3 ms·

> With historical sexual allegations a powerful weapon in politics, business and for financial gain, the accused are increasingly defenseless and accused is the

> With historical sexual allegations a powerful weapon in politics, business and for financial gain, the accused are increasingly defenseless and accused is the new guilty. If three accusations are not powerful enough to stop someone from getting a seat on the supreme court, any claim that we're giving too much power to accusers can't be taken seriously.

lykr0n 8y ago
I think that's a factor when they came out. If they came out 2 months ago, I don't think he'd have gotten as far as he did.
- omegaworks 8y ago
  Kavanaugh was prepared to do damage control from the get-go[1]. Christine Ford presented her allegation while he was on the short-list[2], in hopes that it would be quietly handled and another candidate could have been chosen. The timing wasn't the issue. 1. https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1046923936011825152 https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1046923936011825152 2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript/?utm_term=.f001c3a009d1 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/09/27/k...
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Kavanaugh is awful and should have been disqualified for other reasons, but he wasn't the one sitting on Ford's accusations. Feinstein's story is that the accusation was in the form of "this is for your information only and I do not consent to publicity", which was pretty much useless for a minority committee member.
    - omegaworks 8y ago
      Whether it was Feinstein, Grassley, Trump or John Roberts, who is to blame doesn't matter given the context of "historical power of allegations" which is the topic at hand. The fact remains: Kavanaugh has been elevated to a position of supreme power for the remainder of his lifetime, despite credible allegations of sexual assault and perjury. The system failed Christine Ford.
      - vuln 8y ago
        Could you explain how 'credible allegations' is better or more powerful than 'credible evidence'?
        kennywinker 8y ago
        To convict someone of a crime, you'd need credible evidence. To not give someone a seat on the supreme court, credible allegations should probably be enough.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        You could say "the system failed" the American people, and I would agree. We got a bad justice. However, this system and this process has nothing to do with Ms. Ford, and it did not "fail" her. She should have received her justice a long time ago, from a completely different authority. Perhaps the police, the courts, her parents, the school system, or whoever failed her. Those are completely different entities, and they have nothing to do with selecting Supreme Court justices. Having some justice dude approved or not by the Senate is not something that can possibly answer for teenage sexual assault. If Kavanaugh had been charged and convicted at the time of the alleged assault, and had never become a lawyer let alone a judge, the reptiles would have just selected someone with identical values as the next justice.
        omegaworks 8y ago
        >If Kavanaugh had been charged and convicted at the time of the alleged assault The system doesn't really punish wealthy white members of the elite that commit sexual assault[1]. There's no reason to believe that had he been convicted then, that he wouldn't have gone on to have the same career trajectory. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/us/outrage-in-stanford-rape-case-over-dueling-statements-of-victim-and-attackers-father.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/us/outrage-in-stanford-ra... >the reptiles would have just selected someone with identical values as the next justice. Republicans could have avoided this critique entirely by abandoning Kavanaugh when the allegation came to light. Instead, they doubled down on him. Politicians only do this if they judge that the ramifications of their decision would tip in their favor come next election season. There is a vocal contingent of the country that seeks to retain existing power structures that wave away consequences for wealthy white men. Whether there is enough political momentum to topple that, or even question it, will come to light in November. If it doesn't, our institutions will further entrench the values that let Kavanaugh slither by.
