News Top Stories

With Kavanaugh allegations, religious leaders remain divided on court nomination

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh answers questions on the third day of his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, on Sept. 6, 2018, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

WASHINGTON (RNS) — Long before accusations that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was involved in a sexual assault as a Catholic prep school student, American faith leaders were divided over whether he should join the highest court. Before California professor Christine Blasey Ford told The Washington Post that Kavanaugh assaulted her, many debated whether he would shore up or dismantle religious liberty.

Now officials in a range of religion-related roles are no less divided, but their concerns have shifted, encompassing their thoughts about the #MeToo movement and the credibility of Kavanaugh, who has “categorically and unequivocally” denied the allegations.

Here’s a sampling of what religious leaders are saying:

Robert Jeffress, senior pastor, First Baptist Church, Dallas

“Sexual assault is a heinous crime, and I feel empathy for all of those who have been victimized by it. I do not know with certainty who is telling the truth, but what I know with absolute certainty is that Democrats don’t care about the truth. … The Democrats’ only goal is to derail the Kavanaugh confirmation. America sees right through the gross hypocrisy of the left and the feigned concern of Democrats for the abuse of women. Their real concern with Judge Kavanaugh is that he might restrict in any way the murder of 700,000 females in the womb through abortion every year.”

Jenna Barnett, Women and Girls Campaign coordinator for Sojourners

“After all, the only way out of the #MeToo Era is by entering a new age where we don’t have to say those two words any more. #MeToo sits at the intersection of this cultural moment, stopping traffic and staring into the eyes of any perpetrator in power — be they presidents, Supreme Court nominees, or faith leaders — to say, ‘I’ll leave when you leave.’”

American Family Association President Tim Wildmon

“We’ve seen this game played before. Clarence Thomas. Herman Cain. Roy Moore. In some shape or form, each of those men had charges of sexual misconduct lodged against them during seasons of political rancor when it was impossible to prove — or disprove — the charges. In some cases, the fallout negatively affected their careers. All three are rock-solid conservatives who love our country and respect the Constitution.”


RELATED: 5 faith facts on Trump’s Supreme Court pick, Brett Kavanaugh


Faith in Public Life declaration signed by more than 360 leaders

“We need a justice who rules with justice, protecting the people that our faiths call us to
side with: our neighbors who are sick, who are poor, who are beaten down, who are
disenfranchised. Kavanaugh’s record does not suggest that he will rule with this kind of
justice.”

Charisma Media founder Stephen E. Strang, author of “God and Donald Trump

“Based upon known facts and his lifetime of service, I believe Brett Kavanaugh’s claim of innocence. His integrity has stood the test of time in his career. No claims were ever made against him during other confirmation processes. Why now? Fake news accusing him of sexual assault will be dismissed by Evangelicals because they are assured that truth will prevail and prove he is innocent, as at least 65 women have attested. Those who wish to destroy Christianity and its devout followers by timing their allegations at the height of this important hearing will not succeed.”

Russell Moore, president, Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, in an interview with CNN

“We need to hear from both parties involved and so I’m looking forward to the open hearing.
Obviously, if this did happen, that would be disqualifying, and obviously, if this did not happen it would be a horrible thing to wrongfully accuse someone of doing. And so that’s what I’m hearing mostly from evangelicals — is what’s going on? We need to hear from both of the parties involved.”


RELATED: Trump names religious liberty ‘warrior’ Brett Kavanaugh to Supreme Court


Franklin Graham, evangelist and president of Samaritan’s Purse relief agency, in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network

“It’s just a shame that a person like Judge Kavanaugh who has a stellar record — that somebody can bring something up that he did when he was a teenager close to 40 years ago. That’s not relevant. We’ve got to look at a person’s life and what they’ve done as an adult and are they qualified for this position. So this is just an attempt to smear him.”

Monsignor John Enzler, president and CEO of Catholic Charities in Washington and Kavanaugh’s former pastor, quoted by National Catholic Reporter

“I know Brett Kavanaugh to be a man of honesty and integrity. My opinion of him is based upon a 40-year relationship in which he’s never given me any reason to doubt his veracity and character. Hopefully the facts concerning the recent allegations will bear out my trust in him.”

Ralph Reed, founder, Faith and Freedom Coalition, quoted by The New York Times

“One of the political costs of failing to confirm Brett Kavanaugh is likely the loss of the United States Senate. If Republicans were to fail to defend and confirm such an obviously and eminently qualified and decent nominee then it will be very difficult to motivate and energize faith-based and conservative voters in November.”

Liberty University professor of English Karen Swallow Prior, quoted by Slate

“I don’t expect we will ever know the truth about what did or did not happen. But as an evangelical Christian, I am convinced Dante himself could not have devised a more fitting circle of hell for my faith community than the one in which we find ourselves: being destroyed from the inside out by the sexual sin we spent decades pointing out everywhere but in our own house. For us, this is the real trial.”

