What Is Honorable About Your Honor Brett Kavanaugh?

What Is Honorable About Your Honor Brett Kavanaugh? September 24, 2018

So, I predict that, no, Brett Kavanaugh will not be sacrificed. I predict that women will yet again be slut-shamed, silenced, and slammed against the wall to be left to bleed out, not yet seeing our hopes for justice to prevail.


Brett Kavanaugh and his treatment of his accusers
Honorable men do not treat women like this.

OK, according to those who support The Honorable Judge Brett Kavanaugh, he has had a stellar legal career and his personal life is above reproach. Well, maybe not the last part of that, but still . . . he has an enviable school record, upbringing, and career.

And, because he’s a judge, he may be awarded the title of “Your Honor” or the Honorable Brett Kavanaugh.

But is he a man of honor?

Look, we all seriously messed up in our younger days. Well, most of us. Or at least I did. That’s not the issue here. The issue is not acknowledging that our possible (even unremembered) mess-ups may have caused some severe trauma to others.

An honorable person, when confronted with possible misdeeds from years earlier, does not call the accuser a liar. S/he acknowledges that none of us have perfect memories and none of us has perfect lives and it is very possible that some of our actions may have indeed been seriously hurtful to others.

An honorable person does not immediately leap to defend him/herself at the cost of character assassination of the others.

An honorable person recognizes that we each have experiences that others may not be able to fully enter into, and does not dismiss them as fabrications.

An honorable person does not surround a vulnerable person with those who have the power to destroy a life and demand answers from that person without protection.

An honorable person recognizes his/her place of privilege and how much one’s own power can affect those with less power. Out of this acknowledgment, humility springs forth and offers space and safety to the less privileged one.

An honorable person asks forgiveness for having caused hurt, even if it may have been inadvertent or memory-blocked by alcohol, and seeks restorative actions.

So far, nothing I have seen of the Honorable Brett Kavanaugh gives him the right to be called honorable. If he were, he would have asked for his confirmation hearings to be delayed until all, and I do mean all, evidence of his past legal life and his past possible sexually predatory activities have been put out for all to see.

He has lost his right to be called Honorable or a Justice–for a Justice seeks justice for all, not just for himself.

I will say this: I feel sorry for him, despite the fact that I don’t particularly want him to be confirmed. By latching himself onto Trump, he thought he had secured for himself a very, very nice career, income, status and national influence. But by latching himself to a dishonorable man, he chose to deny the stains of his own life and to act with destructive hubris, not appropriate humility.  These actions suggest that he is not the appropriate person to be adjuticating over decisions will change the direction of this nation forever.

Right now, Brett Kavanaugh’s actions strongly suggest he is neither honorable nor just. Despite his qualifications otherwise, he has displayed a lack of character for one who will hold that kind of power for the rest of his life.

Let this be a lesson to all of us: there are no more secrets. Not now, now in the days of #metoo. Ultimately, this is a good thing, as much as most of us would prefer that parts of our lives remained unexamined. In time, perhaps, we will all learn to be more honest, and more faithful and caring in our treatment of others.

Will Kavanaugh be sacrificed on the altar of preyed upon women? Unfortunately, that depends on the honor of his defenders. Because Evangelicals (Franklin Graham, anyone? He’s claimed that Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual assault, whether true or not, is not relevant to the situation) are 100% for him, no matter what, I do seriously question their honor.

As for the GOP: unfortunately, it is more and more being labeled the party of scared old white men who have little regard for women or other more vulnerable people. Fine for the moment for them and their careers. Disastrous for their souls and for the future of the USA.

So, I predict that, no, Kavanaugh will not be sacrificed. I predict that women will yet again be slut-shamed, silenced, and slammed against the wall to be left to bleed out, not yet seeing our hopes for justice to prevail.

And we will have a dishonorable man with entirely too much power. Nothing new in history here but perhaps, just perhaps, the tide will turn.

Photo Credit: David Hayward, AKA The Naked Pastor, used with permission.

"It seems that you're saying that it's impossible to stop using the cross as a ..."

After Pittsburgh, I Can No Longer ..."
"Caring about people and acquiescing to false views of reality are not the same thing. ..."

After Pittsburgh, I Can No Longer ..."
"To be clear, Jesus said it was the sum of the law. People seem to ..."

The Mean Girl Manifesto: The UMC ..."
"Was John Wesley a "mean girl" when he left the Fetter Lane Society over theological ..."

The Mean Girl Manifesto: The UMC ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • clanhamilton

    ANOTHER dishonorable man on SCOTUS.
    Thomas was, and I still consider him a sexual predator.
    Gorsuch was a partisan pick. The SCOTUS should not have partisan politicians from either side.

    • Iron Mike

      I guess it’s irrelevant to you that the FBI actually investigated the claims against Thomas and found they were baseless and without merit. Yet you mindlessly join the chorus to condemn without evidence. As for partisan picks, I have news for you—they are ALL partisan picks by a President elected by the people. The difference is some are committed to interpreting the constitution as written, and some are not.

      • Nick G

        The difference is some are committed to interpreting the constitution as written, and some are not.

        So, it’s fine for them to be partisan as long as they are partisan in the way you agree with.

        • Iron Mike

          Presidents are partisan—they make SCOTUS picks that are therefore “partisan picks” and that’s true regardless of party. It’s not rocket science. But if you do not grasp that Conservatives interpret the Constitution as “originalists” and Liberals interpret the “Living Constitution, then you haven’t done your homework.

  • Robert Limb

    If we want to be objective, there has to be some doubt when someone suddenly turns up with an accusation of a misdeed which allegedly happened decades ago. For some, women never lie about such things, and “Liar” is obviously a lie. And more often than not it is, especially in a world of “alternative facts”. Meanwhile, the fundamental question becomes of secondary importance, and that, to me seems serious: Is this person, judging by his expressed opinions and proven track record, qualified for this office or not?

    • Sorry Robert, but you are wrong. I was molested as a child. I didn’t tell anyone until a few years ago. I’m sixty-one, and I think I was six at the time, so I didn’t tell anyone for over fifty years.

      Sure some people lie. Studies have shown that the same percentage of people lie about sexual assault as lie about other crimes, between 2 and 5 percent.

      • Robert Limb

        Wayne, I’m horrified by what has happened to you as a child. I am not suggesting that it did not happen, or that it is not serious. I know that there are very many people in your position, and I understand (if anyone can understand another person’s pain) why you did not speak up until much later. The abuse of children by adults is unspeakably evil. Sickening.

        You say that I am wrong: but as I am in sympathy, and actually agree with everything you say, there may be a misunderstanding, so please allow me to clarify.

        People who want Kavanaugh elected will say this is a dirty tricks campaign, and if Ms Ford fails to be convincing HE will be seen as the victim, and gain the sympathy vote.

        Meanwhile, the question which really counts is this: “Will the election of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court be a good thing for Justice in the USA?”

        • On that I agree. I know folks who would be convinced it was all a heinous plot to smear a good man if his nomination goes south.

  • Widuran

    He who has not sinned cast the first stone

    • Iron Mike

      How about he who has been falsely accused…what stone does he cast? Or is he simply the one stoned?

      • Widuran

        good point it makes a mockery of justice

      • fractal

        I know!
        Imagine what women who have been sexually abused have had to go thru, watching nasty old men trying to tell Dr. Ford she doesn’t KNOW who tried to rape her…

        Refusing to acknowledge her good faith efforts toward transparency with a polygraph, while her assaulter refuses to take one!

        Trying to diss her because she is smart enough to get therapy when needed, and trying to label her as everything from sociopathic to psychotic.

        NO WONDER WOMEN DON’T REPORT SEXUAL ASSAULT.

        • Iron Mike

          Absurd hyperbole—not even Ford claims attempted rape, why are you? Refusing to acknowledge the uselessness of a polygraph does not strengthen your argument. Apparently you are not informed enough to grasp that a polygraph only proves that Ford believes her story, not that her story is true.

          • fractal

            She certainly DOES claim attempted rape!

            As far as she could tell, the only reason he stopped HOLDING HER DOWN while he was ON TOP OF HER, with his HAND OVER HER MOUTH while he was DRY HUMPING HER and LAUGHING UPROARIOUSLY WITH HIS FRIEND MARKIE, was because:

            1. She had a one piece bathing suit on under her clothes, which he could not get off easily.
            2. Markie Judge was so drunk he fell into them on the bed and disrupted the ATTEMPTED RAPE.

            You sound more rapey every time you post.
            Maybe you are thinking about your own behavior?
            It was attempted rape—every woman knows that.
            Ask you mother.
            OR your sister.

            https://images.thestar.com/QG037zLNwGBQeJiU9N_okLHszoI=/1200×788/smart/filters:cb(1538406868868)/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/canada/2018/09/30/halifax-cartoonists-response-to-kavanaugh-hearing-goes-viral/kavcartoon.jpg

          • Iron Mike

            No…attempted rape has a very specific definition under the law. It’s not whatever you want it to be. You continue to slander me instead of actually trying to learn something. Every time you post, you sound more unhinged. I think I’ll go ahead and block you for sheer stupidity.

          • fractal

            If polygraphs are so “useless”, why do the FBI and CIA use them routinely with their employees?
            And why do so many employers screen with it?

          • victorperri

            How do you know what Dr Ford believes is the legal conclusion based upon the facts she reported in regards to Kavanaugh’s assault? And, in any event, such is a legal conclusion, not a matter for public opinion. Ironic, you consistently accuse others of speculation, but like most Right wingers, you disingenuously or delusionally claim you do not speculate, you are right, and so ‘ right” ( pun intended) that you are free to ridicule others as speculating.

  • Robert Bobby

    I sure hope she brings verifiable corroborating evidence with her on Thursday otherwise it will go very poorly for her.

    • Iron Mike

      Unfortunately, she came with nothing more than her “recovered memory”.

      • Nick G

        Again, repeating the lie that Dr. Ford’s testimony was based on a “recovered memory” does not make it true.

        • Iron Mike

          Again, calling it a lie does not make it so.

  • Linda Coleman Allen

    It takes a lot of courage for someone to stand up to the scrutiny that will come with this accusation. I cannot imagine any woman putting herself in the position of testifying before the Senate with this type of allegation if the story is untrue. Women do not speak out about these types of situations lightly. This type of incident is truly traumatizing and women feel shamed, especially at a young age. They end up feeling like it was their fault, even when it wasn’t. Men have been blaming their bad behavior on women throughout history. Likewise women have blamed their bad behavior on men. It would seem that we have a long way to go.

    • Iron Mike

      I agree—-it takes a lot of courage for someone to stand up to the scrutiny that comes with this accusation. I cannot imagine any man putting himself in the position of testifying before the Senate with this type of allegation if the story is untrue. No one speaks out about these types of situations lightly. This type of false accusation is truly traumatizing and any person is humiliated regardless of age. They end up feeling like serving their nation is not worth the price of having their family traumatized, their reputations and lifetime of achievement dragged through the mud on nothing more than an allegation based on an unreliable “recovered memory” during couples therapy. It would seem that we have a long way to go.

      • And you know it is false how?

        • Iron Mike

          An allegation is false until it’s proven with evidence. That presumption of innocence is a human right upon which our entire legal system is based. It is fundamental fairness which we all deserve. What we have is an unsubstantiated and uncorroborated allegation by a very sympathetic and credible victim. But we do not destroy a man’s family, his life, and his record of honorable service on “empathy” instead of “evidence.”

          • Nick G

            No, an accusation is not “false until it’s proven with evidence” – that is an utterly ludicrous claim. An accusation is false if the accused person did not do what they are accused of. An accused person rightly cannot be convicted in a criminal trial until the accusation is proven “beyond reasonable doubt”. But that an accusation cannot be proven to that standard most certainly does not imply that it is false.

          • Iron Mike

            There are two standards—reasonable doubt (civil) and beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal). An accusation is either proven true or it is not. If the burden of proof is not met, the accusation is false.

          • Nick G

            Utter garbage. Whether an accusation is true or false is completely unaffected by the outcome of a trial, either civil or criminal: guilty people are sometimes acquited, and innocent people convicted. Whether an accusation is true or false is determined solely by whether that accusation accurately describes what the accused in fact did. Is it really possible that you are unable to understand this elementary point?

          • Iron Mike

            True or false—guilty or not guilty–it’s a binary choice. There is no third option. If found not-guilty, the accused retains the presumption of innocence with which he started. So there is no need to prove innocence. An allegation without evidence is patently false until the burden of proof is met.

          • In a court of law, that is true. But this isn’t that.

          • Iron Mike

            No—in many ways, its so much worse. He does not have the same safeguards to his rights that he would have in a criminal trial. His accusers have the freedom to make any charges they want against him—to humiliate him before his family, his children, his colleagues and accuse him of committing horrific felonies and then deny him the fundamental fairness of a presumption of innocence. Are you aware that a presumption of innocence is an international human right under the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11. It is a human right to which he is denied—let that sink in for a minute. Is that really who you are as a Christian? If you can’t look at Kavanaugh with as much empathy as Ford, and acknowledge that both are entitled to fairness, respect, dignity, and due process—then I wonder how you can expect that from God when you are judged.

          • Agreed. Both are entitled to fairness, respect, and dignity. Due process doesn’t come into this, because it only applies in court, as does presumption of innocence.

            Don’t forget. I don’t have a dog in this hunt, I’m not an American. I’m looking at it far more dispassionately than you are.

            As for god or gods, since I don’t believe in the supernatural, it isn’t an issue.

          • Iron Mike

            Since you are not American, you may be unaware of court rulings that affirm due process rights when government is taking an any action (including a hearing) involving a public employee that affects their employment or damages their reputation (which in effect is a person’s livelihood). Kavanaugh is a public employee as a judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals.

          • May have replied to you twice on your other comment, sorry about that.

            As to destroying his reputation — don’t those who have been hurt have a right to speak? Are you telling them to sit down and shut up?

