Politics is horrible everywhere but American politics seems even more of a cess-pit than the UK or Ireland, for example, both in terms of politicians and their supporters. Particularly on the Republican side. Look at Mitch McConnell: When Roy Moore's accusers came forward, he famously said he believed them, but it seems that was only because he didn't like Moore, and was hoping he would step aside and a replacement candidate would be found, who was more electable. Now he does like Kavanaugh, so he says he'll "plough through" with the nomination no matter what. In other words, sexual assault means nothing to him except for the political consequences. You couldn't get away with that in the UK, you'd be slaughtered in the media. But in the US, everyone has their own media and it's just par for the course, apparently.

Incidentally, it's kind of amusing the way Kavanaugh's supporters in general can't figure out whether to take the line of "He's a good man and would never do such a terrible thing" and "Hey, what's so terrible about jumping a girl, it's just fun and frolics" and very often tend to take both lines simultaneously.

is lying and about to commit perjury which is a felony and punishable with jail time — Baden

Q: Who has ever lied to Congress? [Who has not ever lied to Congress?] It is a cess pit after all.

A: This might be a tough one to answer comprehensively especially because it is extremely rare to see charges brought. In fact, a study from 2007 found just six successful convictions of perjury or related charges in relation to Congress in the previous 60 years.

Kavanaugh's tailor need not order some nice orange polyester fabric to make his honor a jump suit.

Maybe you're right. I haven't looked into the statistics, but that it might not condemn him to the depths is not the issue so much as that it will, if so discerned, prevent him from attaining the heights. And rightly so.

Yes, in this case. But charges were not pressed and the statute of limitation on this event has expired — Bitter Crank

It's been reported that the State of Maryland doesn't have a statute of limitations for the crimes of rape and assault.

Plus, the idea that some privileged elite who has an accusation leveled at him is being treated worse than a 15-year-old who thought she was being raped is severely wrongheaded. — Baden

Oh yes, it's a classist thing, where privileged elite folks ought have less sympathy than those who happened not to be so lucky. I have a sneaky suspicion she too didn't have too many financial struggles during her upbringing, as if that matters.

Does the accused suddenly have the right not to be prosecuted much later? Nazi war criminals were prosecuted long after the war. The only people that objected to that were Nazis. — Baden

You reference Republican hysteria but then your next sentence actually attempts to draw an analogy between sexual assault and genocide, as if they're at all comparable. You appear far more hysterical than me or the Republicans.

Anyhow, let's see, why might your analogy be flawed? Could it be perhaps that genocide is a far more serious crime than sexual assault at a party?

The reason there exists statutes of limitations in criminal matters is to protect an accused from prosecution after witnesses and evidence have been lost when the government could have prosecuted the case earlier. In the case of the Nazis, one reason the government didn't prosecute the Nazis earlier is because it was the government that was committing the crime. I suppose Eichmann could have argued that he ought be freed because the Germans failed to prosecute him earlier when they had a chance, and then the Nuremberg judges could have tried to make sense of that argument, just like I'm trying to make sense of your argument.

See above. There is no right to get away with crimes just because you weren't caught quickly enough except in cases where statutes of limitations apply. — Baden

Again, your comparison of Senate confirmations hearings with Nuremberg. Just withdraw this argument. It's nonsense.

My reference was to the political nature of this whole affair. All we have are competing claims. She says it happened and he says it didn't. They both have plenty of motivation to lie. The consequences of his confirmation will be devastating to the left, and the consequences to him personally will be devastating on the other side of this coin.

And let's not pretend that she came forward now only because she felt safe with the #metoo movement. She told Feinstein back in July about her claims and Feinstein revealed it just before the confirmation vote. Feinstein's motive was to block a candidate for the Supreme Court she doesn't like. She doesn't give a damn about that girl.

It's odd that it takes a potential prosecution of an elite conservative to bring out your concerns about a justice system that is highly weighed against the poor and unprivileged. — Baden

Why because I'm part of the elite? I was pretty much a middle class kid who went to public school (and public means government funded in the US, which I understand is oddly the opposite in the UK), we took exotic trips in our station wagon to the Georgia coast every year, and I don't remember any country clubs. But, whatever. I thought the Clarence Thomas lynching was just as bad, and yet he was hardly from an elite background.

This is an aside also. It's an ad hom. I guess I could tell you that your only motivation in holding your position is because of your disdain of those elite country club kids who you looked upon with envy from your hovel as a child.

I think no one, from the right or the left, suggests there ought be a dissolution of the distinction between juveniles and adults. We all understand that kids lack capacity to make decisions that can effect the rest of their lives, and for that reason they are treated as protected citizens, incapable of fully engaging in society. Juvenile records are sealed usually because we don't want the sins of youth to destroy one's life. I generally think that's a good thing. My guess is that you do too. As I've said, and which no one can answer, is how do you think he could be prosecuted now as an adult for a juvenile offense? You can't wait for someone to turn of age and then prosecute them as an adult. That's not how it works. A 17 year old who commits murder and who is tried as a juvenile can only remain in custody through age 21. Children are children. Do you really not see an absurdity of prosecuting a 52 year old for his actions when he was 15, or do you really consider your Nazi analogy that persuasive?

