First, Senator Hatch admits he does not know about what happened. Second, the
Republican Party was willing to allow a Supreme Court vacancy to remain empty
for the last year of President Obama's term as POTUS. And third, if Dr Ford
brought this up in couples therapy in 2012, then I believe that her willingness
to speak of the assault ought to include willingness to have the therapist
release his/her session notes regarding the incident. If she did bring it up in
2012, then it is patently clear she did not just invent this to throw a monkey
wrench into the current process.
My Angry Trump Voter Subtext: “As with al reported and actual cases of
sexual assault, we must vigilantly continue to ask ourselves,What steps
did she take to put herself in this position?Was she wearing the kind of
clothing that basically said, “I’m looking for a good time?”
Please don’t try to tell me this doesn’t happen at HS parties. Did she invite this situation only to say no later, in a teasing sort of
way?Is she now seeking retribution because the male rejected her?I
don’t know this woman or Judge K. But I tend to believe that in situations
like these, it’s best to believe the man. I think that our President
probably has a lot of faith in Brett and understands that accusers will come
out of the woodworks when handsome, larger than life and powerful men like he
and Judge K are in charge. For all we know, Dr. Ford is doing this because she
still has a crush on Brett or still feels shunned, much as Stormy is doing with
Look, everyone democrats and republicans want those that commit sexual assault
to be prosecuted to the highest extent possible, but you have to at least have
some evidence that it actually happened. So far there has been none shown
whatsoever. What is that evidence in Kavanaugh's accusation?Weinstein, Cosby, and even Joseph Bishop's accuser, all have some form of
I believed Anita Hill and I believe Doctor Ford. It is unfortunate that these
men (Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh) are willing to sacrifice their
integrity to gain a seat on the Supreme Court. Both should have passed on the
nomination and allowed another qualified individual to seek confirmation.
Hatch's comments are ridiculous. He should have left the Senate years ago.
Mistaken? You might be mistaken as to whether you had pepperoni or
mushrooms on your pizza last Saturday night, but not mistaken over a traumatic
assault when you were, let's not forget, only 15 years old.
@RiDal;I don't know what planet you're living on, but on
this one Sexual Assualt IS a crime. Even if the assault didn't end in an
accomplished rape. And on my planet, 17 year olds are perfectly aware that
rape/attempted rape IS also a crime.From the comments and the
responses of high ranking GOP officials; I expect that he could be found to be a
serial killer and they'd excuse it so long as they could pursue the
furtherance of their agenda to put the USA back into the stone ages.
It is an interesting problem; usually, you do not have support of events from so
long ago, due to lost parties who might support such claims, but Ms. Ford,
though very late went through a credible process before the story was placed in
the evening news? Frankly, as a simple legal educator, and attorney, I think
there are better candidates? Garland Merrick, though, though not considered with
a vote, his opinions are well written, and Mr. Hatch's golden person, often
supports the majority opinion, but his logistical analysis, and thorough
understanding of certain aspects of the Constitution are very weak? He was
turned down initially for his current position, and probably should be pulled,
for a better scholar, of which there are so many available. I think Mr. Hatch is
playing his political card a bit too much of late. It is so sad that much of
this process is made political, when in reality, no one cares what political
party you belong too, when just law and facts are being evaluated; the best
people, and legal minds should be our first priority. Thanks for reading my
Shades of Anita Hill. Last minute accusations. Nothing of substance or
merit.Have the vote.
@oldbasketballThe vast majority of sexual abuse victims delay disclosing
what happened. "It's one of the most common features of child sex
abuse," said Anne Meltzer, a psychologist. Most victims of child sexual
abuse fear they won't be believed or that their family may be angry.
There's often a very intense feeling of shame, guilt and humiliation.
Teenagers often feel like "damaged goods."I was sexually
abused by a school counselor – a married father of two daughters. I went
to my Bishop who’s response was, “Why would a married man touch you?
If he did, you must’ve done something.” Yep – blame the
victim. After that experience, I learned to hide the pain, the hurt, and even
the shame that I felt.At the 2016 Academy Awards, Lady Gaga
performed, “Til It Happens To You” surrounded by dozens of victims
of sexual abuse – both men and women. I wasn't alone – I
couldn’t stop the tears. After that, I publicly acknowledged my abuse
– yes, 38 years after it happened! You discount the SURVIVORS of sexual
abuse and say those hurtful words, “Why didn’t you report it, why
did you wait so long?” You haven’t lived through it and you’ll
never know the pain and anguish, “Til It Happens To You.”
Mr. Hatch:How dare you make such presumptive statements. The old
white man club is closing, giving glib statements that ultimately discredit a
woman and her credibility is no longer acceptable; from a politician, an
entertainer, a business man or a religious leaderSincerely,A
male Utah citizen and voter.....
This is another reason I would never vote for a democrat.
@Lighton"The simple existence of another Professor Christine Ford does
not mean the reviews were not about the Christine Ford in this story. "They were ratemyprofessor reviews of a professor at a different
university. It's really really easy to tell the difference. Easily
Senator Hatch has been reasonable and appropriate in suggesting accuser made a
mistaken identity. Senator Lee and the rest of the Utah delegation has also been
circumspect and reasonable. The women who accused Kavanaugh had submitted this
accusation months ago and Sen Feinstein and other Democrats could have aired it
earlier. If there is no evidence it would appear to a reasonable person to be a
last minute smear job. If there is evidence the judiciary needs to act.