About the author

Adelle M. Banks

Adelle M. Banks, production editor and a national reporter, joined RNS in 1995. An award-winning journalist, she previously was the religion reporter at the Orlando Sentinel and a reporter at The Providence Journal and newspapers in the upstate New York communities of Syracuse and Binghamton.

150 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Note that waffle-around by Karen Swallow Prior?—–a skepticism that you can ever know whether Brett Kavanaugh did or did not get drunk at 17 and press himself on a 15-year-old girl? Is Karen so dumb as to not know that PhDs do not make up stories like this about themselves at 50+ years of age under penalty of perjury (at the hearing, if one occurs) and under penalty of being hounded by crackpots for the rest of her life? Or does she just think we are that dumb?

  • Not a lot of division in that commentary – #fakeheadline.
    Everyone knows, Democrat and Republican alike that this is a last minute hit job by the desperate democrats who use the methodology of personal destruction to destroy competent conservative judges or cabinet appointees.
    It’s unfortunate that in this case both the accused and accuser will be smeared; never to recover or repair their reputations, all because of unscrupulous Democrats. She may write a book; to “tell the truth”; but his reputation is tarnished forever regardless of the outcome.
    And before all the liberal hand-wringers jump to indignation and mock disbelief; remember that Chinese Pawn Feinstein had this information for months; withheld it from her democratic colleagues; did not question kavanaugh when she met with him face to face and leaked the letter to the press at the last possible moment.
    THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is the quality of representation from the great state of California and the true soul of today’s Democratic Party.

  • I went to a house party 35 years ago where I met this kid who went by the name friendly goat. We got really drunk together and then he asked me if I wanted to see his Atari2600. When we went into his bedroom he locked the door and put in Donkey Kong. When I was smashing some barrels he started touching me…
    Someone please call the authorities on the friendlygoat. Oh, please tell his employer too. And his family. And any other social group he may be in.
    It is true, I swear…

  • Sen. Feinstein actually forwarded the letter to the FBI which should have began an investigation as it was in the process of vetting the short list candidates. But it didn’t! Sen. Feinstein wasn’t the only member of Congress with whom Dr. Ford shared her story, she also shared it with her Representative, whose name escapes me now. So we have a minimum of two members of congress and who knows how many of their staff, plus agents of the FBI who could be the source of the leak, if there was one.

  • Not interested in her or the leak at all. This is about character assassination.
    If you’re going to accuse someone of something (35 years after the fact), then have the balls to face them and make the accusation.
    If this was such an issue (if it even occurred); she had 35 years to go to the authorities. But didn’t until the day before the senate vote. Impeccable timing.
    On top of that, she wants to set the conditions in which she’ll speak to congress?! Not under oath. Not questioned by kavanaughs attorney and only after kavanaugh makes his statement first.
    Pfffffttt….

  • A thought provoking article and interesting quotes from all sections of the political divide. So interesting.

  • It only took one white woman’s unproven allegation to get Emmett Till lynched. Just something to keep in mind. Plus, there are some “I don’t remembers” in Ford’s story so far. (Anita Hill had a MUCH stronger gig.)

    Sorry, but I don’t want the #Metoo Mob in charge of selecting Supreme Court judges. And don’t even ask about the OVERT political hypocrisy of the Democratic Party in this affair. Brazenly, openly using this accusation to buy time for anti-Kavanaugh, Alt-Left Mid-Term votes, regardless of Kavanaugh’s innocence or guilt. That’s insane.

    (Hey folks, let’s say hi to Democrat Cory Booker! Did you like that teenage girl that YOU got ahold of? And now you’re piously sitting in judgment on Judge Kavanaugh? Are you kidding me, dawg??)

  • FG – By the same logic, you’d have to ask if Appeals Court Judges make up stories at 50+ years of age, under penalty of perjury, and under penalty of having their lives ruined by the publicity and never being able to return to the bench.

    I’m not sure the “she’d never make it up” defense gets us past “she said, he said.” – Monica.

  • “I don’t expect we will ever know the truth about what did or did not
    happen. But as an evangelical Christian, I am convinced Dante himself
    could not have devised a more fitting circle of hell for my faith
    community than the one in which we find ourselves: being destroyed from
    the inside out by the sexual sin we spent decades pointing out
    everywhere but in our own house. For us, this is the real trial.”

    Where in the h-ll is the “waffle-around”?

  • The letter should have led to an FBI investigation in Fantasy World.

    In the real world Judge Kavanaugh has been vetted by the FBI multiple times; when he was first employed by the Federal Government, when he was appointed a Federal judge, and prior to his nomination to the Supreme Court.

    A minor groping a minor is not a Federal offense, nor is it a felony.

    There is nothing to investigate.