- mmanfrin 8y ago
  They did come out prior to him being nominated.
  - ardy42 8y ago
    >> I think that's a factor when they came out. If they came out 2 months ago, I don't think he'd have gotten as far as he did. > They did come out prior to him being nominated. IIRC, the allegations only came out publicly after the confirmation hearings were over. Sen. Feinstein knew about them earlier, but kept them private, so that doesn't really count. So I think the GP's point stands. If the allegations had came out before he'd been nominated, he'd have never been selected and someone else would have been confirmed.
  - belorn 8y ago
    Given the recent trend in the last 4 years to have elections where the dominating media stories are about candidates being accused of criminal offenses, here is a small suggestion. Lets have a FCC rule that forbid media outlets that use the radio spectrum (TV, radio, Internet) from publishing articles with accusations of criminal offenses targeted at politician candidates, on the grounds that it would interfere with the political process. That would resolve the main complaint, still allow for stories that came out prior to any nomination, and we can keep the legal process and the political process isolated and separate.
zimablue 8y ago
I wonder what impact those accusations had on his life though.
- kennywinker 8y ago
  less impact than a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, I'm sure
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
oh_sigh 8y ago
You're just looking at the end result. The kavanaugh situation ended up passing much more narrowly than it would have if the accusers had not come forward. And keep in mind that there was absolutely zero evidence for any of the accusations, even to the point where the people the accusers named as being present all denied knowing what they were talking about.
- omegaworks 8y ago
  Testimony is evidence[1]. Leland Kaiser, named by Christine Ford as someone else at the party, submitted a statement that she did not recall the party. This is not a denial of Ford's claim. This is consistent with Christine Ford's testimony that for the other people present, it would have been a normal, unmemorable event. The narrative that "all named people denied Ford's claim" is an intentional oversimplification spread by the GOP to discredit her evidence[2]. 1. https://thelawdictionary.org/testimony/ https://thelawdictionary.org/testimony/ 2. https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/8x75y5/cornyn-says-allegations-against-mark-judge-are-uncorroborated-but-judges-ex-corroborated-them https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/8x75y5/cornyn-says-alleg...
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    Ok, I apologize in that I was using the vernacular of evidence and not the legal definition. Did Ford or anyone provide any evidence beyond her testimony? There isn't much of a case when they only thing that can be said is "you did this" and "no I didn't"
    - omegaworks 8y ago
      The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Kavanaugh were deliberately structured to give the appearance of "he-said-she-said." Senator Grassley prevented both sides from presenting witnesses that would have corroborated their testimony. The GOP members of the committee unanimously voted down a motion to subpoena Mark Judge[1]. 1. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/28/republican-senators-vote-down-motion-to-subpoena-mark-judge-to-testify.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/28/republican-senators-vote-dow...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

