September 18, 2018

The question that can destroy Brett Kavanaugh: Have you ever been so drunk you could not remember what happened?

Kavanaugh's accuser might never be able to provide a specific time and place for the alleged attack, and you may think Kavanaugh will do all right simply avowing that he has no memory of ever doing anything like that. That answer creates the occasion for any other woman to come forward and say he did something like that to me, and it will be relevant not just to his actions long ago, but his truthfulness in the present.

But the bigger problem is that Kavanaugh can only say he has no memory of something. And Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is telling us that he was very drunk, so maybe a failure to remember could be attributed to drinking. He could honestly testify to no memory of the incident, but still need to establish that he didn't have a memory blanked out by alcohol use. Now, since we're not going to hear of the specific time and place of the incident, Kavanaugh will need to say that he never, in that entire period, experienced alcohol-induced amnesia. (And what if he can only say I have no memory of losing my memory?!).

If Kavanaugh denies ever experiencing alcohol-induced amnesia during that period, anyone who hung out with him back then is a potential source of testimony that they saw him drunk and, especially damning, they had reason to know that he couldn't remember what he had done. Is there anybody who knew Kavanaugh in high school who has tales of things  Kavanaugh couldn't remember later? Did Kavanaugh ever have a discussion with anyone about alcohol-induced amnesia?

Once we get this far, you can see that whether Christine Blasey Ford's story is accurate or not, Monday's hearing can be used to trap Kavanaugh in lies, and then it's not a possible attempted rape from 30 years ago but perjury in the present.

Remember, the other person in the room, according to Ford, was Mark Judge, and Mark Judge seems inclined to corroborate Kavanaugh, but Judge is on record as a having been "completely annihilated" in high school. I'm reading that in HuffPo:
But Mark Judge, now a writer and filmmaker, wrote [a] memoir two decades ago... Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk, of getting drunk his first time at age 14, binge drinking at teen parties and a struggle with alcoholism. His “immersion” into alcohol began the end of his sophomore year during a typical annual “beach week,” when Catholic high school students headed to the shore after school was out. “Now I had an opportunity to make some headway [with girls]. Most of the time everyone, including the girls, was drunk. If you could breathe and walk at the same time, you could hook up,” he wrote.

His drinking became so extreme that he had blackout episodes, and woke up on the floor of a restaurant bathroom with no memory of how he got there. Once “I had the first beer, I found it impossible to stop until I was completely annihilated,” he wrote.

Judge said last week he had no memory of the incident described by Kavanaugh’s accuser.
But Ford said Judge was extremely drunk, so how good is the inference that it didn't happen? It's also possible that Judge had one of his admitted episodes of alcohol-induced amnesia. You can use Judge's statement in whatever way you think is correct (and nothing stops you from using it to support the conclusion you like). On its surface it corroborates Kavanaugh's lack of memory, but it also can support an alcohol-induced amnesia theory.

If you want to go further down into this dark place, here's some more from that HuffPo article:
Judge’s book changes the name of his high school to “Loyola Prep,” and makes a glancing reference at a character he calls “Bart O’Kavanaugh.” A girl at a party, wrote Judge, asked him: “Do you know Bart O’Kavanaugh? I heard he puked in someone’s car the other night.” Judge responds: “Yeah he passed out on his way back from a party.”

In his 2005 book God and Man at Georgetown Prep, Judge slammed his high school and the “insane liberalism” of Catholicism in the 1960s. He said the school was “overrun” by gay priests — part of the church’s “lavender mafia,” he later wrote in The Daily Caller — and was infused with alcohol.

“Only a person in denial still claims that something did not go terribly wrong in the Church after the 1960s, and that more often than not that thing was homosexual priests molesting teenage boys,“Judge wrote in the The Daily Caller in 2011. “My own take is that it had less to do with homosexuality than with the feverish libertinism of the 60s. Liberals have no interest in connecting the dots from liberalism to sexual abuse.... I’m guilty as well, at least of the bouts of dehumanizing lust that is part of the fallen world and being human ... we all have that monster to some extent.”

463 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 463   Newer›   Newest»
Mike Sylwester said...

The Senators should ask Ford whether she can explain why her marriage therapist wrote that the incident happened when she was 17-18 years old.

Did Ford at some time tell the therapist that she was 17-18 years old?

If so, then when and why did Ford change her age in her story?

Does Ford remember for sure that Kavanaugh was still in high school when the incident occurred?

Were college students at the party? If so, then how did she know them?

At the party, about how many people were in high school and how many were in college?

Why did the party include high-school students and college students?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said... I have no position on whether K is guilty,

I don't believe you.

but I am seeing a trap that he needs to be able to stay out of. If you don't want to look at it, you have your head in the sand.

That's stupid. It's not a trap. It's obvious. A trap is something that's hidden. This is not hidden. It's not a clever thing to see--it's obvious to anyone and everyone. That's why I said it's "almost as if" the accusation were crafted in that way--ridiculously vague and with the detail that the only other two witnesses were "black out drunk." That is DESIGNED to be impossible to refute if the person you're accusing has ever, at any point within a 4-5 year span, been that drunk.

And attacking me here when I'm analyzing things in what is, really, cruel neutrality is showing how unprepared you are. I don't want to have to laugh at your pain next week, so please shape up and get serious.

I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your idiotic insistence that this is some trap that you've discovered and the rest of us need to catch up on. It's obvious. There is no preparation needed because there is none available. Once you nice centrist people allow accusations of this type to be taken seriously it's already over--the accusation is enough.

BECAUSE she's a woman alleging sexual assault we can't question her story (it's allowed to be vague/inconsistent, it's allowed to have happened 35 years ago but have never been reported until recently, it's allowed to include details that specifically preclude any refutation, etc). We can't question her motives, obviously, since that's sexist. We can't question her reliability as a witness from that time, obviously, since that's also sexist (and possibly slut shaming, etc). There is no way to

This is the system and the standard you nice centrist people have accepted. I don't feel pain, I feel anger. I'm a little angry at the unfairness of it (and I think it's hilarious that your attitude toward that is "oh that's boring!"), but I'm much more angry that this is acceptable now. This is the result of you nice centrist people insisting that feminism means X...with the X conveniently defined as whatever the Left needs at a given time. Well here we are.

It's about time, right??

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Michael K - I dislike Rinos as much as anyone, but the alternative is full-on socialism and corruption and deep state garbage.

Michael K said...

You really want to show how much you hate this cheap shot by Feinstein?

Then you don't need to say nasty stuff about Althouse.


Truth isn't "nasty stuff." I question her willingness to believe this late hit. I added that maybe she is just trolling us.

Once again, Harry Truman (the 1940s equivalent of Trump) said "I tell the truth and they call it hell."

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Is it cruel neutrality that causes people to insist that they haven't made a determination of whether Kavanaugh is guilty or not to utterly ignore Feinstein's role in this and/or the way in which the accusation was handled (namely in a way specifically designed to smear Kavanaugh and impossible to refute)?

How many reporters have asked Feinstein for an actual explanation? Good old neutral Media!

bagoh20 said...

"It isn't the GOP senate that has to get serious. It is the electorate. Like, me and you. GOP Senate goes out and parties with Feinstein and her ilk. They can't be trusted to do anything. Wanna send a message? Hand the Democrats a defeat in the house."

This is, of course, the most important thing to remember. Vote, people, and get others of like mind to the polls as well. Nothing else really counts by comparison. The Dems have lost their minds and are at this point so unhinged that any power they wield will be used with vengeance, and overreach. They are simply too dangerous right now to be taken lightly or allowed any more power. They make a mess of whatever they touch in more sane times, and they are not acting sane right now.

The Crack Emcee said...

"Liberals have no interest in connecting the dots from liberalism to sexual abuse.... I’m guilty as well, at least of the bouts of dehumanizing lust that is part of the fallen world and being human ... we all have that monster to some extent.”"

Conservatives seem to want to keep their real world hush-hush as well.

Just horrible people.

mccullough said...

I agree the marriage thereapy should be probed. Why were they there. Ford was totally manipulative to spring this on her husband in marriage therapy. Sounds like an excuse for her infidelity.

Also, as Mike S points out, her story now is different than what her therapist wrote down. Blame the therapist isn’t a good defense. Her original story according to her therapist is four guys assaulted her in her late teens. Now it’s Judge, who wrote a book about his Salad Days as a high school lush and Kavanaugh who is nominated to the Supreme Court.

She’s a manipulative bullshitter

wishfulthinking said...

Hopefully Mark Judge will sue Ford for defamation. That will be icing on the cake.

PackerBronco said...

If you think this is bad, wait, it'll get worse.

NEW FROM 30 YEARS FROM NOW:

Supreme court nominee grilled about inappropriate things he wrote in blog while in high school. Claims "niggardly" was not a racist term at the time.

Mac McConnell said...

Mark Judge was the one in the relationship with Kavanaugh who was the blackout drunk. Kavanaugh was the one in control when out drinking, he was the care taker.

I can guarantee that when Mark Judge finally got into rehab his doctor told him Kavanaugh was his enabler. I had a drinking buddy lawyer friend who was a blackout drunk, we finally got him help. When I picked him up at the hospital after his rehab he explained to me how I was his enabler according to his doc. I told him I guess I should have just left him laying in those parking lots. ;-)

Gahrie said...

This accusation is exactly like a lawyer introducing new evidence during closing arguments. There is a reason that that is not allowed.

It saddens me that a law school professor appears to be supporting this travesty.

