(09-27-2018, 12:43 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:(09-27-2018, 10:10 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The testimony by Christine Ford is on the air... and it is as unflattering a view of Bret Kavanaugh as is possible.The lady seems like she's a ditz. The lady seems like she can be emotionally unstable at times and very forgetful at times as well. I wonder if she is being treated for a mental disease that was largely unknown, undetectable and untreated during the time period she claims the incident with Bret Kavanaugh occurred with her.The liberal view of Kavanaugh has been largely unflattering up to this point. So, what's new about that? I do feel sorry for her being used by the Democrats the way she is today.
A hand covering her mouth and nose is far worse (she was scared that she would suffocate!) than pubic hairs on a soft drink can or references to the pornographic "Long Dong Silver".
Do you know what it is like to be raped or to be assaulted in a context in which you can be raped? I don't. This is a very strong statement. If her testimony cannot convince one that she was assaulted in the context of a potential rape, then nothing can other than the confession of a rapist.
She has the sort of memory characteristic of someone who has been sexually assaulted. As far as I am concerned, she was most damning when she said that BK put a hand on her nose and mouth, scaring her that she could be suffocated. What other context could there be.
She admits to behavior characteristic of someone who has feared that she was going to be raped -- even her admission of claustrophobia and the double front doors on her house that damage its value.
I have no illusion that Donald Trump will not nominate some other reactionary jurist should this nomination implode. He could in theory nominate someone on Death Row to be a Justice of the US Supreme Court. He could in theory nominate someone who has the legal philosophy of Nazi "hanging judge" Roland Freisler. He could nominate me, for all the Constitution dictates (ridiculous in view of what I think of him). He could nominate a snake, and I mean a literal legless reptile. More reasonably, he could nominate someone who believes that workers have no rights against employers, that vote fraud is fine as long as it serves the current leadership, that damnatio ad bestiae is a fair way of dealing with political or religious dissidents (read the book or see the movie Quo Vadis? to know what that means -- OK, that is casting Christians to the lions, so you don't have to search the stacks of a library or to find an old movie), or that abortion is a crime against humanity in the same sense that herding Jews into gas chambers was. Or he could nominate a political hack.
Yes, elections have consequences, and I wish that we had elected someone else in 2016 as President or at the least we had a different Congress than one whose majorities believe that no human suffering can ever be in excess so long as it serves a tiny fraction of the public that matters more than everyone else. But we are stuck with Donald Trump.
Traditionally, character and competence have mattered for appointments to Cabinet positions and especially the US Supreme Court. This nominee, so far as I can tell, is Robert Bork with a history of sexual assault.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.