Kavanaugh’s Controversial Confirmation

My Recent Posts

On Saturday, October 6, Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed by the Senate for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States, but not without controversy. Mr. Kavanaugh faced charges for something that he supposedly did thirty-five years ago. The “star witness” against Mr. Kavanaugh was someone who stereotypically not only sides with, but openly advocates the liberal agenda, a college professor. I’ll just rack that one up to another strange coincidence in life. Would you like to be denied a job for which you have strived for your whole life because someone claims you did something thirty-five years ago, has virtually no evidence, no corroborating witnesses, and openly  dislikes you, bringing up the issue at a last-minute?


While Supreme Court justices are held in high regard, there are other, shall we say, “judiciary figures” with personal “agendas” who are, in my estimation, some of the most despicable authorities in this nation. In the courtrooms of these judiciary figures, justice takes a back seat to agendas that they will never admit to; they also will resort to any tactic to win, fair or unfair. When in their court, they do anything to win, by even the most underhanded and despicable means. These judiciary figures are best described as willing to do anything to win; nothing is beneath them. If you’ve ever wondered why the most prominent motorcycle gang in America calls any fight where they win a fair fight, one needs to look no further than the examples that some of the judiciary figures have provided, for which our Democrat senators have offered no respite.  Locally we call these judiciary figures the court officials who build careers on the backs and wallets of citizens, guilty or not, and there are plenty of examples of citizens run over roughshod by local officials looking for a seat in the governor’s office. Nationally, we call them senators, of the same breed, only older, more successful, and even more ruthless and unprincipled.


I feel genuine sorrow for Christine Blasey Ford.  Psychologically, it makes no difference if her alleged event took place or not, her psyche at this point makes no distinction, because what you believe to be true is true in your mind regardless. If Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation was concocted to suit the liberal senators, and I am in no way implying it was, she would best take it to her grave, which I hope for her sake is a long time from now.  The senatorial review of Mr. Kavanaugh came to a point where slang terms from high school became issues of debate and clarity, giving ad absurdum a new definition, hopefully to be used in outlines for what not to do at government hearings. What’s next Mr. Schumer, middle school yearbooks?  How about elementary school yearbooks?  Can we find evidence the person in question looked up the skirts of the girls in nursery school? Troubling evidence indeed. Many of the more historically cognizant harkened back to Joseph N. Welch asking Joseph McCarthy: “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”


Brett Kavanaugh’s position has no expiration, because our founding fathers wanted a judiciary that could not be influenced by politics. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, like it or not, influenced the Supreme Court by threatening to pack the court in his favor in 1937. Bear in mind that there is no specific number of Supreme Court justices outlined in our constitution; the number nine has just been agreed upon for some time now. There have been Supreme Court justices who didn’t like being on the highest bench in the land. Charles Evans Whittaker served on the Supreme Court for only about five years, resigning after the stress of the job gave him a nervous breakdown. I think Whittaker would have withdrawn from the nomination had he been treated in the manner of Kavanaugh.


I especially liked when the FBI investigation found nothing, the senators found it “troubling.” Yes, troubling because they had no more cards to play. No evidence, no corroborating witnesses, and, at times, sketchy recollections from Christine Blasey Ford as to specifics such as who drove her home that night. The Democrats have lost, and this time they stretched the rules of the game as far as they could. Be happy that they lost. How anyone, in clear conscience, could vote to reject someone from public office based on uncorroborated, unsubstantiated, and categorically denied accusations of a crime committed some thirty years ago, does not represent an objective viewpoint, nor competent representation of the people. Rejecting a nominee due to unsubstantiated accusations such as those directed against Mr. Kavanaugh would have set a dangerous precedent and set this nation on an even more perilous course. Political correctness has seen its apogee, and common sense as well as objective legal reasoning has finally prevailed.  


Like many a grandstanding prosecutor looking to sharpen their image, they (no names necessary) stretched the rules as far as they could go, and since they risked nothing, they return to their quiet public lives, all the while, I suspect, scheming to try something like this on our elected president.  Perhaps this was just the test case, to test the waters. While I feel sorry for Christine Blasey Ford, there are others for which I not only feel no sorrow, but contempt and resentment.  The elections are coming up soon. If you aren’t part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. The Democrats provided no solution, only problems, and if this case is any example, it only proves the decrepitude of their position, trying to prevail on nothing but innuendo.  It’s all they have left.




Dino Manalis Added Oct 7, 2018 - 4:25pm
 Kavanaugh is a moderate conservative, that's why Senator Collins supported him, Democrats should also see him as a defender of their issues.
Stephen Hunter Added Oct 7, 2018 - 4:45pm
Jeff, you make a good case for Kavanaugh as yes we should probably not judge someone for what they did as a sexually charged drunk teenager. It appears there was no rape, just bullying and acting like a jerk. Just wish he did not have to lie about it. 
Ian Thorpe Added Oct 7, 2018 - 4:47pm
I don't know if Blasey Ford's allegations had any substance Jeff, or if Kavanaugh was the choirboy his friends made him out to be, or the obnoxious frat boy his politically motivated opponents presented him as. What I do know however is that the kind of justice meted out by The Inquisition in the medieval era or the protestant witch hunts in the renaissance era, in which an accusation from a supporter of 'the agenda' is considered sufficient proof of guilt is not in any way justice and has no place in a civilised country. Virtue signalling is not a virtue.
It is sad to see how many people who 'identify' as liberals now screaming that Ford should be believed because she is a woman. Did I miss something? Have women been genetically modified so they are incapable of telling a lie or making a false accusation for malicious reasons. Christine Blasey Ford was subjected to scrutiny and was unable to provide evidence or witnesses to substantiate her very flawed testimony. 