Yancey Ward said...

Shorter Althouse:

"Kavanaugh is susceptible to lies being told about him."

I agree, by the way.

iowan2 said...

I've been surfing between MSPMS and FOX, more than four guests on the lefty shows have posited that Ford will not show. (they say they don't know, but someone is feeding them talking points)

That should move things to a vote, but Dems and Flake, would then have all the reason they need to vote against President Trump. I think the Dems game theory is to refuse to have Ford show up and let the accusation do all the work. The media will not hold the Dems to account for being slimy, cheating liars.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

TestTube said...Democrats are going to continue doing this sort of thing until they face negative consequences. The quickest and best way to send a message is for Democrats to lose the House election badly.

Taking it out on Althouse in the comments threads is just pathetic.


But my dear TestTube the point is that these tactics work exactly because the nice centrist people like Althouse buy into them. They work exactly because they appeal to people like Althouse! That's the whole point. Nice centrist people will believe that Kavanaugh is a rapist based on the accusation and nothing short of his withdrawing will prevent the Dems from "winning" on that issue--and of course his withdrawal would be taken as further evidence of his guilt. That's why we are angry--we're angry that this kind of transparently bullshit attack works and that nice centrist people won't apply any kind of reasonable standards. We're angry that the Media works for the Dems to push this kind of thing and is able to ruin any of us at will...while the nice centrist people say "we are so sick of hearing about the unfairness of it all; booor-ing!"

It shouldn't work. That it does work is infuriating! It'd be one thing if it only worked on stupid people, but it works on smart people, too--nice smart centrists buy in just as hard.

Call that whining if you want. But explain this to me: if the GOP is unwilling or unable to stop this kind of thing from happening of what use is the party to me? The whole fucking point of the "but Gorsuch!" joke is that despite all the bad stuff sticking with Trump got us a solid Court pick. If Cocaine Mitch and the GOP can't deliver on that now, even with Trump & a majority...if the Dems are able to win even when they don't have the votes, in other words, why would I give those guys my money and support? Maybe after they all commit seppuku send me a mailer asking for a donation, but not before.

BDNYC said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Big Mike said...

@Michael K., as regards those who call McSally a RINO (meaning that they've fallen for yet another Democrat false flag operation!), show them this poster produced by a group headed by Sinema.

Their choice is not a moderate Democrat versus a RINO. It is between a hard core member of the left wing lunatic fringe and a decorated combat veteran.

Laslo Spatula said...

How about a question for Feinstein:

"You sat on this letter for two months, about an incident thirty-plus years ago, and have brought it out after the confirmation hearing.

Have you ever been so drunk that you might have said privileged information in front of your Chinese-spy driver over the last twenty years?"

I am Laslo.

wishfulthinking said...

Maybe that explains the reason that Fords prep school has erased or scrubbed (as with a cloth) their social media history including yearbooks(??!!)
Seems that they are trying to hide something in Fords past not just maintain anonimity.

BDNYC said...

It would be understandable if Republicans told Democrats to shove it, but they won't, because Republicans don't play the same games as Democrats. Most Republicans actually care about institutions like the Court and believe the Court's legitimacy demands that Kavanaugh clear this up before taking a lifetime seat on the Court.

I'm tired of this BS about "believe all women, don't badger an accuser, she is soooooo brave, she has nothing to gain and everything to lose, etc." Those are all lies. She has something to gain and virtually nothing to lose. He has everything to lose. Many women lie. An accusation about something that happened 35 years ago cannot be taken at face value, and cannot be believed in any event without significant corroboration. Of course she needs to be questioned and her story must be probed. It's not a "revictimization" to be skeptical of her.

Does anyone even care about the harm she could be doing to him? A lie like this could ruin his career and reputation and even traumatize his young daughters for many, many years. Stop saying she's brave and assuming the truth of her allegation.

Achilles said...


"The question that can destroy Brett Kavanaugh: Have you ever been so drunk you could not remember what happened?"

Utterly repulsive.

The left is going to parade this sham around and decent people are going to look on with disgust.

People who think this is ok are degenerate.

If they succeed in stopping Kavanagh with this kind of garbage they are ensuring violent conflict at some point. This is an open attack on the Republic and all decent people who would no longer feel safe.

The left has become increasingly violent over the last two years committing thousands of acts of political violence and repression. They will reap what they have sown.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with ReJahm that, if not a bad habit, Ann has a blind spot where "women's rights" and "gay rights" are concerned. Advocating either is always supported; critical examination of either is always treated negatively. I am in the same position as Ann; I have a gay son who is married so I am very sensitive to Ann's approach when these topics come up. She is very predictable always damning anything that could have a negative effect on John.

As for women's rights: I saw that a suit has been filed in opposition to men only having to register for the draft. I have always said that when women start fighting for the right to be registered for the draft then I'll be convinced that they want EQUAL rights.

Real American said...

"Once we get this far, you can see that whether Christine Blasey Ford's story is accurate or not..."

BULLSHIT! The burden is on Ford to provide enough relevant evidence to demonstrate that her story is even plausible, let alone accurate. Her lawyer all but admitted she can't and is not going to try. Only if she can, if there is enough there, will it matter what else Kavanaugh has to say about it.

We need to first test HER memory of the alleged incident. So far, it doesn't stand up very well to even minimal scrutiny. She waited 30 years to even say anything. Spare me the repressed memory bullshit. That is evidence it didn't happen. Why did she scrub her social media before going public? What is she hiding? She also can't remember the date (month or year) or location of this alleged party. She hasn't named the other supposed partygoers other than Judge who vehemently denies her claims. A 6-person (4 boys, 2 girls) party including Kavanaugh, Judge and Ford in the late 70s or early 80s is enough for Kavanaugh to deny he ever attended such a party. We don't even know how she knows Kavanaugh or if she even knows him at all. For all we know, they've never met. Also, just because you pass out after drinking too much doesn't mean you blacked out. There's a difference.

Plus it is pretty clear that the Democrats don't want this woman to testify publicly about her claim. They are simply using this fabricated story to try to delay the vote, bloody up Kavanaugh and sink lower than they did even with Anita Hill.

Remember, the Democrats have been demanding a delay from the start. They have to show their lunatic base that they are sufficiently "resisting." Feinstein was ripped for not doing so, which is clearly what prompted her to publicize this allegation she was sitting on.

And they have lied about Kavanaugh. They falsely called him a liar over his previous testimony. They've said he's said things he hasn't. They've lied about his time in the Starr investigation and Bush White House. They've lied about his rulings. They've lied about his speeches. They've lied about document production. They've lied about his testimony this time around - Harris selectively edited a video to distort his remarks. They've tried to gin up controversies include the handshake nonsense, the protesters and the fake white power salute.

And after all that lying, you've got to be pretty fucking naive not to have just a tiny bit of skepticism that this last minute smear isn't just another lie, or to think, just for a second that the burden isn't on the Democrats to back up their claims with actual fucking evidence. Not feelings. Not opinions. Not hearsay. Not a Nutty Professor confirming her own story. Not politics. Not junk science. Not similar stories about other people. Real Relevant Evidence. Produce it or shut the fuck up already.

Ann Althouse said...

"One question in the "cruel Neutrality" department I haven't seen answered is did Ann ever have Debra Katz as a student ?"

I wish I remembered the names of all my students from 30+ years of teaching, but I sure don't. I have no idea if I had her as a student.

I had Tammy Baldwin as a student. I can tell you that. But I remember her because she was already a state legislator when she went to law school.

Achilles said...

Question for Feinstien: What do we do with traitors?

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, for the record, there are some of us -- people who get STEM degrees as opposed to people who get BFAs, I imagine -- who really have never gotten blackout drunk. It's not as big a trap as you think.

My own opinion is that you have fallen for the Democrat meme that putting Kavanaugh on the bench spells the end of Roe v. Wade, and you are therefore happy about anything that could derail his elevation to the court. I think you are wrong about both the end ofRoe v. Wade and Kavanaugh.

But if your blog was my only exposure to educated women, I'd be ready to revoke the 19th amendment in a heartbeat.

Otto said...

So Ann was Katz a student of yours? Do you know her or had any dealings with her?

bagoh20 said...

"And attacking me here when I'm analyzing things in what is, really, cruel neutrality is showing how unprepared you are. I don't want to have to laugh at your pain next week, so please shape up and get serious."

Taking the easy bet that the Dems will be corrupt and duplicitous while refusing to criticize the behavior is nothing to get uppity about. Neutrality is their excuse when good men do nothing.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

"Is there anything from 35 years ago you don't remember, possibly because you were drunk? If you say no we'll bring up someone to testify to some thing, and if you don't remember that thing it's perjury. If you say yes then you can't categorically deny that this other specific thing happened because you've already admitted there are at least some things you can't remember, and that denial will be perjury."

I understand what you're saying, Althouse, but again: that's not a trap. That's the clear and direct consequence of allowing this kind of accusation to be treated with credence.

Matthew Sablan said...

"And after all that lying"

-- To some extent, yes. If we'd had fairly tame proceedings, I'd be a lot less suspicious.

bagoh20 said...

"I wish I remembered the names of all my students from 30+ years of teaching, but I sure don't. I have no idea if I had her as a student. "

Maybe you blacked out, and don't even remember if you forgot.

Gahrie said...

Shorter Althouse:

"Kavanaugh is susceptible to lies being told about him."


You left out:

"and I'm fine with that because abortion."

BDNYC said...

