions, but one of the consequences of presidential elections is that the winner gets to make such appointments") while those by Republican presidents are lucky to be confirmed by bare majorities. 

That may be selective memory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Sotamayor and Kagen were nominated by a Democrat with a Democrat majority and passed 68-31 and 63-37.  That's not too far off of Gorsich's 54-45 vote.

Roberts was nominated by a Republican with a Republican majority and passed 78-22.

I don't think one side is better or worse than the other on this.  What you're seeing is the increasing polarization of the parties over the past few years.

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the minority party actually worked out which Senators would vote to confirm (because they were safe for re-election) and which could oppose, knowing it wouldn't make a difference but it would help them with their party base.

 

Quote

And, while you may disagree, there is one crucial difference between the Senate's handling of Judge Garland's nomination and what's going on here: Judge Garland's character and reputation remain unblemished.  Even if Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed, his character and reputation have been destroyed forever.

The crucial difference is that the Democrats don't have the power to delay the confirmation until after the mid-terms. So they have to do this. 

I've heard there were other names on the list of potential nominees that probably would have been harder to attack this way (including some women), so I partly blame Trump and his advisors for nominating someone that could be even the slightest vulnerable to such attacks.

 

Edited September 26, 2018 by cinepro

[mnn727]

Our mutual faith also states "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."
and 3 of 4 people supposedly 'in the know' at the time say it didn't happen - the 4th is the accuser herself.

[Kenngo1969]

12 minutes ago, cinepro said:

… The crucial difference is that the Democrats don't have the power to delay the confirmation until after the mid-terms. So they have to do this.

They have to assassinate Judge Kavanaugh's character, destroy his reputation, and eviscerate him?  No, no they don't.  Fine, vote down his nomination; but don't assassinate his character and destroy his reputation.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[mnn727]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Ford has four corroborating witnesses.

 

 

Kavanaugh  has lied multiple times under oath. He lies about big and small things. He is not credible.

1. No she doesn't have  four corroborating witnesses. She has zero witnesses that say he did it.

2. Prove he has lied multiple times under oath.

Edited September 26, 2018 by mnn727

[bluebell]

51 minutes ago, alter idem said:

To 'move slowly' sounds reasonable right?  But there is motive on their part.  This is a delay tactic to push Kavanaugh's confirmation vote until after the midterm election. Democrats are hoping they will gain the majority in the Senate and can then vote him down.     This information was kept until the last minute precisely so that it could be used to delay the confirmation--if they were not able to get the votes to vote him down.  This group is supporting the efforts of the democrats to keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme court and they are being true to their reason for organizing--to impede Pres. Trump from being able to govern the nation.

We all have motives, so that in and of itself doesn't bother me.  But I'm interesting in understanding why you assume that their motive is to delay a vote until after the midterm election was a way to thwart Trump, and are not willing to consider that they might want to delay a vote because they sincerely believe Kavanaugh is unfit for the office?  

Also, whether or not the information was withheld until the last minute (which isn't right if it was) doesn't seem to have any bearing on the wishes of the group in the OP since they had no power over the delay.  Regardless of when the information was presented, it still needs to be investigated thoroughly, doesn't it?  

Hurrying a vote to get it in before a midterm election is just as immoral as delaying it to get it in after one.  What makes a difference is why someone wants to proceed or wants to delay, and I'm unsure how we can determine that in regards to this group.  I'm not convinced that supporting or not supporting Trump is a reasonable standard to use.

 

[mnn727]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/brett-kavanaugh-misled-the-senate-under-oath-i-cannot-support-his-nomination/2018/09/13/ea75c740-b77d-11e8-b79f-f6e31e555258_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7ee01593cf7d

 

There is a reason that is on the Opinion Page.

[Kenngo1969]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree.  But I'm not sure how that has any bearing on the requests made by the MWFEG group?

Thanks in part to the fact that Senator Feinstein sat for months on the letter she received which contains the first allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, the Senate Judiciary Committee hasn't made effective use of the time it has had to consider Judge Kavanaugh's nomination or the allegations against him.  In light of that, it's hard to not conclude that pleas that Judge Kavanaugh's (latest!) nomination should not be "rushed" are nothing more than another delay tactic.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

I agree with you, but this really boils down to a he said-she said encounter. There simply isn't any evidence to prove or disprove this ever happened. She has to prove she was attacked, how could she possibly do that?, that's how the rule of law works, Kavanaugh is to be considered innocent, until proven guilty. 

I agree, but like others have said, this is really more of a job interview than a court of law.  And we all know that in job interviews, it's not about proving innocence or guilt; it's an issue of picking the best person for the job.  Allegations of serious wrong-doing are relevant to that decision, even if they can't be proven.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

two words, Merrick Garland.

I'm not sure what your interest in this is, since you're a little far north of the jurisdiction in question, but Judge Merrick Garland's character and reputation are just fine, thank you very much.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

do you mean a calendar from 1982? would that clear you from guilt? nope, no crimes to do today!

Duncan, it is possible that you are missing my point and that I am not explaining my position well. Are you the same person you were when you were 17?  Do you think humans learn by their actions? Speaking for myself, I know that I have grown. As I have aged I have learned to how to better handle social situations. In fact, during those formative years, I learned how to interact with members of the opposite sex, how to date, and eventually how to marry. I learned through trial and error. I was not one to drink as a young person or an adult, but I have friends that did participate in those types of activities. Some still drink socially, some are now teetotallers, and some are dead. Regardless, I don't think me or anyone else should be condemned for the actions of our youth. 

Nor do I think you should be condemned by how you made other people "feel".  You are not responsible for other people's feelings - no one is. Each of us is responsible for our own feelings and how we deal with them.