          • Iron Mike

            Of course those who have been hurt have a right to speak. But if they accuse someone of hurting them, they are obligated to show some evidence to support that accusation. You are giving the accuser a presumption of truth on the basis of nothing more than empathy. Do you really fail to see the danger in that?

          • I see the danger in not listening.

          • Iron Mike

            Yes, there is danger in not listening—But virtually no one claims (certainly not me) that we should not listen to victims. So that danger is pretty minimal and more of a red herring.

            The danger is what we do afterwards.

            Do we believe? An obligation to listen, is not an obligation to believe. Not everyone with a story has the truth.

            Do we act on what we hear? Yes–but only after we first verify the truthfulness of the story by substantiating it with evidence or corroborating it with credible witnesses.

          • Incorrect.

            We also use patterns to make inferences, and from those inferences come to conclusions. One conclusion I’ve come to is that I would never leave a child alone with a pastor, imam, or rabbi. Not all of them abuse their positions, but enough do.

          • AH, but this isn’t a legal proceeding, so different rules apply.

          • victorperri

            Listen, dumbass, I am an attorney, I practiced law for 30 years in this country, including as a civil rights lawyer ,am not from another country as you apparently attempted to fabricate, and your comments about applying in every situation that somebody has been accused of a potentially criminal act, regardless if it is a criminal procedure are flat out wrong. The great irony of your comments, Mr Ironhead, is that you are a fanatic for the appointment of a far right conservative Justice to the Supreme Court, and the conservatives on the Court are the ones who have interpreted the Constitution as to civil rights and due process as narrowly as possible. But, if it fits the needs of right wingers like you, Trump and a bunch of other disingenuous Republicans, you will disingenuously argue for an interpretation of the Constitution that is far more liberal than any liberal Supreme Court Justice has ever taken. ( and much broader than I have ever argued). Quit bullshitting. I am continually amazed that right wingers think they are being clever by just making things up, but then I remember they admire Trump.

          • Iron Mike

            The great irony is some ambulance chasing moron that claims 30 years experience in the law, replies to comments not addressed to him. Are you seriously unable to look at the little arrows next to the names to figure out who is replying to who? Wayne shared that he is not from this country and I shared court rulings that affirm due process in administrative hearings that could negatively affect public employees. Thanks for weighing in to add absolutely nothing.

          • victorperri

            LOL! You think I am lying about my background? Check it out.Please, do so. Be careful though, your comments about me professionally are borderline slanderous. Another matter I find incredibly ironic, Ironman, is that all these rightwingers with

          • victorperri

            LOL! Check out my background. I encourage you to do so. But, here is a caveat. You are already treading very close to slandering me as a professional. It is so pathetic that these right wingers on the internet and social media take on this “ tough guy” personna, but what they are really doing is trying to hide their real identity being such cowards they have to remain anonymous.

  • jock1234

    The entire premise, is he must be guilty, cause Dr. Ford said so…
    But that’s Bull. Everyone knows she’s been drawn out to do this “gig” by the heavy hitting Democratic machine!
    Most Dems make me sick they are so partisan !

    • The Mouse Avenger

      And what about the members of your party, like Roger Stone? He pretty much forced Al Franken to resign due to sexual misconduct allegations, & Al didn’t even get a fair trial! Hypocrite, much?

      • Iron Mike

        I think there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around on that committee—Booker’s sanctimonious questions after admitting he groped a teenage girl—Blumenthal’s lecture about lying from someone who lied about his military service–or the multiple democrat senators with histories of domestic violence.

        None of it changes the fact that the allegations against Kavanaugh are unsubstantiated and uncorroborated.

  • Rudy Schellekens

    All “sympathy” seems to be headed to the direction of the accuser, in spite of the fact that there are so many gaps in her memory. In your article you say that an honorable man does not call the accuser a liar… I have been following this pretty close (for personal reasons, not political), and I don’t remember Kavanaugh ever accusing Ms. Ford of lying.
    Neither do I remember Kavanaugh using character assassination to defend himself. I do not remember Kavanaugh EVER saying anything negative about Ms. Ford’s character.

    The one consistent statement from Kavanaugh has been: I did not do what I am accused of doing. What else do you expect him to say?? Apologize for what?

    Now, as one who loves a good conspiracy, I can understand the idea that there is a very suspicious timing about this. However, on the other hand, IF this accusation turns out to be true, and IF it considered enough of a reason to NOT appoint him to the S.C., he should also be dismissed from his current position as judge. The LEVEL of the job does make it more (or less) serious of an issue.

    Ms. Ford’s story has so many “memory” gaps in it. I was assaulted about 50 years ago, and I remember each and every detail, and have never needed therapy to discover this memory. There has never been a time over those decades where I ever forgot who, what, when and where. The assaulter has died since, but the memory refuses to die.

    And that experience makes me wonder. Not only that, but the large number of people who have spoken up against the accusation, about it being so against the character of the man who they have known since those same school days. That has to count for something. But their testimony is cast off with, “Do you ever really know a person well enough to know for sure he did NOT do it?” Since when has that ever been a standard of evidence used in this legal system?

    Today Cosby got sentenced. No one would have though he ever could… But the stories have been around since the 80’s!! Weinstein? Stories have been there for decades. Others on that same list? Few were met with surprise reactions, “I never would have thought that…”

    In Kavanaugh’s case, so far two women have leveled accusations. Neither have any witnesses, and the witness mention said, “Never happened…”

    Full Disclosure: I am a registered Republican. But I assure you, that has little or nothing to do with my reaction in this case. And people who know me, will tell you the same… O wait, Kavanaugh has a long list of people who speak well of his character…

    • RoundRocker

      The fact that you remember details of an assault 50 years ago does not mean every person who has been assaulted will have the same memory of the experience. Most do their best to forget it, and some succeed to a degree. I did. In Kavanaugh’s case, 4 women have now made accusations. In Dr Ford’s case, the witness who was in the room refuses testify. If his buddy was innocent, wouldn’t he want to jump up and defend him? If the committee wants the truth, why aren’t they subpoenaing him? Kavanaugh has a history of underage drinking to the point where he was blackout drunk, and former classmates have described him as belligerent when drunk. So much for his good character.

      • Rudy Schellekens

        Ms. Jessnick does not claim to have been attacked/harassed by Kavanaugh. She speaks of his presence. “In her declaration, Swetnick recounts an alleged incident in approximately 1982 in which she says she was the victim of a “gang rape” at which Kavanaugh was present:.
        In her declaration, Swetnick recounts an alleged incident in approximately 1982 in which she says she was the victim of a “gang rape” at which Kavanaugh was present. She does not say Kavanaugh participated in the alleged rape or what, if any, role he played, nor does she say where the alleged episode took place.”

        Without taking anything away from the seriousness of the attack, many have been present at parties where something may have happened without being aware of it. So is he now guilty by association?

        It is unfortunate that people can make accusations, based on memory lapses, insinuations and hearsay. Again, as a nation, we have condemned before any evidence was presented. And then we wonder why there is such a polarisation! It has less to do with political affiliation then with intellectual laziness.
        Before ANYTHING was supported by evidence, part of the the nation had already condemned the accused. Same as in Ferguson, MO. The police officer was condemned by press and public before any facts were considered. And now, a family ruined, a man’s career down the sewer – all because the public did not want to wait for all the facts to be presented…

    • Judgeforyourself37

      Someone who wishes to try to rape rarely asks for onlookers. He wants to get the woman alone. Use your brain.

      • Rudy Schellekens

        She mentioned the onlooker – who says it never happened…

        • Iron Mike

          And depending on which of Ford’s accounts you read, the number of onlookers ranges from two to four….none of whom can corroborate her account. Anyone “using their brain” would find a problem with her credibility.

          • Nick G

            Another lie. Her testimony is that two people – Kavanaugh and Judge – were in the room with her.

          • Iron Mike

            Is every inconvenient fact a “lie” to you? It is a fact that Ford offers multiple accounts of 2-4 onlookers in multiple documents. It’s also true that none of those named support her version of events.

          • Nick G

            OK, source those documents.

          • Iron Mike

            Her couples therapy notes reports 4 onlookers—her later testimony identified 2 present. Of course, ALL persons she identified (one of whom was her best friend in high school)—regardless of their presence, have refuted her “recovered memory” of events.

          • RoundRocker

            “I don’t remember”, “I don’t recall”, and “I’ve never witnessed improper behavior” don’t mean “He didn’t do it”. They mean these people don’t remember (because they were blackout drunk?) or never saw Brett behave that way. It’s a well known fact that teenage boys will stick together and lie for each other, or play with semantics, or just not actually answer the question, like Brett did in his hearing.

          • Iron Mike

            ALL of Ford’s witnesses contradict what Ford claims they witnessed. By definition–that is refutation. “It’s a well known fact…” is nothing more than your opinion, based upon generalizations that means absolutely nothing in an administrative or judicial hearing But I’m sure it helps you rationalize your slander of an honorable man with accomplishments you could not come close to matching.

          • RoundRocker

            “I don’t remember” refutes nothing. It means “I don’t remember”. You have an odd way of defining words and phrases to say what you want them to say. I’m sure it helps you rationalize slandering an honorable woman with accomplishments you could not come close to matching.

          • Iron Mike

            “I don’t remember….this is nuts….I never met him….I don’t know him” all “contradicts” what Ford claims these witnesses know. Contradiction of an assertion is a refutation.

          • RoundRocker

            Good grief, the iron must all be in your thick skull. “I don’t remember” doesn’t mean he wasn’t there, he didn’t do it, it never happened or anything else. It means “I don’t remember” and no amount of parsing on your part changes that. If she says he was there or he did that, and he says I don’t remember, that doesn’t make either one of them a liar. It means he doesn’t remember. Words have meanings. You can’t just make up new definitions because you’re wrong or don’t understand the meaning of words.

          • Iron Mike

            Ford says they do know what happened that night—-they say the don’t know what happened that night. That’s called a contradiction—a refutation.

            And yet, with all your babbling over semantics….you have yet to come to grips with the fact that because all of Ford’s witnesses contradict her account of what they supposedly know, you are still left with nothing more than an unsubstantiated and uncorroborated allegation. LOL.

          • victorperri

            Ironic: for somebody who continually whines about Dr Ford as to your perceived inaccuracies, you have.no problem in distorting the facts concerning her. She has NOT been refuted by people she noted as being at the party. At most they have said they do not recall what occurred.There is a huge difference between not remembering and refuting. This sexual assault occurred late at night behind closed doors. You must be referencing Mark Judge. Let’s consider him. Dr Ford said he was in the room. He has no recollection of what happened tha t night. But here are some interesting facts about Mark Judge. Judge was best buddies with Kavanaugh in high school. He is a recovering alcoholic in the words of his own attorney. He is now a conservative writer but in the past has written books specifically about his high school adventures admitting that at that time he was a pass out drunk. His accounts of high school are filled with graphic stories of drunkenness and sexual desires. He writes in his book about a thinly veiled character he named “Bart O’ Kavanaugh.” A friend who partakes with him in drunken stupors. So, quit fabricating and distorting the facts. Judge was a guy at the time who drank until he passed out.So,is it any wonder his memory is more clouded than a rainy day in winter? And, why didn’t the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee refuse to subpoena him to testify? Dr Ford said he was the only other person in the room. If he was able to actually refute Dr Ford wouldn’t the Republicans make him their lead witness? Two reasons; he cannot actually refute Dr Ford at all and his testifying would clearly substantiate that Judge, Kavanaugh and their buddies actually engaged in the kind of drunken behavior that tends to corroborate Dr Ford’s account.

          • Iron Mike

            re·fute rəˈfyo͞ot/ verb: refute; deny or contradict (a statement or accusation).

            Kavanaugh categorically refutes the allegation

            Leland Ingham Keyser (Ford’s best friend in high school), “does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without Dr. Ford.”

            Mark Judge refuted Ford’s claim in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, writing “I have no memory of this alleged incident.” “Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described” by Ford, Judge continued. Judge ended his statement by stressing that, while he did not remember the supposed party, he “never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.” “It’s just absolutely nuts.”

            Patrick J. Smyth wrote “to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.” Smyth then added: “Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women.”

            THESE are the “witnesses” Ford claims can substantiate her story—-HER WITNESSES—and ALL of them “deny and contradict” (refute) her account of the events alleged which are unsubstantiated and uncorroborated. Even an ambulance chaser should be able to figure that out.

        • RoundRocker

          The onlooker who’s unwilling to testify under oath who wrote a memoir about getting blackout drunk in high school repeatedly.

          • Iron Mike

            Yes—and he characterized that “memoir” as a work of fiction. Why don’t you cite Star Wars too? There’s a great bar scene in there. 😀

          • RoundRocker

            Look up the definition of “ memoir “ and get back to me.

          • Iron Mike

            Look up the definition of “fiction”. Unless you have some source for Judge specifically identifying Kavanaugh, you have nothing but speculative “fiction”.

          • RoundRocker

            Kavanaugh characterized the book as “fictionalized”, not Judge. Judge probably changed people’s names, like “Bart O’Kavanaugh”, his hard-drinking sidekick. In their HS yearbook, Judge wrote “Bart, have you boofed yet?” Why would Judge refer to Kavanaugh as “Bart”? As for the reference to “boofing”, we know what it means (despite Kavanaugh lying about it under oath) and it has nothing to do with flatulence. Keep trying, Mikey.

  • Alonzo

    Another salacious guilty until proven innocent. This article is shameful.

    • The Mouse Avenger

      Look, I believe in “innocent until proven guilty”, too. But this is a job interview for Kavanaugh, not an actual trial in a court of law. You must understand that. 🙁

      • Iron Mike

        When was the last job interview in which you were accused without evidence of being an alcohol abusing sexual predator? This was not a criminal trial, but it certainly was far more than a job interview.

        • Nick G

          You lie. Dr. Ford’s testimony is evidence.

          • Iron Mike

            No—it’s an allegation. Evidence is required to support an allegation. In the Salem witch trials, allegations were accepted as evidence. How did that turn out? That’s why we have due process.