Jeff Jackson Added Oct 7, 2018 - 5:33pm
I agree, Dino. I see no significant reason that they would oppose him, other than he was nominated by Trump, who they hate. Thanks for your comments, Dino.
Jeff Jackson Added Oct 7, 2018 - 5:35pm
Honestly, Stephen, I don't know who is lying and who is telling the truth. the benefit of the doubt goes to Kavanaugh, if for no other reason than she (and her supporters) waited too long, and, she had plenty of time to gather information, witnesses and all that, which, again, does not go in her favor. Thanks for your comments Stephen.
Jeff Jackson Added Oct 7, 2018 - 5:41pm
I am in full agreement with you Ian. As stated: How anyone, in clear conscience, could vote to reject someone from public office based on uncorroborated, unsubstantiated, and categorically denied accusations of a crime committed some thirty years ago, does not represent an objective viewpoint, nor competent representation of the people. Your reference to the Inquisition is quite insightful. Mere allegation does not prove guilt. We are first, a nation of laws, and the position taken by Ford and her supporters simply does not have any provable points by legal definition. She watched Kavanaugh rise through the judicial system and had, as I have said, plenty of time to construct a case, which she did not do. Again, while I sympathize with her, she did not make her case. Thanks for your insightful comments Ian.
Cullen Kehoe Added Oct 7, 2018 - 7:54pm
Enough of a picture of Kavanaugh emerged for me not to like him.
(Enough people saying approximately the same sort of thing, plus a police report of a bar fight that named him as a witness, convinced me that he probably was a fratboy, partier, and obnoxious alcoholic during those years.
But I completely discount Ford's allegations because she couldn't remember anything about the incident, the 35 year silence is eyebrow-raising--even friends claim she never uttered a word about it at the time--and there was nothing else to back up her allegations.)
I'm concerned that Kavanugh appears to have lied on national television (and even got a 'are you kidding me' look from his wife) when he claimed to have been a virgin during his high school and college years, and many years after).
I completely admit that it's none of my business. He could just saw 'aww, you know, I might have had a few beers, but I never assaulted anyone.' The FoxNews interview was his moment to take control of the narrative but he chose to go with the 'I was a virgin' (the Boy Scout narrative) and given that he married at age 39 and was a heavy drinker for many years, this is high suspect. Others who knew him in his freshman year of college have come forward saying that he told them the whole story of his 'first time'. 
And of all things, he was a right hand man to Ken Star's independent counsel of the 90's to impeach Clinton. Are we meant to think he's be an impartial judge if he was a prominent character in one of the low points of modern partisan politics. 
So I don't personally think very highly of him. Is it fair to judge him today based on old stories? Maybe not, but the Foxnews interview makes it appear this is the same old guy, committing the same "crime" that they impeached Clinton for (lying about his sex life). 
Having said all of that though, now that he's been put forward and we got this far, I completely agree with the author, these are no reason not to approve him. None of it can truly be substantiated so at the end of the day, it's all hearsay (a lot of it), but you can't deny a person a job based on that (or else nobody could possibly be employed). 
Cullen Kehoe Added Oct 7, 2018 - 7:58pm
...but the Ford testimony was ridiculous of course. She might as well said he was a witch (as either the author or some of the commenters said), she'd have the same amount of proof--none. To give her the platform to malign him in the Senate was a circus. 
If anyone has damaged "MeToo", possibly destroyed it, it's Christine Ford. There is a difference between a credible witness and a credible allegation and someone with nothing...a baseless accusation. 
Jeff Jackson Added Oct 7, 2018 - 8:12pm
Thanks for your comments Cullen. Kavanaugh's past doesn't seem to be terribly awful, and more than a few important folks have raised a glass or two. I'm not sure handling your booze is a skill needed for the Supreme Court. If Dr. Ford has killed or severely damaged the "MeToo" movement, I'm ready to give her all the credit, along with the senators, of course. Thanks for your comments Cullen, and I'm happy we're on the same page.
Jeff Michka Added Oct 7, 2018 - 8:19pm
So, rightists are still quibbling over Ford's testimony.  Is this because these rightists are  "enraged white men," or simply because they're Ts and want to be, like Orange smear, drunk from "winning," which is all that matters, not anything else.  Trump desperately needs St. Brett.  If Mueller goes really "bad" for him, he'll need the backup on the court.  So what's in store for the Orange "My Dad Made Me?"
Cullen Kehoe Added Oct 7, 2018 - 8:23pm
Sorry, last comment. 
There are many who seem, from my perspective, to be blinded to the quandary Western societies have found themselves in. 
Is it brave to come forward as a woman to accuse a powerful man of rape (or sexual assault)? Yes, it's brave.
But there are a lot of external factors that lend more weight to her testimony. One is the proximity of the present to the day of those events. That's a big one. Another are witnesses or corroborating facts or people that can place both people at the event, etc.... Without anything but her allegations, she's not going to be successful in a court of law. 
One of the hallmarks of the English system of government, going back to Magna Carta in 1215, is the right of habeas corpus, the right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers. If that clashes with MeToo, we can't change a legal system based on 800 years of precedent on a whim because of a popular hashtag. 
Jeff Jackson Added Oct 7, 2018 - 10:13pm
Ah, Cullen, popular wisdom, eh? We're so enamored with pop culture, with encouraging people to use new ideas and new thoughts, that we are dispensing with wisdom that has gotten us this far, like, as you say, a legal system that while not perfect, is fairer than many. 
