What happened at the Kavanaugh hearing today? Does everyone who is a Democrat believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford while everyone who is a Republican believe Judge Kavanaugh? (and libertarians like me think that the idea of listening to either one on the subject of a 36-year-old event doesn’t make sense?)
My Facebook feed suggests that this is true. A passionate Democrat wrote “Dr. Ford’s testimony was searing and devastating.” (Twenty years ago, he was a defendant in a restraining order action brought by a former sex partner. He told the judge (and us) that the plaintiff was lying, but now it seems he is in a #BelieveAllWomen frame of mind.)
[More disturbingly, I saw something about Kavanaugh crying. Is that true? If so, we’ve got a person who
- scolded Bill Clinton for romping with interns (letter)
- bragged about how the majority of his clerks were female (i.e., he is hiring people for government jobs in violation of the Equal Protection Clause)
- cried while testifying
If the Senate votes to confirm, under what conception of masculinity would it be fair to say that Brett Kavanaugh is a “male” justice?]
Separately, I posted the below photos, tagged from the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (Casanova show; closing soon so don’t miss it!), with “I discovered some contemporaneous evidence of Bethesda, Maryland high school parties back in the old days. (Note the trigger warning regarding the Fragonard.)”
Only one Facebook friend dared go on record with a “like”! A museum placard does give a suggestion as to how many of the current disputes in our society could be de-escalated:
Convents were Catholic institutions for women seeking a religious life, but in the 18th century, they also provided lodging for elite young women whose parents wished to keep them out of trouble until their weddings.
(Of course, today we’d want it to be gender-neutral so the young Kavanaughs would have to go the monastery.)
Related:
Trump says, SA-A-AD:
https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/180927-kavanaugh-holds-back-tears-feature.jpg
It’s very odd that the accuser waited until this judge came under consideration for a Supreme Court nomination before going public with her alleged assault.
M, Mark: Yes, yes, but what about the actual event? People were excited about it and the vote for confirmation was delayed because of it. If nothing changed as a result, that’s kind of interesting, no? It would show a structural failure in the hearing system if they don’t actually need to do them at all except for theater.
Kavanaugh is being considered for an important and stressful job. He hasn’t demonstrated the temperament to perform that job. Also, he has lied many times in the last few weeks. Doesn’t matter what happened or didn’t with Dr. Ford.
Being in the same room as the people who tried to destroy you might provoke some intemperance. His anger looked like that of a wrongfully accused man not of someone who is enacting ‘patriarchy resentment rage’ or whatever New Yorker is going with.
He did a good job categorically and thoroughly denying, in general, any such wrongdoing.
What are you going to do about it?
He could have been better, but consider how challenging the situation.
What about the actual event? I did not pay much attention. Why waste time? All there is to know is going to be on Twitter by midnight.
There are two large groups of people: those who believe Kavanaugh is guilty and those who don’t. These two groups don’t care about facts and won’t listen to each other. Shaming your opponent no longer works: they just dig in their heels and shout louder. Both sides demonstrated they would do whatever it takes to stick it to the other party. What else is new?
Let’s wait for the vote tomorrow.
Mark: why is that odd? Most assault victims never come forward. Some do. There’s a spectrum in between. Certainly the thought of your attacker sneaking and weaseling onto the most prestigious court would be appalling enough to muster the courage for some.
Kavanugh’s testimony could have been easily faked. Anger isn’t hard. Yeah, he’s pissed he’s gotten caught after thinking he’d fooled everyone and gotten away with being a creep for all these years. He took a gamble and could loose everything in addition to having his chances of joining one of the most prestigious groups in the world suddenly being pulled out from under him. There zero difference in being the angry victim or a self absorbed douche. He was completely evasive. Not only that, but a complete opposition to getting at the truth tells me all I need to know. Actions, or in-action, speak louder than words.
On the other hand, Dr. Ford was unassailable in her credibility. Not even the most skilled actors could have pulled that off.
She’s the real deal, and he’s an outed privileged schmuck.
Kavanaugh gave an impeccable performance of a presently sober belligerent drunk pretending to be outraged. The most likely explanation for his denials is the that he was too drunk to remember it.
I’ve yet to understand what he did to assault her. Is lying on top of someone sexual assault?
