SHOP BY DEPARTMENT
Houzz Logo Print
eld6161

Brett Kavanaugh

eld6161
4 years ago
last modified: 4 years ago

I am a supporter of the Me Too Movement. However, there is something that disturbs me about this 35 year allegation that happened between teenagers.

An incident that happened in high school can now derail a career.

Whether you are for or against this man, is anyone else here feeling uncomfortable about what is going on here?

Comments (585)

  • maifleur01
    4 years ago

    I notice that none of the people that pay lip service by saying just go to the police have ever mentioned if it happened to them or to someone they cared for if they went to the police. Probably if it did happen to them it was never reported and if they did go to the police it was considered their fault so the guilt keeps them quiet. Both of these are what generally happens. Only if there is physical trauma will the police do anything other than question the other person who of course denies it. Always makes it a he/she said and nothing is ever done.

  • ronminsouthga
    4 years ago

    Can't we go on to other investigations like Uranium One, Hillary e-mails and the Clinton foundation and much more. No we must look at money Trump made at age 3 years old. And you wonder why Trump has thousands of people at rallies.

  • eld6161
    Original Author
    4 years ago

    Mailf, at least there will be the start of a "paper trail."


    Ron, well then, time to put this thread to bed, and start a new one!




  • CindyMac
    4 years ago

    No we must look at money Trump made at age 3 years old.


    That's all you took from the NYT's piece?

    I agree with Eld, time for a new thread.

    eld6161 thanked CindyMac
  • ronminsouthga
    4 years ago

    eld6161 sounds good to me.

    eld6161 thanked ronminsouthga
  • ronminsouthga
    4 years ago

    NYT's Are you kidding me!

  • palimpsest
    4 years ago

    I guess tax evasion is no big deal...

  • Chi
    4 years ago

    Unless it's a Democrat doing it!

  • nannygoat18
    4 years ago

    eld, of course women have lied--that is the reason #metoo founder Burke is stressing due process.


    Despite that statement, there was overwhelming self-inflicted evidence NOT to confirm Kavanaugh without even considering Ford's testimony.

  • mrpandy
    4 years ago

    Does it feel good to revert back to the 50's where we simply classify and judge people by their color and gender? I see many votes here for guilt by association. McCarthy would be proud of you. Maybe since there was no evidence, they should have submerged Kavanaugh to see if he floats?

  • mrpandy
    4 years ago

    kadefol, Kavanaugh said repeatedly that he is not interested in changing established law, and is considered a rather strict Constitutionalist. I do agree that there are many who opposed him that would be happy to throw out the Constitution and change our way of life. I'm not one of them.

  • Chi
    4 years ago

    I just would have liked to see a thorough investigation done. I don't consider the 5 day, limited investigation where the FBI wasn't allowed to talk to the two people who know the truth to be thorough.

  • Annie Deighnaugh
    4 years ago

    mrpandy, kav also said he never drank to blackout stage even though his own friends from the time say he did and lied about it under oath. Why would I believe anything else he had to say under oath? He also lied about his role re bush's torture policy and making use of stolen democratic emails.

    There's a reason 2,400 law professors said he should be disqualified and a reason why former justice stevens said he should be disqualified and a reason that complaints against him were sent to chief justice roberts.

    But it's all water over the dam...he's got his lifetime appointment and we'll all suffer for it over the rest of our lifetimes.

  • lily316
    4 years ago

    His reputation is ruined forever but there is hope he can be impeached if saner people are in power. Just think...a reality TV star who is dumb as a box of rocks and can't speak any words over two syllables but won the election by 78,000 votes divided in three states gets to pick two SC justices. (Or rather the Federalist Society did with tRump as their puppet). Meanwhile over three million people voted for Hillary which shows how terribly messed up our political system is.

  • lucillle
    4 years ago
    last modified: 4 years ago

    I do agree that there are many who opposed him that would be happy to throw out the Constitution and change our way of life.

    An unfortunate straw man argument that tries to conflate Kavanaugh's lack of fitness for the SCOTUS, with the value of the Constitution.

  • wanda_va
    3 years ago

    It will be interesting to watch the Democrats try to impeach Kavanaugh. I can't wait to see their proof that he committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". Impeachment is for illegal activities in the performance of their duties, and I think it highly unlikely that behavior as a juvenile would fall into this category. In addition, while the House can impeach a judge with a simple majority vote, he can only be removed after a trial and a vote to convict by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

  • kadefol
    3 years ago
    last modified: 3 years ago

    kadefol, Kavanaugh said repeatedly that he is not interested in changing
    established law, and is considered a rather strict Constitutionalist.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You may believe him, I don't. Kavanaugh wrote the following (which makes the presidency sound like a monarchy) 3 years after he assumed his position on the DC Circuit:

    “I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his
    never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible. The country
    wants the President to be ‘one of us’ who bears the same
    responsibilities of citizenship that all share. But I believe that the
    President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary
    citizenship while serving in office,” argued Kavanaugh
    in the law-review article. He then asserted that “the indictment and
    trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal
    government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either
    the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve
    the public interest, especially in times of financial or national
    security crisis.”

