Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

He’s still a thing?

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

I learned a new acronym tonight

TERF? Even I knew that one...

[burd]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Would the hearing at which Ford might testify be televised?

If it will be, the GOP committee members have some risk of their own. We all know they have their minds made up and will use this only as a chance to attack her. But given the nature of the allegations and the times we live in, if she presents well and they go too far and make her appear the victim on the stand, they could be seen by voters as abusers themselves. Report cards come out in November. It's the same dynamic attorneys face when they cross examine a witness in front of a jury--beat them up too much and you win the battle but risk losing the war. Sometimes the most impeachable witnesses are the ones you have to be most careful with, particularly if they appear vulnerable. The MeToo dynamic makes it even more complicated.

The GOP members know this, of course, and will try to tear her apart kindly until they feel they have shown she is lying--then they become righteous and burn her at the stake.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

She has until Friday to decide. https://www.infowars.com/grassley-gi...ne-to-testify/

[Handyman]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

I think I get what you are trying to say but I can't say I agree. If a person is traumatized by the actions then they don't get a second chance to unlive what has changed them forever simply because the guy never did it before or he is sorry. This is one of the things I hear that sends me. Telling them Franken isn't as bad as Moore does what exactly? Are they supposed to feel better because it could have been worse? The perpetrators aren't little kids. They are grown ups. Most people, when asked, can figure out you shouldn't behave like this and will tell you so. When you put a name to the 'guilty party and they become a face then we hear all the mitigating factors we should consider to minimize what happened. Do I feel bad when someone screwed up and the consequence changes their life in a way they can't recover from? Actually I do. And I wish there was some way they could undo it. And I wish they didn't need to suffer the consequences. But having taken care of the survivors I can't forget they deserve justice. Justice doesn't include worrying about how the earned consequences will affect the perpetrator.

What if there are large numbers of men who are 'guilty' of transgressions? Do we say- oh, well, if we were to act on everyone who did that half of them would be in trouble so we should reconsider what we want to do?

No they arent supposed to feel better but I dont think you can punish both equally either. My girlfriend works with trauma (she also has trauma though different type) so I know the score. Not every bad act causes trauma that is bad enough that the retribution should be to burn the witch in the town square. The retribution should equal the act.

I dont want to mitigate factors based on who the person is, I want to mitigate factors based on what happened which is what you are supposed to do. That is where the girlfriend and I agree. (hell she is more grey about it than I am) I was the one saying Franken should step down and she was vehemently against it. She acknowledges that some or all of the women may have felt he was inappropriate but she doesnt think that the acts warrant the outrage nor could cause the type of trauma the outrage brought about. Mitigating factors are important, knowing the whole story is important in the end. We dont live in a vacuum. That is the point she and I are making.

If every man is guilty they should be punished. I dont think I said otherwise. But I feel that they should be punished differently just like they would be in court. The different acts would be different level of crimes and they should be punished thusly.

You seem to think I dont want justice for the victims. I most certainly do. I have seen first hand what trauma can do and I know how hard it can be to get through. (sadly I have also seen what false accusations can do) This isnt about whether they deserve justice, this is about what that justice is.

And I am going to worry about the men in part because I am a man. How this gets defined and changed is going to change my behavior going forward and define my past behaviors.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Would the hearing at which Ford might testify be televised?

I believe I read Dr. Ford was offered the options of testifying in a pubic or private hearing in DC, or at a public or private staff interview anywhere she wishes, including California.

[SJHovey]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

I think I get what you are trying to say but I can't say I agree. If a person is traumatized by the actions then they don't get a second chance to unlive what has changed them forever simply because the guy never did it before or he is sorry. This is one of the things I hear that sends me. Telling them Franken isn't as bad as Moore does what exactly? Are they supposed to feel better because it could have been worse? The perpetrators aren't little kids. They are grown ups. Most people, when asked, can figure out you shouldn't behave like this and will tell you so. When you put a name to the 'guilty party and they become a face then we hear all the mitigating factors we should consider to minimize what happened. Do I feel bad when someone screwed up and the consequence changes their life in a way they can't recover from? Actually I do. And I wish there was some way they could undo it. And I wish they didn't need to suffer the consequences. But having taken care of the survivors I can't forget they deserve justice. Justice doesn't include worrying about how the earned consequences will affect the perpetrator.

What if there are large numbers of men who are 'guilty' of transgressions? Do we say- oh, well, if we were to act on everyone who did that half of them would be in trouble so we should reconsider what we want to do?

I think this post asks some important questions. I don't think it necessarily answers those questions, but I'm not sure we have the answers yet.

Do I think something happened between Ford and Kavanaugh? I do. I don't know what. I have a hunch. My hunch is that we had a high school boy attending an all boys school who found himself at a party in mixed company, consumed more alcohol than he was capable of handling, with the assistance of a friend got Ford into a room and he physically groped her. She was undoubtedly was very frightened and probably thought she was about to be raped. He probably thought he was wowing her with his prowess as a lover.

Was his conduct wrong? Absolutely.

But here is a concern I've had for some time. We are moving to a place in society where degrees and context and nuance don't matter in these events. Furthermore, we are moving in the direction that says that because the victim has to live with the trauma of the events for the rest of his or her life, the perpetrator must also receive a life sentence. Finally, there is even a backlash against those who are open to listening to the perpetrator's story or giving the perp a chance at rehabilitation.