@dmcvey:"I don't think so. The Republican tantrum over Merrick
Garland didn't do the Democrats any good."Ummmm I am pretty sure
that was also a Democrat tantrum.
@TheJester - American Fork, UT"@Copybook Headings" Just what "precedent" did Biden and Schumer engage in? Never did
either of those gentlemen put a halt to a Supreme Court nomination. Not once.
"Because the opportunity to block during an election year
never arose when Democrats held the Senate? Are you saying that
whenever Democrats give a speech to Congress just throw it out the window
because they don't mean what they say? That actually sounds
about right to me. Like "if you like your healthcare plan you can keep your
healthcare plan. Period!". Or how about "I did not have sexual relations
with that woman; Ms. Lewinski"? Funny that. How the same people who say this
woman deserves to be heard had no problem calling Juanita Broderick
'trailer park trash'. Democrats not only think they can
write and change the rules while the game is in progress. They think that only
the other side has to obey them too. They're going to lose big in November
because of this blatant infantile hypocrisy.
We should treat these accusations exactly as we would treat any other serious
allegations,....from 35 years ago....between teenagers...where
no actual crime was involved....and there is no evidence....and only
one, admittedly intoxicated accuser....and eyewitnesses directly
contradict the accusation....an accusation made by a known political
operative with a history of political activism.Exactly the same!
@ Yuge Opportunity Here I don't think so. The Republican
tantrum over Merrick Garland didn't do the Democrats any good.
This is a boon to the GOP ahead of the midterm elections.The voter
can clearly see the entire Kavanaugh process as a progressive tantrum that can
be avoided in the future by voting out democrats and rejecting candidates who
are rabid liberals.At the heart of it is that the democrats are in
lockstep in opposition of Kavanaugh without cause. It is fine that Booker and
Harris make irrational demands of the SCOTUS candidate, but where are the OTHER
democrats with a more centrist approach? They are silent.Schumer and
Durbin are just as vocal against Kavanaugh.The voter rightly
supposes that the whole party has gone nuts. Suddenly, the GOP candidate for
their House district is looking pretty good. At least she's not a Code Pink
warrior.These extreme displays and late hits are actually good news
for the GOP...as are revelations about media coverage and Google as being biased
in favor of the left.
@Frozen Fractals:"I assume you got that from the Drudge Report story
that passed along reviews from students of an entirely different Christine
Ford?"Based on the rich, rich history of left wing rags reporting
first and getting details later, the jury is still out on this one for me. The
simple existence of another Professor Christine Ford does not mean the reviews
were not about the Christine Ford in this story. You will probably get the
standard non-retraction from the Left Wing rag (or the 100+ that followed suit)
after they find out that what THEY reported was false (predictably will be rated
half true by the "unbiased" fact checkers).....And yes then I will
get the truth about the reviews on Christine Ford from Drudge, Fox News, or
another outlet that cares about truth and not about the narrative.
Registered democrat from San Francisco area who actually makes campaign
contributions to Democrats wants to take down high-ranking judge who democrats
fear will eventually overturn Roe v. Wade by making accusation which can never
be verified or refuted. I want to believe her story, but it screams
smear job for a man who clearly has no history of such actions. I think at worst
he may have copped a feel, but he was too drunk to remember it. My
prediction is they will both claim they are telling the truth, (but it is
actually the truth according to their own version of it), they will both claim
their version is correct, and the Republicans will be satisfied with
Kavanaugh's answers and the democrats will try to say Ford is a "highly
credible" witness, and eventually they will have be forced into a vote and
Kavanaugh will be appointed to the Supreme Court. How can anything
else actually come of this without extremely incriminating evidence?
@Harrison Bergeron[We should also hear from Ford's students who have
said things like:"Christine ford is the worst educator I have
ever experienced. Avoid taking her class and avoid any interaction with this
person. I feel like she has something wrong with her and I am surprised no one
has caught this.']I assume you got that from the Drudge Report
story that passed along reviews from students of an entirely different Christine
I am bothered by the fact that I (along with several others in this comment
section) have to take the time to post corrections to the false narratives being
shared both in this article and amongst the commenters. Isn't this the work
of a responsible, non-biased newspaper reporter and her editors?#1:
In the article, the following quote appears in the 10th paragraph: “Hatch
said in his statement he's "deeply disappointed by the way Senate
Democrats have so grossly mishandled these accusations thus far. It seems in bad
faith to hold this information from Republicans and from the FBI" for more
than a month.” Later in the 29th paragraph Rep. Love expressed similar
thoughts.The sentiments of these 2 statements was parroted by
several opinion writers associated with this article. Honest and fair journalism
should push back, reporting wise, on these 2 misleading statements by these 2
Utah elected officials. Example #2: at last count, 3 opinion writers
to this piece have shared the false narrative associated with several now
debunked viral reports/videos confusing the professor accusing Kavanaugh with
another unrelated California professor. Pushback please?
Those that claim 37 years is enough to forget about the issue miss a very
important point. Kavanaugh is claiming "today" that he never did
anything to the lady 37 years ago. He is not claiming amnesia.If he is lying
"today" he should not be on the U.S. Supreme Court.