Have certain people gained more than others? Of course. I once worked with a person who was, well, not a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant, shall we say, but he was incredibly brilliant at his job. He was going to move to a place where he was more "appreciated" even though I am sure he made gobs of money and had all of the recognition he could have gotten. What I never said to him, and I am sure he never considered it, was that without the technology that he was so good at, and the sharing of that technology and the scientific advancements that certain "privileged" people shared with his society, he would be squatting in a field somewhere with a life span of a meager 40 years, if that. He had no appreciation of the things that had advanced his, as well as other societies, and the cultures that had given him much of the wonderful things he had. Thanks for your comments, Cullen.
Jeff Jackson Added Oct 7, 2018 - 10:19pm
Jeff, I'm sure Mr. Trump will chalk this one up as another victory. But the victories that our president is chalking up are also victories for the American people, like a roaring economy, among other things. I think if Mr. Mueller had anything, he would have used it by now. Mueller's "investigation" has desperately searched, for far too long, in my opinion, for something that isn't there. If they had it, they would have used it, but we will have to see. If they had the bomb that they wished they had, they would have dropped it on Trump by now, at least in my opinion.
FacePalm Added Oct 8, 2018 - 5:03am
What i see as the major benefit from the base, scurrilous, unfounded, unproven and unprovable accusations that the democrats engaged in is this:
The dems have totally pissed off everyone not a leftist betrayer of America and it's principles, and they're going to see the results in less than a month, now.
It is my sincere hope that no democrat gets elected anywhere ever again, and this "party" of socialist dingbats is shouldered rapidly off the cliff and into the dustbin of history, to perchance be replaced by people who CARE about America and Americans, and WANT to see to it that the Supreme Law of the Land is obeyed...especially by those who swear oaths to do exactly and precisely that.
George N Romey Added Oct 8, 2018 - 8:48am
Jeff I honestly don't know enough about this man's views to make a definitive statement but I'd probably sense I wouldn't see much eye to eye.
On the entire sexual allegation, it was a total farce.  It was 35 plus years gone by of faded memories and quite bluntly people not wanting to get involved in an incident from ancient history.  In the end it was a he said/she said circumstance with no physical evidence and nothing more than innuendo from tepid bystanders.   Clearly the Democratic Party was trying to the take the easy way out of getting rid of this guy and it backfired big time on them.  It turned into nothing more than a media circus and a national embarrassment.  
The Democratic Party has again been outfoxed by someone they claim is totally unfit for office.  Seems as though maybe they might want to re-examine their strategy but they won't.  They will continue with the Russia thing and Trump is this or that until they lose again, this time only bigger in 2020.
Steel Breeze Added Oct 8, 2018 - 10:10am
read and liked...
Ian Thorpe Added Oct 8, 2018 - 10:18am
"Seems as though maybe they might want to re-examine their strategy but they won't.  They will continue with the Russia thing and Trump is this or that until they lose again,"
There is an old adage in British politics: "The left mindset can only ever go further in the same direction."

Hard left thinking on a large scale is fairly new in the USA, but I think you are about to experience the truth of that saying.
Stephen Hunter Added Oct 8, 2018 - 10:27am
You are welcome Jeff. The other thing is that many are led to believe that this was all trumped up by the left and that she is lying. I do not think that the democrats or whomever the left are, would put someone like her forward, with no credible witnesses. I think she did this of her own volition, same as the old college drinking buddies who shared thoughts on him.
Bill Kamps Added Oct 8, 2018 - 10:40am
While we might be able to recall something that happened to us 30 some years ago, how many of us could possibly recall a party that happened 30 some years ago?  Image you were at a party, and people were drinking and carrying on.  Who was in the bedroom with whom? how long? how did they look when they came out? did the person leave right away or continued to enjoy the party? how did they get home? who else was at the party?  My God!  I have only vague recollections of some of the parties I attended, not because I was impaired, but because it was more than 30 years ago!   Details get lost because at the time they didnt seem important. 
I think BK could have done a better job before Congress in describing his behavior during college.  Then again, I dont think he should have had to. 
The liberals said that we didnt need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to believe Dr Ford, because this was not a trial, it was a job interview.  Well when was the last time any of us were asked about our partying in college at a job interview?  I wasnt even asked this in my first job out of college, much less any other jobs over the past 30 years or so. 
If there was an assault, why stay quiet for 30 years, and then speak up to try to derail a SCOTUS nomination?  why not speak up when he was nominated to the Federal Bench?  why not tell friends at the time? 
Both sides want to win too badly, at the expense of good government.  They forget how similar they are, and think this is a battle royal between vastly different world views.  They are wrong.  This is a battle between slightly different world views because on the big items that affect our economy, our military, our foreign policy, they share a very similar view. Different by small percentages of funding.  Where they differ is on things that affect how the government may regulate our lives, which is not the primary function of the government in the first place.
George N Romey Added Oct 8, 2018 - 10:55am
Bill I get the feeling that most of the so called witnesses (particularly this guy Judge, no pun intended) wanted little to do with something that occurred in a very different part of their life.  In undergrad I had a roommate that was a huge pot dealer (and also pills). This was around circa 1980.  In no way would I ever want to get caught up in some kind of twist if say he was going for a very public, high level job. It would embarrassing and pose damage to me as I definitely partook in the fruits of his labor.
In the end we will never know which one was telling closer to the truth. The Democrats had they not been full of so much hate for Trump would have been able to look at this objectively and know there just wasn't enough hard evidence to make a case.
Bill Kamps Added Oct 8, 2018 - 11:05am
George, In no way would I ever want to get caught up in some kind of twist if say he was going for a very public, high level job.
Exactly right George.  BUT EVEN IF, you wanted to say something, can you recall the details of meetings and deals?  who was in the room, what did they say, who was the customer, how much of what was sold, what was the date? etc.  Other than saying the guy was a dealer or giving general information, DETAILS that would hold up in court are almost impossible to recall.  Since you cant recall the details, best just to say nothing rather than expose yourself.