    My own impression is that Dr. Ford should continue in therapy.

  • “Obviously, if this did happen, that would be disqualifying[.]”

    This attitude — that something someone did while stumbling drunk as a teenager should override everything he’s done since through thirty-plus years of adulthood — is dangerous and unchristian. We aren’t the ancient Romans, believing that a person’s character is fixed from birth, unchanging throughout a person’s life.

    Worse, it allows Democrats to weaponize the #MeToo movement even more than they have already, and if they are allowed to get away with it Republicans will follow suit and the entire movement will likely collapse. If the movement is to permanently alter our culture, it needs to decide where to draw the lines — not ALL women are to be automatically believed, not ALL accused are to be assumed guilty until proven innocent.

  • No, by the time Feinstein was forced to forward the letter to the FBI, its background investigation of Kavanaugh was done.

  • Since the Godly Evangelical Leaders and their Godly Evangelical Followers embraced a Presidential candidate who bragged about grabbing women’s genitals, it is unlikely they would be put off by a Supreme Court candidate who, as a teenager, forcibly dry-humped a girl. (If he had dry-humped a boy, of course, that would be different.) After all, what really matters is to Make America White Again.

  • If everything that everyone did as a teenager were tattooed on her or his forehead, few people would go out in public without a hat pulled down over the forehead.

    That Judge Kavanaugh “forcibly dry-humped a girl” is an allegation, one which arrived via therapy (notorious for the creation of false memories, as the daycare mess in the ‘80s demonstrated)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria

    Were it true, it would be a misdemeanor in a juvenile court of which there would be no record.

    But for those who know who they hate, any pretense is sufficient.

  • Well, she is asking for an investigation, isn’t she? Would she do that if she felt it would conclude the event never happened and she is just trying to smear a man?

  • Perhaps. But she cited only one witness, and he denies having seen anything. I don’t know what an investigation is going to find.

  • An investigation would find that such a party took place, or did not take place. There has to be a time and place. That’s the start. It would find that Kavanaugh was or was not a regular drunk in high school. That’s a biggie. It might compel the one witness to speak under oath. That’s a biggie. It might draw in recollections from others at the party.

  • So, the FBI should drop what it is doing and go found out if a party took place 35 years ago?

    Is the allegation that Judge Kavanaugh attended parties?

    He appears to have admitted that he did.

    Is the allegation that Judge Kavanaugh drank while in high school?

    If that’s the case, most of the Congress and the Executive Branch need to resign.

    Cut the cr-p.

    You want a fishing expedition and a delay.

  • White men lynched Emmett Till as I recall. As for Anita Hill, you never believed her and still don’t——so don’t try to spoof me with what you think about her stronger “gig”.

  • Sir, I’m not trying to nitpick, but the fact that there was a party is not in dispute. The fact that the judge “was a regular drunk in high school” would only support the complainant’s claim if there were witnesses who put them together, and we only know of one such witness. And he could be subpoenaed, but would almost certainly repeat that he didn’t see anything. So the result would be either ambiguous or would tend to support the judge.
    One could also infer from the demand to have the accused testify first that the complainant’s testimony is either weak or open to refutation. So I don’t know how much we can say at this point, and I’m not sure we’ll have much more real evidence if and when she testifies.
    As an addendum, I survived date rape as a teenager. I pressed charges and the assailant went to prison. In my experience, charges have to be filed right away if one hopes to get a thorough investigation.

  • She’s asking for anything that will delay the vote.
    She refuses to testify under oath. Refuses to testify Monday as scheduled. Refuses to testify with kavanaugh in the room. Will only testify AFTER kavanaugh gives his statement (so he cannot respond to her allegations) and refuses to be questioned by an independent third-party attorney.
    She is a joke and a political pawn.
    IF this occurred – and IF – she was so concerned about this alleged incident; why wasn’t it addressed 35 years ago?
    Oh, did I mention she is a joke and political pawn?

  • There is a potential “silver lining” here . . . After all the testimony, if Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations are deemed factual while Kavanaugh’s supporters insist that the incident is irrelevant because they were teenagers, then the “silver lining” would be that Kavanaugh established himself as a certified liar by adamantly denying the incident. But, I would expect Trump-worshiping conservatives to eagerly confirm a certified liar as a Supreme Court justice.

  • I would expect that given there were three potential witnesses, two of whom deny it happened, the odds are that someone who could write “eagerly confirm a certified liar as a Supreme Court justice” is either a certified liar or suffers from delusions.

  • Religious leaders tend to be conservatives.
    Conservatives tend to trash victims of sexual assault when one of their own is the abuser.
    None of the above comments are surprising.