@ NeanderthalIt's tough for men not to assault women? Really?
It’s quite obvious that this is nothing but a desperate, last minute smear
attempt by the Democrats.Why else would the “victim”
wait 35 years to report the incident, and why else would Diane F wait SIX WEEKS
to report it?There’s absolutely NO EVIDENCE to corroborate the
“victim’s” made up story.
My theory:The GOP know they are in a no win situation, so the Donald has
decided to throw Kavanaugh under the bus. By telling the GOP Committee members
to vote against Kavanaugh, it will then be easier for the GOP to just find
another right wing judge to nominate. Then they do not have to justify their
decision to women voters over the next few election years and possibly lose the
women vote this November.It will be interesting to watch their body
language on Monday as to who is telling the truth. Kavanaugh will have to answer
directly and not be able to “filibuster” his way through a hearing
like he did two weeks ago. As they say, “ it’s not what a person
says, it’s what they DON,T say.”Also, I find it interesting
that Kavanaugh hired an attorney for these allegations. Why do you need an
attorneys? My parents always told me, “just tell the truth.”
Sexual conduct accusers have no credibility. They come out in every election.
This lady also erased her accounts on social media which proves she is an
actress or else she wouldn't have anything to hide. And why wait until now?
Why not when this happened?
Accusing someone of groping you 37 years ago is ridiculous. Someone who waits
that long to speak up about anything is not credible.
Frankly, I think we should ramrod this Kavanaugh man through with great force
and great power. This is all about abortion. This is all about men denying women
the right to make decisions and take control of their own bodies. Depriving those men of something they've obsessed about for years seems
It's tough for a normal, red-blooded males to ignore females sexual
invitations displayed in dress, and come-on conduct. Sometimes males get
carried away and go too far. So, who's to blame? The male? The female?
Let's let them both off the hook and put the blame on Mother Nature whose
job it is to assure the human race continues to propagate.
The whole thing about "timing" is just not really an issue. No matter
when this was presented people would complain about the timing. The fact is,
this candidate was rushed through without proper vetting because Republicans
want him approved before the midterm elections.
marxist,They can still do an investigation without revealing her name....
It happens all the time.
Rip 3 - @newsflash ;;you seemed to have your mind made up that this a Democrat
trick - like keeping Judge Garland from having a hearing for over a year (
forgot that was a Republican trick!I actually on record saying the
GOP should have put Garland through the process. So I am not sure what your
point is?????"You speak as if this delay in reporting sexual
abuse is a “women” thing" - Um this story is about a woman
bringing allegation on a SCOTUS nominee.. so Yes, I am reporting it as a woman
thing because it concerns woman on this issue at this time. I also know, Sexual
abuse is done to females far more times than to males. I said in my
point - If this woman is reporting this because of politics I think she should
be held accountable for it. Because it diminishes the efforts of those who truly
were abused in getting justice for what happened to them.It is
proven threw actually investigation process that it actually happened, then hold
this man accountable.Like I said, I have three daughters, That is
why I am concerned about this being a political ploy, because it hurts abused
victims getting justice.
I think the question for Brett Kavanaugh is “did you ever get drunk in
prep school?”. If the answer is yes then there’s a chance he did do
what he’s accused of but truly doesn’t have a memory of it. “Alcoholic blackout doesn't mean passing out. It means wiping
out memory.” -Denise Cummins Ph.D.
JBs - Logan, UT, your comments are right on the nose! Perfect!Notice
the deflectors including Hatch trying to bypass their moral duty to hear both
sides of the story? And the Deseret News publishes exactly what Hatch says
without any qualm? Where is the other side? The posters here who
would not allow fair haring to be heard are in the same group, like when Anita
Hill was brutalized.Let's remember that after his contested
confirmation, Anita Hill's story was confirmed by dozens of others. Hatch
refused to allow them to testify. Anita Hill was the brave woman who stood up
and Hatch belittled . She is a hero. She deserves respect in our history books.
Hatch said: "The best President ever". Really? So sad.
This article about Hatch's comments is truly an insult to Dr. Ford. And
this paper has an obligation to give both sides instead of what Hatch says.
"It seems in bad faith to hold this information from Republicans and from
the FBI" for more than a month" says Senator Hatch, whose party has
withheld mountains of information from the Judiciary Committee for fear that
Democrats might see it and ask about it. It is laughable to claim that Sen.
Grassley has introduced "regular order" to this proceeding. This is a
sham process, whose end is known from the beginning. Every aspect of it is a
departure from regular order. Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed to the Supreme
Court and will take his seat as the second sitting justice with a huge sexual
abuse asterisk over his head. Maybe given the "Me too" era, Senator
Hatch and the rest of the GOP will tone down the rhetoric they used in attacking
Anita Hill, whose testimony has been only corroborated over the years, and whose
shameful treatment by Sen. Hatch and the others on the committee will be
remembered for its callous disregard for victims of powerful men. But the
outcome will be the same, because in GOP-land it's more important to have
someone who will overturn Roe v. Wade and insulate the president from the
consequences of his actions than to ensure full and complete vetting.
