Thursday, September 20, 2018

The Kavanaugh Hearings

     Oh, to hell with it -- the Judiciary Committee needs to subpoena everybody who has even been mentioned, haul 'em off to D.C. and make 'em testify.  On TV or not, in public or in camera, I don't care; I'm just tired of people tap-dancing around, remembering just enough to suit themselves, setting conditions, "indicating they won't testify."

       Many Senators are attorneys; most of them have even worked as actual trial lawyers, prosecutors or other Perry Mason-esque jobs.  They have worked with witnesses before, eager, reluctant, hostile, and/or scared witnesses, and they still can. If it's necessary to subpoena every person who went to the high schools involved at that time, fine, do it.  Line 'em all up and build up the big picture.  It may or may not be as dreadful as claimed but I promise you it will be unflattering to all concerned: kids are kids; rich kids tend to be obnoxious little entitled punks.  Some of them grow out of it once they get out into the real world, or at least learn to fake it.  Just what sort of angel were you at seventeen?  Pimples, bad poetry and social awkwardness are about the best you'll see in an unsympathetic look back.  Should your fitness to do your job today be based on who you were at that age?

     Remember when the salacious doings of rich kids at private schools was the stuff of cheap, sweaty paperbacks rather than the occasion of (so far) offstage accusations laid before Congressional Committees? Let's Make Politics Boring Again!


Jennifer said...

I'd never get Senate confirmation, that's for sure.

Paul said...

Dunno. But sometimes I think they do. Course I never did feel I was entitled at any level. Nor for that matter hang out with the cool kids.

Divemedic said...

Not worth a Senate trial. Even if you believe every accusation, at worst Kavanaugh committed attempted rape 36 years ago. This is not a Federal crime. For state crimes, the statute of limitations ran out years ago.

Having a trial fits the Dem playbook. They are hoping to stall this until after the election, when they are betting they will take over the house and impeach Trump.

Roberta X said...

Divemedic: yeah, ram it through without checking and continue the escalating partisan BS around Supreme Court appointments? Possibly not the best idea. Nope, the GOP had better get this done while they remain in control of the Senate without anything that will later be construed as hinkiness.

As for possible impeachment, that's not directly related. An "impeachable offense" is whatever the House thinks is an impeachable offense and you can argue it with the ghost of James Madison.

Anonymous said...

"forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."

pigpen51 said...

If our good judge did actually attempt rape at the age of 17, then I would not be comfortable with him sitting on the SCOTUS. Not due to any statute of limitations of anything, but just as a matter of right and wrong. I actually have a very good memory. I remember being that age, hell, I remember conversations nearly word for word from that age. I was one of those teenage young men who would have been willing to breed a dead alligator, of a live one if I could get someone to hold the tail.
That being understood, it never, and I mean never, would have occurred to me to have forced myself upon a young woman, ever. I am many things, but I have never been anything less than a gentleman when it comes to dealing with the opposite sex.
I suspect that the judge may not be the exact carbon copy of myself, but I do think that an incident such as the one under discussion, would have at least someone who could speak about hearing the chit chat at the time.
Like I said, while I generally support Judge Kavenaugh, an incident such as this, if it proves true, I would consider it to be disqualifying.
I do hate that the entire SCOTUS Justice approval process has become a political circus, which it didn't use to be, however, I don't think there is any going back. It started with Ted Kennedy sinking Robert Bork. Bork was a very qualified, but very conservative judge, and Kennedy decided that he was going to stop his sitting on the court, and Bork's qualifications be damned.
The Supreme Court has traditionally been considered above political battles, and that is the reason that it was an appointment for life. Now,since it has become so partisan, many are trying to change it somehow, to perhaps an 18 year appointment. That would be a mistake, in my way of thinking.
The Democrats have in recent times, had trouble pushing their agenda through a congress that was often either controlled by Republicans or a process that was hamstrung by them. And so the Democrats have learned to do an end around by going to the courts to bring their desired results to life, to great effect. Now with the Republicans finally looking to taking control of the Courts, not just the Supreme Court, but also much of the Federal Courts, by Trumps appointments, the Democrats are seeing their hold weakening.
I agree that the Senate should force anyone that they can think of to stand before them and answer any questions about the alleged rape. I also think that Sen. Diane Feinstein should also be questioned as to why she held the letter until the last minute, knowing that it was germaine to the approval process that the Senate was conducting. At the least, she is guilty of hyper partisanship, and at the most, of contempt of the Senate.
At this point, my biggest question remaining is whether to call the entire process a circus, or a dog and pony show.