Can't agree with that. First of all we are talking the early 80s not the 40s. Secondly to push someone into a room when they are going to the bathroom (which is the allegation) has nothing voluntary about it and lastly he (allegedly) pushed her on to a bed, climbed on top of her and ground his hips into hers. If that isn't sexual assault, I don't know what is. It stopped because they heard someone outside the room. She (at 15 years old by the way) would have been terrified, and nothing excuses that.
Kavanaugh's a rapey bullshitter and he's clearly not cut out to be any sort of judge, so why are the Republicans so dead set on him? Quite simply because he's against the idea of a sitting President being open to prosecution. If he hadn't been vocal about this in the past, despite going after Bill Clinton, then they'd have moved onto someone else. The man's utterly toxic to their party right now and there's a mid-term election coming up.
You seem to be following it more closely than me, however, I said 40-50 years ago, not 1940's.. How old was he at the time? If he was 16 or 17, then hi jinks, over 25, he might have a case to answer. But as I said earlier, putting someone on some kind of trial for something that happened nearly 40 years ago ain't right if there is no real evidence and its one persons word against another. I always thought the safety net of beyond reasonable doubt should be adhered to.
Trump will do whatever he can to get Kavanaugh or another far right candidate onto the Supreme Court. Being the Supreme Court, it’s a job for life. Which means that the court would still have that right wing bias long after Trump has gone, unless a vacancy comes up.
I honestly doubt that he even understands that. He knows that Kavanaugh can undermine the Mueller probe and that's all that he cares about. He talked about Obama failing to fill a load of judicial roles in his weird, hour-long rant the other day. He genuinely seemed to be under the impression that the Democrats just didn't bother doing it. Had no idea that it was because of Republican tactics to completely refuse to confirm anyone.
Which again brings me back to the proper reason why he should not be appointed, a Judge should not be a political animal. Their is something very wrong with the way the Americans appoint their Supreme Court Judges, it should be a pier appointment and politicians should butt out of it.
Depending how the November elections go he may have a few problems himself. Which is probably why we’re seeing the current shenanigans.
Can’t disagree that they should be completely neutral, but unfortunately personal and political beliefs come into their decisions. Abortion will be a prime target if the right wingers hold the majority vote.
Rubbish. An allegation has been made against the man in public, that now (as a matter of public comment) should be the remit of a court of law. The correct procedure would have been for the allegation to be made in private, and then : 1. the accused to have the right to do an initial rebuttal in private 2. the claimant is asked whether they are prepared to see their claim addressed in a court of law. if the accused contests the claim The partisan nature of all this stuff (candidates, claims etc) is just embarrassing and pathetic as far as the credibility of USA politics goes.
He was 17 - as was the tag team mate Mark Judge - both pissed out of their skulls apparently. She was 15 and by no account a willing participant. The circs of this one are also similar to the later and far worse allegations of gang rape, in which he is atvleast an alleged bystander, if not participant, with the same buddy. https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com...etnick-in-new-sexual-assault-allegations/amp/ There is a pattern here - and it doesn't involve any behaviour I would deem acceptable now, 40 years ago or even 80 years ago.
Your issue is with the American system, not me. I agree it should have been held in private, but that is not the way they do it. Dr Ford is a character witness, not an accuser. What do you expect her to do (assuming she is not lying) stand by and see someone appointed as a Judge without sharing her experience of him.
She is accusing him of rape, in public, in a non-legal setting That is a serious allegation against another human, not a "job interview" where you are accusing someone of fiddling their timesheets or stealing from the company stationary cupboard. "What do you expect her to do (assuming she is not lying) stand by and see someone appointed as a Judge without sharing her experience of him." I expect someone with moral courage to have come forward and attempted to put a hit on his legal career well before he could rise to the level of being a candidate for USA supreme judge. As should have been done for that other rapist politnik, Bill Clinton.
It's not "non-legal", they both spoke under oath. I'm going to make an assumption here and assume you haven't been subject to an attempted rape. Therefore what she decides to do is not for you to question, you have no right to decide what moral courage is when you cannot possibly empathise with her position. And Clinton never raped anyone. Husband of the Year? No. Rapist? No.
Empathy has nothing to do with it. From the moment of her allegations, to now, the guy may have committed umpteen rapes during his career rise. The accuser has miraculously found the moral courage during somebodys' "job interview" to make the claim, but not beforehand when the claim could have resulted in criminal prosecution (and rightly so) . "And Clinton never raped anyone. Husband of the Year? No. Rapist? No." Juanita Brodderick etc would beg to differ. Or are the nature of her allegations somehow different from those of Cassie Fords' ...
So Kavanaugh is treated badly by having this story raised after the passage of time, but Clinton is a rapist, despite Broadderick was swearing an in an affidavit that he never touched her. Has Broadderick ever had the "moral courage" to accuse Clinton in a court of Law? The answer is no. Her accusations come on television, Dr Ford opened herself up to cross examination. Your bias is clear.
The Kavanaugh vote is delayed by 30 minutes so far, something's afoot! I hope a Republican or 2 have thought better, as he is an inappropriate person to join the Supreme Court.