"So Ann was Katz a student of yours? Do you know her or had any dealings with her?"

Ann doesn't know, claims she doesn't remember. That means she's lying and we can't trust anything else she says.

PM said...

If a teen-age Kavanaugh were drunk at a high school party and groped an equally drunk high school girl, how is that relevant to his character and ability as a mature adult to perform on the Supreme Court? I don't even get the premise. No one was ever stupid in high school? Has any female come forward to speak of his poor behavior between then and now? The door is wide open. Anyone? No?

Achilles said...

Question for Blumenthal: Why shouldn’t we lock you in a room with actual Vietnam veterans who were actually there and who lost actual friends who don’t appreciate a lying piece of shit like you being elected senator lying about serving and have those veterans...

Matthew Sablan said...

"I imagine -- who really have never gotten blackout drunk. It's not as big a trap as you think."

-- The real trap is it *doesn't matter* if someone will testify they think they saw Kavanaugh that drunk. They could even be telling the truth! (They could be misremembering; he may not have been that drunk; etc.)

It's the same reason you don't say: "I was never in that part of town that night," because someone might testify: "I did see the a car matching the defendant's car there, and there aren't that many yellow Volkswagen bugs with a Transformers logo on the hood in the area."

mccullough said...

Katz graduated law school in 1984. Don’t think Althouse taught there until the fall.

Katz was on TV a lot 20 years ago trashing Paula Jones and saying Jones has no sexual harassment case against Clinton. Clinton paid Jones $850,000 that he raised from guys mike Harvey Weinstein.

Katz is a scumbag lawyer who defends rapists like Clinton and Weinstein and trashes lower income victims like Paula Jones. She’s a Dem operative. Nothing more, nothing less

gg6 said...

Speaking of our bloggers profession of "cruel neutrality..." - don't I recall our Hostess rather energetically ghosting Mr. Kavanaugh as a "threat to women's rights"(aka abortion), some sort of manufactured goody-two-shoes - who might possess some "hard-to-detect dark side". Yes, undoubtedly the 'dark side' Kavanaugh probably has is the crime of being Male, White, Roman Catholic, and a clearly weird fan of baseball....after all, we all know no really mentally healthy modern adult would enjoy baseball.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I don't have access to the Oxford English Dictionary. How far down in the definitions of "trap" do you go before you get to something like "a difficult situation" that doesn't reference a trick, a surprise, deceit, or the like?

I'm sure it's there by I dispute that's how you're using "trap" in this context. You're implying that this is some hidden thing that you've discovered and Kavanaugh & his supporters had better discover as well, or he's in trouble. But it's not hidden. It's obvious and has been obvious.

Yancey Ward said...

I have also been hearing rumors this morning that Ford isn't going to show up on Monday. If she doesn't, I would hope that Grassley moves immediately to the committee vote during the same session.

Hagar said...

...somebody will tell you what you did the next day.

Yes, indeed!

Michael K said...

Katz is a scumbag lawyer who defends rapists like Clinton and Weinstein and trashes lower income victims like Paula Jones. She’s a Dem operative. Nothing more, nothing less

I understand she is now setting "conditions" for Ford to appear. I put her appearance odds as 60-40 now against.

"Too traumatic with all those male Senators asking for dates and stuff."

mccullough said...

If Ford doesn’t show it’s because her husband got tired of her bullshit. She played him way too many times. Maybe he finally wised up. I doubt she ran this stunt by him before going to the Post with her lawyer a few months ago.

The husband is the weak link. He knows her story is bullshit and that she conceited it after he caught her cheating.

Matthew Sablan said...

"If she doesn't, I would hope that Grassley moves immediately to the committee vote during the same session."

-- Last I saw, Grassley has flat out said there can be no hearing without her, and as of about 9:30/10:00 this morning there was no response from her or her lawyers.

Michael K said...

Grassley is tough enough I think. I don't know about McConnell.

mccullough said...

McConnell is a push over. A hallway tough guy. He couldn’t even stand up to a couple of pussies from Georgetown. His wife had to back those guys down for him.

Biff said...

wildswan said...
"...Kavanaugh, who is an adult like Clarence Thomas, will be confirmed on the Supreme Court and merely informed of the depths of Democratic depravity by his experiences."

I wonder if the experience of going through the confirmation process had any impact on Clarence Thomas' subsequent judicial opinions and whether a similar experience might impact Kavanaugh's future rulings.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

I'm shocked that the University of Wisconsin Madison Law School employed a "professor" who may have gotten so black out drunk at some undetermined date and time that she can't even remember the members of her classes a mere 34 years ago. Her refusal to deny colluding with Katz and her colluding to rape the career of a Supreme Court nominee is disgusting.

I demand that a special prosecutor with unlimited budget and mandate go through every detail of the lives of Althouse and anyone she ever associated with. I'm talking FISA court wiretaps, un-related tax charges, the full Mueller.

If it prevents only one more career rape, it is worth it. If she denies it or attempts to defend herself, it is only more evidence of her guilt. Obviously, this process could take years, and we need to stop her pension payments in the meantime until the FBI and Congress can get to the bottom of this sordid matter.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Some people might say that such an action is a "trap" but they are obviously bigotted transphobic dregs of society.

Yancey Ward said...

What conditions could possibly be demanded here? She either shows up and answers questions, or she doesn't. She could, of course, just send a statement to be read, but then we don't need an actual hearing for that.

Right now, you can be sure of one thing- quite a bit of money is on offer to various people to come forward to "support" Ford's story. Will any take it? I thought last night that it would be easy for the Democrats to round up such people, but maybe I was wrong.

Mark said...

Have you ever been totally sober and not remember what happened?

Mark said...

Have you ever not remembered something that did not happen?

Darrell said...

The Republicans better be prepared for Monday.
This has been planned for months--at least.
Don't fall for the old "she won't show" trick.

gahrie said...

If it prevents only one more career rape, it is worth it. If she denies it or attempts to defend herself, it is only more evidence of her guilt.

She admits to working for, and supporting, an institution that allows 25% of the women who attend it to be raped.

Achilles said...

Ann said...

I'm tired of seeing the same statements about how it isn't fair to do this to somebody. We've talked and talked about that. This post introduces a specific evidence problem and the la-la-la-I'm-not-listening is very foolish. You need to project, imagine what will happen at the hearing, and be prepared. Don't keep saying the things K supporters say to each other. You're also encouraging K supporters to run into another trap and trash the woman.

I am tired of the obtuseness you display. Stop being stupid.

Everyone knows this is bullshit. We know senators are capable of carrying on this charade.

You need to project, imagine what will happen after the hearing, and be prepared.

If this pulls Kavanagh down no man in the country will feel safe from the actions of evil women. We all know a woman or 20 that is malevolent and could make up an unfalsifiable story like this about us.

If the Democrats succeed with this there will be blood.


mccullough said...

Clarence Thomas got to watch his enemies float by him after his confirmation.

Teddy K spent that fall at his nephew’s rape trial. Bob Packwood got forced out of the Senate for his serial sexual assaults a few years later. And a couple dozen of the Dem senators like Biden wee defending Bill Clinton from rape accusations 7 years later. A few of those jag offs like Leahy are still around collecting a paycheck screaming about abortion rights so they don’t have to pay child support for their illegitimate kids like John Edwards and the Rev Jesse Jackson.

They excoriate Kavanaugh while, like Booker, defending their colleague Menendez against accusations he had sex with 15 year old girls who are the victims of sex trafficking.

Keith Ellison slaps his girlfriend’s around but these people say nothing. They are Scum.


Laslo Spatula said...

A question for Althouse:

Everyone seems to realize the futility of trying to answer your question.

Cutting to the chase: what answer could he give that YOU would consider acceptable?

Let me refine that: what acceptable answer could he give that would allow YOU to believe he can be confirmed for the Court?

Because if the question is such that even any possible hypothetical answer could not succeed, then is the cleverness of the question worth the dereliction of honor?

I am Laslo.

Michael K said...


The Republicans better be prepared for Monday.
This has been planned for months--at least.
Don't fall for the old "she won't show" trick.


Oh, I think Grassley is. He will move the nomination and when the Flake vote sinks the committee nomination, I hope he forwards it without committee recommendation like they did with Bork.

Then it is up to McConnell. I wish I were more confident about his nerves.

This is more about the election than the Supreme Court. Make those red state Democrats vote and run the votes in ads.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Any allegation will do. Unverifiable is OK, too.

mccullough said...

McConnell just needs to pat Flake on the back and remind him that he has four sons. Killing dogs isn’t the only thing they’ll be accused of.

stlcdr said...

Why not just decide this whole thing with the Wheel of Fortune?

That’s all this is, right now. A perverse game show but with real consequences.

ALP said...

Is this what you want? Because THIS is how you get Robot Surpreme Court Judges.

SeanF said...

You've already got someone else (Ford) saying Kavanaugh did something that Kavanaugh says he didn't do. If that's perjury, you've already got it.

Achilles said...

Laslo Spatula said...
A question for Althouse:

Everyone seems to realize the futility of trying to answer your question.

Cutting to the chase: what answer could he give that YOU would consider acceptable?



I wonder if Ann ever admitted that some of her students were smarter than her?

It is clear some of her commenters are.

stlcdr said...

As people have noted, the facts of the incident are irellavant. All that needs to be done is to get those voting, to vote either for or against Kavenaugh. Making this into a ‘trial’ serves only to lend legitimacy to a farce; it isn’t a courtroom. Treating it like one is pathetic. The longer it goes on, the more time these scumbag democrats have to catch Kavenaugh in a more ‘lies of omission’.