    I suspect the GOP picked him because he is fairly young and is likely going to affect Supreme Court decisions in this country for decades. And the reason trump wants him is pretty obvious when reading the above.

  • maifleur01
    3 years ago

    As far as a paper trail goes that reinforces what I and others have seen when reporting to police. The minute or even before leaving the room, if placed in a room, the paper that the notes were taken down on or form is folded in half or simply tossed into the waste basket. A report folded in half never reaches a file and if an electronic report a quick delete is all that is done. If you are considered a trustworthy person ask someone with the police what happens to these reports. You answer will depend on if they are just wanting to get rid of you or actually tell you the truth. Go back in a couple of days and ask for a copy of the file for your records. If there is a file it will mostly only have your name and nothing of the information you provided. This is why so many sex crimes are considered "one of" and the offender receives a very light sentence even when the offenders name is known.

  • Janelle Van
    3 years ago

    I'm not a fan of Trump, I generally find him embarrassing, barely tolerable. He's done some great things but I really only voted for him hoping he would do less harm to the country than I knew Hillary would. Not a great feeling in the voting box. But this display by Democrats - this enormous temper tantrum - it's exactly why I'm less inclined to ever vote Democrat again. Nobody is stating the real reason they hate Kavanaugh so much. I'm not even sure what it is. He's not even that conservative. If it's the threat of Roe vs. Wade. I would truly like to know why that would be so horrible if it actually was overturned. I wish it would be. Unfortunately it's not likely to ever happen.

  • nannygoat18
    3 years ago

    I am not pro-Kavanaugh by any means, however Booker's calls for impeachment made me cringe. Much too premature and a reminder that he made the same empty threats after the election. Inflammatory talk is not a a good look for any party.

  • CindyMac
    3 years ago

    I agree nannygoat. I wish Booker would put a lid on it.

  • Chi
    3 years ago
    last modified: 3 years ago

    If it's the threat of Roe vs. Wade. I would truly like to know why that would be so horrible if it actually was overturned. I wish it would be.

    1. It would be horrible because it's letting the government/state decide what women can and cannot do with their own bodies.
    2. Abortions will not stop but they will become far more dangerous. Rich people will still be able to travel to different states to have theirs safely.
    3. The people who support making abortions illegal are often the same ones who don't want to pay for welfare for these mothers and babies. Are you willing to pay more taxes to support all these babies and mothers?
    4. Adoption is a wonderful thing, if it's agreed upon by all sides. I don't believe forcing a woman to give birth and making her choose between being able to support the child and giving it up for adoption is right
    5. There are many, many gray areas. Not everyone who has an abortion was irresponsible. There are instances of rape, there are instances of significant formation problems where the baby is still alive but will not survive outside of the womb. Forcing women and babies to go through with the whole pregnancy and childbirth only for the baby to die shortly afterwards is cruel and barbaric.
    6. I had a miscarriage a few months ago of a very wanted baby and I had to use the drugs and get a D&C. I don't know if I would have been able to access either if abortions were illegal, so I guess I would have just waited until I either miscarried naturally or died of infection.
  • lucillle
    3 years ago

    Chi, good post, and as well, I am so sorry for your loss.

  • lily316
    3 years ago

    Perfectly said, Chi and I'm sorry for your loss.

  • Janelle Van
    3 years ago

    I don't think any of your points are legit but I'm sorry for your loss.

  • Chi
    3 years ago
    last modified: 3 years ago

    Thanks for the condolences. I didn't mean to make it about me, but it is a concern. I feel very fortunate to live in California.

    Janelle, some of my points are opinions but many are facts. Making abortion illegal is letting the government decide what women can do with their bodies. Back alley abortions will still happen. Pregnancy from rape happens, fetal abnormalities incompatible with life happen.

  • Janelle Van
    3 years ago

    Well I'm pretty sure that we disagree on this point - I believe that life begins at conception. That's all. And that changes how you view the whole conversation.

  • nannygoat18
    3 years ago

    A woman's reproductive rights should not be compromised by politics and profit.

  • lucillle
    3 years ago

    that changes how you view the whole conversation.

    It is merely another facet of a larger conversation. There are those who would deny women the right to an abortion because of how they view conception, who are perfectly OK with capital punishment, and with denying government help to the poor and handicapped. Those who see conception as a black and white issue simply have not thought through the many other facets involved.

  • lily316
    3 years ago
    last modified: 3 years ago

    Life does not begin at conception. Maybe sperm is a pre-baby, or a woman's egg? Life begins when a viable baby can survive out of its mother's womb.