  • Since you’ve already made up your ‘mind’ (if it could remotely be called such), why should she even testify at all, since he’s already clearly guilty?
    It’s always hilarious to see the hatred you liberals manifest when the alleged sexual abuser is from a different political tribe, and how forgiving, lenient or outright disbelieving you are when one of your own is accused.
    For the record, Hillary Clinton, Gloria Steinem, NOW, and plenty of other liberals have been more then willing to trash victims of sexual assault, so long as the perpetrator was an abortion-supporting Democrat.

  • What’s the division for? They’ve made it perfectly clear in the past that past allegations or even confessions of sexual assault only disqualify a candidate if they’re a Democrat. For Republicans, they will happily make excuses and endorse away. The religious leadership in this country sold their integrity to the GOP decades ago. They’ll excuse anything and everything in the name of stopping abortion.

  • I listened to Hill as carefully as I Iistened to Thomas. (She bravely did her own talking, not these leftist gameplayer lawyers, and without these odd “I don’t remembers” that we’re getting with Ford’s account.)

    Thomas had the stronger gig and was rightfully confirmed, but both parties gave a USSC-worthy hearing.

    But NOW, your Democrat friends are putting on the craziest possible political lynching. No concern for anyone’s justice, just raw cynical anti-Trump political gaming. Sheesh.)

  • Thomas was and is a lifelong jerk. Everybody now knows it. I just read a quote from his memoir this morning that when he was confirmed 52-48 in the Senate that he was taking a bath, and replied to his wife “Whoop-de-damn-doo” when she told him the news. That alone would be enough to tell me he was a horrible pick for the United States—-but, of course, not enough to tell you or your world view anything at all. Neither would Thomas’s famous Corvette with the RES IPSA license plate. It’s not a matter of “gigs”. It’s a matter of whether voters are gonna appreciate their Republicans for doing this same junk repeatedly.

  • My exact point. The Religious Right cares when a Democrat does it. When a Republican attempts to rape a girl when he’s in high school, molests teen girls when he’s in his thirties, has an affair with a porn star the day his son is born to his third wife, or is literally caught on tape bragging about getting away with sexual assault, the Religious Right not only supports them, but endlessly praise what good people they are.

  • Why? Just repeating what he stated with different groups. Guess it’s okay to be racist and bigoted if your liberal.

  • Conservatives of all stripes have thrown their lot in with a serial adulterer, cheat, admitted sexual predator, and habitual liar, they avoid making comments about the morality, legality or propriety of actions by conservatives. Lest it be considered a criticism of Trump.

    Conservatives are also rather quick to jump on the bandwagon for any gonzo Pizzagate style conspiracy if it pertains to Liberal public figures but then suddenly become crazy skeptical when one of their own is under scrutiny.

    Worse still is the flat out admission of wrongdoing made by bullshifting (whataboutism) arguments. Essentially saying they have no problem with immoral, illegal or inappropriate conduct as long as someone else had allegedly done it first. Instead of raising a double standard it shows a complete and total lack of standards of the person who uses such an argument.

  • Whatevs bigot. Alwayspuzzled wasn’t being bigoted or racist there, but instead pointing to the double standard used by conservatives.

    “Guess it’s okay to be racist and bigoted if your liberal.”

    I wouldn’t know. I don’t see it. I see conservatives making ironic remarks about others being bigots and racists. Funnier still is the “you won’t tolerate my attacking others” garbage you guys love to sling.

  • Funny how you mention someone whose only witness repudiated her accusations under penalties of perjury. So conservatives only want careful investigation and rule of law when it suits your purposes. Otherwise rumors and deliberately lying about the past suffices.

    More relevant paging Billy Bush and his tapes.

  • “Innocent” being the key word here. Not just “life”. You concern yourself with a fetus and consider women to be worthless and practically your property to command.

  • His supporters are not doing much to show themselves to be the credible sort. Playing procedural games with the witness, constant document suppression, avoidance games, bullshifting deflection.

    “For the record”

    What record? You guys lie repeatedly and often when it comes to the views of others and love to elevate rumor and debunked fiction to gospel truth. Link please.

    What is a real record here is how conservatives no longer even make comments about the legality, morality or propriety of others for fear that it ends up being a criticism of the habitual liar/cheat/adulterer/manchild they support in the White House. Hence your reference to what liberals allegedly do rather than address the subject.

  • Senator McCain during the final vote on repealing
    Obamacare:

    “I hope we can again rely on humility, on our need
    to cooperate, on our dependence on each other to learn how to trust each other
    again and by so doing better serve the people who elected us. … We’ve been
    spinning our wheels on too many important issues because we keep trying to find
    a way to win without help from across the aisle. That’s an approach that’s been
    employed by both sides, mandating legislation from the top down, without any
    support from the other side, with all the parliamentary maneuvers that
    requires.”

    The Senate majority ignores the advice of Senator McCain,
    seeking to confirm a Justice along party lines. Since 1921, only three Justices
    have been approved by less than a thirty-vote margin (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch).