Francisco D said...

"If Kavanaugh would do that to a teenager, can we trust him in the same room with justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer?"

LOL! I just spit up my coffee.

I feel a little guilty laughing about it.

Hopefully enough of the public will see what a dangerous and disgraceful farce it is.

Achilles said...

SeanF said...
You've already got someone else (Ford) saying Kavanaugh did something that Kavanaugh says he didn't do. If that's perjury, you've already got it.

There are a dozen or so posts on this thread that skewer Althouse’s logic on the original point she made.

Just highlighting these to emphasize the point.

johns said...

I hate hypotheticals. If Kavanaugh is asked, "If you were black-out drunk and didn't remember an assault on Ms. Ford even though it did happen, would it be right to apologize to her now?" I don't know how I would answer that question if I was in his place.

Renee said...

How does one know if the 'blacked out'?? The only time I knew was from the word of others, explaining to me the next day of my behavior.

FYI

I stopped drinking for a while in college. A long while. I wasn't even doing anything terrible, but just embarrassed. I left a funny voice mail, and the played it back to me.

mccullough said...

You don’t fight this stuff in Senate hearings. He said and she said are smokescreens.

Harvey Weinstein took out Asia Argento and her boyfriend over lunch. Now Argento is going after Rose McGowan.

Mutually assured destruction is the strategy.

Mike Sylwester said...

Even if the incident happened as Ford describes, my opinion supporting his nomination does not change. Such a single, long-ago, drunken incident is not enough for me to condemn his (or anyone else's) character.

Nevertheless, I still am interested in evaluating whether the incident did happen as Ford describes.

I think the burden of proof is on her, not on him.

The discrepancy between the therapist's writing that Ford was 17-18 years old while Ford herself now says she was only 14-15 is a major problem for Ford's credibility.

If Ford was 17-18, then she herself was in high school while Kavanaugh was in college. If so, then she should explain why high-school and college students were at the same party.

If she was only 14-15, then she should describe her own drinking at that young age.

Her remark that she was wearing a swimsuit under her clothes should be questioned. Did the party follow some swimming activity? If so, where? Did the house have a swimming pool? Did people come to the party from some other swimming place?

======

I believe that she did bring up this incident during marriage counseling. The incident was supposed to explain the sexual problems she was experiencing with her husband -- maybe frigidity or maybe promiscuity.

Maybe there was such an incident, but Kavanaugh's participation is a false memory. Maybe she sincerely believes he participated but he actually was not there.

If she was stewing about this incident for three decades, then she might have replayed it in her dreams hundreds of times, and eventually Kavanaugh entered her memory of the incident, falsely.

Francisco D said...

"What conditions could possibly be demanded here? "

Maybe she gets to tell her story and can only be question by female Democrats.

It would not surprise me if her lawyer is negotiating over which questions can be asked and how long questioners have.

This is an attempt at holding a kangaroo court. It will be a circus with Democrats acting as the clowns and the media as the ringmaster.

Drago said...

Laslo: "Because if the question is such that even any possible hypothetical answer could not succeed, then is the cleverness of the question worth the dereliction of honor?"

There are so many layers to this question one scarcely knows where to start.

But those layers all collapse and are rendered meaningless in this leftist intellectual and moral wasteland.

You might as well be asking "whither chivalry?".

walter said...

#metoo has fully merged with process as punishment here.
That DiFi sat on this will be ignored while she uses this to build up her bonafides with those Dems who thought her too old/old school.
Other Dems can further benefit by another chance to get in front of cameras on this issue.

CStanley said...

I would think (just my own supposition, not knowing of course if this is accurate for him) he could answer that he is not aware of ever experiencing alcohol induce amnesia, based on perhaps knowing that there were only a limited number of times that he had drunk to excess and his memory of those times is intact. It’s possible he could also say (if true) that he would always have been in the presence of friends who would have told him if something like this had taken place.

Howard said...

Blogger Achilles said...

Question for Feinstien: What do we do with traitors?


Answer: Elect them President

mockturtle said...

While I probably won't be able to watch Monday's testimony, I'd like nothing better than to see Ted Cruz rake this harridan over the coals.

Michael K said...

Blogger Howard said...
Blogger Achilles said...

Question for Feinstien: What do we do with traitors?

Answer: Elect them President


No, Howard, Kerry lost.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Kieth Ellison's accuser is a fellow democrat and the democrats choose not to beleive her.

Isn't that grand?


Karen Monahan, the woman who accused Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison of domestic abuse, said Monday that the Democratic Party does not believe her.
Monahan also wrote on Twitter that she’s been threatened and isolated by her own Democratic Party.
Her comments were made in contrast to the immediate attention Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser has received.

I Callahan said...

How is it possible to say that? If he ever got black-out drunk, he's in big trouble.

Is it REALLY beyond your realm of possibility that he never did? You know, like he ALREADY SAID???!!

Howard said...

This is bullshit, but we live in the Bullshit Universe where bullshit has life or death consequences. Ann's question sounds like a lawyer preparing her client for cross examination.

You people dive straight for hysterical soap opera logic. You can't handle the truth, forget it Jake, it's Chinatown.

Ann Althouse said...

"Katz graduated law school in 1984. Don’t think Althouse taught there until the fall."

Thanks! You are right. I started in the fall of 84, so if she graduated in 84, she was never my student.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Any and all accusations against democrats - - - Not to be believed!

34+ year old unverifiable 11th hour high school allegations by someone on the left with an axe to grind - directed and someone on the "right' - why? Witch hunt!

Laslo Spatula said...

"He could honestly testify to no memory of the incident, but still need to establish that he didn't have a memory blanked out by alcohol use. Now, since we're not going to hear of the specific time and place of the incident, Kavanaugh will need to say that he never, in that entire period, experienced alcohol-induced amnesia. (And what if he can only say I have no memory of losing my memory?!)"

Spiderwebs and cotton candy, there.

I think I am going to call this kind of thinking -- removing plausibility and emanating an ink cloud of abstractions -- "Penumbra Thinking."

Because you can't pin it down, but there it is, emanating.

And those that will sacrifice reason to emanate the penumbra?

Penumbra Stooges.

I am Laslo.

Achilles said...

Howard said...
Blogger Achilles said...

Question for Feinstien: What do we do with traitors?

Answer: Elect them President

Obama isn’t president anymore.

Soon he will face his crimes. He tried to turn our republic into a police state.

I wonder which of his minions will rat him out. McCabe will be the first to be indicted and he is already attacking Comey.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Sylwester said...

Even if Kavanaugh blacked out while acting as Ford describes, he probably would remember being at such a party. He would not have lost his memory of the entire evening.

Also, if he did black-out, then it's likely that other people told him later what he had done. He himself might have asked other people what he had done.

-------

I served in the US Air Force during 1978-1992, and I often dream about that period of my life. I have recurring dreams about, for example, my uniform being sloppy.

I have recurring dreams about attending a training course and not attending any classes or even sleeping in my dormitory room. I actually did attend a training course where I got into trouble, but that real situation has evolved into an exaggerated, bizarre story in my recurring dreams. This false story seems very real to me when I retain glimpses of it as I wake up.

-------

I think it's likely that Ford has elaborated an actual incident into a false story in recurring dreams. She is troubled about her sexual relationship with her husband and she is troubled about Kavanaugh's extraordinary rise in the federal judiciary, and she mixes these concerns in her recurring dreams.

Howard said...

How do you know if you were blacked out and still functioning in the world and not passed out? In my experience, most people who claim to have blackout drunk episodes are bullshitting because they want to forget... a self administered psychological placebo.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

If Kavanaugh ever drank a sip in HS, is he over?
Is that all it takes now?

I wonder how much Teddy Kennedy drank in HS? He was pretty purple/yellow most of his life.

n.n said...

So, now we know the ideological orientation of the baby hunters, for democratic leverage, no less.

Was it abortion... elective abortion?

Was the baby guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

Was cruel and unusual punishment an act of war or rationalized under a Twilight ethics?

Are the rules of evidence different at the Twilight fringe? For example, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. A phenomenon inferred from a process characterized in isolation, that not even Nature could love.

In Stork, they trust. What are the principles of Stork? Stork, the philosopher, not the curator of human evolution.

Renee said...

Teddy was elected, though. Not confirmed. The electorate can vote for whoever it wants, whether it be Kennedy for Trump.

FYI, Sen Kennedy's office was great with constituents. No matter who you were.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Here’s another what if. Let’s say Ford is telling the truth but confused the two guys. That is, it was Judge who pulled Ford into the room and attempted to take her clothes off while covering her month to prevent her from screaming, and it was Kavanaugh who at first egged him on and then asked him to stop and then jumped on Judge, allowing Ford to escape.

Kavanaugh could have come and acknowledged this, telling the story from his side of doing the right thing in a situation that he is still somewhat shameful of having been a part of. But instead he has denied that he was there.

Rabel said...

"How To Hang An Innocent Man"

- by Ann Althouse

Chapter 1. Commitment
* Prepare yourself to abandon all concepts of fairness and the rule of law for your cause.

Chapter 2. The Lieutenants
*Just read "The Prince" - Niccolo covered this well.

Chapter 3. The Unanswerable Question.
* See the Althouse blog Sept. 18, 2018.

The new book is coming along nicely.

Matthew Sablan said...