    Edited to add , I have never had an abortion, nor my daughter or granddaughter and I do not approve of abortions after the first trimester.

  • Janelle Van
    3 years ago

    Lily - then why are we sorry for Chi's loss? It was not life?

  • kadefol
    3 years ago

    Chi, I am sorry for your loss and I agree with all of your points. I would also like to add that, in my opinion, the only reason a woman should need to have an early-term abortion is that she does not want to carry out the pregnancy. Period. Abortions have been part of humanity since early human history and were an accepted, though often unsafe, practice. The recent (in human history) development of religious beliefs spawning laws that control women's bodies and reproductive choices should not be tolerated. I do agree that late-term abortions should continue to only be provided for medically necessary reasons, and on a case-by-case basis.

  • Chi
    3 years ago
    last modified: 3 years ago

    Lily - then why are we sorry for Chi's loss? It was not life?

    It was potential for life, and it was very traumatic for me (I made a very detailed post here 2 months ago about it). I think that's sufficient reason to be sorry for a loss. It was an early pregnancy and I don't believe there was already a soul there. I believe that comes later. But losing the potential, especially after 4 years of trying, is very hard.

  • nannygoat18
    3 years ago

    I would never judge different viewpoints.


    However, my rights should not be contingent on your beliefs and vice versa.

  • yeonassky
    3 years ago
    last modified: 3 years ago

    Chi wanted the child and could care for the child so we're sad for her loss of those chances.

    We're glad for your right to act on what you believe for your body. However expect us to choose for ourselves about our bodies. That and all politics, philosophies and religions are our individual choices. Even the life we might or might not continue to carry.

    If the law gets overturned then expect the death toll of women to rise again.

    You are so lucky that you are able to be free to say no about it. Just remember that many women cannot. Many women are killed in a day across the world for being pregnant by parents, partners and husbands. Many women's lives have been saved by abortion for safety and health reasons. Until those issues are fixed abortions save the already alive. I'm not exaggerating either. Look
    it up.

    I believe the already born come first.

  • User
    3 years ago

    Food for thought, if you believe in women's rights doesn't that include the right of a (woman) female baby to be born?

    Another clarification, a D&C for a non-viable baby is not "abortion on demand" which is what is debated. That procedure has and would always be performed when a woman finds herself that unfortunate situation. So Chi the last portion of your number 6 is a non-issue.

    Sorry Chi for your loss, a mother loves her child from the moment that she finds out she pregnant and no amount of claiming it's something other than a child reduces the pain of that loss. So to those that think they're helping by telling a woman after losing a baby "it really wasn't a child yet" you're not, you're being cruel.

  • Chi
    3 years ago
    last modified: 3 years ago

    I think it's important to factor in the quality of life of a child that was not wanted, for whatever reason. All children deserve to be loved and cared for properly but that's not always the case, and forcing women to have babies they don't want seems like a really good way to set a child up for a neglectful childhood.

    Since opinions vary so widely, the only reasonable course of action is to let people make their own decisions.

  • gardengal48 (PNW Z8/9)
    3 years ago

    "Since opinions vary so widely, the only reasonable course of action is to let people make their own decisions."

    Exactly!! But it is also important to have laws in place that support that decision, whatever it may be. A woman's right to determine what happens with her body should not be subject to political or religious tenets unless she - individually and independently - wants it to!

  • palimpsest
    3 years ago
    last modified: 3 years ago

    Food for thought, if you believe in women's rights doesn't that include the right of a (woman) female baby to be born?

    There is not an intra-cultural nor extra-cultural agreement on this, so the answer may be "no".

    The concept that life begins at conception was not a part of American culture or even Catholic dogma depending upon how far you go back.

    That said, I am Catholic and I happen to believe that life begins at conception, and I was also a spontaneously aborted placental abruption, months premature, #3 or4 out of 5 or 6 such pregnancies that my mother had, of which I was the only survivor. So "viability" is a rather hazy term as far as I am concerned--I was "viable" while the product of 4-5 nearly identical pregnancies, duration-wise, were not. So what does "viable" mean?

    That said, because I am male and because I recognize there are cultural and personal differences about when, exactly, life begins...I have decided it's none of my business, and that this should not be a legal issue, it should be a moral issue. We have other laws which I consider immoral, but that doesn't mean I would push for them to be changed, necessarily.

    What I am always fascinated by is people who are both pro-Life and rabidly pro-Death-penalty, including Catholics who claim to be devout, and yet the Catholic church official stance is against the death penalty.

  • Chi
    3 years ago

    I appreciate everyone's thoughtful contributions to this tangent. It's nice to be able to have a discussion with differing opinions without it turning nasty.