          • Nick G

            Testimony is evidence, whether it’s true or false. That’s simply a matter of the meaning of words.

          • Iron Mike

            Testimony of wrongdoing by a complainant is called an allegation. If it is not substantiated or corroborated, it remains an allegation. That’s simply the meaning of words.

      • Alonzo

        I understand that you do not understand that foundational principle of law, nor do you understand the role of advice and consent. It is not deception and bias as the Democrats have shown. All of them already judged Kavanaugh prior to even giving him a hearing. The Democrat senator from Hawaii was caught deceptively fund raising during session. Feinstein hid a letter from Ford until the day of the vote. Others accused him of a felony without a trial. And do not say the statute of limitations had passed. It did not in Maryland. That is not advice and consent. All of the Democrats engaged in vicious gossip about Kavanaugh. Besides, the SCOTUS is NOT a job interview. What a croc. You are biased to the hilt. So do not even try to spout ignorance.

        • victorperri

          Oh, right. I don’t undestand the law? What other asinine conclusions are you going to guess about me, considering you know nothing about me? I have practiced law for over thirty years. Where did you go to law school? Where are you licensed as an attorney? I have probably forgotten more about the law than you will ever know. I don’t make a habit of discussing my professional background with right wing assholes, but if somebody wants to defame me as a professional, I take great umbrage.

          • Iron Mike

            Unless you also go by “The Mouse Avenger”, then your tirade against Alonzo’s comment about Mighty Mouse’s legal knowledge is misdirected. I always thought attorneys had a keener eye for detail. LOL!

          • Alonzo

            “I take great umbrage.”

            Did it taste good? You are blocked for stupidity.

  • Scott

    Wow! Your view of justice would have the Duke lacrosse team still rotting in prison.

    • The Mouse Avenger

      But those were actual false accusations. And those are relatively very rare.

      • Scott

        Agreed. But the narrative now is the woman must be believed immediately. All that is needed is the accusation. Imagine if a Republican were to say “Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find” in response to the accusers of Kavanaugh.

      • Iron Mike

        False accusations are NOT rare—they are actually quite common. But a legal system based on a presumption of innocence and evidence of guilt eliminates most false accusations early in the judicial process, long before it ever goes to trial. When politics takes precedence, as it did in the Duke Lacrosse case—justice is subverted.

        I think that’s what we see playing out in the Kavanaugh hearings—politics taking precedence and it is our fundamental human right to face our accuser and the evidence of guilt that has been subverted.

        • Nick G

          You are again pretending this is a criminal trial, which demonstrates that you are not arguing in good faith.

          • Iron Mike

            I have not claimed this is a criminal trial. Apparently you do not understand that it does not have to be a criminal trial to require due process. What both the Duke and Kavanaugh cases have in common is the violation of due process rights of the accused. It is that same lack of respect for due process that is evident in the Thoughtless Pastor’s article

  • Iron Mike

    How incredibly sad that someone who calls herself a “thoughtful pastor” shows evidence of neither. It is not thoughtful or pastoral to condemn another human being on the basis of nothing more than an allegation based on a “recovered memory” from therapy of an incident 36 years ago in which she cannot recall when it happened or where, how she got to the party or how she got home. None of the witnesses she cites corroborates her story, yet somehow empathy for the victim has taken the place of evidence to condemn the accused.

    My God Forgive you “thoughtful pastor” Christy Thomas for joining the mob mentality that has changed little in 2,000 years when allegations without evidence were sufficient to condemn an innocent man to execution by the Roman empire and the mob abdicated reason, succumbing to emotion and manipulation, shamefully crying Crucify him….Crucify him!

    • corky

      She came across very credibly in her testimony before the senate

      • Iron Mike

        I agree. She was very credible and sympathetic. I truly believe she was attacked exactly as she described. But nothing she offered in her testimony was substantiated or corroborated with evidence or witnesses that Kavanaugh was the one who victimized her. The 30 year gap in memory, the denial of her witnesses, her inability to remember when and where it took place, her inability to remember how she got to the party or how she got home….all of that does not mean she is lying, but also does not support her allegation that Kavanaugh is responsible.

        • Nick G

          It is true that her memory could be faulty in this regard, and so her testimony alone could not fairly convict Kavanaugh in a criminal trial. But this is not a criminal trial. The only fair way to proceed, when considering a candidate for a judicial post of the utmost importance, is a full investigation by a competent and impartial body – which rules out this committee – with the examination of all relevant witnesses.

          • Iron Mike

            So now you’re going to re-write the rules of the Senate in the middle of confirmation hearings? Too funny! Senate Judiciary Committee IS an investigative body that relies on FBI background checks that have already been provided, they can call witnesses, and charge them criminally for lying before Congress.

        • corky

          As the parent of a child who has been molested all these things could also be said. However the culture of heavy drinking may preclude him not remembering. If someone asked you ever detail about what happened 30 years ago could you remember it all, she has obviously been traumatised and remembers those details clearly enough, the rest is peripheral. Perhaps it’s a case of a boys club protecting their own?

          • Iron Mike

            “Usually no witnesses…” Except in Ford’s case, she claims 4 witnesses….all of whom refute her account of events. Kavanaugh said he is willing to do whatever the committee decides and has already undergone 6 FBI investigations. One more investigation with the same witness list yields the same sworn statements they already have. The real question is whether that will make a difference in the minds of those who have already convicted him.

    • victorperri

      Listen,Ironie, thee is nothing more disingenuous than the “ Trumped” up argument that there is some kind of “presumption of evidence” that attaches to these proceedings or that there should be. Kavanaugh is seeking to be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice, he is applying for a job.This is not a criminal proceeding. He is not in jeopardy of going to prison and loss of his “ liberty”. There is no “ right” to be appointed into a federal government job. Due process has nothing at all to do with these proceedings.He can only not be confirmed, which is something he had no right to in the first place. The burden is properly upon the applicant and every GD Republican Senator knows that. Republicans are the last ones to expansive readings of the due process clause, particularly in the area of employment.Another fatuous argument created whole cloth by so-called “Judge” Pirro on Fox News is that Dr Ford through hypnosis or otherwise remembered this event which she previously had no memory of.That is a fabrication. There’s no proof of that whatsoever. And show some respect for the Pastor.

      • Iron Mike

        No–this is not a criminal proceeding, but it is far more than a mere job interview. In what job interview is one accused of being an alcohol abusing sexual predator on nothing more than an unreliable “recovered memory” in couples therapy, 30 years after the fact? This is an unsubstantiated and uncorroborated allegation and it is the mob mentality which seeks to destroy a family, a reputation, and a lifetime of honorable service which is despicable.

        I have respect for the pastor, but not her call to condemn another human being on the basis of empathy for a victim, instead of evidence indicting the accused. The presumption of innocence is not just a legal right, it’s a human right. And this kangaroo court is a gross violation of human rights.

        If you are unwilling to judge Kavanaugh on the basis of the nature of the evidence and not the serious of the allegation, then you are part of the problem.

        • Nick G

          Repeating the lie that Dr. Ford’s testimony was based on a “recovered memory” does not make it true.

          • Iron Mike

            Nor does your asserting that a “recovered memory” is a lie make it true.

            The “recovered memory” of a sexual assault comes from therapist notes taken in the course of couples therapy. It is the basis for Ford’s claim (to which her husband is a witness ) in which Kavanagh is “recalled” by Ford as the perpetrator more than 30 years after the incident. Therapist notes were attached to the letter presented to Feinstein.

          • Nick G

            The term “recovered memory” has a specific meaning: it means the person “remembering” the event had previously forgotten it completely. The use of such alleged memories in legal testimony has been discredited. If you have a source for your claim that this was stated to be the case in the therapist’s notes, provide it. What Ford has said is that she did not discuss the incident before she did so with her therapist, not that she did not remember it.

          • Iron Mike

            “The use of such alleged memories in legal testimony has been discredited”

            Yes—I agree. That’s precisely why rational, thinking human beings continue to ask Ford to provide evidence or witnesses beyond her discredited alleged memories. Glad we have a point of agreement. LOL.

    • Nick G

      There is absolutely no evidence Dr. Ford’s testimony is based on a “recovered memory”. Evidently, you’re simply not interested in the truth.

      • corky

        Yes and why would she have brought it up with her therapist 6 years ago?

        • Iron Mike

          An even better question is if it were NOT a recovered memory, why did she not bring it up during psychotherapy sessions required to get a Phd in Psychology? No, she magically brought it up decades later in couples therapy and attached Kavanaugh’s name to it 6 years ago (2012) when Romney was running for president and considering Kavanaugh for a potential future SCOTUS pick. It was a convenient marrying of trauma and political expedience—a short trip to convince herself that Kavanaugh was the perpetrator of her assault decades before.

  • RoundRocker

    How surprising that a bunch of men are defending Brett and vilifying Dr Ford. Dr Ford knew she would be crucified by much of the public and came forward anyway. Dr Ford knew her name and reputation would be dragged through the mud yet she came forward anyway. I imagine Dr Ford had an idea she would get death threats (which she has) yet she came forward anyway. Some Republican members of the Judiciary Committee (all old white men) have already said their mind is made up, even before they allow Dr Ford to testify. How is that just or honorable? They have hired a woman attorney, who McConnell referred to as “a female assistant”, to question Dr Ford in a “respectful and professional way”. Why can’t they question her themselves? Are they incapable of being respectful and professional to a woman? Sounds like you men have passed judgement already, also, without an investigation or a hearing. Hypocrisy much?

    • Iron Mike

      First you deride the Judiciary Committee for being “all old white men” and then blast them for using a woman attorney to ask questions instead of questioning her themselves. So both men and women are unacceptable to you. It seems the one who has already passed judgment….is you. Hypocrisy much?

      • RoundRocker

        The Republican members are all white men. The Democratic members of the committee include women and POC. So I didn’t deride the entire Judiciary Committee as “old white men”. I question their choice to hire a woman (“female assistant”) to do their job because rather than respectfully and professionally questioning Dr Ford themselves, they fear how it will look if a bunch of old white men gang up on her. It’s the reason they chose a woman, not the fact that they chose a woman. Nice try, Mikey.

        • Iron Mike

          Thank you for clarifying that you are only deriding and find 100% of the “old white men” Republicans on the Judiciary Committee unacceptable as well as their unacceptable choice of a woman attorney. Since no Republican men or women on the committee are acceptable in your view, then it’s pretty clear that “empathy” is more important to you than “evidence”. Pretty despicable, “Roundy”

          • RoundRocker

            These particular old white men have documented history of antipathy to women’s issues, Mikey. That’s called evidence. I don’t believe I made any comment on any other Republican men or women that would lead you to believe I think all of them would be unacceptable. Assume much?

          • Iron Mike

            I guess you have a reading comprehension issue as well, since my observation clearly referred to the 100% “old white men” Republicans on the committee and apparently their female proxy that you find objectionable. And somehow your “opinion” of their antipathy to woman’s issues is somehow “evidence” of antipathy. We’ve already seen that “empathy” is more important to you than “evidence” or presumption of innocence. Reason much Roundy? LOL

    • The Mouse Avenger

      Agreed…

      …but what you said, got me thinking about some personal things that I really feel I ought to address, ’cause they’re really bugging me. 🙁

    • StevoR

      They wanted a token woman to do the dirty work of the gaslighting of a sexual assault victim for them. For PR purposes. Disgusting and gutless of them.

      • Iron Mike

        So asking an accuser to provide evidence of an accusation is now “gaslighting”. Due Process (even in a Congressional hearing) and basic fairness puts the burden of proof on the accuser to substantiate the allegation with evidence. That has not happened.

  • victorperri

    Ms. Thomas has penetrated the facade of Judge Kavanaugh and the Republican Party, the party of old white men as she notes. ( Some old men like myself are excluded.) Kavanaugh, the man, is ambitious to the point of being amoral (or immoral). Kavanaugh has been given a golden opportunity to display that he as a legal jurist he has the compassion and sense of being just and fair to rise above the fray, his own selfishness, his smallness to heal wounds and to show sincere empathy asking for forgiveness. He has shown none of that, because that is not who he is. Kavanaugh is still basically the spoiled rich kid, the preppie and frat boy who always got his way. And he has spent 35 years to reach the peak of his profession. Honor, perspicacity, and insight all fall a mean second to soneone who has for a lifetime enjoyed privilege and superiority to others.Remember, Kavanaugh is the guy who wrote a 120 page memo for Ken Starr to impeach Bill Clinton raking him over the coals for a sexual encounter with Monica Lewinsky. Kavanaugh went so far as to write proposed questions for deposing President Clinton that were sexually graphic and intended maliciously to embarrass and to forever tar Clinton to the point that Starr would not use them. Karma? But what would you expect from a spoiled preppie rich kid who thinks he is entitled to what he wants or has wanted, including,apparently, perhaps, women.

    • StevoR

      Thanks. I didnt know Kavanaugh’s history here re Clinton & Starr. What astinking hypocrite Kavanaugh seems to be.

    • Iron Mike

      Funny how you exclude yourself from the Thoughtless Pastor’s denunciation of “old, white, men”. It’s almost like you exempt yourself from ageist, racist, sexist bigotry for some reason. 🙂

      • Barros Serrano

        I qualify as an “old white man”, though I’m Appalachian, not a culturally-bereft flatlander like most of you.

        But somehow I managed to grow up with proper values. Partly I attribute these to the Methodist Church, partly to the influence of the movements occurring then: Civil Rights, Antiwar, etc. Partly it is just my personality… even as a child I was concerned for the less fortunate.

        So obviously I’m a lifelong Democrat. I was taught in church not to consort with evil, and so I would never vote for any Republican.

    • Barros Serrano

      Yes, as 900 law professors stated in a signed letter last week, Kavanaugh is not of judicial temperament.

      I would state it in stronger terms: Kavanaugh is of low character.

  • JimboFlex

    So here is a question for you.

    Why are you willing to slander a man on the basis of accusations that can’t be corroborated, have no witnesses, and no rightfully authoritative body that would investigate these allegations has given any credence too?