It is a question Kavanaugh needs to forcefully say doesn't matter. He should focus on the fact he can't be expected to fight with ghosts. Give him an actual charge to defend against and he will, otherwise his blanket denial is all he can offer.

Ann Althouse said...

"A question for Althouse: Everyone seems to realize the futility of trying to answer your question."

That's another way of saying that I have identified a trap he is walking into (if they pursue this line of questions cleverly).

"Cutting to the chase: what answer could he give that YOU would consider acceptable?"

It would depend on what is true. If it's true that he never drank to excess or at least never experience memory loss, then he can say that and avoid the problem. If it's not true and he says that, could other people contradict him? If so, he's in big trouble for lying. If he has drunk to excess and with memory loss, he'd have to admit it, express sincere regret for it, stress that he has no memory of doing anything like what is described and express profound distress at the idea that he could actually have done such a horrible thing. He could say that God knows what he did and that he prays for forgiveness if he has done a wrong that he cannot remember. And he could express great empathy for Ford, who is herself distressed, for whatever reason. And he could connect that to the kinds of matters he has to struggle to understand as a judge, showing concern, generally, for the victims of sexual assault and for those who are troubled by memories that may not be accurate. He should sound intelligent and beneficent and unselfish and not entitled or belligerent.

"Let me refine that: what acceptable answer could he give that would allow YOU to believe he can be confirmed for the Court?"

See above.

"Because if the question is such that even any possible hypothetical answer could not succeed, then is the cleverness of the question worth the dereliction of honor?"

Don't understand the question (other than that I've satisfied the "if" clause).

Howard said...

Traitor Reagan sold arms to Iran and Traitor Bush instigated war on false pretenses, destroying guys like Achilles.

Howard said...

Ann: How does someone else know when you have blacked out memory's? It's still he said she shread

President-Mom-Jeans said...

"Thanks! You are right. I started in the fall of 84, so if she graduated in 84, she was never my student."

See? I told you she would lie. Obviously guilty.

Have you no fucking shame, Althouse?

wishfulthinking said...

Rumor has it that Ford sent a congressperson a letter last year accusing Gorsuch.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Notice how she says nothing about colluding to rape the career of supreme court nominees or blacking out from drinking? Absolutely shameful.

Matthew Sablan said...

"If it's true that he never drank to excess or at least never experience memory loss, then he can say that and avoid the problem."

-- Not if anyone thinks he didn't and testifies about it. That's the real beauty of the trap. Kavanaugh can only escape it if the other side is acting in good faith, which from watching Feinstein and Booker, we know they aren't. Even if he had never been tipsy in his life, all it takes is one person saying "I'm sure I saw him really drunk," and Democrats will try to claim his scalp.

Also: She took the polygraph in AUGUST?!? I thought it was like, in the last few days. That's... a really, really big blow to the statement "she doesn't want this to go public."

n.n said...

Show us the independent lines of witnesses. Observable, reproducible, and deductive, not inferred.

Will the political myths told by known Pro-Choicers, selective, opportunistic, and politically congruent, prevail?

Will Americans be overwhelmed by baby hunts and trials after birth?

Will the wicked solution for social progress and secular profit be normalized throughout human evolution under a Twilight ethics?

Should reality be negotiable even inside a limited frame of reference (i.e. scientific logical domain)? If yes, and it is, what are the consequences of establishing a Twilight faith and Pro-Choice religion?

Michael K said...


Blogger Howard said...
Traitor Reagan sold arms to Iran and Traitor Bush instigated war on false pretenses, destroying guys like Achilles.


Howard is approaching R/V and trumpit territory.

Come on, Howard. You are not this stupid.

Reagan sold arms to Iran via Israel in an attempt to get back Bill Buckley the CIA station chief in Beirut.

The "false pretenses" on Iraq were CIA chief, Tenet's term "Slam Dunk."

I think the Iraq invasion, in retrospect, was a mistake. I thought at the time, it was a worth while attempt to learn if an Arab country could rule itself without tyrants. They can't.

Afghanistan is a worse mistake that we seem unable to end.

mccullough said...

Kavanaugh already called it a false accusation. He’d be a fool to cop to being a black out drunk. No one is going to contradict him when he says he drank but never drank so much that he couldn’t remember what he did. The only thing more bullshit than Ford’s story is someone now coming up and attesting that Kavanaugh got black out drunk in high school. Without an artsy or DUI like W or Beto or Teddy K this line wouldn’t go anywhere.

How dumb would someone look if they came and testified about Kavanaugh’s drinking from 1982. “Yes, Senator Booker, I remember it well. Brett got so shitfaced that he called me the next morning morning and said: ‘Dude, I had one too many of those 18 Hamms in a can and blacked out. I can’t remember if ET made it home or not. So what happened?’ And I said: Brett, how the fuck am I supposed to know. The rest of us were watching Rocky 3 when you stumbled into the other theater and puked all over that pasty with the four kids.”

CStanley said...

It would depend on what is true. If it's true that he never drank to excess or at least never experience memory loss, then he can say that and avoid the problem. If it's not true and he says that, could other people contradict him? If so, he's in big trouble for lying

No.

In the first case, it wouldn’t matter if he was being truthful because other people could come forward and lie about him. Since no evidence is needed to back up the rape allegation, people who oppose him politically could also claim to have known that he regularly blacked out.

And if he lied and said he’d never drank himself into that state, I fail to see how he’d be in big trouble. Do you mean perjury? How on earth would it be proven that he lied about this?

Matthew Sablan said...

"No one is going to contradict him when he says he drank but never drank so much that he couldn’t remember what he did."

-- The defense if someone says he did and asks what happened on a given night?

"I knew then, but it is 30+ years now, so while I don't remember the details, it is from 3 decades passing, not alcohol."

... Yeah. THAT'LL convince people.

Matthew Sablan said...

"The only thing more bullshit than Ford’s story is someone now coming up and attesting that Kavanaugh got black out drunk in high school."

-- You mean, someone other than Ford claiming that?

gahrie said...

The only ethical response to this allegation is to ignore it.

n.n said...

He should sound intelligent and beneficent and unselfish and not entitled or belligerent.

In other words a character judgment, and hope that the "middle", the bullhorn press, and any overriding judicial activists, will agree. This is the best argument to oppose capital abortions. Our justice system is built on an ethical foundation, and therefore only occasionally reliable.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...If he has drunk to excess and with memory loss, he'd have to admit it, express sincere regret for it, stress that he has no memory of doing anything like what is described and express profound distress at the idea that he could actually have done such a horrible thing. He could say that God knows what he did and that he prays for forgiveness if he has done a wrong that he cannot remember. And he could express great empathy for Ford, who is herself distressed, for whatever reason.

Respectfully: bullshit. Your position is that if the nominee admits that he may have in fact sexually assaulted/attempted to rape a girl but apologizes for it (for that possibility) in juuuust the right way you'd still support his appointment to the Court? Do you really believe that? Do you really expect anyone else to believe that?

More to the point: do you actually expect some significant portion of Dem voters and/or Dem or centrist Senators to agree with you? If not that's just fucking terrible advice, isn't it?? If you want to pretend you're gaming out the possible options and warning Kavanaugh & his supporters about this trap and how he might possible avoid it then giving advice you know will fail is stupid, isn't it?

mccullough said...

Ford’s story has already changed since she first concocted it in marriage therapy as an excuse for her philandering.

It was four high profile guys who assaulted her. Now it’s Judge, a guy who wrote a book about his drinking days and Kavanaugh, whose nominated to the Supreme Court. The two other guys who didn’t exist are now off the hook. They are passed out in the living room of some house sometime between the Iran Histage Cridis and Lionel Ritchie closing out the LA Olympics.

And oh yeah, her husband the cuckold who she dropped this bullshit on 10 years after they were married will totally back her up on this or maybe not since he doesn’t want to testify

Achilles said...

Ann said...

Don't understand the question (other than that I've satisfied the "if" clause).

I won’t embarrass you by repasting that pile of mush.

You obviously realize how untenable your position is and are starting to realize what the broader impacts of your position are.

It is ok to admit you are wrong.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...And he could connect that to the kinds of matters he has to struggle to understand as a judge, showing concern, generally, for the victims of sexual assault and for those who are troubled by memories that may not be accurate. He should sound intelligent and beneficent and unselfish and not entitled or belligerent.

Paraphrase: he should present himself as well as possible, trying his best to appear meek and contrite and deferential and throw himself on the mercy of the Senate...he should rely on the honor of the Senators and Media, and the good judgment of the American influenced by that Media, notwithstanding the fact that some large number of those people now consider him guilty of rape based only on the accusation. He should beg forgiveness for a crime he didn't commit because doing anything else will insult the woman who is accusing him and by extension all women.

That's what it takes, I guess: if you can't PROVE you didn't commit some crime you must ask all women to forgive you for committing that crime and hope that they decide that your begging is enough and whatever life and dignity you have left is not worth ruining.

Is that what equality requires? I suppose so. It's about time, huh?!

Greg P said...

Unless he was completely black-out drunk the entire party, saying "I was not at a party w/ 6 or fewer people, one of whom was Ms Ford" defends him from her charges, regardless of his answer to your question.

Michael K said...

her husband the cuckold who she dropped this bullshit on 10 years after they were married will totally back her up on this or maybe not since he doesn’t want to testify

The odds of her showing up are dropping hourly.

Now, the Democrats are demanding another FBI "investigation."

Bay Area Guy said...