lykr0n 8y ago

I think that's a factor when they came out. If they came out 2 months ago, I don't think he'd have gotten as far as he did.

omegaworks 8y ago
Kavanaugh was prepared to do damage control from the get-go[1]. Christine Ford presented her allegation while he was on the short-list[2], in hopes that it would be quietly handled and another candidate could have been chosen. The timing wasn't the issue. 1. https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1046923936011825152 https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1046923936011825152 2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript/?utm_term=.f001c3a009d1 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/09/27/k...
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Kavanaugh is awful and should have been disqualified for other reasons, but he wasn't the one sitting on Ford's accusations. Feinstein's story is that the accusation was in the form of "this is for your information only and I do not consent to publicity", which was pretty much useless for a minority committee member.
  - omegaworks 8y ago
    Whether it was Feinstein, Grassley, Trump or John Roberts, who is to blame doesn't matter given the context of "historical power of allegations" which is the topic at hand. The fact remains: Kavanaugh has been elevated to a position of supreme power for the remainder of his lifetime, despite credible allegations of sexual assault and perjury. The system failed Christine Ford.
    - vuln 8y ago
      Could you explain how 'credible allegations' is better or more powerful than 'credible evidence'?
      - kennywinker 8y ago
        To convict someone of a crime, you'd need credible evidence. To not give someone a seat on the supreme court, credible allegations should probably be enough.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      You could say "the system failed" the American people, and I would agree. We got a bad justice. However, this system and this process has nothing to do with Ms. Ford, and it did not "fail" her. She should have received her justice a long time ago, from a completely different authority. Perhaps the police, the courts, her parents, the school system, or whoever failed her. Those are completely different entities, and they have nothing to do with selecting Supreme Court justices. Having some justice dude approved or not by the Senate is not something that can possibly answer for teenage sexual assault. If Kavanaugh had been charged and convicted at the time of the alleged assault, and had never become a lawyer let alone a judge, the reptiles would have just selected someone with identical values as the next justice.
      - omegaworks 8y ago
        >If Kavanaugh had been charged and convicted at the time of the alleged assault The system doesn't really punish wealthy white members of the elite that commit sexual assault[1]. There's no reason to believe that had he been convicted then, that he wouldn't have gone on to have the same career trajectory. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/us/outrage-in-stanford-rape-case-over-dueling-statements-of-victim-and-attackers-father.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/us/outrage-in-stanford-ra... >the reptiles would have just selected someone with identical values as the next justice. Republicans could have avoided this critique entirely by abandoning Kavanaugh when the allegation came to light. Instead, they doubled down on him. Politicians only do this if they judge that the ramifications of their decision would tip in their favor come next election season. There is a vocal contingent of the country that seeks to retain existing power structures that wave away consequences for wealthy white men. Whether there is enough political momentum to topple that, or even question it, will come to light in November. If it doesn't, our institutions will further entrench the values that let Kavanaugh slither by.
mmanfrin 8y ago
They did come out prior to him being nominated.
- ardy42 8y ago
  >> I think that's a factor when they came out. If they came out 2 months ago, I don't think he'd have gotten as far as he did. > They did come out prior to him being nominated. IIRC, the allegations only came out publicly after the confirmation hearings were over. Sen. Feinstein knew about them earlier, but kept them private, so that doesn't really count. So I think the GP's point stands. If the allegations had came out before he'd been nominated, he'd have never been selected and someone else would have been confirmed.
- belorn 8y ago
  Given the recent trend in the last 4 years to have elections where the dominating media stories are about candidates being accused of criminal offenses, here is a small suggestion. Lets have a FCC rule that forbid media outlets that use the radio spectrum (TV, radio, Internet) from publishing articles with accusations of criminal offenses targeted at politician candidates, on the grounds that it would interfere with the political process. That would resolve the main complaint, still allow for stories that came out prior to any nomination, and we can keep the legal process and the political process isolated and separate.

zimablue 8y ago

I wonder what impact those accusations had on his life though.

kennywinker 8y ago
less impact than a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, I'm sure
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

oh_sigh 8y ago

You're just looking at the end result. The kavanaugh situation ended up passing much more narrowly than it would have if the accusers had not come forward. And keep in mind that there was absolutely zero evidence for any of the accusations, even to the point where the people the accusers named as being present all denied knowing what they were talking about.

omegaworks 8y ago
Testimony is evidence[1]. Leland Kaiser, named by Christine Ford as someone else at the party, submitted a statement that she did not recall the party. This is not a denial of Ford's claim. This is consistent with Christine Ford's testimony that for the other people present, it would have been a normal, unmemorable event. The narrative that "all named people denied Ford's claim" is an intentional oversimplification spread by the GOP to discredit her evidence[2]. 1. https://thelawdictionary.org/testimony/ https://thelawdictionary.org/testimony/ 2. https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/8x75y5/cornyn-says-allegations-against-mark-judge-are-uncorroborated-but-judges-ex-corroborated-them https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/8x75y5/cornyn-says-alleg...
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  Ok, I apologize in that I was using the vernacular of evidence and not the legal definition. Did Ford or anyone provide any evidence beyond her testimony? There isn't much of a case when they only thing that can be said is "you did this" and "no I didn't"
  - omegaworks 8y ago
    The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Kavanaugh were deliberately structured to give the appearance of "he-said-she-said." Senator Grassley prevented both sides from presenting witnesses that would have corroborated their testimony. The GOP members of the committee unanimously voted down a motion to subpoena Mark Judge[1]. 1. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/28/republican-senators-vote-down-motion-to-subpoena-mark-judge-to-testify.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/28/republican-senators-vote-dow...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]