Let's just say, for example, that the accuser's accusation is true,
and that as a 17 yr old Kavanaugh in a drunken state did what she claimed. That
in the 36 yrs since that time his behavior has been absolutely impeccable. That
the many women who have come forth say he has been nothing but kind and his
treatment towards them has been honorable. His clerks and interns and formal
girlfriends all say his actions towards them has been nothing but respectful.
Doesn't that say everything. If he has shown a complete change of behavior
from his teen years through his actions over a lifetime doesn't that merit
some degree of forgiveness? This action, if true, apparently has never been
repeated. He has served honorably on the 1st circuit and has received the
ABA's highest recommendation. Now, there are some who would say he should
never, ever be forgiven for that act. I would say maybe the problem there is
@newsflash ;;you seemed to have your mind made up that this a Democrat trick -
like keeping Judge Garland from having a hearing for over a year ( forgot that
was a Republican trick!You speak as if this delay in reporting sexual
abuse is a “women” thing, what happened at Penn State University to
the Male football players that were abuse by the Coach? They waited years to
disclose the sexual abuses on them.This type of abuse is traumatic and
some try to blame it on the woman, because boys will be boys. That attitude is
long gone in today’s society. The Church’s preach forgiveness and
turn the othe cheek , that is easy for men, but a woman is soiled in the eyes of
the public if she lets someone violate her. That is why women don’t speak
out many times.
"I wonder how many pointing fingers in all of this have done similar things
in their youth? "I would hope not very many. If this was an
article about smoking pot or lifting a pack of gum from the corner store, I
could see your point. Holding a woman down and trying to disrobe her?
That's quite a bit more serious, from my point of view.
I can remember the Candidate Trump stating he could shoot someone in New York
City and nothing would happen to him.He made the Access Hollywood
tape famous and has refuted or paid off women for their silence.Kavanaugh’s behavior isn’t that much different than what Donald J
Trump said on Access Hollywood.People still voted for Mr Trump with
his behavior publicized.If I remember, Mrs Clinton was an abused
wife based on her husband’s behavior. She has lived through a lot with
her husband.Hopefully, this nomination will be thoroughly vetted and
the Senator Hatch will not torment Mrs Ford as he did Anita Hill. Both ladies
are highly educated and professional for many years.Senator Hatch
has voted for the “Best President” ever and voted for Justice
Thomas. However, he denegrates women that come forward.Mrs Ford
deserves a considerate Senate panel. There are women on the Democratic side
that should help the victim discuss her incident with Kavanaugh and his
friend.If the event happened and he is not telling the truth about
it, that is a significant character flaw for a man that prepared candidates for
judgeship and Justice positions.
The democrats have made a mockery of justice using such deceitful and despicable
tactics against supreme court nominees since Bork and Thomas. This isn't
new and Judge Kavanaugh will take his seat at the bench. I hope voters will
remember this leftist treachery in November.
The Republicans on the panel are all men over 50 years old. They cannot be
impartial with their contempt for women as it show that there are no Republican
women on the committee. Mr Hatch has already made his mind up about the
“women’s version “. He should be more like Sen Hatch who is
saying that the allegations are disqualifing if true.
Re: Harrison Bergeron:"Harrison Bergeron: "We should also
hear from Ford's students who have said things like:"Christine ford is the worst educator I have ever experienced"Pray tell us Harrison, what would Ford's students perception of her
teaching qualities tell us about her being an victim of an alleged rape
attempt.We wait your answer with great anticipation.
@ FlashbackI appreciate hearing a little common sense once in awhile. With
anything political, that rarely happens. You said "Juvenile behavior
isn't adult behavior and shoudn't be judged as such."I
wonder how many pointing fingers in all of this have done similar things in
their youth? It reminds me of what Jesus Christ once said: " “He that
is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John
8:7)." I suspect the same result would happen today as happened back then-
much silence. As people we tend to be pretty hypocritical!Now certainly, I
will be accused of making light of these allegations. On the contrary, they are
serious, but if in fact, this did take place so many years ago and this man has
not made any further mistakes in years, why would it preclude him from acting
responsibly and admirably as a judge?
Let's see. Hatch fully supports Donald Trump and thinks he might be the
best president ever. Trump has boasted of sexual assault. Of course, you never
can trust Trump with the truth, especially if he is boasting. But still, why
should we expect Hatch or the other GOPers in Congress to do other than make
this a partisan issue rather than a serious question about a man's fitness
to serve on the highest court in the land?
@Harrison Bergeron: "We should also hear from Ford's students who have
said things like:"Christine ford is the worst educator I have
ever experienced. Avoid taking her class and avoid any interaction with this
person. I feel like she has something wrong with her and I am surprised no one
has caught this.'"Prof. Ford is unprofessional, lacks
appropriate filters, and I am honestly scared of her. She’s made comments
both in class and in e-mails, if you cross her, you will be on her bad
side.""---------Wrong Christine Ford--those are
reviews for a professor that teaches at a different university and teaches a
different subject entirely. Those publicizing this are either really sloppy
with their research (when she came out publicly, her name was accompanied with
her school and subject), or deliberate deception. Incidentally,
take a look at the ratings for any professor who doesn't just give everyone
A's, and you'll find similar comments from disgruntled students.