Sonia Sotomayor grabbed my cock in high school! I swear to God! We were drinking at a party, and she started spouting out this Feminist domination speech, and said I was a weak nancy-boy, because I wouldn't make a move on her (she was a little heavy and not good looking), and then she started getting aggressive, and then, she reached out and grabbed my junk and taunted me that if I was a real man, I would pleasure her!

And, I ran away from the party, and never told anybody about it for 37 years. It has ruined my marriage and wrecked my life!

Michael K said...

I'm hoping that Grassley schedules a vote right after she fails to show up.

Keep the circus out of the hearing room.

mccullough said...

Kavanaugh doesn’t have to call her a liar. It’s enough that he called it a false allegation against him. Just repeat “I never did that or anything like that. Not ever.”

Kavanaugh has two daughters and a wife. He’s got a personal reputation to uphold here.

Ford has two sons and a husband she doesn’t give a shot about. Her husband is finally realizing that.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

So unless he can prove he didn't commit the crime he should--must!--apologize for committing it and/or for POSSIBLY committing it and his apology must be sufficient (in the correct form, with the correct content) and after that MAYBE you'd agree he can still have the job.

And by the way if any of that strikes anyone as "unfair" they'd better just keep that shit to themselves because you're tired of hearing about it blah-blah-blah.

What the fuck happened?

FIDO said...

Thanks! You are right. I started in the fall of 84, so if she graduated in 84, she was never my student.

Do you have any witnesses to this? Just being consistant.

Part of her snappish nature on all this is Althouse thought she was being coy despite being blatantly transparent.

Chicks hate being transparent.

Leland said...

This is falling apart just like Spartacus. Blasey still refusing to do anything other than write a letter.

Other women that know Kavanaugh, and can remember when and where they were with him, have already answered Althouse's question. They say he was never out of control with alcohol. One of the woman dated him in High School.

The Dems got a delay of 5 days. It is over.

mccullough said...

I think Kavanaugh is not going to get confirmed. The GOP has way too many pussies. At this point, I’d advise him he is there for his parents, his wife, and his daughters. Take it personally and make it personal. Don’t lose your cool but call Ford a liar repeatedly. I never did anything like that. Ever. She is lying.

Stand up for yourself.

rcocean said...

How many people get drunk and remember NOTHING?

I did a lot of heavy drinking in college and that happened to me only ONCE.

I woke up at a friends apartment and didn't know how I got there. Then everyone told me, they'd had a drinking contest, and I'd gotten so drunk, they put me to bed.

That jogged my memory, and I could remember everything up to the start of the contest.

The idea that someone could go to a party, walk around, attack a woman, and then not rememeber anything strikes me as unabelievable.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Blasey still refusing to do anything other than write a letter."

-- She already wrote one; thank her for her consideration and move on.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Here, better question: I have a nephew approaching his teenage years. I want the best for him and I worry about him getting caught up in stuff like this. I will of course suggest he avoid drugs and drunkeness, but I worry that's not enough. What else can I possibly advise him that would protect him from some far-distant future allegation that could ruin his life?

Should he avoid women altogether? No, no, then he wouldn't socialize or work with women and that'd be proof of his misogyny. He has to be around them, and hire them, and work with them, but he has also to be able to definitively prove that he did NOT commit any crime or act any of them might one day accuse him of, at any point in his life. What can he do? I guess he's just fucked, huh Professor Althouse? He's not even a teenager yet but already he's consigned to the "splooge stooge" category where we don't have to care about him or about whether society treats him fairly. Too bad, boo hoo, right? There's Professor Althouse laughing at my pain!

Where's your famous empathy for the likes of him, I wonder? Where's that cruelly neutral take on the fact that his life and future can be ruined in an instant by any kind of accusation, now...and apparently by an accusation alone!

Matthew Sablan said...

"What can he do?"

-- Mike Pence seems wiser by the day.

mccullough said...

And take a few digs at guys like Booker. Call him out on his lies about his fake friend T-Bone. Tell him you don’t pal around with guys who have sex with underage girls like Sen Menendez. You don’t sexually assault women like Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy.

You don’t call women bitches like Sen Schumer.

Get your Irish up. Make your people proud.



HoodlumDoodlum said...

mccullough said...Kavanaugh has two daughters and a wife. He’s got a personal reputation to uphold here.

He did have a reputation. Past tense. Now millions--maybe hundreds of millions--of people believe he is a rapist and a liar. Based, you know, on just an accusation, and in particular an accusation designed to be impossible to refute.
But let's not dwell on that--Professor Althouse is bored of people whining about the unfairness of it. What babies we are!

Jim at said...

You leftists have no idea of the hell you're trying to unleash. None. But you will.

I ask again, just how long do you think we're just going to sit here and put up with this shit?

mccullough said...

Hoodlum,

People are going to believe what they want. But as long as you have a national audience to call her a liar, do it. He’ll regret not calling her a liar repeatedly.

He should a wear a Duke Lacrosee jersey to the hearing.

walter said...

"He could say that God knows what he did and that he prays for forgiveness if he has done a wrong that he cannot remember. And he could express great empathy for Ford, who is herself distressed, for whatever reason."
--
Whew.

"Women's rights", far from being threatened, seem to be expanding.

rcocean said...

BTW, this is all about Collins and those traitorous cucks Flake an Cocker. Its outrageous we have to go through this circus.

I don't care what a SCOTUS nominee did 35 y/o in HS. It has almost zero to do with being a SCOTUS Judge.





walter said...

rcocean said...everyone told me, they'd had a drinking contest, and I'd gotten so drunk, they put me to bed.
--
Did you win?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Matthew Sablan said...
"What can he do?"

-- Mike Pence seems wiser by the day.


Nice thought, but Mike Pence is out too. He's not only too goody-goody/saintly for someone like Prof. Althouse to support (as she discussed in her post yesterday) but his policy of avoiding situations that might be misinterpreted is itself sexist. Refusing to socialize with women is grounds for sex discrimination lawsuits! If he just socializes with guys from the office and avoids inviting the women along wthen that's discriminatory. The Pence rules won't work today.

"Stay away" isn't an option. I don't know what a good option would be. Even if he doesn't ever drink there's no guarantee that he will be able to remember and prove what he'd need to to refute a false allegation...and as nice centrist people like Professor Althouse are demonstrating that accusation is enough and his only option would be to apologize if he could not PROVE his innocence.

I guess there's just no empathy left for someone like him.
I wonder if the Professor understands why some of of take this kind of shit seriously when nice centrist people like her announce standards and acceptance of unfairness that have the potential to ruin the lives of people we love.

rcocean said...

"I ask again, just how long do you think we're just going to sit here and put up with this shit?"

The Republican Cucks in the Senate have been sitting and "putting up with it" since Bork. That's 31 years.

Right now, McConnell is PLEADING with the Dems to work with them to have a bipartisan process. And PLEADING with Ms. Ford to show up.

Tommy Duncan said...

Do men still vote? If so, the Democrats are in the process of alienating 50% of the voting population.

The war on men may come to a head.

FullMoon said...

mccullough said...

Hoodlum,

People are going to believe what they want. But as long as you have a national audience to call her a liar, do it. He’ll regret not calling her a liar repeatedly.

He should a wear a Duke Lacrosee jersey to the hearing.

And carry a mattress..

Laslo Spatula said...

Althouse --Thank you for answering the questions.

However, I believe that your answer may be somewhat disingenuous: if he were to say what you have written, I believe you know that it would not end there. Indeed, the bloodletting would start in earnest, and in that blood I believe you would amend your statement to contain another deal-breaker. My reasoning? You write:

"If he has drunk to excess and with memory loss, he'd have to admit it, express sincere regret for it, stress that he has no memory of doing anything like what is described and express profound distress at the idea that he could actually have done such a horrible thing." (bolding is mine)

In this requirement you have quickly elided from admitting a loss of memory to "distress over the idea that he could have done such a horrible thing."

So -- if he admits to drinking to black-out once -- that now means he must admit that he could have possibly tried to rape someone? Really?

Is the expectation now that everyone who has ever been black-out drunk is also a possible rapist?

Is every man a potential rapist once the demon rum has its way?

Are there any crimes he would NOT have to express distress over having possibly committed in such a state?

"I express profound distress at the idea that, while drunk, I could actually have:

• had nonconsensual sex with a teenage girl;

• had nonconsensual sex with a teenage boy;

• had nonconsensual sex with my grandmother;

• had nonconsensual sex with my grandmother's pony;

• had nonconsensual sex with my grandmother and her pony;

• told someone that abortion makes me feel uncomfortable.

I am Laslo.

Gospace said...

Eleanor said...
Some of my students were really bright when it came to academics, but very stupid about sex and alcohol. They learned from their mistakes and became fine upstanding citizens. None of them were ever charged with sexual assault or even drunk driving. They, both the boys and girls, were guilty of believing a couple of beers would make them better at initiating sexual contact with the opposite sex.


Interesting choice of words there. Your students are guilty- guilty of believing a truth. One of alcohol's main functions is social lubrication, including the lowering of sexual inhibitions. Well known, even referred to in jokes.

Q: Why did God invent alcohol?
A: So Catholic girls could get laid too.

A joke on multiple levels, but quite clearly shows everyone is aware of alcohol's effects.

CStanley said...