    Should Kavanaugh be confirmed?
    Confirm Don’t Confirm Poll
    40 36 Gallup August 20-26, 2018.
    44 39 Quinnipiac University Poll. Aug. 9-13,
    37 40 CNN Poll conducted by SSRS. Aug. 9-12,
    34 38 NBC News / Wall Street 9/16-9/19

    The margin of public approval for Kavanaugh is -4%. (more
    disapprove than approve)
    That margin of public approval for Bork (not approved)
    was 5%.
    The margin of public approval for Miers (nomination
    withdrawn) was 3%.
    The margin of public approval for the current justices
    ranged from 11% to 39 percent.

    The number of 5 to 4 decisions by the Supreme Court (most
    along party lines) has cast the Supreme Court as a political body, not a neutral
    body seeking fair outcomes. This has resulted in the loss of the public’s
    confidence in the Court.

    Confidence in the Supreme Court will be further damaged
    if the Senate does not demand a nominee that can garner a thirty or forty vote
    margin in the senate and a similar margin in public opinion.

  • Complete silliness. She has no business dictating any conditions for her testimony. Set a date for her to appear and be heard and that is that. If she doesn’t show, proceed with business.

  • Funny how Donald Trump also divided people among religious lines. The liberals, otherwise known as people who don’t scold other people about morality, were against it. The religious conservatives, always scolding people about morality, decided to support a four times bankrupt three times married, two Corinthian’s spouting, Self-proclaimed sexual assaulter, fornicator, and adulterer, a daily liarWho apparently also lied about his encounters with a porn star— after his third marriage— and his efforts to hush her up.

    Conservative religious support for Cavanagh just seems to make sure that they are consistent.

  • Good thing we aren’t talking about them. One has to be born to be murdered.

    You are one of the most obvious bigots here.

  • This story can’t be believed for very compelling reasons. Nobody would ever invite you to a party, let alone give you alcohol.

  • Right. Your way or the highway. Name calling and implications.
    Groupthink and doubletruth.
    Run along Winston, the ministry of truth is waiting.

  • Poor snowflake hates being called a bigot, but doesn’t refute or deny the labels. How sad. 🙁

    I find it funny when people who support every form of discrimination out there and an outright white supremacist agenda call others bigots. Projection much?

  • So you are really scared about her testimony. OK.

    I find it funny how the conservative apologists are all attacking her story before it is even given under oath. What do they have to fear here?

    Paula Jones repudiated her own accusations under oath. That carries the weight of someone telling the truth under legal penalties. But then again conservatives don’t really believe in providing credible facts or stories. They demand them from others, but never give them.

  • Nope. I was a Never-Trumper in ’16, and remain so. I’m no more okay with Trump’s ghastly behavior than I was with Clinton’s (either one).

  • If you’re using ‘you’ as a reference to conservatives in general, then you’ve clearly already forgotten the significant number of them who openly questioned Moore and his worthiness for public office, unlike the wholesale support and virtual devotion liberals have given to Ford, before she’s even testified, and their absolute certainty of Kavanaugh’s guilt, based solely on his politics.

    If you’re using ‘you’ as a reference to me personally, then you clearly haven’t gleaned much from my body of comments, or else you’d know how little I could care about any Baptist @*%$! (thanks Disqus), much less a lifelong embarrassment like Roy.

  • Since you seem to be remarkably ignorant of history (and, you know, basically everything else as well), here’s an introduction to the oh-so-tolerant world of liberal feminists when it came to their favorite predator, although there were even worse reactions at the time that went unmentioned here.
    Assuming you can tear yourself away from reading sex tips in The Advocate for five minutes. 🙂

    https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/11/reckoning-with-bill-clintons-sex-crimes/545729/

  • Not really seeing the excuse making you were claiming. Liberals seem to be going through hand wringing contemplation and examination.

    Whereas you and fellow conservatives go straight into excuses, apologia and bullshifting.

    The only reason you bring up a figure from 20 years ago is because you are too spineless to address the current issues or people. Better to deflect and avoid than own up to supporting miscreants.

    If you aren’t worried about Kavannaugh being a sexual predator, then your comments about a past figure are just pointless BS. Clearly you do not care about such things.

    It’s not that I have a double standard, its that you have none.

  • No it’s directed at you personally. You supported Moore and you looked for excuses and deflection when the Billy Bush tape came out. Moore was trash before the sexual misconduct allegations came out. He was unsuitable for any public office.

    You aren’t showing that you find sexual predators in government to be worrisome. As long as long as they follow your agenda.

    Conservatives love rehashing the most ridiculous conspiracy theories to attack others with but claim to be wary skeptics when it’s their own.

    Republicans deserve to have their SCOTUS pick be fouled up on principle. Turnabout is fair play. They can get bent.

