A pedophile in the Supreme Court?
By Winterishere
@thedevilinme (3905)
Northampton, England
September 28, 2018 4:28pm CST
The Brett Kavanaugh thing in America is unreal. The nominee for the Supreme Court, and a male friend, is alleged to have sexual abused a 15-year-old girl when he was 17 and very drunk at a party. The accusation by Christine Blasey Ford was timely. The lady who made the accusation is now in her 50s, as is Brett. She took a lie detector and passed and also testified in the Senate about the attack in 1981, a very credible witness from events a long time ago. Problem is the other people at the small party dont recall events as she does and say they dont recall the party. The other co-accused, Mark Judge, has not been called as a witness for some reason to help Brett Kavanaugh out here.
America does not need a pedophile as a Supreme Court judge and so partisan politics are raging. The Republicans blinked first and one Republican Senator saw sense and Trump has now ordered further background checks on Brett Kavanaugh. It looks like he will resign but Trump desperate to get a Republican on the Supreme Bench so they control it. The judges dont retire in this job and death generally ends your tenure.
To me it looks like the ladies version of events are true but exaggerated over time. She claimed to have had one beer but it was probably more. We know how stupid kids behave when drunk. We know shame always comes into these things.Women blame themselves when they shouldn't and most men who do this sort of thing end up in power positions later in life and defend their corner.
It will be interesting to find out what actually happened and who did what.
11 people like this
10 responses
@FourWalls (62096)
• United States
28 Sep 18
Sounds like Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork all over again.
I'd believe it a whole lot more if she'd said something when he was first appointed a judge, instead of waiting until two days before he's supposed to become a Supreme Court justice.
3 people like this
@thedevilinme (3905)
• Northampton, England
30 Sep 18
Activists have taken over the show in metoo year but so few prosecutions over the alleged abuse
1 person likes this
@MarshaMusselman (38652)
• Midland, Michigan
29 Sep 18
He wouldn't be called a pedophile if he was under 18 as she says. And the term is mostly used when the younger person is under 13. It could have been consensual. If anything he could have been tried as a juvenile at the time.
Everyone made mistakes before they were adults. We've had a lot of presidents and many Democrats that were dishonest financially or morally as adults and yet they were allowed to serve.
If something questionable is found to be true that he's done as an adult then I'd be more concerned.
1 person likes this
@topffer (42156)
• France
30 Sep 18
There is a woman accusing him to have assaulted her when he was 33...
What I disliked the most was his obvious political engagement for a party, it gives a horrible image of your Supreme Court worldwide.
An anonymous woman has come forward to say the Supreme Court nominee physically assaulted her friend in front of her and other witnesses.
1 person likes this
@topffer (42156)
• France
30 Sep 18
@MarshaMusselman I would tell most of students are reasonable. A common rule here is that you do not invite people getting drunk often, once is ok, 2 is too much and they will not be invited again to parties. I have many students in my neighborhood, and it goes out of limits 1 or 2 times a year, but if the police rings at the door they lower the music for the rest of the night ; this generation is more respectful than I was at their age
.
.1 person likes this
@MarshaMusselman (38652)
• Midland, Michigan
30 Sep 18
@topffer with that in mind I agree that he shouldn't get the position.
He may not remember these happening if he was drunk enough but if he's going to drink that much that he can't control his actions or remember them afterward then he should leave politics altogether as should anyone else that needs to unwind to that degree.
1 person likes this
@porwest (78761)
• United States
29 Sep 18
I think this entire thing is a farce and for anyone really following it, it becomes quite obvious quite quickly that it is indeed a farce. Someone assaulted her most likely, but it wasn't Brett Kavanaugh. This is an obstructionist tactic by the democrats who are still not over the fact that they lost an election. America is watching. I think the dems are sinking any hopes of getting back the House come the mid-terms.
1 person likes this
@porwest (78761)
• United States
29 Sep 18
@Susan2015 It is a double standard. Always has been. One thing people fail to realize when these kinds of things happen is that MOST OF THE TIME republicans DO NOT back anyone accused of something. Ray Moore is a most recent example. He was all but abandoned by the republican party DESPITE the fact that they KNEW him losing would cost them a seat. That's the difference between a conservative and a liberal. Conservatives do the right thing for the better good while liberals don't care about the better good so long as their own agenda is served.
1 person likes this
@wolfgirl569 (95082)
• Marion, Ohio
29 Sep 18
It should have been handled differently and sooner than it was. But it is there now and I do feel that the very first time he was asked if he would request an FBI investigation he should have immediately said yes I would welcome them to do that. But instead he started talking about things not related to the question. As he did several other times. He just struck me as trying to hide something. Sadly I was busy all day and fully missed her testifying and the beginning of his.
@sallypup (57836)
• Centralia, Washington
28 Sep 18
Every other kind of sinner is in office at this point. Might as well join the table. (No. I do not want this man up there doing any more than he already has.)
@Kasjnak (4492)
• Romania
28 Sep 18
The truth is probably somewhere in betweem. Memory is not so reliable, it has been proved that memories are distorted as time goes by.
What I don't understand here is the motivation of the lady, why now? Why not earlier?
He should also be tested with a lie detector, and also some intensive background check is mandatory. If he has nothing to hide, it shouldn't be a problem.
