Hirano’s Hedge: Kavanaugh Not Entitled To Presumption Of Innocence Due To His Ideological Views

440px-Mazie_Hirono,_official_portrait,_113th_CongressWith the addition of a second woman alleging sexual misconduct of Brett Kavanaugh, it is still not clear what factual disputes will have to be addressed before a final confirmation vote occurs in the Senate. Putting aside questions over late timing of the allegations, there is agreement that the Senate will have to consider both the allegations of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and the new allegations of Deborah Ramirez. What is far more troubling is the continued disagreement on the standard that Senators should use in considering the allegations. While objecting that their Republican colleagues are not prepared to give the women an “impartial hearing,” various Democratic senators have declared (before any testimony is heard) that they believe Dr. Ford – and thus do not believe Judge Kavanaugh. That is troubling enough, but Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., HI) has introduced a far more troubling element in suggesting that she may decide the factual question on the basis of Kavanaugh’s jurisprudential views.

Hirono has previously declared that she believes Ford even before hearing either in testimony before the Committee. She also told all men everywhere to “shut up” and just stand with Ford. In her latest interview, Hirono was pressed on whether Kavanaugh has “the same presumption of innocence as anyone else in America?” For most people, the question would be an easy one to answer in the affirmative, Hirono demurred and declined to say that she would afford Kavanaugh this core presumption of the rule of law. She said that she would “put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases.” She said that she would consider his “ideological agenda” and her view that “he very much is against women’s reproductive choice.”

Hirono’s mixing of factual with ideological considerations further degrades a process that is already deeply undermined by last minute allegations and partisan bickering. It is also curious to see a senator tie credibility on sexual misconduct to one’s view of Roe v. Wade. Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Al Franken and others were all reportedly pro-choice but also labeled as abusers.

Such a reference to an accused’s political or ideological views by a judge would be viewed as the basis for a mandatory recusal for bias. It is entirely immaterial how one views constitutional rights in whether they should be believed in denying the admmission of a crime.

There was, of course, a time when such a presumption of guilt on the basis for religion or nationality or other characteristics was an accepted (even celebrated) practice. During the Spanish Inquisition, who you were would determine whether you would be believed. It was not just suspected Jews but others like foreigners who faced an effective presumption of guilt. When Pedro Ginesta, an elderly man from France was arrested in 1635 for eating bacon on a day of abstinence, the indictment declared “The said prisoner being of a nation infected with heresy [France], it is presumed” that he is lying and part of “the sect of Luther.”

France for its part had the same difficulty with separating politics from law. During the French Revolution, the Law of Suspects was passed in 1793 relieving tribunals of the burden of minimal evidence in ordering arrests and any perceived counter-revolutionary views was enough to be indicted. Jacobins saw law and politics as inextricably linked. Of course, the desire to use legal or legislative means to punish political opponents becomes an insatiable appetite. One year later, the tribunals passed the Law of 22 Prairial, which stripped away remaining protections for the accused and allowed juries to convict on the ambiguous basis of “moral certainty.”

Hirono’s description of her approach comes dangerously close to the Jacobin use of “moral certainty” in judging facts. If Kavanaugh’s opposition to Roe can be used to subject him to a higher burden, would Weinstein’s support of Roe afford him a lower burden of proof?

It is not enough for Democratic Senators to simply say that they are not judges and therefore entitled to any standard of review no matter how pre-determined or unfair. Members of Congress do not have license to mete out punishments and judgments without due process to citizens. The Framers expressly barred Congress from passing “bills of attainder” – legislation that effectively singles out individuals or groups for special punishment for perceived offenses. Likewise, committees are subject to individual constitutional rights including the right against self-incrimination and other constitutional protections. In other words, there are rules.

More importantly, there are principles. When a member swears to uphold the Constitution, they agree to respect our defining values and protections. One of the most central protections is to be allowed a fair hearing. This is particularly the case when someone is accused of a heinous criminal act.

Unfortunately, “moral certainty” appears to be the growing standard for members who are rushing to assure voters on both sides that they are respective locks for either Ford or Kavanaugh. Proof then becomes a simple political head count. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) has even declared that he expects that, if Kavanaugh is confirmed, a Democratic majority would launch an immediate investigation and possible impeachment against him as an associate justice.

Thus, as Ella Wheeler Wilcox said, “no question is ever settled until it is settled right.” Yet, what is “right” increasingly appears like a simple question of math rather than principle in the United States Senate.

It is doubtful that Kavanaugh could be impeached absent clear proof of perjury before Congress. Thus, what happens next year may be less important than what happens this week. Senators on both sides must decide if they will act to further their constitutional institution or just their political instincts.

348 thoughts on “Hirano’s Hedge: Kavanaugh Not Entitled To Presumption Of Innocence Due To His Ideological Views”

  1. This latest victim said she went to 10 parties where gang rapes took place. Why did she keep going to these parties?

    1. Independent Bob – I think she was throwing the parties. She is certainly complicit, as are all the other women going to these parties, unless they are importing “newbies” to be raped. And I really think the room with the line outside is the bathroom.

      1. Beleiiving Swetnick requires beleiving that all law enforcement in the 80’s was ignorant of a gigantic rape gang operating near DC,
        That those being drugged, assaulted and raped – over and over continued to come back for more.
        That no one ever reported anything.
        That of the dozens of people swetnik claims were victims – not have come forward to corroborate.
        That 6 FBI investiigations of Kavanaugh completely missed that he was eunning a drugging and rape gang in high school.

  2. On msnbc TV, Todd is flashing a hand signal during a live interview that signals a secret and nefarious code sign that the “white power” guru Eugene Gu uses to camouflage the left’s true racism. Just ask any black person in any ghetto in the US the question of In 8 Years, What Did Obama Do For You?

  3. Yet, Kavanaugh is for establishing a separate legal system for those elected to power, like himself. I’m sure the framers were not intending for elected and/or appointed representatives to be above the law, or to not have ‘all men’ equal before the law.

    1. Yet, Kavanaugh is for establishing a separate legal system for those elected to power, like himself.

      Damn your delusional. You could of course cite your evidence to prove that claim but that would require you deviate from fiction to fact.

      I’m sure the framers were not intending for elected and/or appointed representatives to be above the law, or to not have ‘all men’ equal before the law.

      Good for you. Now that you’ve established you have a basic understand of original intent, moving forward, we’ll have a solid foundation to measure your fidelity to that understanding.

