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

My challenge is to whether any court has jurisdiction over the offense. If we elevate the offense to a felony because apparently you're one hard core prosecutor who likes to push the envelope, we still have the issue of prosecuting a 52 year old man in juvenile court, which I am quite certain can't be done. I just don't understand how we do this or why we do this. Why must adults answer for their misdeeds committed when they were children without the capacity to commit crimes like adults?

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

Her motivation to lie is to stop the Court from making a hard right that will last for decades. But why speculate? People say things that aren't true for all sorts of reasons. I'd also say that you've created a pretty dangerous system when you just accept whatever a sex abuse accuser says because "why would they lie"?

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

Now, now Punkin. You make my point with this comment. You accused me of defending an elitist out of my kinship to all that is elite and beautiful, and I responded by saying the attack was (1) ad hom, and (2) that it didn't even make any sense because I had no kinship to the elite and explained why that was. So, if you're going to make ad hom attacks and call me an elitist, a cat hater, a bad dancer, or any other super mean thing, expect me to defend myself by telling you how I'm just a regular Joe who loves the kitty cat and who is tired of being a wallflower and wants to just dance the night away.

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

Not to nitpick, but the Franken accusations came from multiple women, all while Franken was very much an adult, and one accusation was of an event that occurred while he was a Senator. And, then there's the matter of the picture of him groping a woman's breasts while she was asleep. So, yeah, Franken and Kavanaugh are so close as to almost be indistinguishable, the main difference being only that the Democrats removed him honorably, whereas the Republicans refuse to show any class.

Baden scores 10 points from #metoo. — Bitter Crank

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

You don't get to use #metoo to discredit my arguments. Period. If you want to address my points, do so. If you want to criticise #metoo, do it in a discussion about #metoo. And standing up for victims of sexual abuse, especially child victims, has nothing to do with political correctness either. It's what's known as common decency.

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

She was fifteen, and most likely very scared and traumatised. But let's blame her rather than criticise the abuser. Again, all your post demonstrates is a lack of empathy for the victims of these crimes. It does zero in terms of analysis.

Does "lying" carry the same weight as "misrepresenting the facts"? We don't know what actually happened. She says one thing, he denies that one thing. It could be that she has come to believes she was subjected to an assault. She brought it up in therapy several years ago (or so I have heard). Did the therapist help shape how she views whatever happened 35 years ago? Did the therapist encourage her to bring this matter to the public? We don't know.

She says something happened; he says it didn't happen. Obviously he is lying. Hrumph.

Why would a woman not tell the truth about what happened?

a) her truth may have drifted away from what actually happened.
b) she might feel some personal guilt about what happened
c) she might resent that someone who was her classmate and who she thinks was mean to her is getting above himself
d) she might not remember what happened. Really? Even after 35 years, one would not remember exactly what happened? How dare you! (fucking male chauvinist pig... asshole... etc) Well, sorry dear, but yes... memory is less reliable than we would like it to be. Every time a memory is summoned, every time we think about something we remember, it is changed ever so slightly. Perhaps it is changed ever so slightly in the same direction, moving from something merely embarrassing to something now viewed as an attack.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Maybe Kavanaugh's memory has changed too.

I know I don't remember some events the same way other people remember them. Sometimes the differences have become (I think) quite different.

Memory's failings are one of the reasons statutes of limitation exist. Another reason is that 35, or 75 years later may simply be too long, too late. Too bad. Next time don't wait.

She was fifteen, and most likely very scared and traumatised. But let's blame her rather than criticise the abuser. Again, all your post demonstrates is a lack of empathy for the victims of these crimes. It does zero in terms of analysis. — Baden

So sanctimonious. We all have the same empathy as you for those who were actually sexually abused. The question here is whether she was, not whether we'd feel for her if she was. And there's also the question of empathy for those wrongly accused and the needless suffering they endure. The idea of protecting the accused is actually a progressive idea. It's not an oversight in the system that we'd rather let 10 rapists go free than to send a single innocent man to prison.

I don't want to nitpick either as I think it was right to dump Frankenstein (predictive text error but I think I'll just leave it), and I have nothing positive to say about his behaviour, I condemn it fully. But they were not almost indistinguishable in the sense that Franken's victims did not think they were going to be suffocated or raped and none were fifteen years old. But whatever, I have no sympathy for this kind of thing on either side.

the Democrats removed him honorably, whereas the Republicans refuse to show any class. — Hanover

Yes, why (presuming Ford testifies convincingly) not just move on to the next candidate and push through in the lame duck? We all know that's what they're going to do anyway if Kavanaugh goes down. Why discredit themselves?