  • lily316
    3 years ago

    Why was I sorry about Chi's loss? Because that was a baby who was wanted and desired. It was not one whose mother was a 14-year-old who was raped by her uncle, not one whose mother already had five kids and couldn't support them, it was not one who would be born severely afflicted.

  • kadefol
    3 years ago

    Raye Smith, it doesn't matter what gender a fetus is, if the woman does not want to carry out the pregnancy, she should not have to. Also, mothers don't necessarily love their children, as evidenced by all the infanticides and abuse of infants and children we constantly read and hear about. I personally think it is much preferable for a woman to be able to abort an unwanted fetus than to subject the eventual infant/child to abuse and neglect.

  • palimpsest
    3 years ago

    I don't know any vehemently pro-life individuals, particularly male, who have said unequivocally that they would adopt a baby specifically because it would be aborted otherwise. And they also decry having to support these unwanted ...or wanted but with no means of supporting them...children with "their" tax monies. I find the contradiction between forcing someone to have a baby they don't want or can't afford to raise and their unwillingness to do anything about it or offer other solutions problematic.

  • CindyMac
    3 years ago

    Well I'm pretty sure that we disagree on this point - I believe that life begins at conception.


    And that's fine, but you have no right to impose your beliefs on other women.

  • CindyMac
    3 years ago

    I was also a spontaneously aborted placental abruption, months premature, #3 or4 out of 5 or 6 such pregnancies that my mother had, of which I was the only survivor. So "viability" is a rather hazy term as far as I am concerned--I was "viable" while the product of 4-5 nearly identical pregnancies, duration-wise, were not. So what does "viable" mean?


    I lost twins to placental abruption in my 5th month. That was 1973. Today they might have had a chance albeit with months in NICU.

  • Annie Deighnaugh
    3 years ago

    To me, there are 2 questions:

    • one is a moral one which people need to decide for themselves as to when life begins. (Though for those who think it begins at conception, I've always wondered what about identical twins. I mean if the soul is acquired at conception and later the egg splits, then there are 2 souls...where does that other one come from? Certainly after conception. But I digress.)
    • then there is the legal issue which is at what stage does a fetus acquire the full and total rights of a human being with respect to the law? Clearly a fertilized egg is a potential human, not a fully formed viable human capable of independent life. Clearly 9 mos minus 1 day or 2, we are looking at a fully formed human life capable of independent life. So somewhere in between the fetus becomes a human and acquires the rights as afforded by law.

    For those who think that human rights are acquired at conception, then do you also think citizenship is acquired at conception? If not, why not? Seems to me that both would be acquired at the same time, no? If humans acquire the legal right to life at conception, then shouldn't they also be citizens?

    And the other question that no one who is anti-choice has ever answered for me...you are in a room that catches fire. In one corner is a 2 year old child...in the other is a petri dish with 12 embryos. You can only save one or the other...which do you choose? The 12 "lives" or the one?

  • Chi
    3 years ago
    last modified: 3 years ago

    I've thought a lot about when life begins as I consider IVF. I was initially uncomfortable with the idea of extra embryos, worried I would be locking little souls in a freezer, maybe to never be used. But after a lot of thought and reflection, and speaking with people who I consider more knowledgeable than I am on the spiritual side, I don't believe that's the case. I still don't love the idea and I'm hoping we will only get enough that we need, but I also believe this technology has evolved for a reason and I don't feel guilty using it.

  • lucillle
    3 years ago

    CindyMac I'm so sorry, no matter when, the loss of children we look forward to is a grievous process.

  • palimpsest
    3 years ago
    last modified: 3 years ago

    What's also interesting about "life begins at conception" is those petri dish embryos awaiting implantation.

    What happens to embryos that are not implanted and stay frozen when the plug gets pulled on the freezer? I know they do try to not make extras, but that does happen doesn't it?

    So does the individual who has successfully had in vitro fertilization and has a leftover fertilized egg or two have the moral equivalent of an abortion when those are destroyed, because life began in that petri dish?

    The strict answer to this is "yes" if you believe that life begins at conception, if those in vitro cells are destroyed, you've had the moral equivalent of an abortion.

    I know people who have had in vitro who would be horrified by this concept, but you can't believe one without the other, logically.

    The Catholic church is against in vitro fertilization because of this and other questions, but skirts the above issue by saying that many Catholics have in vitro with the best intentions without thinking of the other implications.

    That's why these things are all so difficult. Not everyone agrees because there is no way to know really, it's a theological argument. And meaningless, perhaps to someone who has no belief in a god. And there is also supposed to be a separation of Church and State.

    CindyMac, I was born in the early 1960s and there was no such thing as NICU. Technically I should not be alive. I have a number of subtle neurogical deficits but am very lucky.

  • Chi
    3 years ago

    Embryo adoption is an option now, but I don't think there can be any expectation for people to choose that. I don't think I could do it.