    My view is simply for her to testify. The accusations are serious enough to take pause. Hear her out under oath.

    Something Republicans clearly appear scared of.

    Something you are scared of.

  • In reading your citation I see no settlements of what could be criminal charges.

    Did you for some reason think there were?

  • Reading your high-falutin’ moral indignation with the track record of positions you have taken and things you advocate was exceptionally droll, troll.

  • As I understand Dr Ford, she sent the letter to the congresswomen when his name was being mentioned as having made the shortlist for consideration, not after his nomination.

  • My confidence in the Supreme Court will go up several notches if Kavanaugh is confirmed.

    It would go up even further if Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg exit singly or together.

    What has cast the Supreme Court as a political body is a nomination process like this one and decisions like Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges where “rights” appeared out of the thin air due to some zany justice like Blackmun or Kennedy reading fortune cookies and making things up.

  • Funny how Barack Obama divided people along both racial and religious lines and there was not a peep out of you about it.

    Btw, it’s “Kavanaugh”, not “Cavanagh”.

    Less doobie, more thought process.

  • We’re getting multiple stories.

    If your version is correct Feinstein sandbagged the hearings, which certainly would not be out of character.

  • You don’t have a double standard. You have single standard.

    You know what you like, you know who you like to call names, and you don’t care for facts.

    On the plus side you’re simple.

  • As I understand you and your lingo, that translates into “Parker opposes abortion, supports the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop, and thinks the phrase “separation of church and state” is joke made up by anti-Catholics after WWII.”

  • Discrimination = what Spuddie does not like or support.

    Snowflakes = people with facts of whom Spuddie is jealous.

  • Here is a comment from the target audience for Feinstein’s stunt from another Disqus feed:

    “In this entire Kavanaugh affair, it is glaring that the man will not say, ‘Yes, I did a horribly stupid, awful thing when I was a teen, and I hurt Christine.I am profoundly sorry for that. I have grown since then and have learned that women are to be treated as persons, and not objects. I am teaching my children to behave differently…….’ This man is refusing to admit that he did something bad. He is refusing to take responsibility. How can anyone want a man like that in the Supreme Court? But, of course, we have one, don’t we?”

    Sex: female

    Age: older

    Race: white

    Profession: mind maven

    Politics: über liberal feminist pro-abortion

    A presumption of guilt, an expectation that the nominee will admit to it whether he did or not, an unrealistic assumption that anyone in her or his right mind would commit political suicide.

    Feinstein aimed very precisely and carefully at a base group and hit it.

  • While the CNN timeline isn’t explicit on when Ford first reached out to the Post tip line and her Representative, it explicitly states that she sent the letter in late July, while Kavanaugh was nominated on July 9th.

  • I absolutely LOVE how the libs try so hard to co-opt that word “snowflake,” and yet for a generation no one is ever going to hear it without remembering the same image — green millennial Dems sobbing out loud and wetting their pants coast to coast on Nov 8 2016, then retreating to their coloring books to recuperate.

    Glad so many people recorded it for posterity. 😁

  • Umm, after the High-Tech Lynching (the totally perfect label spoken by Thomas, btw) that the desperate Democrats attempted to put on Thomas, did you really expect him to say anything other than what he said? Would YOU have said anything different under the circumstances?

    But like I said, Anita Hill was a lot more upfront and specific than this Ford person. No “I don’t remember” mess on Anita’s gig. (This is a point that you’re ducking, and you’re not able to refute it anyway.) Anita did the talking, not the game-playing leftist lawyers. This Ford person better come up with a MUCH stronger gig.

  • Oh goodness, I’ve already said I am a sinner 20 times over. How about you, Canis? Are you a sinner too?

    Got some teenage “stuff” on your resume too? Got any current anti-biblical violations on you?

  • Sorry about your personal experience. I won’t argue about what you know with respect to how these things go. I am simply hoping that the women of the USA do not have Kavanaugh’s judicial behavior shoved down their throats for the next 25 years. Whatever happens now is whatever happens.

  • You and Thomas love that “high-tech lynching” lie. I doubt if the black people Thomas has been ruling against for 25 years find it all that cute. Thomas would NEVER have been made a judge by any Senate made up of people from his own race. He was a willing stooge put up by rich white people to rule for rich white people in every relevant case—-which he has effectively done for 25 years. For him to liken a black woman who wished to avoid that result to a lynch mob is just another example of his built-in character flaws. When, btw, are you going to find something to do besides heckling me? This is all getting wearisome.

  • Yep. When someone says they are worried about “innocent” life, I usually ask them what crime is the woman guilty of committing?

  • “Innocent life” has to do with the child not having been adjudicated guilty of any crime deserving of death, which is ordinarily a legal prerequisite for taking a human life. It says nothing about the woman.

  • Yes, the Democrats have really made it clear they will do anything at all, no matter how shady, dishonest, or despicable, to try to be relevant and exercise power.