You're kind of going on and on about it. My theory predicts dastardliness of some kind in your history.

I don't want to nitpick either as I think it was right to dump Frankenstein (predictive text error but I think I'll just leave it), and I have nothing positive to say about his behaviour, I condemn it fully. — Baden

My point was that that Kavanaugh might be innocent. Franken clearly wasn't. That is the distinction worth noting. The Republicans would pull Kavanaugh's nomination if there were real proof of his crime. Had Franken been facing a single accusation that he denied, I wouldn't be in favor of his being removed unless there were something more convincing.

Yes, why (presuming Ford testifies convincingly) not just move on to the next candidate and push through in the lame duck. We all know that's what they're going to do anyway if Kavanaugh goes down. Why discredit themselves? — Baden

People aren't disposable. They would discredit themselves if they pulled his nomination based on these unsupported allegations. If you were accused of something you didn't do, you wouldn't find it honorable for someone to stand beside you and defend you, especially if it meant harm to that person's reputation?

We all have the same empathy as you for those who were actually sexually abused — Hanover

This is probably the most naive thing you've ever written. Forget about me though, I'm only empathy normal. There are plenty out there with more empathy for the sexually abused than me who would rip some of the posters here new arseholes for the crass and insensitive way they talk about these victims. No, the idea that we all care equally is frankly nuts.

"We don't know what actually happened. "
I agree. I'm just asking if you agree IN PRINCIPLE that 1) if he did lie, he ought not to be approved; 2) that the judgment of whether or not he lied should be based on a preponderance of the evidence (i..e. it's more likely than not).

"Does "lying" carry the same weight as "misrepresenting the facts?"
Not necessarily in general, and I don't see how that's a factor in this case - but I'm fine with taking that into account if that is indeed a factor.

He was drunk and jumped a girl - that's according to the girl. It's not very nice, and these days it's a serious crime, though not so much then. But it's nothing to wreck a life over, and that seems to have been the judgment of the girl and the woman she grew to be. — tim wood

In any day it's a serious crime. It's gravity isn't diminished simply because it occurred during a time when people didn't take women seriously (at least, less than they do now). Brett Kavanaugh's life isn't "over". His life isn't "wrecked". He merely shouldn't be nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States, just like 99.99% of all Americans. He should withdraw his nomination as quickly as possible, and I guarantee he will be offered other lucrative, entitled positions.

You're kind of going on and on about it. My theory predicts dastardliness of some kind in your history. — frank

Oh, Frank! You have no idea how much dastardliness I have had to endure -- the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune! It's just fucking appalling. It's a miracle from Jesus that I am able to find the strength to wake up in the morning, get out of bed, and go through yet another day of quiet desperation. You know, I can just feel other people's suffering -- such sensitivity comes from all the horrible things that have happened to me--the rudeness, bad taste, ungentlemanly manners, mismatched clothing, calloused hands pawing my private parts -- Frank! You can't even begin to imagine how horrible it is.

Oh, and Frank, you can't predict the past can you?

Btw, another sexual misconduct accusation was just reported by the New Yorker:

As Senate Republicans press for a swift vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Senate Democrats are investigating a new allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. The claim dates to the 1983-84 academic school year, when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale University.

One of the biggest standouts of the article:

Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote.

I knew it! Who was it? Mom's boyfriend?

This is probably the most naive thing you've ever written. Forget about me though, I'm only empathy normal. There are plenty out there with more empathy for the sexually abused than me who would rip some of the posters here new arseholes for the crass and insensitive way they talk about these victims. No, the idea that we all care equally is frankly nuts. — Baden

Fine, double down on your sanctimony and let me know how deeply you feel and inform me that I couldn't care any less about people being abused. I just find your approach horribly unjust, with less regard for the truth than to simply make a feel good declaration about how supportive you are of those who've been abused.

My approach here is universal. Whether you're accused of child abuse, sexual abuse, drunk driving, or jay walking, you're innocent until proven guilty. I know that's a wild notion. If you want to take all the sexual abusers and throw them under the jail, I'll be there with you first thing in the morning with my shovel, but I sorta need to know the folks we're throwing under there actually did what we think we did. There's that.

What? I thought you were in favour of them showing some class. Anyway, it's not a court of law. He's not in danger of going to jail on the basis of this, so the charge doesn't have to be proved, it just has to be credible enough to make it too risky to allow him on the highest court in the land. You know that already though being a law-talking dude an' all. But let's be real, if he was a lefty, you wouldn't be making these points, so it's not about the merits of how he's being treated but the fact that he's a conservative that's key for you. Am I wrong?