    2. Sadly you are 3 cans short of a 6 pack if you think that Kavanaugh was ELECTED. But then you provide cover for the dumbing down of Americans.
      A vast difference between Nominated and Elected. Further difference between Advise Consent vs Elected. See, you do make the case of what little is taught in schools these days. Oh, just go and be a cupcake.

    3. “Yet, Kavanaugh is for establishing a separate legal system for those elected to power, like himself. ”

      Issac, you have outdone yourself on the stupidity index.

  4. Liberals remain utterly confounded how a bird brain like Trump could win the presidency. They are often bright, creative people, but this deal totally baffles them.

    All you boys have to do is examine the rabid attacks on Kavvy. Trump fans hate the hypocrisy. Hate it! And, they are fed up. They wanted and got someone radically different in the WH because of their contempt for a free press that presents the news with a leftist bias and they despise Republicans who go along for the ride.

    Guess what? Even now, these folks have no idea what I’m referring to. They are completely blind to the reality that they are the motivation behind the ascendancy and support for Big D. That’s why nothing he does curbs their enthusiasm. Anyone who sees the media as they do and is willing to shout it from the mountain tops is their lifelong hero.

    1. sue brigyam, I recommend reading The Nation weekly; well, 34 times a year. It offers a perspective that you will find helpful.

      1. sue brigyam, I recommend reading The Nation weekly;

        Why, it’s a loathsomely stupid publication. See Wm. O’Neil’s history of the opinion journalism of the 1940s. The Nation under Frieda Kirchwey editorship was the most inveteratley pro-Soviet publication in the country outside of the Communist and front-organization organs. It improved after Kirchwey’s departure in 1951, but sank back into the red haze muck after Carey McWilliams’s departure in 1975. The Nation published Noam Chomsky’s article insisting the Cambodian auto-genocide was a fiction. The publication during Victor Navasky’s proprietorship and editorship (1977-95) was a consistent advocate for the enemy during the late Cold War. They had nothing of value to say about domestic affairs (hardly anything at all, really, just stupid animadversions). Navasky’s personal project has been a futile effort to demonstrate Alger Hiss was framed. No serious person writes for The Nation and no serious person pays it any mind. It’s a sewer and its devoted readers are jerks.

      2. Sue:

        “sue brigyam, I recommend reading The Nation weekly; well, 34 times a year. It offers a perspective that you will find helpful.”

        *****************************

        It’s easier and shorter to read Das Kapital. Plus DK is better written. You can also get the abridged version in Mao’s Little Red book.

        1. Das Kapital is well past it’s sell by date as we no longer have pure capitalism. There are more modern criticisms of the ways the successful sociopaths extract wealth from the many.

      3. Actually, rather than the socialist Nation Weekly (not much difference between Progressivism, Socialism, and Communism. Note that they all end in ism? Note just how these forms of controlling the people have been so successful, that they barely exist, except for Venezuela and their favorable 1,000% inflation rate. Yeah right. Let’s all become progressive socialists, HA

      4. At least Tabarrok and Bob fail to understand.

        One should read widely, especially points of view with which one disagrees.

        I don’t believe everything I read in The Nation. The science based articles are particularly weak. But there is plenty along the lines of attempting to provide succor for the afflicted. While possibly not the central tenant of Christianity, it is certainly an important component of the desert religions.

        The Nation also includes reviews of all the arts, valuable for the breadth provided. I personally appreciate the reviews of Latin American writings and writers.

        1. One should read widely, especially points of view with which one disagrees.

          There was never any reason to invest one’s time in The Nation. I could recommend to you half a dozen portside publications more worth your time. Start with Irving Howe’s Dissent, the Boston Review, the New York Review of Books, the UTNE Reader. The Nation is a crap publication for people who want to read crap.

    2. So sorry for your confusion. You see, just because people smarter than you report the unvarnished facts that disturb your isolated world view or differ from the superstitions to which you subscribe doesn’t mean those news reporters have a “leftist bias.” In reality, you are likely merely an intolerant, small-minded, uninformed, timid and frightened dupe who just wishes the world would slow down. Pro tip: change the channel, hannity has such contempt for you that he tells you fairy tales.

      this is to “why do we even need a free press” sue

    3. You are correct that I don’t follow you.

      However, he’s no bird brain, he is an extremely competent genius!

      Hail to the Chief!

    4. I do not like Trump. I did not vote for him. I am sometimes annoyed by some of his tweets.

      But I completely and thoroughly enjoy the fact that he is giving the media and the left their comeuppance. That they can do nothing about him, that they are appoplectic because of his existence and durability.

      The left does not grasp that Donald Trump is president BECAUSE of them.

      Van Jones called Trump’s election “whitelash”.
      He was wrong in that it has nothing to do with race.
      But he was absolutely right in that it was backlash.

      We are tired of this leftist PC crap.
      We are tired of being forced to live in a world where your feelings are more important than facts.
      We are tired of being forced to live in a world where if you say or do anything that offends the left – you are a defacto racist, mysoginist, homophobe, ..

      1. “I do not like Trump. I did not vote for him. I am sometimes annoyed by some of his tweets.”

        Dhlii, what makes you think you are supposed to be so attuned to anyone that you don’t sometimes get annoyed with them?

          1. Paul, that is your problem. I don’t understand how people become rabid about these things. Ying and Yang exist so if you like Yang remember there is a bit of Ying in you.

            1. Allan – she somehow became weaponized by Trump. I had nothing to do with that. She was a perfectly normal Democrat before that. 😉

              1. I can understand the initial feels leading to “rabid” responses, your word. Some leftist economists predicted the economy would blow up under Trump and we would end up in WW3, but now that we see unemployment way down, the GDP climbing and that there is discussion not war such rabid behavior makes one question the individual’s rationality. Point her to Ying and Yang and see if such an understanding doesn’t make her less rabid.

                  1. Xanax doesn’t solve the problem. It provides only temporary relief of anxiety type events. A good look in the mirror and at reality is a lot more beneficial but that can upset the story one has been telling themselves for a lifetime.

      2. Who is “we”? The hardy 36% of gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make, or do you have a mouse in your pocket?

        this is to “I craftily use all caps and misspelling as a strategy” dillie

  5. Fascinating.

    Where were these ladies when Juanita was raped? Slick bit down so hard on her mouth to prevent her from moving, she was in agony. Where were CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, the Post etc. when Kathleen Wiley needed a friend to believe her? Paula Jones’ name was dragged through the mud after slick paraded his willy before her very eyes. Where were the demands for his resignation? Where were the liberal women who should have rejected him as a candidate for the highest office in the land when Gen Flowers exposed his adulterous, insatiable sexual appetite?