I think the Democrats saw so many resignations in business resulting from assault charges, they figured that making the charge would be enough to cause them to with draw BK.  If this want an election year it might have happened.   The thing they didnt count on was that the GOP would dig in its heels, because withdrawal meant postponing the vote until after the election, something the GOP could not allow.  They didnt think it through. 
George N Romey Added Oct 8, 2018 - 11:24am
No the Democrats saw what they thought was an easy way to victory and are so desperate they never took into account any logic. They simply took this woman's statement and ran with it.  Again, the party is led by a bunch of out of touch, over the hill and power hungry losers.  The man they consider their inferior beats them time and time again.
Ken Added Oct 8, 2018 - 1:23pm
Bear in mind that there is no specific number of Supreme Court justices outlined in our constitution; the number nine has just been agreed upon for some time now.
It isn't just "agreed upon"  The constitution gives congress the right to assign the federal judiciary through law.  They create the appellate districts, the number of judges and the number of supreme court justices.  The sanity of the democrats when FDR  tried to pack the court (he already put post of the justices on it) even further by adding more seats they said enough is enough.
In the current climate, the democrats view the judiciary as a "super legislature" so when they can't get things passed through law, they have packed the courts with activists to push things through (just look at gay marraige, obamacare, roe v. wade, etc).
Make no mistake, the democrats today are so hard left, that if they get control of congress and the white house, they will add justices to the supreme court in a flash.  Just like they did to the 6th district in the first 2 years of Obama to gain control of the 2nd highest court in the land.
Ken Added Oct 8, 2018 - 1:25pm
It appears there was no rape, just bullying and acting like a jerk. Just wish he did not have to lie about it. 
Presumption of innocent much  What proof is there that he even bullied and acted like a jerk?  Or that he was even there for that matter?  What a leap to say he lied about it.  Whether he did it or not, there is NO evidence that he did or was even there.  In fact a preponderance of the evidence shows that it was extremely unlikely that he could have been there
Ken Added Oct 8, 2018 - 1:32pm
I have only vague recollections of some of the parties I attended, not because I was impaired, but because it was more than 30 years ago!   Details get lost because at the time they didnt seem important. 
Something incredibly traumatic didn't happen to you at any of those parties or you would remember it, most likely.  She remembers clearly that she only had 1 beer, but she can't remember how she got home when she was 6 miles away?  Juanita Broderick remembers to this day every detail of her rape by clinton that happened 5 years further back than this event.  She didn't file charges because at the time Clinton was Attorney General of of AR, and the case would have gone through his office.  She still went through medical treatment and told people about it just after (as well as missing her seminar she was supposed to attend that day.
Amazing how so many are willing to give the benefit of doubt to the accuser, and yet there is so little presumption of innocence on the accused.
Have we really turned against the constitution so much?
Bill Kamps Added Oct 8, 2018 - 1:43pm
Ken, you clearly are jumping to conclusions about what I meant. 
First of all I am giving no benefit of the doubt to the accuser, show me where I took her side.  You had read the full post, I dont see how you could conclude I took the side of Dr Ford.
If you looked at the questions I was asking, it was from the point of view of witnesses and how it is impossible to get corroborating evidence for what happened.  This is why we have statute of limitation laws, because people dont remember what happened, even if they were present at the party.
I also questioned why Dr Ford took 30 years to come forward, and why she told no friends, if this happened as she said.
It is also clear from subsequent posts that I think it is possible that the Democrats saw this as an easy way to derail the nomination, something they didnt think through.
Quite a jump for you to take my comments, and accuse me of turning against the Constitution.
Ken Added Oct 8, 2018 - 3:58pm
Bill, I jumped to conclusion about your post as much as you just jumped to conclusions about mine.  I was simply using your words to point out how  "benefit of the doubt" should go to the defender, not the accuser.  The accuser must prove the defender guilty, yet all "benefit of the doubt has been given to the accuser here and Kavanaugh has been treated like a slug, and when every allegation was shown to be without  merit (not false, just without merit), they would move the other goal posts to another allegation.
This belief being fed by the MSM and all their pundits is anti-constitutional and that was the point of my wrap up question.
The only miscalculation that the democrats made here was that Kavanaugh and Trump would not back down and withdraw the nomination as so many others have done in the past.  They never expected the fight to go past the swarm of allegations before the nominee backed down.
George N Romey Added Oct 8, 2018 - 4:10pm
Without physical evidence and/or very reliable witnesses these things end up in a he said/she said slugfest.  My hunch is that there is truth somewhere between those two but will never come out for various reasons.  I can understand he's a family man (I assume he has kids) and like any parent would want to shield their children from parent caused heartache.
The Democrats are so into the entire pc culture they are clueless that there are large segments of the population are tired of it.  Its not to say they believe rape/sexual assaults are ok. Its just they realize that good looking, athletic, popular male teenagers are rarely angels.  Most of the times good looking, popular girls are only to happy to ride on their (boys) coattails for popularity sake.  Yes as a mature adult we see how pitiful this is but to a 16/17 year old its their reality.
Maybe this is a lesson learned to young girls if you put yourself in this kind of situation the outcome may not be good.  And if 35 years later you want revenge you will be the one looking guilty.
Life isn't always fair and right. 
Bill Kamps Added Oct 8, 2018 - 4:11pm
KEN: I didnt comment on your post.  You dont have any posts here before the one you quoted.  I did not use the words "benefit of a doubt" in any post in this article.  You clearly didnt read what I wrote, or confused me with someone else.
