Kavanaugh and the 'boys will be boys' sentiment is a poor excuse for bad behavior

[mystery-ak]

Kavanaugh and the 'boys will be boys' sentiment is a poor excuse for bad behavior
By Ezra Rosser, opinion contributor — 09/15/18 04:00 PM EDT

The accusation that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted someone while in high school is a bombshell, but it is too early to know what effect it will have on his confirmation to the Supreme Court. It is, however, not too soon to say that the position, as reported by the New Yorker, of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) staff, “that the incident was too distant in the past to merit public discussion” is hardly satisfactory.

Seemingly it has become common-place for male politicians to try to brush aside past bad behavior as irrelevant incidents from childhood, we should no longer tolerate such excuses.

Someone’s past, including actions done prior to reaching age 18, can shed light on his or her character and is certainly relevant when considering Supreme Court appointments. Feinstein’s office may have had a number of good reasons for sitting on the allegation since July, including protecting the privacy of the accuser, but the “time-heals-all-wounds argument” offered by staff is troubling.

more
http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/406848-kavanaugh-and-the-boys-will-be-boys-sentiment-is-a-poor-excuse-for-bad

[roamer_1]

“that the incident was too distant in the past to merit public discussion” is hardly satisfactory.

YES, it is of a necessity entirely satisfactory.
Accusing a man of misdeeds YESTERDAY without evidence is not admissible under the law, not to mention accusing a man thirty or forty YEARS ago. The presumption of innocence requires that he can defend himself and confront his accusers...How is that to be done from memories decades hence? And how does one prove the memories of the accuser, whose recollections are just as old?

If this was actionable, why was it not presented THEN?

Seemingly it has become common-place for male politicians to try to brush aside past bad behavior as irrelevant incidents from childhood, we should no longer tolerate such excuses.

Someone’s past, including actions done prior to reaching age 18, can shed light on his or her character and is certainly relevant when considering Supreme Court appointments.

Whether or not he did or didn't has nothing to do with it. What matters is that all evidence, pro or con, is long, long gone, and there can be no proof... Thus convicting the man on the hearsay of one person. That is unconscionable.

[Bigun]

YES, it is of a necessity entirely satisfactory.
Accusing a man of misdeeds YESTERDAY without evidence is not admissible under the law, not to mention accusing a man thirty or forty YEARS ago. The presumption of innocence requires that he can defend himself and confront his accusers...How is that to be done from memories decades hence? And how does one prove the memories of the accuser, whose recollections are just as old?

If this was actionable, why was it not presented THEN?

Whether or not he did or didn't has nothing to do with it. What matters is that all evidence, pro or con, is long, long gone, and there can be no proof... Thus convicting the man on the hearsay of one person. That is unconscionable.

@roamer_1

BRAVO!!!   But they are still gonna run the play!  It works for them too often.

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

BRAVO!!!   But they are still gonna run the play!  It works for them too often.

That's right. Because far to many people are willing to listen to waggin' tongues. 

[mountaineer]

Someone’s past, including actions done prior to reaching age 18, can shed light on his or her character and is certainly relevant when considering Supreme Court appointments.

That might be true if you had even a hint of a wisp of a modicum of evidence of his misdeeds. So far, there is none in Kavanaugh's case.

[Free Vulcan]

Oh the Millennial basement dwellers at The Hill think they are so very word clever. We don't even know who the woman is, and can't verify her story or the details.

That however doesn't stop them from making a giant leap for Fake News kind by taking it at face value and running with it like a bunch of judgy, rumor mongering, gossipy old church harpies to lecture us about...character.

[mountaineer]

I liked Ben Shapiro's tweets on the subject:

Ben Shapiro  Verified account @benshapiro
Sep 14
Furthermore, if you bring forth sources who claim that Dianne Feinstein is not a cannibal, you are merely showing me people who weren't cannibalized. That proves nothing other than that you are senselessly defensive.

Ben Shapiro  Verified account @benshapiro
Sep 14
An anonymous child has alleged that Dianne Feinstein ate his right leg 40 years ago. Out of discretion, I will not reveal the name of this hobbled person. If you say more evidence is needed outside the mere allegation itself, you aren't believing victims.

[Cyber Liberty]

Produce some evidence, Ezra, and I'll play.  Otherwise, I'll have to assume you shared that kid's leg with Feinswine.

[Cyber Liberty]

@roamer_1

BRAVO!!!   But they are still gonna run the play!  It works for them too often.

Yup.  It's all about peeling off Republicans.

[goatprairie]

@roamer_1

BRAVO!!!   But they are still gonna run the play!  It works for them too often.

Dems/liberals are masters of the damaging insinuation.
Lib: "Is  it true Mr. Smith that you've stopped smashing puppies and kittens with a sledgehammer?"
Mr. Smith: "I've never killed puppies and kittens."
Lib: "prove it."
Mr. Smith "I can't prove a negative."
Lib: "Then you're guilty."