    Where have the proponents of accountability been all these years since slick abandoned the 800,000 poor black Rwandans who were hacked to death while billy boy shrugged his shoulders and pretended he didn’t know?

    1. Sue, this is about as broad as you can get. Just a smorgasbord of false equivalencies with a genocide thrown in for good measure. This is what 25 years of right-wing media does to a mind.

  6. According to Wikipedia the northern part of the Blue Ridge Mountains lies entirely in Virginia and none of the range in West Virginia.

    1. DBB:
      “Blue Ridge Mountain, also known as Blue Mountain, is the colloquial name of the westernmost ridge of the Blue Ridge Mountains in northern Virginia and the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia. ” And there’s this by Thomas Jefferson speaking of Harper’s Ferry, West Virginia: ” “The passage of the Potomac through the Blue Ridge is perhaps one of the most stupendous scenes in Nature”

      You really oughta stick to what you know — whatever that may be.

    2. LOL. There are mountains aplenty in WV, they have a ridgeline that is characteristic, and when covered with trees they look blue in the distance. But denuded by coal mining they look very different. I am not sure where the blue ridge mountains officially end and begin but as far as I’m concerned yeah there’s plenty of blue ridges in WV

      now i don’t know what wikipedia you were reading david but maybe Paul is right you should be required to provide references… this one sure seems to indicate they’re in WV too

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ridge_Mountain

      “Blue Ridge Mountain, also known as Blue Mountain, is the colloquial name of the westernmost ridge of the Blue Ridge Mountains in northern Virginia and the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia. The Appalachian Trail traverses the entire length of the mountain along its western slope and crest.”

  7. Senator Gillibrand sounds like a valley girl when she speaks. When she was a representative the district she represented was 90% white. After she became a senator she said she was embarrassed to have represented that district because of its racial makeup. So she is embarrassed about the people who helped launch her political career. As a representative she had a great rating from the NRA. My how things change.

    1. Senator Gillibrand sounds like a valley girl when she speaks.

      She’s a graduate of the Emma Willard School and the issue of a quite well-connected (if not wealthy) family in greater Albany, NY. A great many aaut bourgeois girls of Gillibrand’s cohort sounded like her ca. 1966. In general, there’s been a secular decay in the fluency and dignity of verbal expression among well-educated adult women, with a large cleavage between those born in the late 1930s and those born in the earl 1950s. (IMO). Some of Gillibrand’s contemporaries grew out of it and sound like adult women. Gillibrand was one who did not.

      Its a reasonable wager she and her husband established a notional residency in that district so she could run in it. The Republican representing the district was a dipso vulgarian whose entire adult life had been spent on the Republican Party payroll ‘ere he was on the public payroll. His was justifiably vulnerable. She’d actually lived in NYC for years prior, and it’s a reasonable guess her primary residences are in New York and Washington, with a seasonal property in the middle Hudson Valley.

  8. This is typical of the racist, sexist, fascist left. We really should split into two countries. Let them run their social experiment on themselves and leave the rest of us out of it. I would want a very tall border though.

    1. they can have from SF south to San Diego, provided there is deep sea port access
      they can have blue states on eastern seabord too, provided there is deep sea port access

      we can rebuild wall street in chicago easily

      I would vote to split America up in a heartbeat, but yeah, we get to keep the middle, and there will be a big sort that happens and it could be ugly

      bleeding heart libs should just move out to those places asap, not wanted in flyoverland

      1. Hay! We want the whole Left Coast and inland to the last sight of the Rocky Mountains. We’ll be sporting about it so you can have the Black Hills. 🙂

        1. you get the festering urban blights and dry hills of california that’s it. mexico will annex you all the way to the bay area and we will laugh as we let you suffer a while and before long the crybabies of silicon valley will come looking for protection from the narcostate to the south.

          i read an article in some computer related periodical. do you know what the big question is for rich silicon valley geeks planning their post collapse hideouts? “how do we get security to obey us.” how indeed! they wont….. better hope it doesn’t collapse because without the law and order Democrats constantly undermine most of them would get chewed up for breakfast by the unfed lumpen clients that formerly supplied you with votes

            1. WV is a great state, I have toured it with great pleasure, Blue Ridge Mountains, and was warmly welcomed as i have been in all Southern states. Tennessee, Missouri, these are the Heartland! Oh, and Democrats in WV MO and TN are quite a bit different from Californians too, you can be sure of that.

              as for VA the Old Dominion outside the Swamp area is different than inside the Beltway too but you may not be aware of that.

              1. Rode my motorcycle down the Blue Ridge Pkwy…beautiful and friendly people. I rode some serious rapids in WV?, and camped by the river. Too long ago.

              2. D.C. is clamoring for statehood, but that would mean two more leftist senators. My response is to give D.C. back to Maryland. If the land taken from MD to create D.C. were returned, the D.C. people would have their state, and a bigger MD would certainly be liberal enough for them, without changing the political balance.

              1. Mespo,

                Someone I still consider a bud moved his legally owned Tanks & automatic weapons from Fairfax county to W Virginia a few years back.

                It’s late but I still think Trump should put in some transitional oversee’er,

                Then fire a 1/3 rd of the fed gov’t.

                see who screams, have them justify those positions.

                rinse/ repeat & fire the next 1/3rd.

          1. Why? The US Govt Stole all the Sioux, Cheyenne, Arapaho’s Gold out of the Homestakes Gold Mine & now the Gov’t is taking out the Uranium?

      2. Kurtz: The Trump tax law changes may create demographic shifts over time. In that taxpayers can no longer deduct exorbitant state income taxes on their federal returns, people in the high tax states (CA, NY, NJ, MD; all blue states) may see an exodus of higher income residents. MD is losing a lot of higher income residents to VA, and I’ve read that CA is losing it’s higher income folks to TX. MD has seen a substantial demographic shift even before the tax law change, and this may hasten the trend. Higher income residents moved down to VA, and because MD encouraged illegals to move in, there has been a significant increase in the need for social spending, at the same time that the tax base is sprinking. And Montgomery County’s once nationally renowned public school system is now seeing plummeting test scores and high schools with a 50% dropout rate. There will always be enclaves like Bethesda and Chevy Chase with excellent schools, but the rest of the county is feeling the nasty impact of mindless liberalism.