    This looks suspiciously like partisan politics, given a coat of Progressive Christian Paint.

    Here is what I suspect is afoot. Progressives are looking to kick this appointment “can” down the road, hence the call for what would be the 7th FBI investigation (the other 6 yield nothing). If the Progressives can delay to past the mid-term, the hope is they can flip the Senate. Then they will ask that the vote be delayed until the new Senators are seated, which will enable them to deny any right leaning candidates.

    • corky

      Well by that criteria my daughter should not be believed. However the perpetrator is now going to trial. But then if evangelicals can give a president with a track record like trumps a free pass, anything is apparently permissible. And with comments like these from Graham, well what hope do women have ?

      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithinpubliclife/2018/09/franklin-graham-attempted-rape-doesnt-matter

      • JimboFlex

        So If I am reading this correctly you are okay with destroying people on absolutely no provable evidence, because of your past?

        That’s not justice, thats vengeance.

        • corky

          Absolutely not, but she came across very credibly at the senate hearing and said she was 100% sure it was him. In these type of situations there is often no provable evidence because of the intimate nature of the situation. And if he was as drunk as were many of that day he may not even remember, his classmates said how much he drank and how often he was out of it

          • JimboFlex

            “she came across very credibly at the senate hearing and said she was 100% sure it was him”

            So what do we do with this?

            Just destroy him? Slander his name? Shame his family? Mock him relentlessly? Level accusations against him that we know we can’t prove? Even after everyone she said was a witness to the event said that was false? That’s horrible.

            Our justice system is viscous and cruel enough as it is. I for one am not going to be party for throwing out Due Process for mob justice, and make it even worse.

          • corky

            What about the other two women who have come forward to also accuse him? It can’t all be a conspiracy against him. However due process will happen no doubt one way or the other.

          • JimboFlex

            Yes two other women have come forward. Do they have any substance beyond Dr. Ford?

            And then we get back to the same question. How do we handle these accusations? No prosecutors is going to touch this because he can’t prove anything, or do we resort to the monster of mob justice?

          • rgcon

            Three things give Ford’s account credibility: first, she tried to alert people BEFORE Kavenaugh was nominated; second, she clearly knew the guys in Kavenaugh’s circle of friends; and third, Kavenaugh’s yearbook entries are consistent with a boy who would behave in such a manner toward girls.

          • Not what I heard and yearbook entries consistent with a rapist. I don
            t think so.

          • Iron Mike

            She tried to alert people BEFORE Kavanaugh was nominated. Yes—her first objection to Kavanaugh was in 2012 when he was on Romney’s list of potential SCOTUS picks. It’s also the same time she magically recovered her memory in therapy and named Kavanaugh as the person who assaulted her. Her vendetta against Kavanaugh began when she first perceived his potential to be nominated. That does not add credibility—it creates suspicion of unhinged stalking.

            Clearly knowing guys in Kavanaugh’s circle of friends and immature sophomoric writings about drinking and flatulence by a high school sophomore are not evidence of sexual assault. There is still no evidence and now witness to support this unsubstantiated and uncorroborated allegation.

          • The other two women are completely fabricated made up stories such that even the Dems could not explore their claims.

          • rgcon

            They don’t have to destroy him. But there is doubt (even one republican senator said so), enough doubt that he should not be confirmed to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.

      • Barros Serrano

        Both Republicans and Christians are looking very bad due to their support for this Orange Thing.

    • Agree, but the Dems may have overplayed their hand.

    • victorperri

      Total bull shit. Why are you willing to slander Dr Ford as someone who would deliberately fabricate a charge against Kavanaugh and perjure herself for some politically partisan ends? It is not worth the trouble of trying to have an intelligent dialogue with people like you.

      • Why are you trying to slander Kavanaugh? Ford has come forward for a big payoff and in her mind the end (saving abortion) justifies the means. Watch for her $10 million book deal to be annnounced.

        • Iron Mike

          Not to mention her “Go Fund Me” pages that are raising tens of thousands of dollars. She did not pay for her travel to DC, her legal defense, or her polygraph. So who is funding Ford and what is their agenda?

          • Exactly. Follow the money.

          • Iron Mike

            Did you know that she is up to $700K in GoFundMe accounts? Maybe now she can buy a few witnesses to corroborate her story.

          • It is hard to believe. Must have very expensive lawyers. But her life is also altered and when the Judge is cleared she will still be in the “headlights” and Judge will be on the Court. You simply cannot be the Key in this circus and expect to come out untainted.

          • RoundRocker

            Her lawyers are working pro bono (that means without pay). The GoFundMe account is paying for her security guards protecting her from right wing terrorists who have threatened to kill her.

          • Iron Mike

            Except that whole pro bono story is not the whole story. One of them (Debra Katz) is vice-chair of board of directors for Project for Government Oversight, funded by George Soros’ Open Society Foundation. How curious. No wonder she can afford to work “pro bono” when you are funded by a Leftist Icon like Soros. LOL.

          • Barros Serrano

            Every Republican in Congress is owned by the Koch Bros and other billionaires, so go shed your crocodile tears elsewhere.

          • Iron Mike

            Yeah sure….and every Democrat in Congress is owned by George Soros…Socialism is the answer….blah, blah, blah….

          • Barros Serrano

            Demosocialism is proven to be the better system. You must remain ignorant or simply lie to deny that, given the ample evidence.

            Democrats are more owned by corporations, like the Republicans, in fact. Most of them are sold out. That is why we in the progressive wing of the Party are opposed to the neo-liberals like the Clintons.

            You know nothing of socialism or much else, obviously. Just another mindless brainwashed dupe of Faux News, et al.

            Now lie and tell us you NEVER watch Faux News, right?

          • Iron Mike

            Here’s what I know about Socialism….it has failed 100% of the times it’s been tried and responsible for more deaths and misery than any loser political-economic system in human history. And the constant refrain that it has only failed because it hasn’t been implemented correctly is the empty rhetoric of those incapable of learning the lessons of history.

          • Barros Serrano

            Here’s what you know about socialism, in parentheses: ( ).

            Demosocialism is a colossal success, being the system of every developed nation but the putrid backwards un-evolved U$A.

            You’re talking about Communism, Stalinism, boy. That you don’t know the difference only illustrates for us all YET AGAIN that you are an ignoramus and a detriment to this society.

            The lesson of history is that connedservative economics don’t work. Didn’t work for Harding-Coolidge-Hoover, and with Reaganomics it trashed this country which continues to decline and will until we get firm liberal control of govt AGAIN so we can be a functional society as we once were until the Reaganoid nuts came along.

            So why don’t you go drink, wank to kiddy porn or whatever it is keeps you going, and stop voting. You’re destroying the country.

          • You are incorrect. It may be that Ford is not paying them but they are surely being paid. There are Left Wing crazies who are chasing people down in elevators and restaurants but Right Wingers don’t do that (yet). Ford is not the issue. She is just a pawn in the bigger con of the Democrats.

          • Barros Serrano

            Oh when the rightwing crazies begin to act out it will not be protesting people at restaurants. Their usual tactic is to commit terrorism.

            Tim McVeigh… James von Brunn… Dylan Rooff… that Nazi in Charlottesville… Eric Rudolph…

            That is why this progressive leftist demosocialist has a concealed carry permit and uses it.

          • Iron Mike

            Pretty funny—I thought “progressive leftist demosocialists” don’t believe in the second amendment! LOL.

          • Barros Serrano

            Well as usual you’re wrong.

            I do not construe the 2nd amendment to mean every redneck should be carrying an automatic rifle into Wendys… only you white-right nuts do that.

          • Reading your last three posts I understand why you hold views incompatible with civilized society. I also hold a concealed carry permit but have no intention of shooting anyone ever or even giving voice to such a thought. Progressive Leftist Demosocialists are now being revealed by your party and that is why you will not change anything at the ballot box this November or for the next 30 years just like after Carter.

          • Barros Serrano

            I have no intention of shooting anyone, why don’t you learn to comprehend what you read. I have guns for 2 reasons: 1. varmints (possums going after the chickens), and 2. self-defense.

            I’m sure that if I need it for self-defense it will be against white-righters, as you are the ones threatening us. I live near Charlottesville, so don’t BS me about your tiki-torch cohorts.

            Despite the treasonous manipulations of the electoral process by the GOP and their Russian buttbuddies, the GOP is going to suffer greatly because of Trumpolini.

            Gerrymandering, voter suppression, constant lies.. .even all of this won’t save y’all.

          • Who can’t read or write: “That is why this progressive leftist demosocialist has a concealed carry permit and uses it.”
            The electoral college has elected all our presidents just as it was designed. Another excuse because Liberals failed as their/your message was rejected. What will you do when the mid-terms fail to elect Democrats as they surely will.

          • Barros Serrano

            How naive you are.

            Yes, I live near Charlottesville, and if you can’t see why I might arm myself against potential aggression by your fellow white-right nuts, then you aren’t paying attention.

            My point about the popular vote was that Trumpolini was not elected by most voters, he has no “mandate”, and so you white-rights claiming “the people chose him” are incorrect. The system chose him.

            I do not like the electoral college. Both Dubya and Trumpolilni were installed without winning the popular vote, and that is problematic. The issues the college was established to address are no longer pertinent. Its effect today is simply to disenfranchise the voters of CA, NY, etc.

            There are a LOT of deplorable white racist misogynists in this country, and you crowing when y’all win an election only sounds to me like the strutting of Nazis. You’re the arrogant Romans content in your temporary ascendancy.

            No reasonable prediction has the Democrats failing to take the House. The Senate is a toss-up at this point. If the Republicans continue to gutlessly and amorally remain silent in the face of Trumpolini’s rampant abuses, they will lose even worse.

            The Yank electorate isn’t the brightest on the planet, but even they have their limits.

          • Iron Mike

            Okay…so your posts pretty much eliminate the possibilities of you teaching Government, Civics, History, or English grammar. So I’m thinking Canine Obedience School is most likely. LOL.

          • Barros Serrano

            Boy, I am so much better educated than you it is scary.

            I can teach several languages in fact. You barely speak English… just the typical truncated redneck Yank English, which doesn’t really count as a real “language”…

            And you blindly follow fascists and don’t even recognize them as such. And yet you presume to mention government and civics classes? Really that would be comicaly if your uninformed bigoted reactionary ilk weren’t trashing the country.

          • Barros Serrano

            Not likely. Kavanaugh has revealed himself as a crybaby and a schmuck in those hearings. He has low character and now all sane people can see that.

            Of course you ultra-right ideologues wouldn’t care if he raped a baby on primetime TV, as long as he is somewhere to the Right of the Archduke Ferdinand.

        • Barros Serrano

          Slander would involve lies.

          So there is no slander involved when I point out that Kavanaugh is of low character, a sexual predator, a mean drunk, and a liar.

          Typical entitled privileged frat rat.

          • You have no personal knowledge whatsoever about the Judge to make those slanderous remarks.
            Those that personally know him have the highest regard for him. So that makes you a typical under-informed Liberal willing to spout the most mean and cruel comments without reason.

    • In the next few days the Left will try to find more Liars; call them Avenatti 2,3 and 4. But, since they will have to submit to an FBI interrogation and swear under oath during that process it may be impossible to find such liars for any amont of money. Nonetheless they will try. Getting further delays may prove difficult but they will soldier on.

      • JimboFlex

        I saw that Avenatti got involved. When the Creepy porn lawyer gets involved you know that the thing is likely a sham.

      • Barros Serrano

        How amusing to watch you connedservatives contorting smasmodically over this.

        Oh a good ole boy got called out for his misogyny and that sure does shake your foundation, doesn’t it…

        I will be even more amused watching y’all twist and tremble after the FBI investigation is complete.

        • Iron Mike

          What will you do when the FBI investigation changes nothing? It’s a “background” not a “criminal” investigation.

          • Barros Serrano

            This confirmation does not hang entirely on Ford’s allegations. Notice today that many law professors signed a letter declaring that Kavanaugh is ill-suited for the Court, by temperament.

            In other words, he’s an entitled mean drunk, a misogynist, an angry petulant crybaby with very low character.

            That you can’t see that indicates that you are likewise.

          • Iron Mike

            Actually, Ford’s allegations are exactly what this confirmation hangs on and exactly what the FBI was charged with investigating. It does not matter how many Leftist lawyers oppose him. The ABA gave him its highest rating and that has not been withdrawn by the ABA committee responsible for judicial nominations.

            In other words, he is “fully qualified” for the position to which he has been nominated and no reason to delay his appointment further.

            That you can’t see that indicates that you are living in a Demosocialist bubble.

  • Patrick Woodbeck

    Scrolling thought these posts is it surprising that our society is in the state it is where 1 in 5 women will be raped and only a fraction of those will ever be reported let alone prosecuted. What I assume are the men on here refuse to even consider the possibility that what Ford endured is what actually happen and so they then resort to name-calling and shaming those who do believe that there might be truth to Dr. Ford’s account of what happened……Oh wait isn’t that exactly what the author of this article said would happen……interesting. I lament the fact that Jesus, the one whom I follow, was never aligned with the power of the day, but rather with those who were marginalized and vilified, where do we see the “honourable” Kavanaugh? Where do you see yourself? What does it mean to truly stand with those on the margins? Nope we stand with the powerful, the ones who wield the power because in that way we might feel powerful ourselves. It is a sad day for Christianity, but prophetic voices will be heard, they always are, even when we try to silence them.

    • The 1 in 5 statistic is not realistic for the reason you stated.
      I watched Ford today and the Judge; Ford hardly compelling just a sympathetic pawn.

      • Patrick Woodbeck

        yes you are right 1 in 5 is not realistic, rather it is 1 in 6 https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence

        • Perhaps if the Rainn statistic is correct -but it is really an estimate.
          The conclusion from this statistic is absurd so it is really more about raising the issue than the issue. But this is ALL the result of the sexual obsession of the Left and the lawlessness it begets.