I dont see how you can actually read what I wrote, and think that I am a leftist. 
Benjamin Goldstein Added Oct 8, 2018 - 4:14pm
The word order in your title is wrong. According to German newspapers it must be something like:
Controversial Kavanaugh’s Confirmation
Bill Kamps Added Oct 8, 2018 - 4:16pm
George I agree.  The Democrats thought that the accusation by itself would be enough to derail the nomination.  Just as the accusation itself got several execs in the private sector to resign their jobs.  It didnt work.  Many differences between these situations and the Democrats were too lazy to figure that out.
George N Romey Added Oct 8, 2018 - 4:20pm
Bill the Democrats didn't do one iota of due diligence reporting.  They got this letter from this woman Ford and ran with it.  Again, I point out this supposedly person they consider a vastly inferior human being beat them again at their own game.  
Ken Added Oct 8, 2018 - 5:09pm
I dont see how you can actually read what I wrote, and think that I am a leftist. 
Where did I say anything about you what you believed?  as I noted, I simply took what you posted, expended on the idea you put forth, and pointed out how many gave the accuser the benefit of the doubt, "believed her" based on no corroborating evidence and then many of them at the same time, based on absolutely no evidence have run Kavanaugh through the coals, thus turning the presumption of innocence as a cornerstone of our legal process and our constitution on its head.
George N Romey Added Oct 8, 2018 - 5:22pm
Ken you are the one so heartfelt on believing Kavanaugh was this boy scout that was a virgin until marriage, that did drink some beer.  Life experience tells me that he is full of shit.  However, I don't expect our leaders to be boy scouts, and if they claim so, I probably think "bullshit."  Like Bill Clinton.
Moreover, I and everyone else has no way to know what happened or did not happened.  Its come down to nothing more than he said/she said and since we have a legal system that says innocent until proven guilty the law comes down on his side.  
Being right isn't always feasible or practical.  And someone should have explained that in no uncertain terms to Ms. Ford, and if they did, she should have listened to their advise.  
Ken Added Oct 8, 2018 - 5:58pm
Ken you are the one so heartfelt on believing Kavanaugh was this boy scout that was a virgin until marriage, that did drink some beer.  Life experience tells me that he is full of shit.
how exactly am I "heartfelt on believing that"?  Has anything been proven that he wasn't?  innocent until proven guilty remember?
What you are guilty of is what is called post-modernism"  - "some body did it/most people do it/I do it" therefore he must have done it too.  Simple guilt by association.  That is the very definition of post-modernism and has NO basis in our legal construct. 
After pushing us from a post constitutional society, the progressive are now pushing us to a postmodernist society.
The belief that absolute truth does not exist.  relativism rules.
Postmodernism, also spelled post-modernism, in Western philosophy, a late 20th-century movement characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an name="___id14">acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power.
Sorry, that doesn't fly with me.  I know quite a few people who have not had sex until marriage or even later in life.  Using other people's experiences and projecting it saying "yep he did it too because all these others did" is just wrong.
Jeff Michka Added Oct 8, 2018 - 6:29pm
We had Ryan Messianic spwing all over WB about how any liberal, because they are liberals, automatically cheat on their partners and cannot help screwing anything that moves, once again, because they are liberals.  Now we've Kenny telling us "he knows 'quite a few people who have not had sex UNTIL marriage OR EVEN LATER IN LIFE.  Huh?  So Kenny knows a bunch of people that had anullments, since their marriages weren't consumated or spent years married without ever having sex.  Hmmm, that sounds a little "rightist irrational," but guess that's just me,  Alas poor Kenny.  Well, Kenny I'm sure you'll find use for all those cleaned and pressed used condoms you have in a relationship with?
George N Romey Added Oct 8, 2018 - 6:46pm
I have enough experience to know where there’s smoke there’s fire. He by others ran with a racy crowd. Personally if the guy was getting laid every day in his youth I’d say good for him. I was no angel and had a blast having copious amounts of unanimous sex, drugs and booze. Don’t regret one second of it. And would never deny it.
As far as this woman Ford I have no idea of what happened for sure. If I had to wager I say the truth is somewhere in between. She was used badly by people who cared not one iota about her. The MSNBC crowd just can’t admit they’ve again looked stupid compared to Trump.
In the end I really could care less. I finally come to realize Government hasn’t helped me much in life and most of it is rich people bullshit. This latest a validation of that belief.
Jeff Michka Added Oct 8, 2018 - 7:58pm
Yeah, damn all those rich people for keeping you from becoming an elite, right Geeho?  The government, wisely, didn't step in and give you a six-figure salary job. 
Flying Junior Added Oct 9, 2018 - 3:57am
Jeff Jackson,
I wish I had not clicked read more.  You compare democrats to dangerous motorcycle gangs?
Let me just educate you in one minor point such as I can in deference to your greater intellect.
The term would be democratic senators.  Using the word democrat as an adjective is considered a right-wing slur.  Thank you.  Maybe you didn't know.
FacePalm Added Oct 9, 2018 - 4:11am
FYI, FJ, the F&F despised democracy, and now, due to the tactics of that democrat party "leadership"(and the Soros-funded "demonstrators"), most Americans are learning to despise those who espouse it and call themselves "democrats."  Today, they're leftists, for the most part, insane people who say they WANT socialism to take over.
Flying Junior Added Oct 9, 2018 - 4:52am
Thanks for checking in, aptly named FacePalm.  But if you didn't understand my comment, let me further clarify.  It would be the democratic party.  Republican party.  Democratic party.  Republicans.  Democrats.  It's not that difficult.  It's about basic respect between Americans.