  9. A U.S. Senator ordered American men to shut up.

    This dufus should have already been impeached for subversion of the U.S. Constitution, abuse of power and denial of constitutional rights.

    Crazie Mazie’s acts constitute constitutional nullification and communist insurrection at its most egregious.

  10. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski won’t vote for a judge accused of attempted assault by 2 women.

    It’s time for a new appointment.

    Why not a new female justice?

    1. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski won’t vote for a judge accused of attempted assault by 2 women.

      Collins and Murkowski aren’t morons. They understand perfectly well this whole imbroglio is fraudulent. What they’re up to is soulless political calculation.

    2. the lady trump had is a prolifer too. amy comey something or other. they wont like her either.

      if Kav gets sick of this, who can blame him. bring her on I say, she was qualified too.

      1. Amy Coney Barrett has 10 kids. And her husband is a lawyer for the federal government. So unless they have independent wealth, good luck finding a house in the metro D.C. area that can house 12 people and is in a decent neighborhood. This ain’t Indiana!

    1. “I just asked 4 freshmen…”

      “Now Washington state has quite a decent public school system and WSU students come from the upper ranks of their graduating classes.”

      – David B. Benson
      _______________________________________________________________________________________________________
      So, Benson, you are a parasitic public worker living off of the public dole? Who’d a thunk? Help me out here.

      Can you pay taxes with taxes? Is it possible for workers paid with collected tax dollars to pay taxes with the tax dollars they just received? Can one pay taxes with taxes? So you don’t actually pay taxes, right?

      Should a public worker who is paid by elected officials be allowed to vote for those elected officials?

      Now you understand why the American Founders gave Americans a “…republic, if you can keep it,” Ben Franklin.

      A republic is not one man, one vote democracy; it is representative governance “…in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote.”

      The American Founders intended for criteria to be met by voters.

      I doubt being on the public dole is a criterion.
      ___________________________________________________

      Merriam Webster

      Republic

      b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

      1. geo i know you are just messin with him but yes you can pay taxes with tax refund money

        in fact money is most of all, that which can be used to pay taxes

        lawful tender means exactly that and it can be anything the boss gang government says

        1. Oh, I’m serious, Sweetheart! The Founders applied criteria to the vote creating a “body of citizens entitled to vote.” The “poor” were the first group precluded as they would “sell” their votes, which they did. It is similarly irrational for people who receive a welfare check or a pay check to vote as they will also “sell” their votes, which they did.

    2. i invited you yesterday to consider the irony of your allusion but apparently you havent. that must have sailed over your head. but quit thinking you are so clever buddy. you aint

      1. Mr Kurtz — I am fully aware of the dramatic import of Mark Anthony’s funeral oration in Wm Shakespeare’s play.

        That actually isn’t how Mark Anthony gathered an army to go hunt down Brutus et al. but it works well as drama. Nothing subtle about it.

        1. the point is that one alpha succeeds another. by definition. the virtue signalling is all phony. now a peasant like me, or any small person’s best hope in an empire, is that succeeding tyrants is better than the last one.

          saintliness is not a criteria for a head of state or high office anywhere besides the Vatican and it seems they are just as incompetent at filling the high slots as any other sovereign judging by the swine McCarrick

          http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2018/08/31/pope-francis-and-mccarrick-where-does-the-evidence-lead/

          1. Even my 10th grade teacher of English would give you very poor marks for such an essay about “Julius Caesar”. My college senior year professor would simply give you an F grade.

            Briefly, all the Roman Senators, all 2000 or so, were “alpha males”. Back to your primatology class, leave literary analysis to your betters…

            1. David Benson is the King of Making Stuff Up and owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seventeen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – if you actually studied history you would know that some of the Senators in Rome were soy boys.

                1. David Benson is the King of Making Stuff Up and owes me eleven citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seventeen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – I do not know what you are doing with your time that you do not have time for me. You certainly are not getting my citations and you are now seventeen weeks behind. What are you doing? Enquiring minds want to know?

  11. This, “women’s medical needs must be controlled” is a sarcastic accusation against conservatives. To which I say 60,000,000 abortions have significantly improved the health of women in America, don’t you know?

      1. The ‘health statistics’ aren’t going to include the health of the women slaughtered in vitro every year.

          1. David Benson is the King of Making Stuff Up and owes me eleven citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seventeen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – can you give us a cite on that?

      1. My guess is that is an approximate number of abortions since Roe vs Wade. Probably 1/3 or a bit less were black. A few abortions world wide will have occurred while you accessed this response.

        1. So Allan, we’re supposed to believe the U.S. population would be 60,000.000 bigger had Roe v Wade not passed? And that there would be 20,000,000 more Blacks?

          60 million additional people born to dysfunctional and, or, poverty stricken families. But Republicans like Allan would have us believe we would somehow be a better country had they all been born.

          Never mind that these numbers that were pulled out of nowhere. Never mind that we would be a much poorer country. Never mind that we would have millions more criminals. Never mind that we would have millions more people with mental illness or retardation issues. We’re supposed think it’s a tragedy they all weren’t born!

          No wonder liberals want to stop Kavanaugh from getting on the court.

          1. We’re supposed think it’s a tragedy they all weren’t born!

            Shill,
            You are one disgusting POS. Who anointed you and your ilk judge, jury and executioner? You couldn’t possibly know what contribution to society any of those lives aborted would have been. We do know there are millions living in poverty, are criminals and have mental or retardation issues. Why haven’t you sought to cull them from the herd? Oh that’s right, post-birth abortion needs an activist court and you just can’t seem to get there.

            Stalin, Mao, Pot, Hitler all tried your desired method to cleanse the earth of undesirables and guess what, they keep reproducing. Never forget that when you support a regime that values life like a commodity on the stock exchange, your value might hit bottom and you’d have no one to blame but yourself for the consequences.

            1. Olly, 60 million is the populations of California and Florida combined (our first and third most populous states). And almost all those children would have been born to single mothers or broken families.

              Though I still think that 60 million numbers is wildly inflated.

              1. And almost all those children would have been born to single mothers or broken families.

                Where’s Benson with his Making Stuff Up allegation?

                You have no idea what motivated 600, 6 million or 60 million abortions. And you absolutely have no idea what their contribution to society would have been had they survived execution.

                Now normally I would advise at this point that you put down the shovel, but I believe watching you dig yourself into hell a teachable event.