  • I pegged spuddie last week as Winston from George Orwell’s book 1984. Everyone should read the book as it is more true now then ever.
    Winston works for the ministry of truth; whose job it is to rewrite the news daily in support of the government.
    One day spuddie writes that he hates republicans and their globalist ideals; the next day when rallying against trump, he says it was the democrats who invented (good) globalism.
    He lacks intellectual integrity; that’s why he is able to be on either side of the issue – depending on what position his adversary takes.

  • I know. Earlier this week we learned from Tater that that (a) there are no Democrat states’ rights positions.

    And upon demonstration the (a) is
    irrefutably false we subsequently learned that (b) Democrats have states’ rights “strategies,” not positions.

    And finally, (a) being false and (b) being nonsensical on its face, we learned that (c) the degree of legitimacy of any “states’ rights” position consists in how well it serves Democrat causes.

    LOL! There is nothing more entertaining than liberal hypocrisy, and around here it is plentiful.

  • Edd, of course, doesn’t know civil liberties, church-state separation, and real religious liberty in American law from a hole in the ground.

    My only criterion for a selection of justices was written opinions, which I would be pleased to provide examples of.

  • I have been writing books, columns and articles and lecturing on these subjects for over 50 years. One wonders what Bob has written other than uninformed, arrogant snippets on blogs.

  • Citing someone who changed their testimony under oath as the main source of an accusation which was settled out of court. Not an admission of guilt by any stretch.

    By all means pretend settlement in court is an admission of wrongdoing. I would be going to town on your boy with the bad hair and orange complexion pretending to be the Chief Executive.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_University#Low_v._Trump_University,_LLC
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump

    But credible claims weren’t what you were after. Just bullshifting trolling.

    I guess you are expecting this witness to do the same here?

    I see you are really scared about her testimony here.

  • “ … a four times bankrupt three times married, two Corinthian’s spouting, Self-proclaimed sexual assaulter, fornicator, and adulterer, a daily liarWho apparently also lied about his encounters with a porn star— after his third marriage …”

    Considering that Kavanaugh is by all accounts a fine religious family man, I don’t really see how supporting him is “consistent” with supporting Trump.

  • And yet you insist that accusations against priests from 40 years ago be taken seriously now, today.

    There is an inconsistency here that is actually thinly veiled hypocrisy.

  • Incorrect. I try to walk the very fine line of making sure there are facts to back up any accusations prior to defrocking them.
    My concern is that a person is destroyed by one false accusation. Not only is that unfair to the Nth degree, but un-American.
    That being said, if there is truth to the allegations, then defrock them and destroy them.

  • It doesn’t matter how many times that they vetted him, if they were looking in the wrong direction and had no idea of this ugly past, the FBI wouldn’t have investigated and come up with anything. There are possibly now 4 accusers and a former roommate who says that he believes the women because the K-man was a belligerent drunk in those days.

    A minor groping a minor is not a Federal offense, nor is it a felony.
    I see you’re still wearing that millstone. Don’t teeter too close to water!

    Dr Ford is a therapist. And like many folks with degrees in psychology, she knew to seek outside help for herself. There isn’t any shame, with which you try to paint her with here, in seeing a therapist. Nor does it invalidate her testimony.

  • Yup. There are rumors that I may win the lottery too.
    Good to see that you are part of the guilty until proven innocent crowd.
    Just admit that this is an attempt to kill the kavanaugh nomination by any means necessary.
    BTW, the next time you speak to your democrat comrades, tell them it would have been more believable had Diane “I had a Chinese spy working for me” Feinstein leaked this information in early summer. That way, time would allow for an investigation. Now, everyone knows that the vote is imminent, and that the democrats are playing games. Optically, it just doesn’t work.
    On a side note, rumors have it that ford will not testify on Thursday; and that Ramirez admits she was drunk and has no one solid evidence or witnesses to support her claim.

  • The issue you’re describing is not a Federal crime, was not a felony if it occurred 36 years ago, and is not currently prosecutable.

    Had it happened and been reported then, it would have been a misdemeanor, any record of it would have disappeared since, and the FBI would therefore have nothing to investigate. And that appears to be the case now.

    Dr. Ford seems to be exhibiting some neurotic symptoms, which apparently explains why she was in marital therapy and why the alleged recollection came up in it. Having dealt with individuals like this in a legal setting, I can tell you that the odds this “recollection” is accurate is nearly nil.

    As we all know, recollections in therapy tend to get both embellished and linked with deep-seated anxieties which affix themselves to the so-called “recollection”.