You are the insane partisan who cannot abide by an opposing party.  Maybe you would be happier in Russia, Uganda or Venezuela.,
FacePalm Added Oct 9, 2018 - 5:38am
The "opposition" today are insane; you'll soon see how many Americans totally reject the party of democrats.  When that day comes, i'll try my best not to crow and say "i told you so."
i understood your comment just fine; i don't think that anyone who supports socialism DESERVES any kind of "respect."  They're idiots.  i don't respect anyone who embraces a governmental philosophy directly responsible for the murder of well over 120 million people - so far.  China murders lots of people every day, and sells their body parts.  They're doing their level best - with the help of globalists - to export their form of total surveillance socialism all over this planet, and they, too, will be rejected - eventually, by their own people - but certainly by every American who loves THIS country and it's God-given Rights which public servants are REQUIRED to secure against all enemies.  Right now, democrats who embrace socialism are oath-breaking criminals, deserving only of the respect of a fair trial before their heavy fines and lengthy prison sentences.
George N Romey Added Oct 9, 2018 - 8:17am
No I'm smart enough to understand the game.  None of this is about the "ordinary people."  This is nothing more than rich people fighting for control.  Trump was the unwanted interloper into this tightly knit circle and too bad for us he's just not the person that will ever destroy the cabal.  If anything he will ultimately sustain it.
Those that watch CNN, Fox or MSNBC are nothing more than the stupid sheep.  Wading in their own dung expecting the next little handout from above.  
FacePalm Added Oct 9, 2018 - 8:39am
Even if what you say is true - that Trump cannot defeat the cabal - he's at least TRYING, and has a CHANCE of succeeding.  He has many allies, seen and unseen...and seems to do a pretty good job of playing his cards close to his vest.
AFAIK, the last president to attempt the defeat of the cabal was Kennedy, and he simply had no idea of what his opponents were capable of, nor of how to combat them.  Trump, OTOH, does...and he's getting good counsel and good ops from many quarters, esp. on a key area - human sex trafficking - which has been used for many decades as a blackmail tool for gov't agents worldwide.  Though you've probably heard little about it(seems to be a news blackout for the most part) pedophiles are being rounded up in record numbers.
At any rate, i have hope again for the cause of Liberty, something i haven't felt since before Kennedy's assassination.  Both of 'em.
Koshersalaami Added Oct 9, 2018 - 11:47am
I have problems with the Kavanaugh nomination but they’re not centered on the sexual allegations per se. I think Ford was probably telling the truth but that that ultimately doesn’t matter because she didn’t have enough evidence to have a case. 
The FBI investigation was a joke. That should have taken place up front. They had an extremely limited mandate and a week. The only purpose the investigation served was to cover Senators from their screaming constituents. If they wanted an investigation, which would have been appropriate for a Supreme Court nomination, they should have done a real one. 
One of the reasons the Democrats went after Kavanaugh so hard was really in reaction to McConnell’s failure to vet the Supreme Court justice nomination of a sitting President. That was frankly a bigger issue. I’m amazed that Obama didn’t make a bigger deal of that at the time. 
The other issue I have is his opinions on how much immunity the President has from damned near anything. Screwing with balance of power issues for partisan purposes is dangerous. I’m not surprised to hear this guy worked for Ken Starr, who was so partisan he didn’t mind forcing Secret Service agents to testify, in spite of opposition to that from George H. W. Bush. But that’s what the vetting process should have been about, not whoever could come out of the woodwork. 
Riley Brown Added Oct 9, 2018 - 12:18pm
There is no excuse for groping women any more than there is for steeling a car so you and your friend can take it for a joy ride, but when kids do things like that we don't hold it against them for the rest of their lives, because their just KIDS.  Kids do stupid things.
Nothing as minor as misdemeanors should ever be held against an adult, if they were committed as a minor.
George N Romey Added Oct 9, 2018 - 12:59pm
The Democrats were looking for the easy out.  This woman Ford they thought was that easy out.  Let's assume her allegations are true.  Life is not always right, fair or just.  If she didn't report the incident at the time she should have done so many years back.
Over time memories fade.  People have well moved on with their life and have zero desire to get involved in anything like this.  There is no physical evidence.  This woman given her life skills should have realized this would be nothing more than a media circus with her on the defensive.  She had zero physical evidence and no concrete witnesses.  
Finally she by no means was no innocent bystander. She at age 15 with full will went to a party with older boys and got drunk.  She put herself into jeopardy.
Sometimes the only sane thing to do is accept your past mistakes and horrors, forget and move on.  Again, assuming her allegations are true she's forced to relive a bad incident in her life.  And she was violated again by powerful people.
The Burghal Hidage Added Oct 9, 2018 - 4:17pm
there are no boy scouts or choir boys in DC.  Dr. Ford needs to be indicted and convicted of perjury. In fact there is an entire cabal that needs to be imprisoned....or even better: executed
Good piece Jeff, thanks!
Leroy Added Oct 9, 2018 - 9:02pm
Excellent article, Jeff.
I used to have some sympathy for her.  She came across as credible, but her story did not.  My best guess at this point is that it was a 100% set up to take out Kavanaugh.  At best, she was a willing dupe.  Perhaps they thought Kavanaugh would give up.
Before the hearing, I commented that she was in a lose-lose situation.  She had no detail, no corroboration.  She had to produce more detail to create a credible story.  The more detail, the more avenues of attack.  The more attacks, the more the story had to change.  No one can recall details from thirty-six years ago.  We think we can, but we can't.  I've mentioned several times a story from my youth.  There are a dozen or more people I am confident who would testify in a court of law that they witnessed an event that didn't happen.  Including myself, there were only four people there to begin with.  Two of this four claimed that they were going to get so drunk that they would perform this undisclosed feat.  They didn't, but somehow it got conferred upon me because I disappeared after an argument.  It was never my goal.  I never did it.  No one witnessed it.  End of story.