I saw that one of the top editors at The New York Review of Books was recently bounced from his job because he had the temerity to publish an essay by a man who had been charged with assaulting one or more women. The media backlash to the publication basically took the form that the perpetrator's voice should not be heard, that the perpetrator has no right to try to address the context of the events or to try to rehabilitate himself.

One of the things that has struck me about the Kavanaugh case is this. No one has even asked the question, "What if Kavanaugh, thirty years ago as a drunken high school student at a party, did physically grope and frighten Ford? Does that automatically disqualify him from this position?"

I mean, probably? But no one has even asked that question. If it disqualifies him from this position, what other positions does it disqualify him from? Too often I think the response to these events, regardless of degree, is burn them at the stake. And they need to stay burned.

The problem with that is twofold. First, I believe that while punishment must be leveled for wrongs, that punishment has to be appropriate both in terms of length and degree. Second, if our response is to tar every perpetrator with the scarlet letter for life, you are going to see events like we see now where the automatic response to a charge is denial, not acknowledgment and contrition. You have to deny, because the consequences are too great if you don't.

[Handyman]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

If Ford doesnt testify then this was all for naught. The Senate isnt going to hold this up much longer they need to vote before the end of session or this whole thing could unravel. If she doesnt go in front of committee it is 100% he gets confirmed.

[Handyman]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

If Kavanaugh did what he is accused of yes it disqualifies him from the job. Even with every mitigating factor in the book what he did was wrong even back then. (it was ignored but it was wrong) Since there is the possibility he will be hearing cases about stuff like this he cant be trusted to be objective.

There are other reasons I think he should be disqualified, but this is a big one.

You are right though, no one is asking the question. To be fair though most arent asking the question because to them the answer is an implied yes.

[SJHovey]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

If Kavanaugh did what he is accused of yes it disqualifies him from the job. Even with every mitigating factor in the book what he did was wrong even back then. (it was ignored but it was wrong) Since there is the possibility he will be hearing cases about stuff like this he cant be trusted to be objective.

There are other reasons I think he should be disqualified, but this is a big one.

You are right though, no one is asking the question. To be fair though most arent asking the question because to them the answer is an implied yes.

Juveniles do a lot of stupid things, especially when alcohol is involved. That's why in most states they are punished differently, with the punishment frequently ending when minority status does. But that should disqualify you for a job thirty years later?

I'll admit, this is a special job, and for certain positions you maybe should be beyond reproach. But I didn't make an automatic assumption it should be a disqualifier when I heard what he was accused of, including when and the context. Just like I didn't think the accusations against Franken should automatically disqualify him for the Senate job.

[Rover]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Juveniles do a lot of stupid things, especially when alcohol is involved. That's why in most states they are punished differently, with the punishment frequently ending when minority status does. But that should disqualify you for a job thirty years later?

I'll admit, this is a special job, and for certain positions you maybe should be beyond reproach. But I didn't make an automatic assumption it should be a disqualifier when I heard what he was accused of, including when and the context. Just like I didn't think the accusations against Franken should automatically disqualify him for the Senate job.

Because he's not being honest about it if it happened. If she's credible then he's lying. They can't both be telling the truth. I did a lot of boozing in my day, but I would have remembered something like this. Its also a bit odd to get blackout drunk at age 17 or whatever he was at the time.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Hello, I'm Bill Curtis... Many believe the American government... covered it up... I'm Bill Curtis... https://www.infowars.com/bombshell-k...ooks-scrubbed/

[rufus]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Juveniles do a lot of stupid things, especially when alcohol is involved. That's why in most states they are punished differently, with the punishment frequently ending when minority status does. But that should disqualify you for a job thirty years later?

I'll admit, this is a special job, and for certain positions you maybe should be beyond reproach. But I didn't make an automatic assumption it should be a disqualifier when I heard what he was accused of, including when and the context. Just like I didn't think the accusations against Franken should automatically disqualify him for the Senate job.

Do all juveniles attempt to rape 15 year old girls, even under the influence of alcohol? Or do we just give this juvenile a pass because he's a nice white boy tryin g to get on the Supreme Court?


How about those young black juveniles? Do they do stupid things? Or are they hardened thugs who need to be shot down in the streets for just walking?


Funny how standards are malleable depending on the person(s) involved.

[rufus]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

If Ford doesnt testify then this was all for naught. The Senate isnt going to hold this up much longer they need to vote before the end of session or this whole thing could unravel. If she doesnt go in front of committee it is 100% he gets confirmed.

Even if she testifies, it's all for naught. the Republicans are making big statements about how they want to hear what she has to say, but they're doing everything they can to make sure she isn't heard. They scheduled this hearing for Monday without even contacting her to see if she could make it at that time. And they're all talking as if this is some kind of ultimatum, be there Monday or else. And they're all saying that no matter how credible she is, this thing is gonna come to an end, and they're gonna hold their vote.

Nothing she tells them will make a difference. Without calling other people to this hearing who could corroborate/negate her story, it's simply he said, she said, and republican have made it clear who they believe.

[Spartanforlife4]

Do all juveniles attempt to rape 15 year old girls, even under the influence of alcohol? Or do we just give this juvenile a pass because he's a nice white boy tryin g to get on the Supreme Court?


How about those young black juveniles? Do they do stupid things? Or are they hardened thugs who need to be shot down in the streets for just walking?


Funny how standards are malleable depending on the person(s) involved.

"How old is 15, really?" - Dave Chappelle