A great deal of the circus that is going on is ridiculous. I have heard many say, "These allegations are serious." Like, somehow, calling them serious makes it appear that they have a huge impact on the process.  I don't give two hoots in heck what you did in high school. I don't care that you played sports, or were on the debate team, or that you slept around like horndog. What I care about is what type of person you are today, how you have performed in your professional life, etc. Going back 30 to 50 years to condemn someone is stupid - I don't care what the allegations are about they should have no bearing on anyone in today's world....unless those same behaviors have continued. That those behaviors have been exhibited in their adult life, in their professional career, etc. 

I think your comment is supposed to interject humor or to attack the nominee's efforts to demonstrate innocence by using his calendars from the past. I will say this, I would give more weight to someone's written history, as in written at the time things occurred, over someone's memory every day of the week. Understand what I am saying - I would give it more weight, that is not saying I would believe it, but that I would give it more weight relative to someone's memory of an event.  

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Thanks in part to the fact that Senator Feinstein sat for months on the letter she received which contains the first allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, the Senate Judiciary Committee hasn't made effective use of the time it has had to consider Judge Kavanaugh's nomination or the allegations against him.  In light of that, it's hard to not conclude that pleas that Judge Kavanaugh's (latest!) nomination should not be "rushed" are nothing more than another delay tactic.

If the OP group had any say or part in the delay, I would agree with you.  

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not sure what your interest in this is, since you're a little far north of the jurisdiction in question, but Judge Merrick Garland's character and reputation are just fine, thank you very much.

BECAUSE IT"S ON THE NEWS ALLLLLLLLLLL THE TIME!!!! it's Hockey season!!!!!!!!!!!!! don't have time for this US Law stuff!!!

[bluebell]

Just now, Duncan said:

BECAUSE IT"S ON THE NEWS ALLLLLLLLLLL THE TIME!!!! it's Hockey season!!!!!!!!!!!!! don't have time for this US Law stuff!!!

 

[Kenngo1969]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree, but like others have said, this is really more of a job interview than a court of law.  And we all know that in job interviews, it's not about proving innocence or guilt; it's an issue of picking the best person for the job.  Allegations of serious wrong-doing are relevant to that decision, even if they can't be proven.

In my opinion, if Judge Kavanaugh were denied a job on the basis of (the very, very thin reed of the old, unverified, unverifiable) allegations against him, he would have a cause of action against that employer.  If he were so inclined, he might well have a cause of action against his accusers for defamation (although admittedly, ironically, he would have a hard time mustering the needed quantum of proof against them).

[Kenngo1969]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If the OP group had any say or part in the delay, I would agree with you.  

Yet that very group is arguing for yet more delay.  

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, Storm Rider said:

Duncan, it is possible that you are missing my point and that I am not explaining my position well. Are you the same person you were when you were 17?  Do you think humans learn by their actions? Speaking for myself, I know that I have grown. As I have aged I have learned to how to better handle social situations. In fact, during those formative years, I learned how to interact with members of the opposite sex, how to date, and eventually how to marry. I learned through trial and error. I was not one to drink as a young person or an adult, but I have friends that did participate in those types of activities. Some still drink socially, some are now teetotallers, and some are dead. Regardless, I don't think me or anyone else should be condemned for the actions of our youth. 

Nor do I think you should be condemned by how you made other people "feel".  You are not responsible for other people's feelings - no one is. Each of us is responsible for our own feelings and how we deal with them.

A great deal of the circus that is going on is ridiculous. I have heard many say, "These allegations are serious." Like, somehow, calling them serious makes it appear that they have a huge impact on the process.  I don't give two hoots in heck what you did in high school. I don't care that you played sports, or were on the debate team, or that you slept around like horndog. What I care about is what type of person you are today, how you have performed in your professional life, etc. Going back 30 to 50 years to condemn someone is stupid - I don't care what the allegations are about they should have no bearing on anyone in today's world....unless those same behaviors have continued. That those behaviors have been exhibited in their adult life, in their professional career, etc. 

I think your comment is supposed to interject humor or to attack the nominee's efforts to demonstrate innocence by using his calendars from the past. I will say this, I would give more weight to someone's written history, as in written at the time things occurred, over someone's memory every day of the week. Understand what I am saying - I would give it more weight, that is not saying I would believe it, but that I would give it more weight relative to someone's memory of an event.  

but that's just it, the written record is coming forward. If this guy is going to judge women's issues I would hope he has a great record when it comes to women. Not everyone was a sleezy guy in High School and I hope people learn from their mistakes but part of doing that is confessing them to a committee and not denying them.

[Kenngo1969]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

BECAUSE IT"S ON THE NEWS ALLLLLLLLLLL THE TIME!!!! it's Hockey season!!!!!!!!!!!!! don't have time for this US Law stuff!!!

Who's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to watch?  Do you have access to a phone?  Could you use it on the sly to summon help?  In some areas, texting emergency dispatchers is an option if you're worried about your captor catching you on the phone.  (I'm not well versed in Canadian law, but under U.S. law in many jurisdictions, that person could well be charged with aggravated assault, aggravated kidnapping, and perhaps other crimes. )

[Kenngo1969]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

but that's just it, the written record is coming forward. If this guy is going to judge women's issues I would hope he has a great record when it comes to women. Not everyone was a sleezy guy in High School and I hope people learn from their mistakes but part of doing that is confessing them to a committee and not denying them.

If he did what he's been accused of, I hope, at a minimum, he would withdraw his nomination from consideration.  If he didn't, I hope he would fight until his last breath.  (A man's reputation is worth quite a bit, whatever else he may or may not have: I ought to know; mine is in tatters. )