          • Barros Serrano

            LOL… that bit of bulldooky would do Ann Coulter proud…

            Sexual obsession of the Left? LOL!!! We’re not the ones who have nervous breakdowns over transgender bathrooms or gay wedding cakes… no that’s you sexually repressed and perverted conservatives. Every time “gays” are mentioned in the news you get a shiver of guilt… lol.

            Closet boy.

          • No you don’t have issues about Transgenders because the Left cannot even understand what makes a person a man or a women. As to “gays” the Right doesn’t care who they have sex with. But we draw the line when The Left declares that God approves because He does not and never will.

  • You are in no position to judge the Judge. This spectacle is a charade. Ford is just a pawn in this scam to prevent the judge from being confirmed. You are led to believe this is about believing women but that is far from the truth. It is about power; who has it and who wants it.

  • Reese

    Because of King George, among others, our Constitution requires PROOF (evidence) of accusations. Dr. Ford has offered no proof. None. Our Constitution also requires the presumption of innocence for the accused. The blog I challenge here, as is common for liberals, ignores that Kavenaugh has not been proven guilty, therefore he presumed innocent until Dr. Ford offers real proof. She offered none Thursday. No corroborative evidence. Not a shred. Many gaps in memory. Of course, its been 36 years…

    • Rita Shryock

      The constitutional guarantee of the presumption of innocence only applies in criminal trials. (And most criminal suspects are denied it even then, but that’s a different discussion.) Kavanaugh is not on trial. He is applying for a job, and in job interviews, it’s incumbent on the applicant to prove their suitability for the position. Kavanaugh had his chance to do that yesterday. Even if you don’t believe that accusations against him, that spectacle yesterday should at least give you pause about whether he should be on any judicial bench, much less the most powerful one in the nation.

      • Reese

        He is accused of a criminal offense. Liberals claim that he is not worthy of the appointment because of the accusation. There is no proof, no corroborating witness, not one, there are only claims from a woman who has needed marriage counseling over how many front doors her house should have. It is criminal. Her inability to tell the truth is displayed by her claims of being too scared to fly to DC, but then admitting all her many world travels to islands and other continents. I think she is a big fibber, a liberal fibber and that’s the worst kind!

        • Rita Shryock

          Still, it’s a job interview, not a trial. The very worst that could happen to him is not getting the job he wants and apparently thinks he’s entitled. Criminal trial: burden of proof on prosecution. Job interview: burden of proof on applicant.

          • Iron Mike

            It’s a hardly a job interview when he is accused of committing multiple felonies. It is a Senate Confirmation Hearing in which he is entitled to be treated with respect—and that includes respecting his due process rights and the HUMAN RIGHT (U.N. Article 11) of presumption of innocence.

          • RoundRocker

            Maybe he should have shown a bit of respect to the Senators questioning his fitness for the job? If I was interviewing a person for a job, and they snapped at me and turned my questions back on me without answering, security would be escorting them out very quickly.

          • Iron Mike

            If you were interviewing a person for a job by accusing them of being an alcohol abusing sexual predator, dragging their family through the mud, making their lives a living hell, exposing them to death threats, and denying them due process….all to score political points…on nothing more than an unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, 36 year old allegation…you would deserve no respect at all. Security should be escorting you out very quickly.

          • RoundRocker

            Gosh you crack me up. Which senators accused him? I heard senators asking questions. Questions he didn’t answer. If you’re trying to defend your reputation, and someone asks “Have you ever had a blackout while drinking?”, you answer “Absolutely not!” not “Have you?” If you’re trying to defend your reputation, you don’t tell easily disproved lies under oath the way he did. He shot down his own credibility. When a man lies about things that are easily checked, I question every word out of his mouth.

            As for dragging his family through the mud, I haven’t heard anyone say anything negative about his wife and daughters, except to express sympathy for them.

            Last but not least, once and for all, this is a job interview, not a trial. Due process doesn’t apply. Here’s a quote that describes it quite well- ““Due process” means fair treatment under the law — that an
            accused person has notice of the proceedings being brought against them
            and an opportunity to be heard before the government takes away their
            life, liberty, or property. The fundamental goal of due process is to
            prevent the state from depriving people of their most precious freedoms.
            But Kavanaugh isn’t threatened with any of those deprivations. He’s not
            facing jail time, a fine, or any confiscation of personal goods. The
            stakes are these: whether he will go from sitting on the bench of the
            second most prestigious court in the land, to the first.”

          • Iron Mike

            I have been amazed at the breathtaking hypocrisy—especially by those claiming to be Christian and “thoughtful” pastors. Their willingness to destroy lives on the basis of mere allegation without evidence—to deny the accused the basic fairness of a presumption of innocence and due process. Their unwillingness to entertain the possibility that a man has been wrongly accused and judge based on evidence. But I’ve come to see that the “job interview” talking point is the “salve” that Progressives use on their conscience to rationalize all manner of witch burning.

            Kavanaugh is not merely a job applicant; he is a sitting Court of Appeals judge. If the accusations against him could be proven, he would almost certainly be forced from the bench. At a minimum, if the accusations are deemed credible, they will stigmatize Kavanaugh for years. In the context of state and local governments, courts have consistently held that public employees deserve due process when faced with government action that threatens their jobs or good reputation. Is it too much to hold senators to the same standard before they destroy the career of one of America’s most distinguished jurists? Is it too much for the public—especially those who claim to be Christian, to demand fairness before storming the halls of Congress, demanding his crucifixion?

          • Rita Shryock

            Kavanaugh’s life is not being destroyed. The worst that can happen to him would be not getting a job that he obviously believes he is entitled to. If he were the least bit worried about his reputation or his family or his career, he would withdraw while he still has those things.

          • Iron Mike

            I guess your advocacy for drugs have clouded your reading ability. So let me break it down for you again. What’s the worse that could happen? His family is getting death threats and could be killed you moron. He could lose his existing seat on the DC Court of Appeals, he could be a pariah in his community….and all because of a 36-year old UNSUBSTANTIATED and UNCORROBORATED allegation by a mentally unstable Liberal activist. Very easy for you to be flippant about the consequences to someone else’s life.

          • RoundRocker

            Dr Ford and her family have also been getting death threats. They were forced to leave their home and hire security (which is what the GoFundMe account is being used for). She knew she would be threatened, but came forward anyway you moron. Who does that over a lie? If he loses his current job, it will be because he was found unfit and impeached. If he’s a pariah in his community, he can move to another community like Dr Ford has. We saw a very good performance of just how stable Brett is in that hearing, and what a wonderful judicial temperament he has. He lied numerous times about things he didn’t need to lie about. He demonstrated clear partisanship, which should disqualify him. The ABA and the Jesuit magazine have withdrawn their support for him. You going to blame Dr Ford for that too? Did she make him lose his cool and act like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum?

          • Iron Mike

            Apparently its irrelevant to you if he is found “unfit” based on zero evidence proving the charges against him. Repeating Dem talking points do not make them true. There is no evidence he has lied about anything—you just didn’t accept his answers.

            And I’m not sure what “temperament” you expect from a man falsely accused before his family, community, and the country of being an alcohol abusing sexual predator. How does a person react who has been falsely accused? If he showed no emotion, he would be criticized as robotic and evidence of guilt. If he shows righteous indignation and shares what hell this manufactured “Borking” has put his family through, then he has “anger issues”. The truth is it didn’t matter how he reacted—it would always be wrong in Liberal eyes. It is not partisanship for him to point out Democrat misconduct in handling Ford’s request for anonymity. It is not partisanship to expose their duplicity in holding back information for consideration until after the interviews were completed and right before a vote. It is not partisanship to point out that Dems are playing a disgusting game of resistance and delay to prevent ANY nominee they perceive might threaten their unholy grail of Roe v. Wade. The Kavanaugh and Ford families are collateral damage in the fight to preserve women’s right to kill their children.

            And no–the ABA has NOT withdrawn their support. Perhaps you should fact-check before posting #fakenews. According to the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary that evaluates the professional qualifications of judges said it still stands behind Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

            The only thing you got right is that a Jesuit Magazine withdrew support—-which means very little given their Leftist leanings anyway. The unintended consequence of Democrat misconduct and hypocrisy has been to fire up Republicans for the mid-term elections and turn a blue wave into a pathetic trickle.

            So Liberals successfully badgered a spineless Flake into supporting a 7th FBI *background* investigation. The reality is that will not be enough for Liberals because its not about the truth—it’s about delay until after the midterms and force a withdrawal of Kavanaugh’s nomination. I’m sure you know the FBI is NOT doing a *criminal* investigation—they will simply interview witnesses (as they have done before), summarize statements, and present them for Senate review. They draw no conclusions about witness credibility, guilt or innocence. My prediction is Liberals will scream for more time–more investigation, and my hope is the Senate Majority Leader puts an end to the charade and brings this kangaroo court to a close with a vote.

          • RoundRocker

            My mistake, the ABA has requested postponing a vote pending an investigation. Their Model Code of Judicial Conduct does state, however, that “A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.” His impartiality is seriously in question after his rant that he is the victim of a Democratic “conspiracy to do him in” and that Democrats are attempting to block his nomination as “revenge on behalf of the Clintons”. How much more blatantly could he have demonstrated his bias?

            Don’t make me list all the things he lied about in his testimony. They were so easily proved to be lies it’s laughable. Read this, taking careful note of what Senator Blumenthal said. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/28/heres-where-kavanaughs-sworn-testimony-was-misleading-or-wrong/?utm_term=.41cb7a05262a

          • Iron Mike

            His denunciation of Democrat political maneuvering to block his nomination “as revenge on behalf of the Clintons” is not a demonstration of bias. It’s evidence that he can transparently see their bias and unafraid of calling them on it. Vision, discernment, and courage are exactly the qualities needed on the Supreme Court.

            The same Blumenthal who was proven a liar about his service in Vietnam? LOL. Not your best example of credibility or integrity.

          • Barros Serrano

            No, its an indication of the usual lying rhetorical style of conservatives.

            Y’all mostly argue that a cabal of globalists led by Geo Soros are working hard to undermine your liberty by raising the minimum wage and protecting the environment, or something like that?

            How am I doing? I could be hired as a conservative commentator!

            Except that I don’t like to swim in the cesspool.

          • RoundRocker

            Jesuits Leftist?! Surely you jest. Or you’re ignorant about Jesuits (who ran the high school Brett attended. I’m sure it was a bastion of liberalism lol).

          • Iron Mike

            Seriously? Jesuits have a long history of Left wing activism. Well known running joke in the Catholic Church is they are so fringe, they are barely Catholic. Perhaps you should Google, “Jesuits and Liberation Theology” to see their intersection of Theology and Marxism.

          • fractal

            Oh—

            so now Dr. Ford is MENTALLY UNSTABLE???
            And who is trashing someone’s reputation now?

          • Iron Mike

            That’s not trashing someone’s reputation. That is the conclusion some experts (Psychiatrist Dr. Roger Klein) have already reached given her history of memory lapses, couples therapy, psychotherapy, history of claustrophobia requiring installation of extra doors in her house, fear of flying, and PTSD. If all that sounds like good mental health, you have a funny definition.

          • Barros Serrano

            From what we’re hearing, he DESERVES to lose his judgeship AND his teaching position.

            And yes, such as he ought to be reviled by the community. They are the scum among us.

          • Iron Mike

            “To execute a man, we don’t need proof of his guilt. We only need proof that it’s necessary to execute him. It’s that simple.” — Che Guevara

          • fractal

            And yet,
            Men destroy women’s lives ALL THE TIME with their rapey behavior.
            Out of 1000 rapes, only 6 men ever serve any jail time.
            Pretty good odds—how convenient!

            Where is the justice for these women?

            I don’t think you want justice.
            I think you like “boys will be boys” just fine—it has served you well, hasn’t it.
            In fact, it is starting to sound like we should POLYGRAPH YOU.

          • Iron Mike

            The typical response to a lack of evidence is to resort to slander.

          • fractal

            Typical rapey response that is heard all the time by convicted rapists and domestic abusers.

          • Barros Serrano

            The typical response of a sex offender is to cast about desperately for excuses for OTHER sex offenders.

          • Iron Mike

            I would have expected better from someone claiming to hold a “teaching” position.

          • Barros Serrano

            Gonna insult teachers now? of course… that’s standard connedservative rhetoric.

            In fact you are sounding with every post more like a sex offender.

            Tell the truth… don’t prevaricate and dissemble like your boy Cavanaugh.

          • Iron Mike

            Actually, I think very highly of teachers. That’s precisely why I expect better than ad hominem and deflection from someone claiming to be one. I hope you teach nothing more important than canine obedience school.

          • Barros Serrano

            Come see me, boy… I’ll teach you some manners.

          • fractal

            When a man accused of attempted rape refuses to take a polygraph, when the woman assaulted has already passed one…

            Come on.
            Stop trying to play lawyer with technicalities here.
            You sound just like another rapey man, who is getting nervous, waiting for the other shoe to drop on his balls.

          • Iron Mike

            Except Kavanaugh was never accused of attempted rape and the woman passing a polygraph means nothing. Do your homework.

          • fractal

            Of course it was attempted rape—she described that quite clearly.

            A polygraph is a good faith attempt to show your seriousness and lack of duplicity.
            Chickenaugh, Markie Judge and Kavanaugh’s wife should all be taking polygraphs—IMAGINE what kind of skanky stuff would come up if the wifey started talking…
            But they won’t.
            And we all know why…
            When the accuser passes one, and the accused and HIS WITNESS both dodge taking one…

          • Barros Serrano

            What denial…

            And yes, clearly you are a sex offender yourself. Likely you’ve not been exposed yet.

            But, Me Too, baby! Your exposure is imminent!

          • Iron Mike

            Seems the only thing exposed is your inability to have a rational dialogue and penchant for middle school logic.

          • Barros Serrano

            My logic is impeccable.

            And you reek of sexual predation.