If he has drunk to excess and with memory loss, he'd have to admit it, express sincere regret for it, stress that he has no memory of doing anything like what is described and express profound distress at the idea that he could actually have done such a horrible thing. He could say that God knows what he did and that he prays for forgiveness if he has done a wrong that he cannot remember. And he could express great empathy for Ford, who is herself distressed, for whatever reason. And he could connect that to the kinds of matters he has to struggle to understand as a judge, showing concern, generally, for the victims of sexual assault and for those who are troubled by memories that may not be accurate. He should sound intelligent and beneficent and unselfish and not entitled or belligerent.

Sure, and the people who think he’s a rapist will totally buy all of that and it’ll all be good.

This is insane.

I hope he does express sympathy for Ford while continuing to deny having any part in whatever happened to her (there is no good to come of accusing her of making it up out of whole cloth, even though that is within the realm of possibility.) And yes, he should talk the importance of empathy for victims. I hope he also describes a newfound empathy for people who are falsely accused of crimes and have their good names smeared.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The accusation is the crime.

Just like the lef't good intentions.

Gospace said...

BDNYC said...
"Is this really what the institutions of this great country have come to?"

Political institutions like the Senate represent the electorate...


And another reason the 17th amendment needs to repealed, so the Senate returns to representing the states, not the electorate.

Douglas said...

The Republicans have not to date slimed and character assasinated Democratic nominees to the bench. If the Dems succeed in borking Kavanaugh, that should change. The GOP should slime every Democratic nominee to any federal court ever made by any Democratic President. They should hire the dirtiest oppo research firms around to dig up or manufacture dirt on them all.

Jim at said...

Answer: Elect them President

Hillary lost.

gg6 said...

Why do I have the very clear sense that this "get involved" in your voting district blather is the real "digital air" going on here - not to mention, self-preening and totally ignorant about what OTHER commenters actually do or do not do re 'voting'...in my own case I can say I have never missed a vote since becoming age eligible - but does that mean I am not brimming with frustration about the behavior and RESULTS of all these ELECTED people in DC? Including Republicans who lay down and roll-over at the first possibility of dealing w/ something 'unseemly'...meanwhile they get continually pummeled by those who play by Chicago Rules. But, yes, I continue to vote as well as talk.

wishfulthinking said...

Can someone be charged as an adult for something they did as a minor?

mccullough said...

Douglas,

They should go to Weinstein now. He knows all the dirt on the Ckintons, Obama’s and the rest.

They should have gone to him awhile ago.

FullMoon said...

All right, I'll go ahead and do it...

Well, ya ask me why I'm drunk all the time
It levels my head and eases my mind
I just walk along and stroll and sing
I'll see better days and I'll do better things


Read more: Bob Dylan - I Shall Be Free Lyrics | MetroLyrics

Achilles said...

Matthew Sablan said...
"What can he do?"

-- Mike Pence seems wiser by the day.

Fuck that.

No.

N.

O.

The majority or women are decent and honorable people and I don't want to live in a world where I have to treat them like potential smear merchants because a bunch of vicious shrews have warped our society with their disgusting bullshit.

We are not going to live in the society Alhouse is trying to create. We are not going to look upon every women with suspicion because they might come out in 35 years and make up some bullshit story to ruin our lives.

Fuck those people and fuck the people who would tolerate that. This is precisely why we have Trump and not some pussy like Pence. This is not about Kavanaugh anymore. If this succeeds no man is safe anywhere at anytime. There is literally nothing you can do to defend yourself.

Grow a pair now because we wont defend you later when it happens to you.

We will have our high trust society back. If that means blood that means blood. These little socialist twats are going to lose.

Michael K said...

What else can I possibly advise him that would protect him from some far-distant future allegation that could ruin his life?

Join the Marine Corps out of high school and grow up to be a man and not a pussy.

That's what I want my younger son to tell his son, my only grandson. He is hoping for a sports scholarship but that is usually dreaming.

When my son was in high school, he was a big good looking kid. The mother of a freshman girl called me one time. She asked me to tell my son not to call or talk to her daughter. I said would do so if she would tell her daughter to stop calling him five times a day.

She had no idea.

He didn't like to study and I told him he could not get a drivers' license until he had a B average.

When he was 17, he had girls picking him up for dates in Ferrari roadsters. He went to an expensive private high school.

I gave up and let him get his DL without a B average. He is the only one without a bachelor's degree and owns the nicest house.

He is a fireman/paramedic. His house is worth a $ million.

gahrie said...

And another reason the 17th amendment needs to repealed, so the Senate returns to representing the states, not the electorate.

All three of the remaining Progressive amendments need to be repealed, like the fourth one already has.

Bay Area Guy said...

"I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm gonna say this again. I did not have dry humping relations with that woman - Ms. Blasey Ford. I never told anyone to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you"

gahrie said...

Is every man a potential rapist once the demon rum has its way?

Modern feminism asserts that every man is a potential rapist, regardless of alcohol. Hell, feminist mothers even label their male children as potential rapists.

Mike Sylwester said...

Suppose the incident did happen as Ford describes.

Suppose also that she is sincere in her claim that the incident has traumatized her emotionally to the present.

If so, then the trauma's severity and duration are weird.

Since she raised the incident during marriage therapy, she attributes some sexual problem -- maybe frigidity or maybe promiscuity -- in her marriage to that long-ago, teenage incident.

So, she is blaming her adult, chronic sexual problem on Kavanaugh -- whom she has not encountered in 35 years.

She says she thought he might kill her, because he put his hand over her mouth.

That is very weird. It's obsessively and excessively hysterical.

Michael said...

Althouse
I didnt realize the hearing was actually a trial with witnesses being called who can refute the testimony of the parties. So if K says he was never drunk or never was at the party and then a witness, preferably female, appears and swears she saw him drunk is that the end of it? Or can K bring in ten women saying , swearing, he did not is that testimony admissible.

42. 42 angels can dance on the head of a pin.

gg6 said...

If Kavanaugh gets slimed out of his confirmation it will be the biggest and sleaziest 'Precedent' in US legal history.....ANY FEMALE AT ANY TIME CAN ACCUSE A MALE OF RAPE WITH NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, AND THUS CRIPPLE HIS ENTIRE LIFE AND THAT OF HIS FAMILY. ALL SHE NEEDS IS A NUMBER OF TAWDRY, SPINELESS AND SELF-SERVING POLS.
Practical Life Lesson:
1. females can get raped whenever they want
2. males get fucked anytime a female chooses

Susan said...

It just goes to show you how desperate people are to kill babies.

Too bad no on cares as much on the keep them alive side.

mccullough said...

It’s only a small subset of the population who are sociopaths. Need to teach your kids how to recognize these people and how to avoid them and when avoiding them is not possible how to get them out of your way.

Most guys aren’t like Harvey Weinstein or Bill Clinton. And most women aren’t like Jackie Coakley or Ford. But you need to recognize them.

Then there are your typical jagoffs. People who use other people. They tend to run big companies or go into politics. These folks are harder to recognize but easier to handle.

Every boy and girl should watch The Godfather before high school. Don’t read that Diversity fluff and bullshit. There is more to learn from the Hodfather and a book like Blood Meridian than the trash they teach under diversity.

The people ruining our society are very few in number,. An infinitesimal percentage of the population.

It’s past time we got these people out of the way. Trump’s election was a great start. These people have self identified. We’ve now seen the other side of these one-eyed Jacks.

rcocean said...

Its laughable the Feinstein, who supported Bill Clinton, and had NO Problem with Hillary taking care of "bimbo eruptions" is now upset - UPSET I TELL YOU - that someone may have dry humped a girl at a party in HS - 35 years ago.

As for Kavenaugh at the hearing. Assuming it takes place. He should say as little possible - except he was never there, it didn't happen, and he didn't know Ms. Ford.

And then because, women vote, he should express regret that Ms. Ford has brought this charge, and being a women we must make allowances, because unlike Men they lack courage and intelligence, AND just make up stuff and believe it. After all, even thought they are equal of men, they can act like little kids, and we have to pat them on the head and say "There, there". And course, too bad, so sad.

FIDO said...

It would depend on what is true. If it's true that he never drank to excess or at least never experience memory loss, then he can say that and avoid the problem. If it's not true and he says that, could other people contradict him?


So it seems that it is possible Kavanaugh might lie to exonerate himself, but it is quite outside the bounds of possibility that OTHERS might lie to smear him...like Ms. Ford.


Her burden of proof is quite marked. Right off the bat she's giving all kinds of benefit of the doubt to Ms. Ford, who has no evidence, no date, no eyewitnesses to corroborate, not even a YEAR where she could pin the accusation.

I went to a mock trial once where they had a guy accuse another guy of robbery but they had no money, no gun, and no witnesses.

It was used to describe a farce of a trial. But obviously not a farce of a hearing because 'abortion' and 'vagina'.

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bay Area Guy said...

I like what Achilles said above about women. There are too many outstanding, classy, intelligent women to lump together with the crazies. Yes, they can get emotional sometimes, but that's part of why we love them.

This is about crazy LEFTWING women Democrat women (but I repeat myself)

These chicks are useless. They are usually unattractive, not too bright and not able to become breadwinners, either.

They must be avoided like the plague. If you are a female psychologist "teaching" at Palo Alto University, odds are that you are cray-cray. Run like Hell, before the crazy spreads to you! And No dry-humping at parties - even while drunk!

Sebastian said...

@Hoodlum: "That's what it takes, I guess: if you can't PROVE you didn't commit some crime you must ask all women to forgive you for committing that crime and hope that they decide that your begging is enough and whatever life and dignity you have left is not worth ruining."

@CStanley: "Sure, and the people who think he’s a rapist will totally buy all of that and it’ll all be good. This is insane."