So Senate Republicans became aware of new allegations last week, and nevertheless still tried to "plow through" to nominate Kavanaugh. They could literally pick any cardboard cutout Originalist swine, but they, for whatever reason, have to nominate this Originalist, who is a sexual miscreant.

It was! Mom's boyfriend was a Catholic priest back then. Now he's a bishop.

throw them under the jail — Hanover

I thought it was "throw them under the bus". You even abuse clichés.

Christ, cry me a river. I even said "they" so you wouldn't think I was talking about you.

My approach here is universal. Whether you're accused of child abuse, sexual abuse, drunk driving, or jay walking, you're innocent until proven guilty. I know that's a wild notion. If you want to take all the sexual abusers and throw them under the jail, I'll be there with you first thing in the morning with my shovel, but I sorta need to know the folks we're throwing under there actually did what we think we did. — Hanover

That's a crock of laughable horseshit. Franken wasn't convicted and you supported him being dumped for a start. But of course he wasn't a conservative. Plus, suppose someone wanting to be a principle at the local school was credibly accused of sexual assault and it wasn't yet proven. Just ignore it? Vote the guy in? This is kids stuff, H. This is not about your principles, it's about your team.

The distinguished and genteel, never tasteless or boorish, President of the United States of America does the nominating. All the Senate has to do is say "yay" or "neigh".

t was! Mom's boyfriend was a Catholic priest back then. Now he's a bishop. — Bitter Crank

If he ever runs for pope I hope you'll bring it up at the last minute.

But let's be real, if he was a lefty, you wouldn't be making these points, so it's not about the merits of how he's being treated but the fact that he's a conservative that's key for you. Am I wrong? — Baden

You are wrong actually. This is a truly a big issue for me. I see all this as a system for allowing people to be thrown away and discarded. It's inhumane in a very real way. When the Franken thing first hit, I was supportive of him, thinking that the Democrats were tossing him out with minimal proof based upon unsupported allegations just to be able to protect their base Of course, the evidence was overwhelming against him, and I changed my mind.

The Dems tossing Franken out was incredibly smart.

Christ, cry me a river — Baden

That's a crock of laughable horseshit — Baden

Fine, double down on your sanctimony and let me know how deeply you feel and inform me that I couldn't care any less about people being abused. I just find your approach horribly unjust, with less regard for the truth than to simply make a feel good declaration about how supportive you are of those who've been abused. — Hanover

Now, now, now...

And we got a kind of feckless Tina Smith as a replacement. Whoopy doo.

That's a crock of laughable horseshit. Franken wasn't convicted and you supported him being dumped for a start. But of course he wasn't a conservative. Plus, suppose someone wanting to be a principle at the local school was credibly accused of sexual assault and it wasn't yet proven. Just ignore it? Vote the guy in? This is kids stuff, H. This is not about your principles, it's about your team. — Baden

Nope, you don't know me. You really don't. I believe in forgiveness and salvation in the sense that I think that people really can change who they are and become something much greater, and I find it profoundly inhumane to discard human beings to fulfill some personal goal. People are never to be treated as a means to an end.

I would vote against Franken 100% of the time and I'd hope he'd lose 100% of the time. I would not, however, cheat him of his seat and force my guy in to an unearned position by throwing up unsupportable accusations at him. I don't play dirty pool.

I also again find your concerns about me ad hom and therefore irrelevant. But to the extent you continue to offer these accusations, you're going to be further exposed to icky personal data about me.

Feinstein withheld the allegations until it could have the greatest impact. She's no champion for the rights of the abused. She wouldn't have returned Ford's phone call if the abuse allegation didn't have political use.

You are wrong actually. This is a truly a big issue for me. I see all this as a system for allowing people to be thrown away and discarded. It's inhumane in a very real way. — Hanover

No, what's inhumane is what your team is doing to Blasey Ford, a very credible victim of sexual assault. Kavanaugh will almost certainly keep his old job and avoid jail, which is more than he deserves if he is guilty, and on the slim chance he's not, he will still be rich and privileged and supported as a martyr by conservatives everywhere. Yet you continue to ignore Blasey Ford, the victim's interests in favour of his And why? Because you always unapologetically support your team Hanover, so the idea that you're being objective here and would have made all these posts defending Kavanaugh if he were a lefty is just absurd. I'm almost even insulted that you would think I would think so highly of you as to believe that.

a very credible victim of sexual assault. — Baden

Just guessing that you find them all credible all the time.

Well, outside of the fact that getting rid of a politician who has had a history of sexual misconduct is simply the right thing to do, Dems also tossed out a tu quoque liability.