          • Barros Serrano

            From what we’re hearing, Kavanaugh deserves to be dragged through the mud. He’s a person of low character who has flitted about committing various misdeeds because he CAN because he’s privileged, because his ilk thinks they answer to nobody.

            Wrong, schmuck!

          • victorperri

            You are talking apples and oranges.Even for blue collar worker jobs, there is often a background check and it is a must for a fededal government position. So, in any hiring for employment setting, the fact that somebody is accused of a serious crime, if known by the prospective employer, will weigh heavily. But, that does not turn the hiring process into a criminal case.Judge Kavanaugh was and is free at any time to walk away from his nomination. He is not being compelled to go through this process, which in itself can have no more serious consequences than not being confirmed to be a member of the Supreme Court. And, after his seemingly lack of composure at the hearing on Friday, he does appear stable enough to be on the Court anyway.

          • Barros Serrano

            I was more carefully vetted for teaching positions than Kavanaugh has been by the GOPs in the Senate.

            Mentally unstable liberal activist? LOL… hey you forget to mention Saul Alinsky and Venezuela!!! You’re slipping, connedservative dupe.

          • Reese

            I have found in 41 years of marriage that sometimes it is best for a man to simply say, “whatever”…

          • fractal

            BIG FAT DODGE.

          • Reese

            I never argue with liberals; can’t educate them with truth and it just wastes time and happy. Anyway, who cares? I’ve got to think about golf and Trump, and sports and good food and wine. Just no time left for liberals…

          • Barros Serrano

            You brag about your ignorance?

            You support corporate privilege, environmental destruction, no backing of women or minority rights, a failling middle class, and all the other evil perpetuated by the Republicans and then snidely with your nose in the air declare that you can’t understand LIBERALS???

            I cannot understand YOU. Your beliefs indicate that you are utterly insane, a raving lunatic. Please explain.

          • Reese

            I’m just a deplorable old veteran, father of daughters, conservative Trumpster who believes in hard work, the Bill of Rights, real PROOF to support any accusations, American exceptionalism, a growing economy, America First and President Trump. Oh, and common sense – which does nor seem to reside among libs!

          • Barros Serrano

            No, you’re a treasonous misfit who supports a wannabe dictator, supports corporate hegemonic Republicans, pretends to be superior for being in a privileged group.

            The U$A is exceptionally backward and decrepit compared to the rest of the developed world. How proud you must be for enabling our decline by voting GOP.

            Common sense, you dare to use that term, and pretend you support the Constitution with this madman megalomaniac in office? You’re not right in the head, boy!

            You are a traitor, no doubt about it. A reprehensible and yes DEPLORABLE confused misanthrope who best as they say in England “sort yourself out” before you do any more damage.

            Also, be sure to be in here after the Nov elections so I can laugh in your face for a few hours.

          • Reese

            Mercy me! What delirious maximus! So, if USA is so bad, how come so much of the world wants to come here? We’re having to build a wall to keep them out! Why do we USA taxpayers have to pay for aid to all the poor countries? Why are we expected to bail out everyone after disasters? My Navy and then working days took me to many different 3rd world countries and I saw poor like you cannot imagine. I met many people who really wanted to come home with me. Why? Hey, can’t wait to visit with you Nov 9. Well, gotta go; stock market at a new record level and I’ve got to count my money and then go play golf…

          • Iron Mike

            That was awesome! As retired veteran, father of daughters, and fellow Conservative…thanks for making my day!

          • Reese

            Salute for your service, sir, and for all who served in any way. Special citations for being a father of daughters – there is no medal equal to our service in that theater!

          • Barros Serrano

            But you remain condemned for your continuing support for fascism, which makes you a traitor, and for you defense of sexual predators, which strongly indicates that you are one.

            Not good that you raised children… not good at all.

          • Barros Serrano

            Don’t condescend to me.

            Your hackneyed apologetic is easily refuted.

            People come here, and to many other rich countries, for the JOBS. Some come to escape a likely death. We are NOT having to build a wall, that is nonsense and if you fall for that or anything else Trumpolini says you’re a deplorable fool.

            Why did the U$A screw up Central America and Mexico in the first place? Oh WHOOoPS that’s the history you never learned, am I right? The CIA overthrow of Arbenz, U$A involvement in installing Huerta, death squads in several countries, U$A corporations making big profits all the time. The U$A is giving nothing to those countries. In fact U$A corporations are pulling out big profits gleaned by the suffering of the people there.

            Yes, you’re arrogant and snide, living on the blood of the 3rd world. Your lifestyle is subsidized by their sweatshop and plantation labor. So you have a good laugh and show us all what a good Nazi you are, a good Roman, or whatever.

          • Reese

            ahhh, like a speech from Crooked Hillary or Pocohantus, or even Sprarcatus, always a good laugh… thanks!

          • Barros Serrano

            Typical Republican insuts, but no substance. You cannot sustain your position because it is indefensible, boy.

            And I invite you to try insulting me to my face and see how that goes for you, halfman.

            Ignoring the truth about U$A crimes in the world makes you no better than any “good German” in 1939. You probably voted for Reagan and so the blood is on your hands, devil. Think that’s funny? Laugh now, cry later, boy.

          • Reese

            Uh-oh. Better get back on your meds, professor…

          • Iron Mike

            Looks like somebody “triggered” the Demented Demosocialist.

          • victorperri

            Then Why are you blabbing? Go get drunk on wine, think about Kavanaugh’s binge drinking, engage in binge eating and dream about Trump spending every day as Pres playing golf. But, if you don’t argue because it is a “ waste of time,” quit wasting everyone else’s time.

          • Reese

            Excuse me, I believe Obummer set new records for golf playing during his term. Oh,those pesky facts!

          • victorperri

            You know, sometimes people write things on line ( particularlyright wingers) that are so totally patently false that I feel compelled to respond. You are either lying, disingenuous or woefully deluded. Trump has, in fact, been golfing more days as a percentage of the number of days in office than any president ( or should I say “ precedent” ) in history. Quit fabricating.

          • Reese

            How many times did President Barack Obama play golf while …
            https://thegolfnewsnet.com/golfnewsnetteam/2017/03/19/how-many
            Obama, who chose golf as his outlet from the glass cage that is the presidency, had plenty of weekends and vacations to play golf in the eight years he was Commander-in-Chief. In total, according to CBS News reporter and presidential historian Mark Knoller, President Barack Obama played a total of 333 rounds of golf while President. (NOTE fromReese: I stand corrected. Trump is outpacing Obummer, but not by that much. Also remember, Trump plays many weekends on his “home” courses – the ones he owns – in Florida and New Joisey on WEEKENDS. Most of us do take weekends off to relax a little…)

          • Barros Serrano

            You’re a traitor. You blindly support fascists, essentially, and then whine about “liberals”?

            Yeah I want the middle class strong, I want local businesses prosperous, I want women and minorities to have full rights, I want the environment protected, so you better not listen to me, you’ll have a nervous breakdown.

            You should be having a crisis of conscience over your treasonous political inclinations.

        • fractal

          Everything you say about Dr. Ford is IRRELEVANT to whether or not she was man-handled by Chickenaugh.

          He could have been confirmed weeks ago—IF HE HAD TAKEN THE POLYGRAPH.
          But he won’t.
          Because he cannot pass it.

          • Iron Mike

            Everything Reese said is entirely relevant to PROVING whether or not a crime took place. We don’t convict people based on allegations alone or empathy for the victim. We convict based on evidence.
            You clearly do not understand polygraphs. Ford passing a polygraph means nothing more than she believes her own story—it does not mean the story is true. Kavanaugh is just as likely to pass a polygraph for exactly the same reason. It’s worthless as evidence.

          • fractal

            So,
            If CHICKENAUGH is just as likely to pass the polygraph, then why doesn’t he take it??

            We all know why…

            I used to work in Social Services.
            One thing that stood out, was that men who were domestic violence abusers or sex abusers LOVE to commiserate and trash their victims. They will call them crazy, bitchee, money-grubbing, stupid etc…
            They will get all technical and explain how the judge was against them there was a conspiracy of feminists etc…

            The more you talk, the more you sound like one of them.

          • Iron Mike

            Why don’t YOU take a polygraph? I mean seriously—if we are going to make accusations without evidence, then you might as well take one as well. One thing I learned investigating sexual assaults and putting offenders in prison, is you can’t build a case without evidence.

            The more you talk, the more you are deflecting from the reality that like Ford, you have no evidence to condemn Kavanaugh, except slander.

          • fractal

            I have taken polygraphs—and passed them all.
            I don’t think you could pass one on sexual assault though—I think the real reason you are defending Chickenaugh, is because you are too much like him.

            And again,
            THIS WAS NOT A TRIAL.
            We could sure have a trial, if the FBI is allowed to REALLY investigate.

          • Iron Mike

            Accusing and slandering me is just deflection because your reasoning is so shallow. Pathetic.

          • Barros Serrano

            Not shallow at all. I also identified in your posts the signs of a sexual abuser.

            That’s why you’re so hot at Ford.. she dared to speak up about it!

            None of your victims have come forward yet, I presume… but this Me Too thing has you running scared.

          • Iron Mike

            “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” Socrates

          • Barros Serrano

            You lost the debate as soon as you began defending that low-character entitled sex-abuser frat-rat Kavanaugh.

    • victorperri

      Listen, lady, I am an attorney and I practiced law for thirty including in the area of civil rights, and your comment, as applied to the facts of this matter, is bull shit ( as are Trump’s.)

    • fractal

      Dr. Ford took the polygraph and PASSED—shades of Anita!
      She told both husband and therapist the name of her assaulter years ago.
      And all your ilk can do is squeal about “conspiracy”.

      Chickenaugh won’t Ever take the polygraph—AND WE ALL KNOW WHY.
      Chickenaugh wants us to believe we don’t know what “skis” are, and what a “devil’s triangle” is about…
      He LIED about his drinking habits, and probably had been drinking during his break—his combative performance, complete with sniveling, weepy, blotchy face, was a TRIGGER for anyone who has ever lived with a mean drunk.

      And shall we talk about his DKE fraternity, which is so skanky, they aren’t even allowed on campus at Yale?
      OR what kind of SCOTUS nominee puts up COMMERCIALS for his nomination?
      Gross.

      Top it off with the entitlement so many athletes (especially macho types) have concerning law-breaking…need I google that for you, or can you do it yourself?

      This was a JOB INTERVIEW.
      Don’t hire the guy who is so iffy.

  • Rita Shryock

    It’s worth noting that, even while Kavanaugh categorically denies that the assault ever happened, his staunchest supporters seem to believe that it did, or they wouldn’t be making excuses for him. So, at best, they are supporting a man they know to be a liar to be a Supreme Court judge.

    • Iron Mike

      Any names to these “staunchest supporters [who] seem to believe that it did”? Because his legion of staunchest supporters believe he NEVER did it or they would not be his staunchest supporters.

      • Rita Shryock

        Every one who makes excuses for him. “Give him a break, he was only 17.” “He was drunk.” “Why do girls go to parties like that anyway?” “He shouldn’t have his life ruined over something he did when he was 17.” Or, my personal favorite, “What teenage boy doesn’t do things like this?” All those people.

        • Iron Mike

          Frankly, the staunchest supporters of Kavanaugh are the ones who see how he is being railroaded for Democrat political advantage, like Constitutional and civil rights lawyers Alan Dershowitz and Jonathon Turley. These staunch supporters are not the ones making excuses like you are listing. They are the ones demanding evidence, defending the Constitution, the presumption of innocence, due process, and basic fairness that is lacking in this whole kangaroo court.

          • Barros Serrano

            His staunchest supporters are the most misogynist among us. Those who hate women, who think essentially that rape is their fault, who care nothing for the victims of malfeasance… those are Kavanaugh’s deplorable supporters.

            Same pack of deplorables who support the Orange Dictator.

          • Iron Mike

            There are 63 Million people who voted for Trump whom you dismiss as “deplorables.” It was foolish then and foolish now. What the Left has inadvertently done is mobilize them to vote in the midterms. Say goodbye to the Blue Trickle.

          • Barros Serrano

            I’ll have to look up the numbers but I think you’re inflating the vote numbers. Turnout was as usual low relative to that in other democratic nations.

            Yes, the election (though not by majority vote) of Trumpolini the racist misogynist narcissist fascist, has shown us that that many millions of Yanks are indeed deplorable. If this country isn’t rife with deplorables, then how did the U$A manage generations of slavery plus a century of Jim Crow, genocide of Native Americans, land theft and rampant abuse against Mexicans, and so on?

            Hell I live in Virginia, the South, and there are millions of deplorables just in this state!

  • Tammy Mills Hanley

    “…by latching himself to a dishonorable man, he chose to deny the stains of his own life and to act with destructive hubris, not appropriate humility.”

    This is true. Not only is Trump corrupt, he encourages and fosters it in others. And you cannot achieve honor by calling corruption honorable. Great article.

    • Iron Mike

      “…deny the stains of his own life and to act with destructive hubris, not appropriate humility” on the basis of an unsubstantiated and uncorroborated allegation. Not only do you condemn him without evidence, you condemn him based on guilt by association. That is hardly a Christian precept. You and the Thoughtless Pastor should be ashamed.

      • Tammy Mills Hanley

        Romans 1:32 not only those who continue to do ____, but those who approve (paraphrased off the top of my head….but fairly Christian in basis). #notashamed

        • Iron Mike

          Way to condemn a man without evidence and then justify it with bible passages out of context. The Pharisees would be proud. #hypocrisy

          • Tammy Mills Hanley

            I wasn’t condemning him. I was stating the Christian basis for guilt by association. Adult child of a fundamentalist lay preacher. I can quote verses out of context up one side and down the other. *MLW*

          • Iron Mike

            Of course you were condemning him! You didn’t just state the Christian basis for guilt by association, you used Kavanaugh and Trump in that context. We already know you are a Pharisee, are you a liar as well? If you’re going to be a hypocrite, be a proud one like Roundy! LOL.

          • Barros Serrano

            You trip over yourselves trying to defend this rightwing miscreant Kavanaugh, and keep throwing out the word “Christian”.