Right. Of course it is insane. Further illustration of Althouse arguing in bad faith--in a way she would treat as insane and shoot down pronto in any other context.

But she is a leading indicator: if Dems can count on people like her to swallow the insanity, and rationalize it from the sideline, their gamble pays off and the destruction of our institutions continues.

Sebastian said...

"ANY FEMALE AT ANY TIME CAN ACCUSE A MALE OF RAPE WITH NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, AND THUS CRIPPLE HIS ENTIRE LIFE AND THAT OF HIS FAMILY"

Other life lesson: if any female can destroy any male, if anyone can get the Jackie/Fording treatment, it might just change the calculation of decent men: instead of refraining from bad behavior for the sake of morality and reputation, they might lose inhibitions and act out more, since it does not increase the downside cost, which has been ratcheted up to near-max in any case.

Assuming, of course, that men don't get totally pissed off and change the nasty game progs and their women enablers have been playing.

Чикелит said...

@Althouse: Do you see the error in your assumption about Kavanaugh as derived from the Judge book? It’s pretty obvious to a drinker, buyback probably invisible to one such as yourself. I’ll be back next week to rub it in.

walter said...

Laslo Spatula said...Is every man a potential rapist once the demon rum has its way?
--
No demon rum required when "Every man is a potential rapist" was pushed at UW Madtown's "Take back the night" events back in the late 80's.
The companion "all women are potential false accusers" never really caught on.

narciso said...

good grief she deleted her whole social media footprint, so no one could see coordination with steyer, sk knickerbocker, Katz's outfit, et al,

narciso said...

so the bureau is going to investigate every student of every school in a ten mile area in 1982, Shirley,

rcocean said...

No Leftist/Liberal has come forward with a good defense of Feinstein, sitting on this for 6-8 weeks.

All they'll say is: "Its Ok, revenge for Garland" or "Whatever means necessary."

That's what this is all about.

Its funny how anyone who knows politics understands Ms. Ford is just a leftist trying to destroy a Republican Nominee - but people who aren't political just can't understand that. Either she MUST be telling the truth or she's some poor deluded dear who we MUST feel sorry for.

That's why I've avoided Scott Adams on this. I know he'll come up with some non-political, cut the baby in half, don't want those #metoo gals after me, explanation.

johns said...

The Democrats want to delay the process as much as possible. They waited until last week to bring out the Ford accusation. Then they got Grassley to delay the vote so that there could be a hearing next Monday. But Ford has not agreed to attend. I am expecting that she will suddenly announce on Saturday that she plans to testify. That will give the Dems another chance to ask for the hearing to be pushed further because they weren't ready.

MB said...

If one thing is certain, it's that that there is no reason for holding these months-long hearings, discussions, investigations,
and committee meetings. If all the juicy bits come out during the last week, one might as well shorten them to one week.

Gk1 said...

It was a mistake to postpone this farce of a process to begin with. Just hold the vote and move on. Now we know once RBG kicks it to proceed directly with an up and down vote on the next nominee. There is no sense in trying to deal with democrats who only deal in bad faith.

rcocean said...

"I am expecting that she will suddenly announce on Saturday that she plans to testify. That will give the Dems another chance to ask for the hearing to be pushed further because they weren't ready."

Plus, it might freeze the linebackers. Are Kavenaugh's lawyers going full bore on this, or holding back because there might not be any hearing?

BUMBLE BEE said...

If Ford doesn't show on Monday, hold the vote immediately.

Spiros Pappas said...

There are too many famous people in Ms. Ford's story.

Michael K said...

The Democrats are now demanding a new FBI investigation, which just illustrates the bad faith. They had months to do so.

Vote !

Another word on Republican backbiting. I joined a facebook group of "Pima County Republicans."

Most of the posts are attacking McSally who is the GOP Senate nominee.

I unfollowed.

BUMBLE BEE said...

NSA has the social media pages I'd bet.

rcocean said...

The brilliance of the fake accusation is that it give Collins, Flake, Murcowski an out

Lets face it, even in there's a meeting on Monday, it won't prove anything. How can Kavenaugh prove a negative? And Ms. Ford can't even remember what Date or Location the so-called attack occurred.

But it gives Collins and the Senate cucks a reason to oppose the nomination. "We need men of the highest character on the bench, blah, blah."

BUMBLE BEE said...

Michael K... false flagging is rife in these parts. Kinda how Trump got the nomination here.

BUMBLE BEE said...

rcocean... +100 that's the very least. Watch who takes the bait.

R.J. Chatt said...

Regarding the implication that Mark Judge drank to excess so his friend Brett Kavanaugh did also, John McCain was a poor rebellious student at the Naval Academy who graduated fifth from bottom of the class, while his best friend graduated first.

Kansas Scout said...

Ann is taking the part of a Prosecutor. This accusation stinks and the evidence is so thin it makes you wonder why intelligent people take it seriously. High School boy said to be sexually aggressive and after 30 plus years following no actual crime, you want to vaporize him.

PB said...

Here's what I think: Ms Ford wasn't as popular in high school as she wanted and this dogged her for years. When Mr Judge published his book "Wasted" she read this and dreamt of herself in situations in the book with her peers having the fun she didn't. She revisited these dreams constantly until they became a memory. A memory of being assaulted and that became the reason for her unhappiness in life and unhappiness in marriage, leading to the counseling sessions. Her activism in liberal political circles led her to using this to "make a difference".

People remember things that didn't happen and forget things that did. All the time.

mccullough said...

Flake is on the way out. He would probably vote yes for the sake of his soon to be lobbying career unless he’s going to lobby for the left or work for MSNBC. Same with Corker.

Collins and Murkowski could vote no. But the vote needs to be held. I think Trump has made that clear to McConnell. Get everyone on the record and then make it an issue in the fall to get rid of Democrats and RINOs.

Trump should hold rallies in California urging everyone to vote for Leon, Di Fi’s opponent since there is no Republican on the ballot.

Also, have women ready to accuse Donnelley and Manchin and Nelson of sexual harrasent.

mccullough said...

Also, Beto needs to address the allegations of sexual assault that occurred when he was blacked out during his 20s. His old man helped sweep that under the rug as well.

Ann Althouse said...

“However, I believe that your answer may be somewhat disingenuous: if he were to say what you have written, I believe you know that it would not end there. ”

It’s not a disingenuous answer to the question I was answer. Please go back and check what the answer was. To the extent that your “somewhat” strays from the question asked, you are going back to seeing the trap as I originally described it, and so there’s nothing disingenuous at all.

Some people are assuming I’m hping Kavanaugh loses. You are misreading. I have simply become detached.

Kay said...

I haven’t been following the Kavanaugh saga too closely (or really at all), but I suspect that the world is not going to end if Kavanaugh doesn’t get confirmed.

Earnest Prole said...

I have simply become detached.

Althouse is far more manly than most of her commenters.

rcocean said...

"Althouse is far more manly than most of her commenters."

Earnest Prole - Well, she's certainly more of a man than you.

Drago said...

EP: "Althouse is far more manly than most of her commenters."

Look, I challenge the lefties and LLR's here as much as anyone but I think that goes a bit far.

rcocean said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gahrie said...

I have simply become detached.

How far would the Left have to go before you became angry at the way they are mistreating Kavanagh and making a travesty of the confirmation process? Apparently last minute character assassination isn't far enough.

tcrosse said...

The world is not going to end if Kavanaugh doesn’t get confirmed.,

Nor is it going to end if he does get confirmed.

Gahrie said...

5 posts directly on topic in two days does not suggest detachment.

n.n said...

I think that many people become comfortably numb. Progress? Yes. Positive? Maybe.

William Chadwick said...

As I often say, I bottom-line things in the way some Hebrews used to say "Is it good for the Jews?"--only with me, "Is it good for liberty?" Is liberty better served by having Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, or by having "liberals" pick some judge who's as big a State-shtupper as they are?

Achilles said...

Kay said...
I haven’t been following the Kavanaugh saga too closely (or really at all), but I suspect that the world is not going to end if Kavanaugh doesn’t get confirmed.

It wont be and end.

But it will be a beginning.

Sebastian said...

"I have simply become detached."

Yeah, right:

"1. This seat on the Court is especially important because of the threat to women's rights. Justice Kennedy was the 5th vote in key right-of-privacy cases, and women's continuing domain over our own bodies is at stake.

3. It's not a case of whether it would be fair to prosecute him for sexual assault after so many years and with this little evidence, but a question whether this person should be confirmed to take Justice Kennedy's seat on the Court and to have power for a lifetime to make decisions that will quite specifically determine the scope of women's rights. He has no right to the seat that's comparable to a right to remain free from criminal penalties.

4. Why should we Americans accept this man's power over us? He's been portrayed as a super-human paragon, and I don't think that can be the standard for who can be on the Supreme Court. It's dangerous to go looking for paragons. Maybe they've got a hard-to-detect dark side that has driven them to a life of saintly good works."

mccullough said...

There should be a certain amount of detachment other than by Kavanaugh and his family and Ford and her family. Kavanaugh himself is probably detached enough. He grew up in DC and made his way through the swamp. He walked into The Arena. He saw how his friend and mentor Kosinski was taken out and didn’t do much to stand up for him for fear of professional/reputations reprisal.

I don’t care if Kavanaugh is voted down. He’s fungible just like Garland was fungible.

And it’s with detachment that I say that people who want to live in this system should be subjected to it. And certainly their children should be.




«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 463   Newer› Newest»