This is nothing more than the Democrats pulling an Anita Hill part II.There is nothing for the FBI to investigate. There is nothing actionable if
this ALLEGED incident happened, which I doubt. We are way past any statute of
limitations for anything on this.Basically it is a he said she said.
No proof, no witnesses (at least from her side). And he said he wasn't
even there.She deserves to testify. Doesn't mean that anyone
will believe her, or needs to believe her.Juvenile behavior
isn't adult behavior and shoudn't be judged as such.
Haven't the Democrats said from the start they would do everything in their
power to defeat this nomination? They also said that none of the proposed list
of Conservatives from the Federalist Society should be confirmed. If not
Kavenaugh, no one else will be acceptable to them either. They have made this
about Roe vs Wade from the beginning. No restriction whatsoever on abortions,
even late term. All we have heard from a biased media has from the start taken
the side of the accuser. Rarely mentioned is the signed list of 65 women who
have known and worked for Kavenaugh stating how his behavior has been nothing
but honorable towards this. Usually, someone who is accussed of sexual assault
has numerous accusations from others . This is not the case here. Something is
not right about this whole thing.
Life will be grand again with a GOP minority---
May I present to you Clarence Thomas 2.0Kavanaugh will be voted in.
Even my liberal friends are laughing about the "timing" on this one.Surely this isn't political. Nothing to see here folks. Move
I'm a conservative leaning Independent, which means I'm still confused
why Pres Obama's nominee did not get consideration 30 months ago. But, now we are here and this situation doesn't add up. First, a
professor with multiple degrees doesn't have the confidence to bring this
up when Kav was vetted for Circuit Court? Second, she is absolutely sure this
is the person--yet the party was a co-school event so Kav was not someone she
saw each day at school or ever claimed to see again? Third, this was a drunken
high school party where full control over the brain is missing (which drunk
should we believe? Ford or Kav & Judge). Fourth, why did she never tell a
friend at the time? (Ford claims there were four other people at the party, but
none ever asked why she ran from the house.) Fifth, she names Kav & Judge
but none of the few others that were there? Sixth, her letter to Feinstein said
she wanted confidentiality until she could put her records together--so why did
Feinstein wait so long to disclose when Ford had already agreed to go public?
Ford should be taken seriously and have an opportunity to speak.
But, at this point it stinks of partisan politics.
@Newsflash "If you believe Kavanaugh did this, and it is a serious charge,
then why did you wait three months to reveal it?"'Because
until now the woman would not reveal her name.
This shows why it's bad that the Republicans are trying to race through
this confirmation. This candidate was not properly vetted, the fact that
Republicans have held back so much information about Kavanaugh. It just gives
the impression they're trying to hide something.
The morality of politics is amusing. The righteous indignation during the
Clinton/Lewinsky days disappears during the Trump era. The vetting of a supreme
court nominee must now include his or her elementary school years. Our very own
lifetime senator seems to know someone he has never met to be mistaken. It just makes you shake your head with disgust.
The Pride of Utah - Orrin Hatch.
Here we go again, instead of an October Surprise, we have a September Surprise.
This has gone on beginning with George Bush Sr. Feinstein has had this
information since July. I watched Ted Kennedy, of all people,
hammer Robert Bork, and the character assignation of Clarence Thomas. This has
to stop. And Donald Trump is dividing the country?
Having three daughters, and also having to deal with young men who thought it
was fun to harass my daughter, I am one for letting this women be heard.Having said that, my question to the liberals and Democrats is
simple:If you believe Kavanaugh did this, and it is a serious
charge, then why did you wait three months to reveal it?This would
have put his nomination in serious jeopardy, had you revealed it earlier. I think the committee should invite this women to testify under oath
about the allegations. If she is proven to fabricate this story, she should be
held accountable. Diane Feinstein should loose her seat on the committee for
pulling such a shady "Gotcha" on the committee.If this
proves to be false and nothing more than a ploy to derail the nomination, then
the democrats has minimized the issue of sexual assault and harassment. So the
next time someone accuses a person seeking an office of this type of harassment,
people will remember this case and minimize the accuser case.Thanks
a lot democrats.
@Copybook Headings Just what "precedent" did Biden and
Schumer engage in? Never did either of those gentlemen put a halt to a Supreme
Court nomination. Not once. Talking hypothetically about holding up a
nomination isn't a precedent, it's a dinner conversation. Leave it to
our Republican friends to create real precedent with the treatment they gave
President Obama and Judge Garland. Also, let's provide context
for the changes made in the Senate regarding confirmation of judges. Prior to
the rule change that eliminated filibusters of federal judicial nominees, there
had been 128 filibusters of nominees in the history of the Senate, and half had
occurred during the Obama administration. Republicans had determined that they
were going to block any action by Obama, regardless of "precedent". So, please, spare me your concern about "precedent".
Republicans are perfectly fine blowing up the place as long as it meets whatever
policy goal they have in mind. (Which normally involves robbing from the poor
to give to the rich...)
The GOP sees the writing on the wall. Their time in power is fleeting but by
cramming the courts with conservative, white, middle age males their policies
can still have an impact for another 20 years. In their minds the means,
justify the ends. Truth, respect, honor mean little. How else do you explain
their adulation for Trump, a man who boasted about his own sexual prowess and
has dozens of women suing him for exactly that.