The woman has no idea how she got to or from the party or when or where it happened, but, by George, she remembers that she had precisely one beer and one beer only.  Seeing that she doesn't remember these details, I am reasonably sure that I could fill them in for her with reasonable accuracy, assuming, of course, it occurred at all.
Jeff Michka Added Oct 9, 2018 - 9:56pm
Faced and other rightist seem to embody all this "raging white men" stuff we hear about.  Faced wants to damn leftists for selling out America, but doesn't mention rightist efforts to turn the US of A into the Third Riech.  And ol Geeho tells us he "knows the game," but can't win the game.  Hey, Geeho, it's okay you want to be an elitist, you just will never be an elitist.  Admit it.  You've cried and cried "about not landing a six-figure job and employment contracts to keep you working for the next 30 years.  Well, you are "soooo old, so won't make that 30.  You need to hire someone to dry the tears from your eyes so you can tell us how those Jewish Tuskeegee airmen save your sweet auntie during WWII.  Or a tome about the wonders of Joanie loving Cachee in those oh so wonderful 70s when you were still considered a person.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Oct 9, 2018 - 10:04pm
or even better: executed
I understand the argument for that end but I still think GITMO in a 4x4x4 chainlink outdoor enclosure with a bag over their head with plenty of food and top notch medical to ensure they suffer long and hard is more desirable.
The Burghal Hidage Added Oct 9, 2018 - 11:18pm
Why Gitmo? Why not have them dig and clean the latrines at Parris Island? 
David Montaigne Added Oct 10, 2018 - 12:03am
As I commented on Riley's related post moments ago:
While I didn't follow the media and political circus nonstop, my impression is that Kavanaugh has outstanding character, Ford is a detestable piece of crap, hundreds of Yale Law students should be expelled for not understanding the core legal concept that we MUST presume that someone is innocent until proven guilty... too many Democrats are elated about ruining BK's life and making it a living hell, the whole thing has made it that much harder for women to come forward with legitimate accusations because of this nonsense, and the only good to come out of it is that the Democrats have shown their true colors and are likely to experience even worse poll results in the November elections as a result of their revolting behavior.
The Burghal Hidage Added Oct 10, 2018 - 12:19am
 Using the word democrat as an adjective is considered a right-wing slur.  Thank you.  Maybe you didn't know.
Or..... perhaps he did know this FJ, and like myself gives absolutely zero fucks about it. Jeff is too classy a guy to say it even if that is what he thought. I, on the other hand....well, you know :)
Jeffry Gilbert Added Oct 10, 2018 - 12:46am
Why not have them dig and clean the latrines at Parris Island
With one of those tiny spoons and toothbrushes. 
The Burghal Hidage Added Oct 10, 2018 - 12:59am
Yes! Something like that would be much better suited to their talents. They've had their noses up everyones ass for so long they probably wont even mind the smell
Flying Junior Added Oct 10, 2018 - 2:11am
White male rage conspicuously on display on this thread.
The Burghal Hidage Added Oct 10, 2018 - 2:54am
LOL....you actually live the identity politics you preach,<clap> <clap> <clap>......that's admirable. If you want to find rage I suggest that you go back through some threads and examine your own comments. Projection must be the elixir of the left
The Burghal Hidage Added Oct 10, 2018 - 2:57am
I thought you people were seceding. What the fuck are you waiting for? You already might as well be a foreign country.
The Burghal Hidage Added Oct 10, 2018 - 3:33am
 I suggest that you go back through some threads and examine your own comments. 
to wit: from PC is Fascism (Marty Koval), FJ states "I was on a tear.  I was letting my anger get the best of me."
Where's the rage? I can go on....I havent even begun to look
Flying Junior Added Oct 10, 2018 - 3:53am
Amp down.  What are you pissed off about?
No fucking way in hell California is seceding.  I think you should be smart enough to understand that.  Maybe not.  Obviously you are plugged into hardcore RW propaganda news sources.
I have my rage.  I don't hide it.  Sometimes it makes my blood boil and I'm spitting bullets my eyes flaming red.
The Burghal Hidage Added Oct 10, 2018 - 4:00am
I don't drink anybody's koolaid and I'm not pissed off. I'm just calling out hypocrisy where I see it.
You are pissed off at the wrong things. You have all your rage embodied in one man. You should be enraged by the boot of government being stamped on your face. Unless the boot is up your ass, in which case....well one can only wonder. 
Leroy Added Oct 10, 2018 - 6:07am
"Why not have them dig and clean the latrines at Parris Island"
If there were any justice, they would be cleaning up the mule piss.
George N Romey Added Oct 10, 2018 - 8:56am
If a woman came into a police department and said I want to file charges against a guy that tried to rape me 36 years ago what do you think the police would have said?  Do you have any physical evidence (no)?  Do you have written testimony from others that are willing to testify in court (no)?  Do you have any other evidence that would put your accuser at the scene of the crime or otherwise prove his guilt? (no).  So in other words, we have your statement and some potential innuendo from others your accuser was guilty of bad behavior.  And by the way we were all teenagers at the time.
Does anyone think the police would have investigated this accusation. No. She would have been told to either obtain more evidence (like specific witness testimony) or maybe hire a private agency.
Leroy Added Oct 10, 2018 - 11:39am
"But I told my husband about it six years ago."  
"Oh, that's a different matter.  Guilty as charged!"