                1. We know that abortion, more often than not, is motivated by poverty. Poor, single mothers cannot afford to even ‘carry’ unplanned pregnancies. And that’s a fact that Republicans don’t want to acknowledge as evidenced by their desire to destroy Planned Parenthood.

                  Conservatives wish to believe that abortions are the choice of so-called ‘Fem-Nazis’ who just casually dispose of pregnancies that resulted from casual sex. That’s what motivates evangelical Pro-Lifers; the idea that they must punish ‘Fem-Nazis’.

                  1. We know that abortion, more often than not, is motivated by poverty.

                    Nope. Motivated by consumer preference. Any woman in financial straits could put her child up for adoption. Affluent people are not more fecund than impecunious people in this country, their larger disposable incomes notwithstanding. Real incomes as we speak are double what they were in 1966, when abortion was unsafe, illegal, and rare.

                    Abortion is practiced at every social stratum. You see proportionately more of it at lower strata because people in lower strata tend to be more disorganized and impetuous.

                  2. Peter Hill – we know nothing of the kind. Rich women get as many abortions as poor women, just for different reasons.

                    1. Of the respondents to the Guttmacher Institute “Thirty-one percent of respondents were black, and 19% were Hispanic. ” That makes 50% of the respondents. Is Peter salivating at the thought of killing so many minorities?

                    2. Peter Hill – did you actually read the study? It is very flawed and could not be duplicated. I am sure their heart was in the right place but their statistics are not.

                    3. The Guttmacher Institute is the research and advocacy wing of the abortion mill operator Planned Parenthood. Cue Mandy Rice-Davies.

                  3. Peter is expanding the people he is willing to kill. He doesn’t just want to kill potential thieves but potential poor people as well (~1/3 black).. Murphy Brown pushed the leftist idea of single motherhood and now Peter Shill wishes to kill the offspring of single mothers as well.

                    Peter Shill sounds like a mass murderer or at least a potential one while he reorganizes society to meet a certain racist need.

                    Let me guess Peter’s profession. Eugenics.

                  4. We know that abortion, more often than not, is motivated by poverty.

                    Prove it.

                    Poor, single mothers cannot afford to even ‘carry’ unplanned pregnancies.

                    Is that Ozarks poor or Los Angeles poor? If that were true, why do the “not poor,” 2 adult household, or married get abortions? If that were true, why don’t all poor, single mothers get abortions?

                    The fact is you’re an imbecile trying to rationalize the taking of an innocent life. You’re already on record supporting abortion to minimize the impact a particular social class might have on our society. This mentality is exactly what permeated cultures to enable regimes to devalue life and commit genocide on those that were deemed not fit to exist.

                    You have absolutely no idea what motivates all conservatives and pro-lifers. That would require you actually find value in all human life. The deeper you dig, the further removed you get from that understanding.

                    And yet you’ll keep digging.

                    1. Olly, Peter is as stupid as they come. Who has children? Younger rather than older. Who has money? Older rather than younger.

                      When I had my children I was in debt. That would make me poor. Many of my friends were in debt. That made them poor as well. Based on Peter’s assumptions we should have all killed our children especially those of us that were minorities.

                      Peter is a brute.

              2. Peter, you don’t know sh1t but you can throw a lot of it around. Let us hear your number. We will probably accept it and then what? You will tell us that killing them (~1/3 black) helped keep the criminal population down?

                You are a piece of work that would make anyone that doesn’t believe in abortion suddenly believe in abortion on a one time basis.

          2. You are a sick person Peter. You asked a question as to what the 60,000,000 was meant to be and I answered it without significant commentary. From there you make all sorts of assumptions.

            You say these numbers were pulled out of nowhere. That must mean you have a better set of numbers. Let us hear them. [That means Peter Shill will now shut up]

            Then you state how much poorer this country would be if those abortions had not been performed where almost 1/3 would have been black. Your rational is that we would have millions more criminals” and “millions more people with mental illness or retardation”. I wonder if you were referring to the entire group or just the ~1/3 because deep down I believe you have significant racially motivated issues. Maybe you are looking to create a super race of your own and perceive that killing those that don’t meet your particular standards is the way to get there.

            1. Allan, how disingenuous to pretend that Republicans care about the poor and that abortion is somehow a racist conspiracy. What a bunch of bunk!!

              The Republicans have been tenacious in their desire to prevent poor Americans from obtaining health insurance. Republicans have been tenacious in their efforts to cut-off food stamps and throw people off Public Assistance with drug-testing schemes. Republicans have steadfastly opposed any hike the minimum wage. Republicans have done everything possible to erode the power of labor unions. Republicans have maliciously sought to weaken environmental regulations. Republicans have sought to weaken the tax bases of big cities. Trump appointed an inexperienced political to run the Department of Housing. ..And most significantly, Republicans have fought any effort to regulate firearms.

              So when Republicans like Olly and Allan pretend they ‘care about the poor’, it is nothing but sheer hypocrisy!!!

              Allan, in fact, is so scared of any socialism that he injects anti-communist references in every comment he writes. Allan would rather let the poor die of cancer than allow socialized medicine.

              1. “Allan, how disingenuous to pretend that Republicans care about the poor and that abortion is somehow a racist conspiracy.”

                Peter, where did I mention Republicans. People on both sides of the aisle have mixed feelings towards abortion, but your feelings are clear. Kill the poor, those from single mothers, those that you might find unclean where ~1/3 are black because they may become criminals. Racism?

                “The Republicans have been tenacious in their desire to prevent poor Americans from obtaining health insurance.”

                What a fool. Many people want to end Obamacare becasue it robbed many in the middleclass without accesss to employer provided insurance from being able to pay their premiums and then their deductibles and copays. Thus despite insurance many in the middle class now feel they are uninsured.

                Let me explain something to you Peter. Health insurance doesn’t equal health care.

                You go down your list of policies preferring one side to the other despite the fact that some of them hurt black people and minorities and others hurt the entire nation. There is something wrong with your head since I want to help people in need and you want to destroy them. You are one angry dude that is dangerous and knows little to nothing about the things you mention.

                Allan would like to see the poor treated for cancer rather than see them waiting on line and dying. Would you like to review the Concord study on international cancer results to see that you are a jackass or would you prefer to simply not know anything of value and remain a jackass?