Let me ask you this: If any of you had a 15-year-old daughter or a close relative who told you that an older boy had held her down, hand over mouth to the point where she feared she would suffocate, groped her and grinded his body against her, and then tried to pull her clothes off, and that she thought he was trying to rape her, would you just tell her to laugh it off and then do nothing about it? Would you be more worried about the reputation of the accused? And how would you feel about those more interested in protecting him than her? — Baden

I would think myself incapable of providing an objective answer because I was personally impacted by this crime, as it was my daughter. If summoned as a juror on such a case, I suppose I'd be removed for bias, as it was my daughter who was the victim.

If I were the prosecutor, my concern would be proving the case, and I would speak to all the kids at the party, perhaps inspect the victim's clothes, look for visible sign of injury on the accused and accuser, go to the scene and look for signs of a struggle, and pay close attention to social media posts from those involved. I would track down the leads and see where they led.

If I had nothing to look at other than the vague recollections of those involved due to a 35 year gap between the event and the reporting of the crime, I think I'd probably offer the victim's family what comfort I could and explain to them that this is just not prosecutable at this stage.

And the flip side of the coin is what would you do if you felt your son wrongly accused of attempted rape and he faced public scorn, ostracism, and exclusion from college for something he did not do. Would you not fight his battle with the same passion as you'd expect the accuser's father to fight her battle?

We've just established there's no statute of limitations in this case, and suggesting in any case that I was suggesting an equivalence in severity of crime between Nazi genocide and this sexual assault rather than merely pointing out the failure of your attempt at establishing a non-existent right not to be prosecuted when such a statute doesn't apply is something I should really spend considerable time mocking and berating you for, and only won't because I'm too lazy to move from my mobile to my laptop where typing is more convenient.

They both have plenty of motivation to lie. — Hanover

What's her motivation to lie? So she can have her life threatened and suffer harassment and mockery from the right-wing hate machine? As opposed to him avoiding having his career wet dream spill wastefully into his pyjamas. Hm, let me weigh those two up.

Why because I'm part of the elite? I was pretty much a middle class kid who went to public school (and public means government funded in the US, which I understand is oddly the opposite in the UK), we took exotic trips in our station wagon to the Georgia coast every year, and I don't remember any country clubs. But, whatever. I thought the Clarence Thomas lynching was just as bad, and yet he was hardly from an elite background. — Hanover

Please don't tell me your biography. It makes it look as if you think I care about you. Which is icky.

. I guess I could tell you that your only motivation in holding your position is because of your disdain of those elite country club kids who you looked upon with envy from your hovel as a child. — Hanover

Sorry, we didn't have country clubs in Ireland when I grew up. Only hovels.

As for the rest, I'm not calling for his prosecution but just pointing out he has no right not to be prosecuted. That's the law and so should it be.

It's not a good look. Anita Hill on TV. Roe v Wade up in the air. Can't we find a Republican who hasn't tried to rape somebody?

And Baden, the US and the UK aren't in the same league. The UK is on par with Massechusettes maybe.

She says it happened and he says it didn't. They both have plenty of motivation to lie. — Hanover

The potential political motivations that Ford and Kavanaugh may have aren't the only ones that must be alluded to in order to make sense of their claims. While it is understandable why he could be lying, in case where the alleged incident took place, the converse scenario would require for a much more elaborate scheme for making sense of Ford's motivations. We would need to make sense of her motivation for having privately told of a made up incident to her therapist several years ago. Also, she only came out about the allegation following intense pressure as a result of the leaking of her story, and of her identity, which you conceivably can blame on the Democrats for, but not her.

And Baden, the US and the UK aren't in the same league. The UK is on par with Massechusettes maybe. — frank

Yeah, agree with that.

It's been reported that the State of Maryland doesn't have a statute of limitations for the crimes of rape and assault. — Pierre-Normand

Maybe Maryland has fewer crimes covered by statute of limitations than other states. It doesn't seem like statutes of limitations are entirely rational. In Minnesota, for instance, trespass has a 6 year limitation while wrongful death gets 3 years of limitation! I would think wrongful death would get more time than trespassing but... I guess property matters more.

MD has some crimes covered by limitation, but it appears that most are not. I couldn't figure out (from a quick search) whether Kavanaugh/Ford would be covered or not.