George N Romey Added Oct 10, 2018 - 12:15pm
The bottom line is that the Democrats so filled with rage at getting back at Trump screwed themselves.  They should have first fully vetted her story, including telling Republicans that they have an allegation that should be investigated.  Possibly it could have been done on the qt.  Instead they put this woman's story out as full blown fact thinking the public would be on their side.
Just as with the Russian thing, no Americans aren't on their side.  In a poll only 25% of women found her believable.  Even in a CNN televised focus groups woman selected for the group wouldn't take her side.  Even after goaded by the narrator to do so.
You die hard Democrats should be mad at your party.  They should make you sick to your stomach.  Not Trump.  Not the Republicans.  Not even this guy Kavanaugh, that possibly got away with this.
Your party, for again having nothing to offer but "we hate Trump" and "we hate that he stole the election from us."  Its become the party of nothing.
This moron on WB Mika exemplifies your party.  Too ignorant to do some basic research.  Too busy trying to cut down others by writing in a style like it came from Jethro Bodine.  At least Jethro Bodine had some morals.  
Ken Added Oct 10, 2018 - 3:59pm
They should have first fully vetted her story, including telling Republicans that they have an allegation that should be investigated. 
actually I am sure that they did and knew she couldn't be corroborated, that is why they waited until the last second to bring it out, expecting the pressure of the allegation to make republicans fold as they usually do.  They didn't count on the Trump factor.  then pile on with more and more similar accounts to make it sound like an overwhelming case.
There isn't even any smoke here, just uncorroborated 35 year old allegations that are implausible at best.
The republicans took time investigating it, they even brought in an independent sex crimes prosecutor to question her - and her conclusion was that it didn't even meet the threshold of a hard to prove he-said she-said case, it was even weaker than that because there were so many gaps in her testimony and changes in her story.
What is astounding to me is how many people believe a story with absolutely no proof simply because it fits their narrative and is on their "side".  facts no longer matter.  It happened to someone somewhere at sometime, so let's hold Kavanaugh accountable even if he wasn't the specific person that did it.  This is the post-modernism I keep pointing out here.  truth no longer matters.
Bill Kamps Added Oct 10, 2018 - 4:14pm
Ken, true.  They hoped the nomination would be pulled based on the accusation alone, just as people have resigned in the private sector based on accusations alone.  A few differences, one being the 35 year gap between the alleged incident and the accusation, the other that the GOP was going to play hardball because pulling the nomination would mean delaying confirmation until after the election.  Something they would not easily allow to happen.
George N Romey Added Oct 10, 2018 - 4:48pm
The biggest problem was that Feinstein and others simply leaked this letter to the press, even without Ford's own acknowledgment to do so.  They just assumed the letter would cause an uproar against Americans and Trump would be forced to withdrawal this name from the nomination.  If they had quietly approached the committee with the letter there may have been an agreement to determine what kind of investigation was needed and by who. 
Instead what the public saw was an allegation from over 35 years ago that was lacked specific credible witnesses to the actual event and ready and willing to testify.  Also, it brought into question should something dumb at age 15 be held into consideration 3.5 decades later.  By her own admission Ford never claimed actual rape.  In the end the public questioned her allegations as evidenced by a poll that showed only 25% of women though the alleged allegations should stop the nomination process (actually lower than 28% of men).
Jeff Michka Added Oct 10, 2018 - 7:50pm
"Do nothing" Geeho goes on and beats up Ds to kept currying favor with WB rightists.  Geeho can't hold a lit match to even LAME Ds.  ol Geeho won't do anything except cry over his fate of aging.  Geeho claims he knows what Ds were tring to do.  Now, immnd you, Geeho is the same guy begging for a nice, six-figure job, and in the same comments saying the people he applied to "weren't dressing" to Geeho's "standards."  Funny, they had the jobs, Geeho was begging for a small crumble of the pie.  Now, to keep rightist favor. he's promoting and defending Trump.  LOL Now there's something to....respect.  LOL.  Poor Geeho.
wsucram15 Added Oct 11, 2018 - 2:20am
Montgomery county I believe it was offered to look at the criminal case. The governor ordered a full investigation in fact since there is no statute of limitations. But you are right it would be next to impossible to prosecute.
I do think certain Democrats took this too far. I stopped watching after  while, knowing it was wasted breath and Dr Ford, by both parties was used to make a point.   Watching people literally run for office at her expense was disgusting and I dont care what any of you think.
George N Romey Added Oct 11, 2018 - 8:25am
Jeanne once her letter was received by Feinstein Ford was never consulted to the next step.  The letter was simply thrown out to the press.  Maybe she wanted a full investigation to be done in the background but by simply releasing the letter it turned into a circus with her in the middle.
Ultimately if something could have been proven the real people on trial should have been the parents albeit they are likely not alive or very elderly.  These were out of control teenagers and the parents appeared to be nowhere in sight.  
Leroy Added Oct 11, 2018 - 7:50pm
I've seen a lot of debate on whether or not there is a statue of limitations.  The consensus seems to be that if it was not an attempted rape, then there is a one-year statute of limitations.  If it was an attempted rape, which I see nothing in her testimony to suggest that it was, then there is no limitation to prosecution.  I think that it is wrong to say there is no statute of limitations.
Riley Brown Added Oct 12, 2018 - 4:05pm
Criminal convictions require "beyond a reasonable doubt", without any descent among jurors.  I'm sure Ford knows that she'd never get 12 jurists to agree with her allegation unless they were all Democratic politicians.
Leroy Added Oct 12, 2018 - 4:12pm
As sex crime prosecutor Mitchell said, it wouldn't meet the preponderance of the evidence for a civil suit.
Jeff Jackson Added Oct 14, 2018 - 8:37am
Thanks for all of your comments, it is an interesting debate.

Recent Articles by Writers Jeff Jackson follows.