              2. you guys should calm down. stop demonizing each other.

                abortion is a homicide, full stop. but it’s different in that the victim, the fetus, is until the moment of birth the independent living unborn child, and is a literal part of the woman’s body. the unborn child is alive and it has its own dna and heart and organs in formation. but is not breathing air and it shares the mother’s blood. so its personhood is qualitatively different than every other child who is alive in those sense. it makes it different from every other homicide of a living breathing biologically independent human.

                a self defense killing, by a person in fear of grave bodily harm or death is a homicide, but it’s legalized for important social reasons. to promote self defense and deter violence.

                the death penalty is a homicide but it is legalized by due process for important social reasons

                homicides in war, same

                bottom line: yes abortion is homicide. but it has been legalized for important social reasons. the physical autonomy of the mother’s person is the chief reason but other reasons are cognizable like the health of the mother; then also rape and incest and yes even the situation of the unfit mother who recognizes she is not capable of being a good mother and wishes to terminate. those are all legitimate concerns. maybe they are not sufficient concerns to justify it in Roman Catholic theology but this is not the Vatican state.

                But observe we have legalized it not by legislation in 45 or so states, only by the SCOTUS judicial fiat.

                while roe v wade was unquestionably an act of judicial legislation and violation of the principles of federalism, at this juncture overturning it lacks popular support, and moreover, technology has superseded this issue by the availability of OTC abortion pills.

                So, I would say, it would be an equal of similarly improper judicial fiat, to overturn it whole hog, as bad in a similar was as Roe was in the first place. Let the legislature act if this is how it will act and do not lay this on the SCOTUS.

                SCOTUS can however allow states to limit it within the ambit of existing cases including Roe and Casey and so forth. That’s SCOTUS job one way or another. Roe was not absolute at all, go read it if you think it was.

                That said I totally support Kavanaugh

                1. [I am not arguing for or against abortion only of logic behind people’s claims along with some of the racism that leads to such logic.)

                  Kurtz writes: ” but is not breathing air and it shares the mother’s blood. so its personhood is qualitatively different than every other child who is alive in those sense.”

                  Do you kill a baby living outside of the mother because instead of sharing elements of the blood it drinks milk from the mother’s breast? Do you kill the baby because it cannot function outside of the body without a “mother”? (By the way the baby doesn’t share the blood.) What is the difference betwen that human in the mothers body before she starts delivery and and after?

                  1. the blood is filtered through the placenta obviously. i have kids and I have seen a placenta.

                    the difference is that it is inside not outside, primarily, that is a significant fact worth observing for legal and even ethical purposes. it may not be a decisive fact but its an important one. i am not disputing the Roman Catholic theology on this, lest i be accused of heresy. I may not be observant at this time but I am not apostate.

                    the jews have a different view of this. I am not jewish but you can consult the rabbis on this, many of them have read, espouse the view that life does not begin until the first breath.

                    as for racism I am not one who gets too exercised over that and eugenics etc. I am not going to wave that flag, i have been called racist too many times for trivial things so I will just let other people toss that accusation around loosely.

                    but, it’s clear that abortion was and is a tool of eugenics. observe the abortion of fetuses known to have downs and so forth. so eugenics lives on in a different name today. is that bad? some people think it’s good. i am ok for the legislatures to sort this out rather than the SCOTUS

                    1. in my social circles people are almost entirely pro life. almost. some are not. i do not find either sort to be evil or they would not be in my circles. somehow you have to allow that there is a valid difference of opinion on the topic and not demonize the opposition.

                      generally, I think conservatives are good at that. but not Democrats.
                      clearly, they have demonized Kavanaugh

                    2. “you have to allow that there is a valid difference of opinion on the topic and not demonize the opposition.”

                      If you are talking about me I don’t demonize anyone for their opinion regarding birth control. Look at the preface to my statement to you. I am trying to deal with the logic behind the conclusion. Some people like Peter are brutal people and demonstrate a disregard for poor people and minorities. That type of person should be demonized for his own good because his attitude has made him stupid.

                    3. “the blood is filtered through the placenta obviously. i have kids and I have seen a placenta.”

                      Good, I was just making sure that others like bettykath wouldn’t get confused since I was discussing this subject with her on another thread.

                      “the difference is that it is inside not outside, primarily, that is a significant fact worth observing for legal and even ethical purposes.”

                      Are you saying that the baby in an early delivery is less human than the same aged baby in the womb?

                      I know the Catholic view of abortion but do not know the Jewish one nor do I care what either says, but why do you keep bringing in the Jewish idea when there are so many larger groups that have distinct opinions on the subject?

                    4. allan, the comparative theological views on abortion between Catholic and Jewish are very much important.

                      they inform the thinking of the Catholic and Jewish jurists. I provide the Jewish thinking not to indict it, but to illustrate that there is a real that Jewish people tend to be more pro choice rather than pro life like Catholics.

                      Such things matter even if people don’t feel comfortable discussing them

                      according to the traditional jewish analysis, to respond to your question, i think they would consider that the unborn child who is older but still in utero, is not alive yet, compared to the already-early-delivered child who is out and cord is cut and breathes.

                      i am not a rabbi. i will link something in which jewish writers provide a detailed view of their various rabbinical authorities

                      https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/abortion-in-jewish-thought/

                      now it is obvious that Kavanaugh and the other pro life favorites are often Catholic and the pro choice advocates leading the charge are Jewish. DiFi and Schumer. But people can make up their own minds. I am sure Avenatti is of Italian backround and likely baptized but equally likely does not care a bit for the dogma of the Church. As you say you do not. that is fine. but religious teachings inform culture and law and society.

                      and we have a diverse society. one wonders at the slogan, “diversity is our greatest strength.” i wonder at that a lot.

                    5. “allan, the comparative theological views on abortion between Catholic and Jewish are very much important.”

                      Kurtz, Everyone’s views are important but you seem to focus on the Jews. What about non Catholic Christians. They are far more populous than the Jews and you don’t even mention them. I am simply taking notice that when controversial issues are involved you seem to focus on the Jews whether it be nationally or internationally yet the population of the world is about 7.5 billion with maybe 14 million Jews. Do the math.

                  2. Do you kill a baby…

                    Here is where I’m arguing from and it is rooted in the mere fact that question or variations of that question are even asked.

                    If the State is empowered to decide what human lives matter, then what are the limits on that power? Let’s say for moment that a majority of voters elect members of congress to pass a law that bans reproductive rights for anyone living below the poverty line, or on public assistance, or in arrears on taxes, or with a credit score below 600, or having been convicted of felony crime, or, or, or.

                    Essentially, if Life is determined to be not unalienable, then why are any rights unalienable?