The thought experiment is only intended to provoke a little empathy for the victim. This woman is not a political player and asked for none of this, and she is being treated as if she is and did. But to your point, suffering a sexual assault is worse than suffering an accusation of sexual assault. I would be considerably angrier at someone who sexually assaulted my daughter than someone who falsely accused my son of sexual assault.

Sorry, we didn't have country clubs in Ireland when I grew up. Only hovels. — Baden

Ireland has country clubs now? Who allowed this outrage? GET BACK INTO YOUR HOVELS, IRISH SWINE!

There seem to be quite a few gradations of assault. Stepping (not stomping) on my foot and beating me senseless are both assault and battery but hardly the same thing. Fondling a breast without permission is an assault, but it isn't equivalent to rape. Acting as if one were trying to execute intercourse (except that both parties are clothed) isn't the same as the flesh/flesh contact and penetration of rape.

Andrea Dworkin -- a wigged out anti-pornography activist -- made the crazy claim that an erection was equivalent to rape. Crazy, not merely militant.

Franken was denounced for something a good deal less than assault. "Misconduct?" I don't think it was misconduct -- but it certainly wasn't a crime either.

Re: statue of limitations, there has been a trend to remove these in instances of sexual abuse of children, so Maryland is not exceptional in this regard. Nevertheless, it is still unclear in this particular case- they have no statute of limitations for FELONY assault, and it's ambiguous as to whether or not this would qualify. That wouldn't stop her from reporting the crime, and possibly getting a police investigation. My guess is that it's unlikely they could get enough evidence for a conviction, since the hurdle is "beyond a reasonable doubt." And of course, that needn't be the standard in the case of a judicial appointment. "Beyond reproach" would be a better standard.

But to your point, suffering a sexual assault is worse than suffering an accusation of sexual assault. I would be considerably angrier at someone who sexually assaulted my daughter than someone who falsely accused my son of sexual assault. — Baden

I think @Hanover's argument appears to derive some of its force from the considerations @Bitter Crank brought up regarding the societal consequences from having been convicted of sexual assault. But this is a consideration that ought to justify law reforms such that penalties aren't disproportionate to the crime, on the one hand, while the standard of proof remains that of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, on the other hand. As a result of such a system's fairness, women will regrettably continue to have the worse of it, in one respect, since the crimes at issue will remain difficult to prove and hence many perpetrators will continue to evade condemnation. This is a regrettable consequence that would need to be remedied by means other than law. But it's precisely because of this unavoidable imbalance that being falsely accused will be less consequential than being a victim of sexual assault. So long as the standard of proof remains suitably high, such that innocents will not be scapegoated, falsely accused individuals will seldom be condemned.

At this level of nomination, is anyone really "above reproach" from any angle which members of the pubic are highly invested in? Judges rule on lots of cases -- maybe cases involving workers rights to organize. For me, a judge's decision siding with employers might be a sign of highly reproachable action.

GET BACK INTO YOUR HOVELS, IRISH SWINE! — Bitter Crank

We have grown fat and can no longer fit in them. We all live in country clubs now, surrounded by cigar smoke and sexist jokes.

There seem to be quite a few gradations of assault. Stepping (not stomping) on my foot and beating me senseless are both assault and battery but hardly the same thing. Fondling a breast without permission is an assault, but it isn't equivalent to rape. Acting as if one were trying to execute intercourse (except that both parties are clothed) isn't the same as the flesh/flesh contact and penetration of rape. — Bitter Crank

Sure, and this case is neither the most innocent nor the most severe. It's bad enough to be of note though and should not be dismissed as insignificant.

Franken was denounced for something a good deal less than assault. "Misconduct?" I don't think it was misconduct -- but it certainly wasn't a crime either. — Bitter Crank

And even given that, note that the Dems did not attack the victims and let Franken go. We may disagree over whether he should have been let go, but the difference in attitude is striking.

Frequently the people who are quickest to defend the accused in cases like these were themselves victims of sexual abuse. It's a cycle of violence thing.

I agree with that, and particularly that punishment should be proportionate. I read of one ridiculous case where a woman was given 20 years for forcing a male minor to touch her breast (partly because she wouldn't plea bargain). Kavanaugh, on the other hand, spent most of his life getting off scot-free (if he did it) and missing out on his promotion would not be an unduly harsh case of societal Karma.

I think that's true to a degree, but in this case the partisan split seems more explanatory of the likelihood of a given actor rushing to Ford's defence. Wish that wasn't the case but...

Lying under oath crosses the line. If there is a preponderance of evidence he lied, that seems a reasonable standard.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If he did, of course it says something about him. Not every adolescent is capable of jumping a girl, putting their hands over her mouth, and trying to rip their clothes off, drunk or not. It goes far beyond "stupid". At the same time, as I've already said, what absolutely disqualifies him, if it's true, is lying about it and being willing to lie under oath about it, which is a crime in itself. — Baden

Couple of days after those first remarks I'm not sure what my idea was either.