PS
I don’t think he will get the nomination, now.
I listtened to most of it, not watched it. Here is my impression.
Ford came across more in control and on point while Kavanaugh was all over the place when answering some of the questions. The reason for that can be attributed to the fact of how he was questioned. Questions asked to Ford were done in a polite way (by both Republicans and Democrats) but for Kavanaugh were very forceful by the D’s.
The R’s having Mitchell question Ford was a mistake. Just like everyone else, she was given 5 min slots of questioning. By the time she build up to her “punch-line” question her time was up. R’s figured they can use her to show they are not old-white-men attacking a victim but it really back-fired.
Kavanaugh was confrontational at times and interrupting and being interrupted while answering. He repeatedly said “I’m an innocent man” which he should not have said and instead should have stick to his original statement that he has not done any such thing.
At the end, this whole thing was doomed to fail from the start because the whole thing was not set to be fair to start with. R’s and D’s have a hard drudge against each other which has been going on for years and thanks for the internet and short span / memory of may Americans this is getting worse.
If I may pick a time in recent history as to when / what started this R’s and D’s drudge, I would say it was during health care summit meeting that Obama set [1]. During this meeting, the D’s made it clear that they will go it along with the health care and were not compromising in anyway. Furthermore, Obama stating that elections have consequencies [2] and he has election points to burn (I cannot find the exact quote) has all added more fuel to the drudge between the two parties.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/07/AR2010020703003.html
[2] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/08/13/too_bad_obama_didnt_follow_his_own_advice_123650.html
Mark: how would you feel if a man twice your strength and weight pushed you onto a bed, covered your mouth with one hand and groped you (and perhaps more) while his buddy guarded the door? See, that wasn’t too hard to figure out was it? It’s assault.
George: I take issue with your characterisation re healthcare. The plan the Democrats presented WAS the Republican plan from years prior. The entire plan was a compromise from the outset. Obama had it right when he said sheeting to the effect of, rather than saving everyone time, I guess we should’ve put forth a entirely socialist plan to begin with, knowing we’d eventually end up in the same place.
The overall impression was clear to anyone who watched. The republicans and the judge came across as bullies, yelling down or talking over any statement they didn’t agree with. Lindsey Graham looked and acted like a petulant little bitch. Chuck Grassley was more interested in constantly repeating that no one but him was going to make up any rules for the committee.
Ford answered respectfully and she answered everything she was asked. There’s really nothing more to say about her.
It was worse than the Anita Hill hearings. Kavanaugh looked, sounded an acted nothing like an impartial judge. I’m too old for any of this to affect me, but god help younger folks in this country if he gets confirmed.
Jim: “clear to anyone”? That’s my point. You’re a Democrat, right? It was clear to you that Blasey Ford was credible while Kavanaugh was a liar. Do you know any Republicans? Did they see it the same way? If not, then it wasn’t “clear to anyone”!
Phil: have you even watched the hearings? You cannot possibly grasp the gap in credibility by reading transcripts or even watching short snippets.
Less: Of course I haven’t watched the hearings. That’s why I asked all of you! (I formed an anti-Kavanaugh sentiment months ago (based on his letter re: Bill Clinton and young friends), so there was no need for me to watch anything. Also, I’ve seen a lot of movies in which the people speaking sound sincere and yet are lying (since their roles are entirely made up). So I don’t imagine that I can sort out truth from lies based on tone of voice or apparent sincerity.)
Lesscapable, #11, wrote:
>> … how would you feel if a man twice your strength … groped you… ?
(edited for size)
I would be terrified. Totally.
And that’s why we need THE WALL AND THE BAN.
Isn’t it clear to anyone?
Phil…I didn’t call anyone a “liar” and I didn’t say Ford was “credible”.
If you take the time to watch even 10 minutes of each persons testimony you’ll see that my description is accurate. Ford simply and politely answered questions. Kavanaugh basically yelled and admonished his way through questions with over the top anger. Whether I believe he committed this assault doesn’t matter. He clearly displayed a temperament an attitude that, IMO, disqualifies him from being a judge.
Yes, it’s crystal clear to anyone who saw it.
Jim: I don’t doubt your impression. It is just that I haven’t seen a Republican who reports a similar one! That makes me question the value of these hearings.