I am truly concerned. First I am glad women who were truly assaulted is coming
forth and making that person accountable for what they did. However and I do
mean however... I am concerned that women may be coming forth in an attempt to
discredit, destroy or mame their credibility when the event did not actually
happen. That would set back women who were genuinely assaulted. As for the
professor, not to nullify her claim, but weren't we all idiots in high
school? Look at the good or bad that person has done since then. Meet together
and work out the problem without slander.
My opinion is that Hatch has a proven record of being obtuse on nearly every
subject. His retirement should have happened 30 years ago. We are all worse off
by having him be our senator.
As others have asked, how does Hatch know this woman was mistaken? The only sure
way is if he was there; he wasn't. Or he's omniscient; he's not.
"How can Hatch know a woman he has never met or knows nothing about is
mistaken? What does he base his prejudice on?" The answer's
simple! His prejudice.
Make all of them take a lie detector test on live TV. My guess is that the lady
would take one and the other two Mark Judge and Kavanaugh will refuse on legal
mumble-jumble grounds .
We have collectively lost our minds treating this 36 year old flimsy high school
allegation seriously. Anything this long ago short of accessory to murder or
manslaughter should be a “serious” matter and we know from
experience even that would not be “disqualifying” for a Democrat.
@Fully Present: Simple answer. For money!Please let this good man be
sustained as a member of the SCOTUS! Let the Dem party politics be seen for what
it is, disruptive!God bless the USA, and President Trump!
speaking as a conservative and republican - The republican on the
Senate have only themselves to blame for what we are seeing with today's
SCOTUS situation. Even though Joe Biden stated that SCOTUS nominations
shouldn't be heard during a election (and I believe he meant Presidential,
based upon the context of his remarks), hearings on Merrick Garland should have
been heard. I seriously doubt he would have received enough votes for
confirmation. The democrats are simply using every tactic they can
to stall this nomination so they can get someone they prefer. Unfortunately,
everybody will lose as the tactics will continue with the next SCOTUS
Democrats get burned with every new low they sink to. You'd think
they'd learn. Merrick Garland didn't get a hearing because of
precedents set by Biden and Schumer. Kavanaugh will be confirmed because of a
precedent set by Reid. If he doesn't get confirmed because of this
'11th hour, October surprise' the next SC Justice nominated by
Democrats will be eaten alive (and deservedly so).
Time Magazine this morning has an interesting retrospect on the Anita
Hill-Clarence Thomas hearing from 1991, and Hatch is reportedly remembered as
going after Professor Hill's credibility regarding her
"recollection" of events, even accusing her to making up Thomas's
unwanted sexual talk with her as coming from the book, the Exorcist, and another
sexual harassment court case.For Hatch to immediately state that
Professor Ford is "mistaken" before hearing her testimony and allowing
the facts to more fully come out suggests that he's already dismissing the
professor's experiences and is followiing his tactics from 1991.
How can Hatch know a woman he has never met or knows nothing about is mistaken?
What does he base his prejudice on?
Why would she be willing to come out of the shadows, give up her privacy, put up
with public attacks like this, and testify before Congress if she was lying? Who
@HSTucker " A fundamental principle of the US justice system is a
presumption of innocence, not a presumption of guilt. "This is
not a trial or a matter of criminal justice. It is a confirmation hearing and
there are no rules, only the evaluations of the senators based on what they
learn and their own "gut feelings."
Merrick Garland ?The guy who suffered tit for tat for what Democrats had done to
a Republican nominated Jurist previously ? These kinds of things are hard to
stop, The Democrats started a new one with the Senate filibuster rules, that the
Republicans subsequently used to Get the Gorsuch nomination through. Humpty -
Dumpty is hard to put together again.
Hatch needs to ride off into the sunset.
Nice to see our senator keeping an objective mind going into the testimonies
next week. Hatch cannot retire soon enough. So tired of being embarrassed by
We have so little information at this point. It is completely conceivable that
they both are telling the truth. She very well could have been assaulted by
someone she believe to be him. She equally could have been mistaken on who that
person was. If what happened to her happened, could sounded like a very chaotic
and terrifying event. It is possible that her recollection not that the event
happened is mistaken, but who the actors in that event were.Or she
could be telling the complete truth.I am not sure this still should
be disqualifying. I know a lot of guys who acted in less than honorable ways
with young ladies back at that age. I think we all do. And we know a lot of
these guys grew up, understood what they had done was wrong, and turned into
honorable, good family men.If there was a continuous trail of these
kinds of stories, or that theses events happened recently, completely different
story. But then again, we know that at least 40% of Americans see nothing wrong
with a person of that kind of character.
And the Borking pattern continues, again and again and again. Since the default
of any nominee of the unfavored party gets called a wolf, we will never know
when a real wolf is in the flock. We can thank the fake wolf cries for that. If we women want to be taken seriously, it is important not to make
accusations on party lines. It makes women look bad, and it makes men look bad.
Lose-lose. And it especially hurts women who are victims of sexual assault.