                    1. the state definitely has the power and the authority to define what is a lawful homicide and what is not. i have covered that.

                      again we meet the point that Jefferson’s Declaration was so much propaganda and the state which followed the Crown is not so different than the Crown in its fundamental nature and approach towards “rights”

                    2. I don’t care what you believe you’ve covered. What you didn’t cover is the question I asked:

                      If the State is empowered to decide what human lives matter, then what are the limits on that power?

              3. So when Republicans like Olly and Allan pretend they ‘care about the poor’, it is nothing but sheer hypocrisy!!!

                Nope. Independent. And I grew up in poverty, on welfare and raised by a single-mother of 5. It would have been 7 but my half-sister (product of rape) was adopted by my Aunt and my only brother was still born. All of my sisters and I grew up, got educated, careers, families with none of them ever needing public assistance. No criminals within any of our 65 extended family members.

                Keep digging.

                1. Olly, you are one of the people that Peter wanted to kill in advance of your ability to defend yourself. If you happen to be a minority you are one of those Peter would have liked to kill twice.

  12. This Senator is a frightening example of where the left and their democrat handlers are today. Completely ignoring her vow to preserve and protect the Constitution she and far too many others have chosen self-blindedness over tried and true measures set up to protect us all. I hope and pray that she and her ilk are brought low to the same level which they would inflict upon Judge Kavanaugh.
    I have no doubt about their guilt — they freely admit it.

  13. Here’s the deal: Kavanaugh covets a seat on the court of last resort–the highest pinnacle of any legal career and the most-powerful position in law. The word “covet” was intentionally chosen, intending to state something more than just wanting it very much, implying craving, passionate desire, pulling all stops to get it. On the other hand, Dr. Ford claims to be the teenage victim of a sexual assault at the hands of someone whose heavy drinking, heavy partying, and generally not living the Jesuit principles espoused by his high school have never been brought to light. Have you heard of “Renata”? At age 15, Dr. Ford could chose to either move on and make a life for herself, or go into the spiral of failure, depression and substance abuse that has happened to so many victims of sexual assault. Her acquaintances say she was not the same outgoing girl she was before this happened. Dr. Ford wanted to remain anonymous, but couldn’t stand by and watch Kavanaugh continue to play the role of doting, Catholic father, CYO coach and conservative jurist. Even if Kavanaugh withdrew his name from consideration today, Dr. Ford’s life still will be impacted until the day she dies, because now everyone knows what happened, and the Trumpsters out there will always brand her a liar. Trump has called her a liar. To avoid the optics of a bunch of old white men calling Dr. Ford a liar, Hatch suggests that yes, she was assaulted, but she is mistaken about the identity of her accuser. How Kellyanne of him. That approach has her stench all over it. Repubicans on the Judiciary Committee are looking for some female surrogate to do their dirty work for them. Lindsey Graham has already said that no testimony of Dr. Ford, Deborah Ramirez or anyone else would stop him from voting In favor of Kavanaugh. She knows that, too. So why are Republicans so stuck on Kavanaugh, when there are other conservative jurists already vetted by the Federalist Society?

    If Kavanaugh doesn’t make it to the Supreme Court, he’ll still sit on the D.C. Court of Appeals. Kavanaugh penned a memo on how a judge could pretend that Roe v. Wade was established law, but still vote to overturn it later, claiming that while “some” legal scholars claim it is established law, others have always disagreed, and the Supreme Court can always reconsider precedent. Therefore, he can look Senator Susan Collins in the face and say that Roe is established law. Kavanaugh was nominated not because of his brilliant jurisprudence–he is very frequently reversed for his non-mainstream views which are consistently anti-women and always anti-choice–but because he penned a piece opining that a sitting President cannot be brought to justice while in office. He’s just a player in the Trump vainglory tour–anything to avoid being brought to justice and to keep him issuing executive orders reversing regulations protecting the environment, protecting consumers and protecting entitlement programs which will get cuts to pay for tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy. The ultra-conservative Federalist Society created a list of ultra-conservative judges. Kavanaugh didn’t make the original list, but when the Mueller investigation heated up, his name was added.

    Kavanaugh’s answers to questions under oath were rehearsed and evasive, just like his pathetic performance last night on Faux News, where he repeated his 3 talking points, verbatim, up to 10 times each.He has a history of non-mainstream conservative rulings and will go to any lengths to rule against womens’ rights. All of these are reasons why these people ARE NOT IN EQUIPOISE.

    1. So afraid are you of losing the legality to kill babies at will that you will say anything, do anything to maintain that dubious, shameful ability.

      1. Wait, C.T.. Kavanaugh absolutely, positively assured Senator Collins that he wouldn’t overturn Roe v. Wade. Are you saying he lied about that?

        1. Wait, C.T.. Kavanaugh absolutely, positively assured Senator Collins that he wouldn’t overturn Roe v. Wade.

          No, he uttered some phraseology in a private conversation which satisfied her. It is exceedingly unlikely it was a commitment of any kind.

          1. I heard what Senator Collins said in an interview immediately after interviewing Kavanaugh. She claimed he said he that assured her that he would not vote to overturn Roe because it was established precedent. This was after she made clear she would never vote in favor of any justice who would overturn Roe. Look it up.

      2. So afraid are you of women who are equal to you, that you want to go back to the “good ole days” when women were the chattel property of their nearest male relative. Rather than agitate towards controlling women through controlling their reproductive system, I recommend that you harness your fear of women into some sort of positive action on your own behalf. Learn a trade, go to school, better yourself. Pro tip: you can’t get a date because you’re still a loser; work smarter towards a positive–stop being “that guy.”

        this is to “why don’t them girls like me?” ct andie

    2. Anonymous:

      Why, yes, I have heard of Renate. Is that who you meant instead of “Renata”?

      “At age 15, Dr. Ford could chose to either move on and make a life for herself, or go into the spiral of failure, depression and substance abuse that has happened to so many victims of sexual assault. Her acquaintances say she was not the same outgoing girl she was before this happened.” And yet, not a single witness has corroborated her story. On the one hand, her friends say she was never the same. On the other hand, not a single person she named supported her story. That is a problem.

  14. KAVANAUGH: HIGH SCHOOL VIRGIN?

    OR ‘RENATE ALUMNUS’?

    Kavanugh took the unusual step of giving a Fox News interview last night with his wife seated beside him. In said interview, Kavanaugh claimed he never had sex in high school or ‘long after’ (which is not necessarily reassuring).