            “Highly illogical, Captain.”

          • Iron Mike

            It is less about defending Kavanaugh than it is about defending the Constitution and Christian moral values…both of which are sorely lacking in the confirmation process and the mob mentality seeking his crucifixion on the altar of political correctness.

          • Barros Serrano

            Your response was empty rhetoric. “pollitical correctness”? THAT is the ideology or practice which is causing all the problems? That doesn’t even MEAN anything. PC is the GOP word for anything they don’t like. What drivel.

            The PROCESS in fact is proceeding just fine, very Constitutionally. We will see if the evidence for Kavanaugh’s low character continues to accumulation. My guess is that it will. I think we’ve already seen who he is.

          • fractal

            There is no real “evidence” with acquaintance rape.
            That is why, out of every 1000 rapes, only 6 men ever serve ANY time.
            How CONVENIENT for men!

          • Iron Mike

            Setting aside statistics you offer without source, are you suggesting we condemn people without evidence? Those are some gross generalizations about acquaintance rape. “Real” evidence in Ford’s case are her witness statements—–except none of her FOUR WITNESSES corroborate her account. “Real” evidence might be some details about when and where the alleged assault took place, how she got to the party, or how she got home. Her story is full of so many holes that it’s virtually worthless.

          • fractal

            You know how to google and your hand is obviously not broken—google the stats yourself—unless you think I should do that BEFORE I make you a sandwich…

            I think there is plenty of evidence to keep him off SCOTUS and really, to fire him as a federal judge—remember, this is not a court case—it is a job interview. The man is a mean drunk and I would LOVE to get his wife on a polygraph also…

            In general, there will be NO JUSTICE for women, until we have a working science of truth detection—oh, that’s right—we already do!
            Paul Eckman is the leading world expert in truth detection, and has worked for National Security and the Pentagon many times.
            You can google him too—or do you need the widdle lady to do it for you?

            Some courts are already using his expertise as evidence.
            If the Senate Committee REALLY wanted to know the truth, they could ask them to investigate.
            BUT THEY WON’T…

            Tell me, how many women will it take for you, a-la-Bill Cosby?
            10?
            27?
            52?

          • Iron Mike

            If you’re going to make claims, be prepared to back them up. That applies to your bogus statistics and Ford’s bogus accusations.

            There is NO JUSTICE for anyone when we accept accusations as “evidence”. It ceases to be a job interview when you accuse him of multiple felonies without evidence and demand he lose his livelihood. Let’s hope you or someone you love is not falsely accused without evidence or you may be singing a different tune.

          • fractal

            Blah, Blah, Blah.

            You are the rapey guy that doesn’t think dry humping a woman, with your hand over her mouth to keep her from screaming for help, isn’t ATTEMPTED RAPE.

          • Iron Mike

            Sorry, but it’s not. You’re the self-appointed expert that doesn’t know the law. Attempted rape is a specific intent crime that requires attempted penetration. It is a legal description of a crime, not your blah, blah, blah…

          • Barros Serrano

            I’m trying to think of a woman who’s stated she’s NOT been sexually assaulted. Nearly all have in one way or another.

            This is a sick twisted misogynist society full of good old boys who think their testosterone entitles them do act as they please.

            It’s about time we put an end to all of that.

          • Barros Serrano

            how convenient for Iron Mike, I suspect…

      • Barros Serrano

        There is plenty of evidence about his character if not to substantiate that one allegation.

        He was a mean drunk. He started fights when drunk. He belonged to a frat notorious for misogynist displays on campus.

        And he lied under oath about his drinking.

        Clearly a person of low character, in keeping with his privileged entitled frat-brat milieu.

        • Iron Mike

          You have plenty of assertions, but precious little evidence to support them. It may be your opinion that he lied under oath about his drinking, but where is your proof? Your gut instinct? I know—throw in a little class bias and you can condemn on that basis alone! Sorry, but you have nothing more than empty speculation. Ooooo, he threw ICE at someone in a bar in 1985…..Lock ’em up! That’s quite a difference between throwing ice to sexual assault.

          • Barros Serrano

            Perhaps you’ve missed the news lately, but several people have made statements about his drinking which contradict his testimony to the Senate Committee. Yes, there IS evidence for my assertion that he lied about his drinking, and under oath.

            I came from that class in that I was a preppy at a boarding school. That is how I know that many of them are serious miscreants, entitled brats, that is simply sociological fact in this country. Many of us did NOT act like that nor turn out to be politically irrational like Kavanaugh.

            Throwing ice indicates his temperament when drinking… it’s all relevant. Stop reacting emotionally and think about the various things being said about Kavanaugh.

            But mostly just calm down and wait for the FBI report.

          • Iron Mike

            What I see in the news are a lot of unsubstantiated statements from witnesses who seem to backtrack when pressed for details. Some of them may be facing federal perjury charges.

            Where we agree is on waiting for the FBI report.

            I am willing to accept the report….will you? If the allegations remain unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, will you support his appointment under presumption of innocence? I don’t think so. After all, anyone claiming to be a “Demosocialist” is politically and historically irrational.

          • Barros Serrano

            Why are you unwilling to believe Ford? I know the answer….

            1. you support an ultra-right quasi-fascist Justice no matter what, just as you don’t mind a misogynist racist criminal Orange President.
            2. you will condemn and reject ANYTHING coming from Democrats.

            Don’t deny that these 2 statements are true.

            As for me, I do not support ANY nominee put forward by Trumpolini, as he is going to be impeached AND arrested for various crimes, and should not be choosing ANY Supreme Court Justices or any judge at all.

            Check out the news now coming out about Trumpolini’s tax returns and how he really made his money…

            Fortunately his hair will match the jumpsuit.

          • Iron Mike

            Why am I unwilling to believe Ford? Because I believe “evidence” should support allegations.

            Perhaps you have not seen the news today, but Ford’s credibility has been destroyed by her former boyfriend who revealed all the areas where she perjured herself in sworn testimony. She is going to need that GoFundMe account to pay for her trial on federal perjury charges.

          • Barros Serrano

            Weak in the extreme. In fact Kavanaugh perjured himself when asked about his drinking,

            At this point it’s beyond Ford, though for your claims that she’s been discredited I have yet to find any substantiation. There is a lot more on Kavanaugh which reveals his unsuitability for the Court. Much of it may not be criminal, but it certainly does reveal the nature of his character… and he has been found wanting.

            So you Republicans focus on Ford and go off on yet more of your trademarked inane tirades, but Kavanaugh will not pass through.

          • Iron Mike

            LOL. Whatever happened to calm down and wait for the FBI report?

            The sexual assault case against Kavanaugh is crumbling and the Left has nothing but unsubstantiated allegations about his drinking decades ago, throwing ice cubes in 1985, and his “temperament” for assertively defending himself against false accusations.

            Do you hear that? It’s the sound of all this Liberal chaff fading away into babbling incoherence and very soon JUSTICE Kavanaugh’s nomination will be approved.

          • Barros Serrano

            there are other issues still , which if not investigated will constitute serious malfeasance by the Orange Administration.

            He lied under oath. Start with that one.

            The schmuck is of low character.

          • Iron Mike

            Lied under oath? Then I’m sure Dems on the Judiciary will call him out for it and demand he be charged with perjury. Of course, that allegation has even less evidence than Ford. LOL.

          • Barros Serrano

            You’re not paying attention. His lies under oath were already contradicted by the statements of people who knew him in college and high school who stated that he was a heavy and regular drinker, often out of control and stumbling. He was a mean drunk who started bar fights.

            Not the sort of character were need on the Supreme Court. It’s bad enough the Republicans pushed the sexual harasser Thomas through confirmation. But enough is enough.

            There should be an FBI investigation into all the allegations, not only that of Ford.

          • Iron Mike

            Sorry—you can’t contradict testimony with more unsubstantiated and uncorroborated allegations. That’s not how our system works. Since the FBI was charged with conducting a “supplemental background investigation” based on Ford’s allegations—that’s exactly what they did.

            Your opinion of his character and fitness doesn’t really doesn’t matter—nor does mine. What matters are the facts, supported by evidence. That’s what the Senate must base their decision. And that leads to only one conclusion—-JUSTICE Kavanaugh.

            I can hardly wait until RBG kicks the bucket so we can have this conversation again. My guess is Mother Theresa herself would not be good enough for Democrats.

          • Barros Serrano

            Other allegations do not contradict any testimony; they are unrelated to Ford’s testimony, really. You’re desperate to defend that indefensible deplorable Kavanaugh,

            They did not investigate other allegations, nor other witnesses, some of whom publicly stated that Kavanaugh lied under oath. That is what you’re ignoring. Of course you’d like a misogynist miscreant on the Court; he reflects YOUR values.

            The putrid values of today’s Repblican.

          • Iron Mike

            LOL. If the “other allegations” are unrelated to Ford’s testimony, then they are unrelated to the scope of the supplementary FBI background investigation. Haven’t you figured that out yet?

            That putrid smell? It’s the rotting corpse of the Demosocialist movement.

          • Barros Serrano

            they are related to the issue of his CONFIRMATION which is the issue before the Senate. You are quite dull-witted, aren’t you, They are relevant to evaluating his character.

            Demosocialism is the ambient system in every developed country but the U$A, and all of them have better living standards than the U$A has. Thanks to YOUR treasonous retrograde GOP voting, we are inhibited from progressing like other modern nations.

            Thanks for holding us back because you’re too racist to vote for a Democrat

          • Iron Mike

            Holding you back is exactly what Conservatism is all about. We’re here to hold you back from creating a repressive Nanny-state. We are here to hold the line on borders, culture, and language. We are here to hold you back from enforcing off-the-wall Constitutional interpretations and forcing the men and women of a free nation into Demosocialist slavery.

            And you’re welcome!

          • Barros Serrano

            That childish cliche-mongering tells us nothing. Think about it, a “repressive Nanny-state”. What does that even mean? Nannies are repressive? What? Having healthcare access be universal, that is “Nanny” behavior to you? You’re a sick puppy.

            Demosocialist slavery? So the Germans, Israelis, Japanese, Kiwis, Aussies, Belgians, French, Danish, Canadians… they’re all enslaved?

            See how inane and ludicrous you are? Your grasp of reality is tenuous.

          • Iron Mike

            The US is a nation of 325 Million. Our economy is larger than all the nations you named—combined! What is insane and ludicrous is your inability to grasp basic economics.

          • Barros Serrano

            Our living standard is low. On the average, the U$A is behind on EVERY social welfare index. ALL developed nations are superior.

            The U$A is large and rich… but the PEOPLE don’t share in the prosperity. You don’t get it because you’re a brainwashed dupe full of Faux News dooky.

            Life is so much better in other developed nations. Universal healthcare access, affordable education, adequate daycare, job protections… and people show up in studies as HAPPIER in those countries than here. Just look at the boards. Yanks are angry, disenchanted, dysfunctional, and dangerous. Look at the % of people in the U$A who are incarcerated. Look at the rate of drug deaths. Look at crime generally.

            This is a backwards and dysfunctional society, thanks to Republicans since 1981. During this time they’ve behaved as unrepentant corporate fascists. And you support that? Therefore I have to question both your intelligence and your sanity.

          • jock1234

            If I had you in person, I’d show you off before you could blink – SNOOPY.

          • Barros Serrano

            Then come do it, boy. I know that you are the typical Trumpolini supporter… angry, dysfunctional, cowardly, racist, and likely an incel.

            Are you an incel, boy? You talk like one…

            I live near Charlottesville. You go buy yourself a brand new Tiki torch and COME on DOWN!!!

            Online you’re nothing but insults and threats, but in person? LOL!!! Of course you’ll hide under mommy’s couch, but it would be amusing hypothetically…

          • Iron Mike

            So now the FBI investigation is complete—9 witnesses interviewed and no corroboration of Ford’s allegations. These were the witnesses chosen by the FBI as materially relevant to the allegations made.

            So now will Democrats focus on their Constitutional “advise and consent” responsibility? I don’t think so. My prediction is no amount of witnesses will be sufficient because it never was about the allegation. It’s about delay, deter, and obfuscate. The irony is pollsters are already talking about the “Kavanaugh Effect” that has depressed Dem voter enthusiasm and fired up Republican voters. Looking forward to celebrating in November.

          • Barros Serrano

            Celebrate the conservative ruination of the country.

            But you conveniently ignore that there is more than Ford’s assertion in play, and trumpolini inhibited the FBI from investigating other sources, including multiple ones which have confirmed that Kavanaugh was lying under oath.

            But just ignore that, because due process is nothing to obstructionist gerrymandering yes FASCIST Republicans.

            You still may have a problem here with Kavanaugh… and you’ve got a big one with Trumpolini.

            Take a look at the stuff emanating from his sister…

          • Iron Mike

            The only Fascist tactics I see are coming from the Left. Railroading an innocent man without due process or presumption of innocence. But yes, I am celebrating the Conservative preservation of the Constitution.

  • Barros Serrano

    Republican hysteria over this is comical.

    They seem not to have noticed that there is an FBI investigation ongoing… Kavanaugh is not being “railroaded”, but nor are his accusers being ignored.

    That is as it should be.

    Accusations aside, Kavanaugh lied under oath about his drinking the other day… that alone disqualifies him as a smarmy lying petty crybaby low-character spineless privileged dweeb.

    NOT judge material, on any court.

    • Iron Mike

      Republicans have absolutely noticed there is an FBI investigation—in fact, it’s the 7th FBI investigation that Kavanaugh has undergone. I think what Dems fail to notice is that like the others, this is a “background” investigation, not a “criminal” investigation.
      Witness statements are collected—no conclusions are made. In fact, if witnesses deviate from previous statements—they can be charged with lying to the FBI. So what exactly do you expect to come of this?

      Accusations aside, you have absolutely no evidence that Kavanaugh lied under oath and neither do the Dems or he would already be charged with lying before Congress.