From your remarks I am concerned that you may be presuming that a high degree of compassion (agreeableness) or negative emotion (neuroticism) is a desirable characteristic in a judge. Kavanaugh, if appointed, will have to deal repeatedly with situations that require the suppression or lack of negative emotions, and indeed a disregard for empathy. To be emotionally cold is a desirable characteristic for a supreme court judge. I am confident in asserting this without further discussion.

Second, it happened thirty-something years ago. Every cell in his body has been replaced five times over at this point in time. I don't think you can read anything from this incident (for now I'll just assume it's true), given that he has had an unblemished record since. If he was, shall we say, aggressive and unable to control his sexual urges, it is rather doubtful he could have got this far.

And third, the accusation is not extreme in the slightest. Teenage boys go beyond stupid like that. It's not excusable, but it happens anyway. Instead of being a product of hormones or unchecked aggression and sexual urges, it is the difficulty of abstracting out how to deal with relating to the opposite sex. I would challenge any man who has no such experiences in their past, that they are a damned privileged **** for getting through this task with such ease and no horrible memories to haunt them.

On a related note, I'm not playing for team rep in this. My major interest in American politics is that things ought to get done. Energetic political activity is important to carry the business of a nation in the modern world.

On a related-related note, if I got to be the president for one day, I would argue for a constitutional convention: In the original constitutional framework the federal level of government was not designed to be in charge of major policy making. It was made to be inflexible and inefficient with the embedded idea that major political activity should take place in the individual states. The civil war changed this and the federal became sovereign, and for 150 years America has had a serious organisational fault at the heart of it's politics.

Kavanaugh, on the other hand, spent most of his life getting off scot-free — Baden

He wasn't accused until a few days ago, so sure, he has gone "scot-free" the same way all of us who could have been accused of something (whether we did it or not) have gone scot free. A little shoplifting, petty theft, slipping state secrets to the Canadians, driving while intoxicating and possibly running over somebody that one time on a dark night in Alabama (Oh shit! that was an awfully big thump!!!), buying some extra Xanax in Mexico and selling them to your step-mother and friends who took too many uppers, torching that outbuilding, getting carried away in the back seat with your girlfriend/boyfriend/or-both and going farther than almost all the way several times...)

We have grown fat and can no longer fit in them. — Baden

Sure you have. And ve have vays of correcting zis problem... So you vill fit.

It is true, as you said, that the civil war was a watershed for federal power, brought on by people who didn't like any kind of centralized power, even their own confederacy.

In the original constitutional framework the federal level of government was not designed to be in charge of major policy making. — Existoic

Well, take a look at the 18 items under Section 8: There's lots of potential policy there.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government...

18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

There's more, of course, and

Article [X] Reserved Powers
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

is quite important.

But should you become president, remember, as such you don't have a role in organizing a constitutional convention. It's the responsibility of (currently) 34 States to call such a meeting and then (currently) 38 states to ratify it. So you could start in the state where you live and get your state to BE THE FIRST to call for a Constitutional Convention.

At this point the case is one person's version versus another persons version, delayed by 35 years time. There is no way to prove very much about this case. You believe women. Baden scores 10 points from #metoo. — Bitter Crank

Casting my vote for this.

What seems to be under appreciated is that the #metoo movement, a very just cause, is threatened by sloppy standards and a rush to jump on a politically correct bandwagon.

Crime victims need to keep in my mind that, however difficult it may be, they have a civic responsibility to report crimes to the police because failing to do so puts other people at risk. If they fail to fulfill that responsibility, their credibility is naturally going to take a hit, and maybe it should.

You didn't address the issue of Kavanaugh possibly having lied. I suggest that IF he lied, it would be inappropriate to approve his appointment. Even if these hearings are 90% political theater, I would hope we can all agree that they ought to mean SOMETHING, and accepting lies implies the hearings are completely worthless.

We don't know that he lied, and I certainly don't think a mere accusation is sufficient reason to assume he did. But the possibilty that he lied should be taken seriously, and this is ample reason to take both her and Kavanaugh's testimony seriously, and to obtain as much additional evidence as they can by pushing for a more thorough investigation. I think each Senator should make a judgment based on his/her view of the preponderance of the evidence: i.e. if they think it's more likely than not that he lied, then he should not be approved.

We don't know that he lied, and I certainly don't think a mere accusation is sufficient reason to assume he did. But the possibilty that he lied should be taken seriously, and this is ample reason to take both her and Kavanaugh's testimony seriously, and to obtain as much additional evidence as they can by pushing for a more thorough investigation. I think each Senator should make a judgment based on his/her view of the preponderance of the evidence: i.e. if they think it's more likely than not that he lied, then he should not be approved. That's a lower bar than in a criminal case, but it seems absurd to put someone on the court if we feel they PROBABLY lied, despite there being a reasonable doubt that he lied.