    But The New York Times discovered that Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook identified Kavanaugh as a ‘Renate Alumnus’. Other boys in the yearbook are tagged with this same reference; 14 in all.

    The tags apparently refer to Renate Schoeder, a girl Kavanaugh’s age who attended a Catholic school that socialized with Kavanaugh’s school. Ironically Schroeder, now known as Renate Schroeder Dolphin, was one of 65 women who recently signed a letter of support for Kavanaugh. That was ‘before’ she heard of the yearbook tags. Mrs Dolphin is now quite upset
    knowing that Kvanaugh had ‘linked’ himself to her.

    1. Peter Hill,

      Cavanaugh said that he took Renate to one event, and kissed her goodnight. Renate says he never even kissed her.

      All “Renate Alumni” means is that those same guys dated her. That’s hardly a conquest.

        1. Why read more into it than what the facts support?
          If all of them dated her, “Renate Alumni” would fit. No reason to jump to any other interpretation.

          1. Jim, according to what I’ve read, the real Renate is not the least bit charmed or amused. At this point, she would probably not sign that letter again.

            1. “At this point, she would probably not sign that letter again.” Based on what? Because she actually never said that.

              She was upset that all 14 boys wrote “Renate Alumni” in their yearbook. She wondered what goes through 17 year olds’ heads.

    2. Peter Hill:

      “KAVANAUGH: HIGH SCHOOL VIRGIN?

      OR ‘RENATE ALUMNUS’?” This title appears to suggest that the “Renate Alumnus” proves he was not a high school virgin. That is untrue.

      Here’s what really happened. The football team circulated a poem, that Michael Walsh included in his yearbook, that went, “”You need a date / and it’s getting late / so don’t hesitate / to call Renate.” 14 boys wrote “Renate Alumni” in their yearbook, including Kavanaugh.

      Both Renate and Kavanaugh state that they did not have sex. Kavanaugh said he took her to a dance and gave her a goodnight kiss. Renata said that he must have confused her with someone else, because she did not kiss him. Neither said they had sex. Clearly, the Renate Alumni does not reference a conquest. Kavanaugh said he wrote it because he went on a single date with her.

      Do you have any idea how desperate and preposterous it is to now be talking about not approving a candidate to the Supreme Court because a shy nerdy 17 year old bragged about going on a date with a popular girl? Did you never watch Pretty in Pink? At least he didn’t borrow her panties for a virgin to get some sort of street cred with the other nerds.

      I have no idea if Renate slept around, or if she was a jolly girl who had fun going out on dates with the cute football payers, and never slept with anyone until her wedding night.

      What she actually said was, “I learned about these yearbook pages only a few days ago,” Dolphin said in a statement to the Times. “I don’t know what ‘Renate Alumnus’ actually means. I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way. I will have no further comment.”

      This was in reference to all 14 boys writing “Renate Alumni” in their yearbook. Is the standard now that teenage boys may never utter a single syllable, or write a word about a popular girl dating the football team? I can understand why she didn’t like being referred to as a “Renate Alumni”. I also understand that 14 boys identified themselves as having dated her. I am unclear if all 14 were on the football team. But if they were, then it’s kind of a club. I can see both their points. I have made comments myself about male friends of mine who dated a whole bunch of girls. One of them remained friends with almost all of them, so we called them the (Insert Guy’s Name) Club. It was not intended as mean, and they were good natured with each other. It is rather unreasonable for a girl to date at a minimum 14 boys in the same grade in high school and expect none of them to mention it.

      Personally, since she said she didn’t sleep with Kavanaugh, I think she might have just been a fun loving girl always up to go out and have fun, but not sleep around. But that’s just a guess.

      Is this how Supreme Court hearings will go? Will we need the FBI to determine if candidates ever wrote, “For a good time, call X” on a bathroom stall? If merely saying that you were a Renate Alumni could get you kicked out of a Supreme Court nomination, any behavior in The Breakfast Club, Pretty in Pink, or <Weekend at Bernie's would absolutely require a self righteous mob chasing Kavanaugh’s friends and acquaintances out of restaurants. It’s like the party of sexual freedom has become the SNL Church Lady on this issue, but not Keith Ellis.

      Hmmm, let’s see, what does Kavanaugh remind us of. Oh, I don’t know…maybe Satan? I heard he wrote that he went out with Renate in his yearbook when he was 17! Can you imagine????!! He can’t be a virgin! That Renate was a total ho, so if he went out with her, he must have lied about graduating high school a virgin. Ergo no Supreme Court!!

      Yes, it really is that ridiculous. You guys are savaging someone who appeared to be a nerdy virgin as some sort of sexual predator or Lothario without any evidence. That is not how our legal system is supposed to work. You are acting like a bunch of gossiping hens. The hearing should consider facts and evidence. If the accuser will not testify or take a single question, then no reasonable person can do much about her accusation. This is especially true because in both cases, not a single person named corroborated the story.

      1. Karen S – I was a virgin all through high school and well into my freshman year in college. I see no problem with Kavanaugh being one.

        1. Paul C…..high five! I was a virgin until the year after my college graduation. But by the time I was 21, still in school (Baptist) I drank, and wore mini skirts, and swore………I basically played the part of a “with it” wild thang……But, nope….. a V until 23!
          Can I get an “A-men!”, brothers and sisters!!

          1. The liver is not fully formed until age 24–25. Anyway, on average women’s livers are smaller than men’s so the usual recommendation is that women should drink about half as much as men, say one glass of wine per day, max.

            That’s what medical advice states.

      2. By all indications Kavanaugh was a wild drunk and so were most of his friends. And he needs to answer questions about his drinking. Like ‘when’ did he stop. Or is he still drinking.

        1. Peter Hill – until someone gets in the cage, he is not being accused of of anything. The charge here, which seems weaker by the minute, is groping while drunk, by person or persons unknown in a place to be determined at a time to be determined. Remember, the first memory is the strongest. There it is four boys and Kavanaugh is not mentioned. She just filled in the gaps conveniently after that. Right now, my money is on she doesn’t testify. Rameriz seems to have backed out. Avenatti’s client may be a 4chan hoax. And Ford cannot get anyone to back up her story.

        2. Here is that crazy guy drawing crazy conclusions again. Previously indicating that by killing (1/3rd being black) we could enhance our nation and reduce crime. Now he accuses Kavanaugh of being a “wild drunk”. Where is Peter’s proof? It doesn’t exist except in his mind. I’m not sure what Peter has against Kavanaugh except for the fact that he is a normal law abiding American.

Leave a Reply