    Those of us who recall the Daycare abuse hysteria from the ‘80s into the early ‘90s, and how “therapists” practically manufactured recollections.

    https://townhall.com/columnists/scottmorefield/2018/09/23/exclusive-eminent-california-professor-and-human-memory-expert-weighs-in-on-christine-fords-allegations-against-kavanaugh-n2521636

    This accusation is so flimsy it makes Anita Hill’s fantasies look like DNA evidence.

  • You misunderstand, hopefully in error, rather than purposely to misconstrue. This wasn’t a recollection. This is something of which she has been mindful everyday, since the day that it occurred. It’s why she moved 3000 miles across the US and restarted her life far away from Kavanaugh and that privileged life the wealthy in DC shared. Perhaps the environment that made him believe he could attack her as she says unequivocally that he did. Her marital counseling, of a few years ago, was just the first time that she recounted the event with a therapist and with her husband.

    It doesn’t matter if the offense is prosecutable. It’s the character of the individual that matters. A character that many men & women in this country don’t trust to a lifetime role on the final court of decision for the nation.

    It’s sad that you also didn’t believe Anita Hill. Your role here shows us all what poor character you yourself have as you brush these situations off as if they are but the hysterics of the weaker gender. That thinking has been anathema for quite some time now. As with other ideas, the younger generations that don’t support that crap are hoping that those who do quickly die off so the rest of us can get on with respecting one another.

  • You misunderstand police work.

    In order to be an investigation, there has to be something to investigate.

    A recollection with no corroborating witnesses and no physical evidence cannot be investigated.

    At this point the only witnesses she alleged deny the allegation.

    Her husband recollecting that she recollected is hearsay.

    Her therapist’s notes do not agree with her current recollection.

    Any police force would stop there.

    Although the public – and prosecutors – believe otherwise, the very weakest evidence is eyewitness. People have been executed wrongly by eyewitness testimony.

    What we see and remember is highly colored by what we believe, by what we hear at the time (e.g., “He has a gun!” when he’s holding a cellphone), and by what we hear later.

    The mind tries to make sense of an event that happens suddenly, and it adds and subtracts in doing so.

    People can be trained to be better observers and reporters, but the very idea that a teenage girl under stress is a trained reliable observer is silly.

    We do not know that “”she has been mindful everyday, since the day that it occurred. It’s why she moved 3000 miles across the US and restarted her life far away from Kavanaugh and that privileged life the wealthy in DC shared.”

    We know that is her current story.

    It does matter if the offense is prosecutable. If it’s the character of the individual that matters, and the individual in question has led an exemplary life for over 35 years, you’re suggesting he be punished for what he did when he was an adolescent. You’re taking a position contrary to your own profession – people can’t change and they should be battered for the rest of their lives for any mistake they made.

    It’s not sad that I also didn’t and don’t believe Anita Hill. I looked, as I am doing on this, at the evidence.

    She asked Thomas for references. She moved from Agency A to Agency B to follow him. Not a single piece of physical evidence or single corroborating witness supported her.

    As a person trained in extracting reality from a mass of data, including recollections, who has seen completely imaginary events related as though they happened minutes ago, I need a bit of corroboration before I suck on the eyewitness lemon.

    My role here shows you that I hold facts in much higher esteem then hysteria.

    I hold facts in much higher esteem then wishes.

    There is an old saying that “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride”, and apparently you and Dr. Ford are riding horses.

    If you were so interested in respecting one another, you’d be demanding a higher level of proof than a dubious memory.

  • There are now possibly 4 women who are making similar accusations against K-man. Additionally there is also now the statement from K-man’s college roommate that he wasn’t the angel that he paints himself to be during his high school & college years. The roommate reports that he had quite the drinking problem and that he had behavioral problems when he was drunk. The roommate has no problems believing that he did what he has been accused of doing.

    I haven’t seen it reported that anyone but K-man says that it didn’t happen. The folks Dr Ford has identified as having been at the party have said that they don’t remember the party. And one said that even though she doesn’t remember the party, she believes what Dr Ford says that she experienced in the assault from K-man.

  • When the four women who make accusations appear publicly and there is details, we’ll face that.

    No one was the angel they paint themselves to be in high school or college.

    If he had a drinking problem, he appears to have handled it since.

    Whether or not his roommate is gullible, hates him, or believes allegations is irrelevant.

    If you “haven’t seen it reported that anyone but K-man says that it didn’t happen”, you’re engaging in confirmation bias.

    If we’re down to a point where a poll on who believes and does not believe some allegation is true, sans corroboration, sans evidence, sans confrontation of the accuser, the party is over.

    You’re making it crystal clear what you want to believe.

    You’re exactly the party faithful base that Senator Feinstein was aiming at.

  • Fall of man my friend.
    The fall led to sin and evil entering the world.
    Anyone who went to a public school in the 70’s knows that…..
    🙂

  • Black people should have figured out by now that restricting their civil rights of others is wrong, including the civil right to abortion, yet for some reason they have not.

ADVERTISEMENTs