I enjoy hearing the same moral objections by the democrats about a republican
nominee that I would expect to hear from the republicans if the democrats had
put forth a candidate with the same allegations made against him. Neither party has any moral credibility. Democrats tend to disparage people
of faith (Christianity in particular), praise abortion, and tend to be supported
by wealthy, corrupt celebrities; Republicans are widely supportive of a lying,
narcissistic, adulterous president, support capital punishment, seem to be less
concerned with caring for the earth and the environment, and tend to be
supported by wealthy, corrupt big business interests that "oppress the
hireling" in their wages. Where is the political home in the
U.S. for a person of faith?
Certainly hope it will be a televised hearing.Might be an
opportunity for Corey Booker to have another "Spartacus moment"?🤔
@John JWait. Even if he attended the "party", we should not
hastily conclude that he did what this woman alleges.Shouldn't
we wait to hear from both sides before coming to any conclusions?Just asking.
Can't wait to hear this woman's testimony and the cross examination.
Also, the testimony of Mark Judge and any others who were at the
"party".Certainly hope that it is a televised hearing.
Should make great "theater".Surely, there will be many
opportunities for more "Spartacus" moments.
Anita Hill's testimony and your response this time seem eerily similar.
Nothing like having an impartial hearing this time either, is there, Sir? And
nothing like learning nothing from past mistakes. You had your opportunity and
you just blew it.
Kavanaugh says he was not even at the party. Although the party was decades
ago, the FBI should be able to contact people who were at the party and ask them
if Kavanaugh was there. If no one remembers Kavanaugh being at the party, the
balance of weight is with him. But, if someone does remember him being there,
then give credence to Ford's accusations.
Harrison Bergeron - Holladay , UTYou left off Donald Trump from your
It's a bad look for Orrin Hatch specifically and Utah in general when he
refers to a doctor, a clinical psychology professor and a biostatistician at a
large university as being "mixed up".That's not going
to wear well in the minds of women voters when they wake up on November 6th and
head to the voting booths.
Well, there we have it. Democrats are setting precedent for their own future
nominees to the Supreme Court. All Republicans have to do is get a woman to
accuse their nominee of sexual misconduct back in high school. The nominee was
a drunk teenager of course. The victim will scrub her Facebook page of
anti-conservative posts just before going public. The Republicans and the FBI
will hold her accusations private until just before the vote is about to take
Given what the Republicans did to Anita Hill, it takes a lot of guts to come
forward and tell the world just what kind of man this Kavanaugh really is.
IMHO, he does not see women as equal participants in the game of life, despite
the prepared lists of support he has dredged up. Furthermore IMHO,
this man does not deserve his current job as an apellate judge, must less
elevation to the Supreme Court. Surely, there are other candidates who can
satisfy the party of trump in their eternal march toward right wing domination
of the Courts. I believe the women who have come forward at great
cost to their personal lives. It is long time for our Senators to do so as
This is not a criminal case and rules of evidence do not need to be recognized.
It is, however, a case of court of public opinion and it's perfectly valid
(just like the GOP's handling of Garland was a perfectly valid
approach).Trump is wavering on Kavanaugh - time to nominate Barrett!
"She not only deserves to be heard, but believed."No. A
fundamental principle of the US justice system is a presumption of innocence,
not a presumption of guilt. Not only is this considered a human right in the
USA, but also an international human right under the UN's Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11.
Senator Hatch's "mistaken" theory is puzzling. If some drunk guy
held you down, laid on top of you and covered your mouth and tried to take your
clothes off against your will, you'd definitely remember for a long time.
She's either telling the truth or she's not, but the chances that she
could be "mistaken" are pretty much nil.
In the essence of time, I think she should be heard this week with Mark Judge
giving his testimony as well, since he was accused as well.. This was a
last-ditch Dem effort to suppress the vote on this fine judge. It's also an
outward attack on President Trump.When I first heard this, my first
thought was, "There has to have been a hefty payout to have this brought
forward at this time!' I still feel that way. We'll probably never
know!God bless the USA! And, God bless President Trump!
Part of the problem in the past is women, and men, not being believed when they
have come forward to report sexual assault. Those who accuse falsely set things
back terribly. Those who don't believe true accusations or excuse assault
for political expediency contribute exponentially to that culture. How will we
know if these accusations are true or not if this woman isn't heard? If
political expediency, i.e. getting a Republican nominee rammed through to the
Supreme Court in time for midterm elections, is all that matters to some, our
country is in far worse shape than is currently obvious.
Frankly, Ford does not deserve to be heard. This is simply a ploy by Democrats
to delay confirmation of an obviously qualified Justice. With this judge's
record of supporting our Constitution and given the fact this alleged incident
happened in high school, it is absolutely and unequivocally irrelevant. The
accuser should be ashamed to be used by Democrats who have no real reason to
deny Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation. If he is not immediately confirmed,
the high school activities of every member of the Senate who opposes his
confirmation should be immediately investigated. The Democrats must be shown
their last minute sexual assault accusations, long after statutes of limitations
have run, withheld until just before an election or confirmation, will not work
again and again to defame conservatives with decades of honorable service.
It's a shame the sexism that is put on display in some of these comments is
so socially acceptable. Simply because you change the target from women to men
does not make your sexism different.