      • jekylldoc

        Umm, you really believe that the Republicans would check his claims and hold him to his statements? He has said a number of things in the hearings that we have good reason to believe were lies. The party temporarily in power doesn’t care.

        • In an age of neo-fascism , MHO, a few things become clear to me…
          “They have a right to do anything we can’t stop them from doing’: Catch-22.

          Hannah Arendt, a refugee from, and a student of, a time and place in which

          ” …the few rules and standards according to which men used to tell right from wrong, and which were invoked to judge or justify others and themselves,.… without much notice… collapsed almost overnight, and then it was as though morality suddenly stood revealed…
          as a set of mores, customs and manners, which could be exchanged for another set with hardly more trouble than it would take to change the table manners of an individual or a people.”

          I found an article today that, MHO, puts this conversation a little farther along…

          /It’s not necessarily the case that having roots means that you’re wisely-rooted, but it does mean that you have a stake in your own personality and self-imposed limits on what you are capable of doing. Without these roots, you have no limits, you are capable of anything, and your own character is a matter of indifference to you. In short: you are dangerous.

          Thinking, which is to say being in dialog with yourself, is what gives you this stake in your own character — it “results in conscience as its by-product.” You don’t want to be spending your time in dialog with a monster:

          “If I do wrong I am condemned to live together with a wrongdoer in an unbearable intimacy.”
          ~Hannah Arendt

          This is of such importance that, as Socrates put it, it is better to be wronged than to do wrong.

          If you and the self you are in dialog with can achieve this crucial harmony by agreeing to a comfortable lie, and the alternative is to be in disharmony over an uncomfortable truth, what’s holding you back from embracing the lie?

           if you think you can impose your preferences by force, you have no need to appeal to some universal standard of right and wrong, you just do your thing; on the other hand, if you are defenseless, big talk may be all you’ve got.

          of today’s villains, the torturers and terrorists and demagogues, who’s to say they don’t have their own sixth sense [their version of a conscience or lack thereof conventional, agreed-upon, civil societal definition of right and wrong] that they aren’t enacting the character they admire? Arendt said that this “sixth sense” is misleading: “these feelings indicate conformity and nonconformity, they don’t indicate morality.”

          … at some point I must feel that I wouldn’t want to live with myself if I were to do X, Y, or Z.

          Because i would feel guilty, I would be repulsed at myself, all of this because of this same unreliable ethical sixth sense [conscience] . I also can’t help but feel that there are reasons why some things are right and others wrong that lie outside of me —

          Could it really be that there is nothing more at stake in moral questions than my own opinion of myself?/

          ~Dave Sniggle
          https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=26Sep06

          We… “are committed (it would seem) to think of conscience as an organ that will react without hope for rewards and without fear of punishment.” ~Hannah Arendt

          • jekylldoc

            Fascinating. Arendt was what they call a “keen observer.” She pinned down stuff that much of the world still doesn’t understand. Condemned to live with a wrongdoer – isn’t that the truth?

            Watching the Republican party descend from a party that did the main work in bringing Civil Rights (with LBJ’s able assistance) to the party of “Law and Order”, then the party of Watergate (though there were still enough of courage and vision to know it was a threat to liberty), then Supply Side fables and sham, then Willie Horton, then Newt Gingrich and climate denialism, to today’s slavish devotion to the donor class and utter lack of integrity, has been a slow motion horror show. Some other things have gotten better over that time, but that one always makes my blood run cold.

            I don’t particularly think I could resist a tide such as the one Arendt discussed. I would not change my morality, but I suspect I would change my public face. This is nothing to be happy about – I have to live with my own “pragmatism”. If there is one good thing about it, it is that it helps me think strategically about what it will take to extricate us from the sexism, homophobia and racism which still persist on the unconscious bias level. To learn not to divide us into groups like that and believe in prejudice. And ultimately to bring everyone into the kingdom, not just the lucky descendants of the ones who killed most of the inhabitants of a land rich in farmland and minerals, and built modern industrial society. But who have to live with that evil deed in their past.

          • jekylldoc

            A further word about rootedness. It has to be handled delicately, but I believe it is vitally important. That is the one reason I don’t get very exercised about people who still romanticize the Confederacy. The bulk of the fighting men were not there to defend slavery but to defend their home state. Alongside the White Supremacists there are still Rebs who just stand for kin, neighbors and folks they identify with.

            America can be, and sometimes is, the place where standing for something larger means a special meaning for those ties of rootedness.

            I heard a good discussion once of the rabid violence of Pol Pot as more a product of a lack of vision of goodness to aim for than a product of hatred or misguided ideology. Scapegoating as an emotional force eating the mind of small group happy to have the guns. I do believe ordinary human rootedness would have protected them from doing such a deed. Rootedness can also result in horrible violence, but it may be a pre-condition for the development of a society that aims for justice.

            In some sense the inner dialogue that can become conscience is like the social feeling in a rooted society, that has the potential to aspire to real purpose. I wonder if the Critical Studies of the academic elite may not have completely dropped the ball by trying to scapegoat the rooted instead of trying to persuade people to aim for purpose.

          • a lack of vision of goodness… Dooooo tell! We are so busted!!

          • One has to make it work with what is given…
            “Hannah Arendt’s political philosophy,…emphasises individual responsibility in political situations in which common democratic norms no longer apply. Based on Arendt’s insights,… the ethical choices…suggest a way towards a better communal future.”
            https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13688790.2017.1363782?src=recsys&journalCode=cpcs20

          • jekylldoc

            Oh, I agree completely. Understanding the role of rootedness (which I cannot claim to do) doesn’t change the individual responsibility to choose the just thing. I just find it valuable to think about whether I might help to celebrate the roots, and to nurture their aspirations to stand for something.

        • Iron Mike

          It has nothing to do with the party in power. Republicans may not fact-check his claims, but I damn sure know the Democrats will! If they can definitively prove a substantive lie, then it would strengthen their case for not approving him or provide the basis for impeachment should they become the majority after the midterms.

          • jekylldoc

            Mike, the Dems can’t compel witnesses or investigate. They will after they have won the House, but Kavanaugh’s appointment or not will be decided before then. The Republican rush was understandable until the witnesses started multiplying. At this point it looks both cynical and lame. Not that that is anything new to the party that denies global warming and lies about supporting the requirement of covering pre-existing conditions.

          • Iron Mike

            Doc, the Dem goal is to slow-roll the Kavanaugh nomination with an endless witness list, demanding each one be interviewed and adding to the list as needed. The FBI has the capacity to determine what witnesses are needed to obtain the facts. Dems want control over the investigators to gain control over the investigation and milk it past the mid-terms.

            The White House already said it would let the FBI determine the scope of the witnesses to be interviewed. The FBI has done it—the report is turned in. It’s time for the Senate to review the report and then fulfill their Constitutional “advise and consent” responsibility.

          • jekylldoc

            My understanding is that the White House severely limited the scope of the investigation by limiting it to one week. The report is in, but it is background and therefore not public. If they could have proved one or the other to be lying, yes, we would have heard that result, but of course that might not have been possible with unlimited time.

            The idea of an endless witness list being producible on demand is more than a little absurd. Additional people are coming forward, including Blasey Ford’s ex-boyfriend, because they think they have something material to say. I daresay the Democrats would be happy to extend the investigation past the midterms with or without substance, (sort of like the “advise and consent” process with Merrick Garland) but there is only one party here rushing to judgment.

            It looks to me like Flake has the cover he needed, so unless there is something pretty glaring in the FBI report, it will take all four of Murkowski, Collins, Manchin and Heitkamp voting against him to stop his appointment. Possible, but I don’t see it happening based on the testimony we have heard. IMO that’s sad, but that’s the current state of politics.

          • Iron Mike

            I think its important to note the investigation was limited in time, not scope. The FBI could have interviewed anyone they wanted. They chose who to interview based on the scope of inquiry given them by the committee which was focused on allegations against him.

            Worth noting that when the FBI was tasked to conduct a supplementary background investigation into Anita Hill’s charges against Clarence Thomas, the whole investigation took 3 days. I think the basic misunderstanding by the public surrounds the nature of a background investigation—it’s not the same as a criminal investigation. It’s not concerned with innocence or guilt—the only task is to gather the facts for the Senate to draw conclusions.

          • Barros Serrano

            It is important to note that the FBI did Not investigate:

            1. the clear evidence that Kavanaugh lied under oath;
            2. the other allegations by women in addition to Ford,
            3. the testimony of a number of acquaintances who have given evidence of bad behavior and low character.

            The GOP doesn’t care if he raped babies every weekend, as long as he’ll support their corporate-shill agenda, he’s a “wonderful person”. He’s a miscreant abusive frat-brat just like them, so of course they give him a pass.

        • Chari McCauley

          That’s what the cases of water were for….
          Lie, drink, think up a better lie, while drinking it down….
          Rinse, repeat.

  • Iron Mike

    What is honorable about bearing false witness?

    Yesterday, Ford was been exposed as a liar and now faces potential perjury charges.

    In a written declaration released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, directly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination.The former boyfriend, whose name was redacted in the declaration, also said Ford neither mentioned Kavanaugh nor mentioned she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the time they were dating from about 1992 to 1998. He said he saw Ford going to great lengths to help a woman he believed was her “life-long best friend” prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s office.

    During a 6-year relationship with Ford (1992-1998), the boyfriend also observed the following:

    1. Ford never said anything about a sexual assault.
    2. She never expressed a fear of flying, even while she was riding in small propeller aircraft.
    3. She never expressed anxiety or claustrophobia while sharing a tiny 500 sq ft. apartment.
    4. She gave specific instruction to someone about how to take and pass a polygraph.
    5. She committed credit card fraud by using his credit card after they broke up, charging $600 of merchandise, and lied about the charges. She only admitted the truth when he threatened to turn her over to the credit card company’s fraud department for prosecution.

    At some point even the Thoughtless Pastor will have to give more thought about Ford’s credibility and her premature condemnation of Kavanaugh. THIS is why we have a presumption of innocence and decide guilt on evidence, not empathy.

    • Reese

      Are you implying that Dr. Ford misrepresented the facts, even uttered untruths, as did her enablers? Liberals would do such things? I’m shocked! Who knew? She’s still is not as good of a fibber as the goofy gal who claims to have gone to 10 (ten) spike punch/rape parties! Who would believe that? Most women I know would have quit after 3, 4 max!

      • Iron Mike

        My guess is that Liberals will not admit they were wrong about Ford. The true Liberal ideologue will find a way to rationalize contradictory evidence that undermines Ford’s credibility as a witness. They will continue to demand his withdrawal.

        I expect more from those who call themselves pastors. I expect an acknowledgement, an apology, and repentance for failing to extend the presumption of innocence and condemning an honorable, public servant and his family on nothing more than an unsubstantiated and uncorroborated allegation.

    • victorperri

      Firstly, the x-boyfriend obviously is biased and has an axe to grind. He is not someone who has come forward with no apparent interest or motive to cause damage to one side or the other. You can paint the situation any way you want, but that will be obvious to the FBI. Secondly, he is talking about a period from 1992-98 which really is not in any way material to the events that occurred 10 years before. Thirdly, I believe Dr Ford actually stated she did not discuss or disclose the assault with most people, if any. So , his saying she did not tell him onl corroborates what Dr Ford testified to ( from the current event, if appears Dr Ford was very wise not to trust this asshole.) Fourthly, the woman this guy claims to know Dr Ford “coached” about taking a polygraph has already categorically denied that anything such thing happened (and she gave her name instead being afraid to reveal his/her identity). Fifthly, Fox News record as a political organ and propagandist for Trump and the Republican party is notorious. Sixthly, let this asshole “exboyfriend” take a polygprah.

  • victorperri

    I can tell you who I do not believe. “Ironyman Mike” and F-Reese”. No, even more so, Fox News. Strange stuff there, IronyMan. At least all those who came forward now about Kavanaugh halcyon days as an inebriated, belligerent, puking high school and college kid who engaged in several sordid activities with his buddy, Mark Judge, did not hide their names. Mark Judge wrote in his memoir, “Wasted”, that in high school he would get so blasted he “could have done anything.” Yep, anything. Check the current issue of Rolling Stone Magazine. And, I find it rather curious that someone with the obvious support of the President of the United States with the protection of the FBI would need to have his name redacted from a declaration. Out of fear Dr Ford might give him a college lecture in psychology? That someone would check out his story or who he works for? Interesting. I can see women who might come forward against a guy who may someday sit on the Supreme Court as promoted by the President fearing retaliation, but this guy? ( assuming he even exists) Finally, Ironyman, you can keep insisting, as does our moronic President, that criminal burdens of proof apply to a nominating process of a federal judge, but repeating bull shit does not make not bull shit. Unless, of course, you are suggesting, which I DEFINITELY disagree with, this might someday result in criminal charges against the Judge? No. I do not believe that for a minute.

  • Kavanaugh confirmed! Liberals call your therapist before all sessions are booked up.

    • victorperri

      Really! With all these right wing sexual predators and assault commiters running around! It’s kind of like living in a Catholic school world.

      • The issue was the Supreme Court and whether it will uphold the Constitution or let Judges legislate from the bench. The stakes were very high and the Left was at a disadvantage. So the Ford charade was launched. But failed because there was no corroboration to support Ford. However, the backlash from this egregious scheme will be felt in the mid-terms as the Democrats will fail to take back the House and thus insure President Trump two more years to complete his agenda. In short this has been a double disaster for the Democrats.

        • Chari McCauley

          However, the backlash from this egregious scheme will be felt in the mid-terms as the Democrats will fail to take back the House

          Oops….

    • Chari McCauley

      All it really did was prove the same old same old.
      They must think The Father hates all the girls/women that were created.
      I don’t think I would want to be them on the day that counts.

  • linda_marie

    @ChristyThomas – I am praying for you. It is not easy being a prophet. Here are some words from God to Jeremiah. May they take residence in your heart. “…they will all give you trouble, but you will be safe. They will fight you, but they will not win. Remember, I am with you. I promise I will always deliver you.”