Yes Christine Blasey Ford deserves to be heard. And she should testify and be
cross examined without delaying the vote. We should also hear from Mark Judge
whom she claims intervened to stop the "assault," but who has said:
"It’s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way.” We should also hear from Ford's who's behavior has been
reported on professor rating websites. Then we should here from
Kavanaugh's students as well as his female colleagues, interns, clerks,
etc. If Kavanaugh is the person Ford describes, there will have been
other victims and a pattern of behavior that can be easily verified. When people
commit sexual assault or harassment, there always seems to be a pattern and more
victims (see Ted Kennedy, Al Franken, Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Les Moonves,
John Conyers, Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, Charlie Rose, etc.).
No; last minute accusations should not be given any significant time or weight!
America has this quaint custom of guaranteeing a speedy trial.
This ensures that the details of an alleged crime can be put to the test while
still fresh in the minds of all involved. Looking back at America's 2 and
1/2 centuries of jurisprudence, uncountable millions of possible crimes have
gone untried/unpunished for lack of supporting evidence within the time limits
set by the law.Waiting 35 years to pop up accusations against a
person who has already been through the Senate confirmation hearing process
twice before, is far beyond reasonable or trustworthy. If this were
an alleged murder, there would be no question, as there is no time limit. But,
it's not! The alleged crime was never brought to the attention of
authorities. It wasn't brought up for either of the two previous
confirmation hearings with investigation by the FBI. It is far too late for
such recriminations.Democrats would do anything to stop this
confirmation, anything! This untrustworthy attack on Judge Kavanaugh
should be quickly heard and disposed of. Confirmation should proceed, as
This is not going to be pretty. Already a significant amount of mud has been
found in the life of this professor. She will be defined and destroyed by the
process, not the Republicans. She should get somewhat favorable
treatment by most of the liberal press, as they love these kind of stories.
But, if you step into the kitchen, the heat level rises considerably. The similarities between this situation and when Anita Hill finally
stepped forward are uncanny.
She not only deserves to be heard, but believed. According to an
Ipsos poll, 8 of 10 Americans think a victim of sexual assault should be given
the benefit of the doubt. It makes sense because why would someone put
themselves out there for ridicule if they aren't telling the truth. They
don't. And fake stories become clear very fast. Trump is being
uncharacteristically reasonable. He should now go further, withdraw the
nomination, and quickly nominate a woman. Real fast before this goes all the way
down the drain. He still has a shot at putting someone on the court before the
From now on it would probably be best to just nominate females to become Supreme
Court Justices. We could avoid what appears to be the inevitable accusations of
sex abuse to try to stop a nominee. In fact, all of our representatives should
be females, for the same reasons.
I am holding you to your words Mr. Hatch which to me "common sense"
would say sorting and vetting things out to give this Professor Ford equal time
to be heard fairly and not rushed through and in the case of the career
politicians like you who often talked and oblivious to a live and open
microphones during hearings, avoid doing their responsibilities to the
taxpayers. Put Professor Ford and Judge Kavanaugh under oath and let them
testify and then allowed the people, the taxpayers to decide. This is why the
career politicians needed to be vote out because all they care about is
themselves and their loyalty to their parties. Let's vote them out folks.
Any accuser needs to be heard?
When Clarence Thomas was confirmed, Hatch showed nothing but contempt for Anita
Hill as she testified in great detail about the sexual harassment she
experienced from Thomas. In spite of years passing and a lot of people coming
forward with their own experiences with sexual harrassment, I doubt much has
changed, at least judging from his recent remarks. And not just Hatch. Hopefully
Yes, Christine Blasey Ford deserves to be heard. And she should testify and be
cross examined WITHOUT delaying the vote. We should also hear from Mark Judge
whom she claims intervened to stop the "assault," but who has said:
"It’s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way.” We should also hear from Ford's students who have said things
like:"Christine ford is the worst educator I have ever
experienced. Avoid taking her class and avoid any interaction with this person.
I feel like she has something wrong with her and I am surprised no one has
caught this.'"Prof. Ford is unprofessional, lacks
appropriate filters, and I am honestly scared of her. She’s made comments
both in class and in e-mails, if you cross her, you will be on her bad
side."Then let's hear from Kavanaugh's female
colleagues, law students, interns, clerks, etc. When people commit sexual
assault or harassment, there is always a pattern (see Ted Kennedy, Al Franken,
Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Les Moonves, John Conyers, Bill Clinton, Bill
Cosby, Charlie Rose, etc.). If Kavanaugh is the person Ford describes, there
will have been other victims and a pattern of behavior that can be easily
A Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee said on Thursday he would help
moderate jurist Merrick Garland win Senate confirmation if President Barack
Obama nominated him to the U.S. Supreme Court. “I have no
doubts that Garland would get a lot of (Senate) votes. And I will do my best to
help him get them,” added Hatch. And then stalled for nearly 2
years, NOT to give him a hearing.========= fast forward
to 201840 days of ram rodding later, with barely 4% of documents being
released...NBC news reports during serious allegations of attempted
rape:Hatch said Kavanaugh is 'honest' and
'straightforward,'and said after talking "to Kavanaugh the
woman might be 'MIXED UP.'How about WE put a great big old
TIME OUT on this whole hearing circus, until we get things sorted out, Mr.
Hatch!By my count -- you should have over 400 days left to do it!...
"Process must be followed"? Like Merrick Garland? The guy Hatch
endorsed? This is the definition of hypocrisy.