frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Another woman accuses Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct: Report

Debate Information

  1. Live Poll

    Is this a ploy by Democrats or legit?

    7 votes
    1. Ploy
      85.71%
    2. Legit
      14.29%
Live Long and Prosper



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    Most likely it is just some people hoping to get a lot of money through extortion ("Pay up, or I will take it to the court and the negative publicity will destroy your career!"). Pretty common situation. Might also be a legitimate lawsuit over something that really happened, but presumption of innocence holds.

    I do not think there is any kind of a dark conspiracy by Democrats. Democrats have been accusing Kavanaugh of all sins, but intentionally throwing around fake legal accusations is not really their style. Not to mention that sexual misconduct accusations have zero relation to his ability to do his job and cannot affect his standing in the government.
    YeshuaBoughtZombieguy1987George_Horse
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 493 Pts   -   edited September 2018
    This is really difficult for me to take any stance on this new accusation. At least in Ford's case she has a therapy appointment from 5 years ago where she discussed the assault by Kavanaugh who should be able to testify on this, which either weighs heavily in her favor that she is telling the truth, or that she has been fully delusional for so long, making up and believing an assault for so long in her life that she should be institutionalized, the former is far far more likely than the latter.

    However when it comes to sex crime accusations in high profile cases it can be very difficult to tell. On one hand you can have a girl claim 4 black men forced her into a car at gunpoint, in the middle of the day in the middle of a college campus and then they gang rape her in the woods. The entire country got in a frenzy about this (due to the racial nature) and then she admitted the whole story was made up, but no one demanded an answer as to why she did this because 9/11 happened very shortly after. http://www.iowastatedaily.com/news/article_9c33948d-3755-57fb-aea1-bd1828bc14b8.html ; Also you have the University of Virginia case where a girl lied about a gang rape in a fraternity all to make a boy jealous https://abcnews.go.com/2020/deepdive/how-retracted-rolling-stone-article-rape-on-campus-came-print-42701166

    On the other hand you have people like Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein who managed to get away with repeated rape and sexual assault for decades and only the power of visibility on things like social media were able to get enough victims to speak up at the same time to take them down for their crimes, even if legal action was past the date when it could be taken. You have things like Penn State's Sandusky, and the recent PA grand jury report that 1,000 children were abused by catholic priests for over 50 years, in both these cases you had a large group of people that knew what was going on but all fell into ranks to defend not just rapists or sexual assaulters, but Pedophiles, probably the wort of all sex criminals.

    So we have history on both sides, where women will lie about rape or sexual assault to advance some agenda of theirs, and well documented cases of lots of people defending people who they know committed sex crimes. What worries me about this is that this debate isn't even restricted to this case alone, but it is just one smaller conversation on the larger topic of how many women get raped/assaulted? How many women will lie about these things? What length will people go to to defend a sex offender? If you err to far on one side, then plenty of men, and yes men because sexual assault is primarily committed by men, who easily get away with their crimes, and emboldens other men to commit these crimes in confidence knowing that its easy to get away with. If you go to far on the other side then innocent men will have lives ruined because of false accusations, and even worse the claim of sexual assault or raped will be weaponized by any group or individual, leading to false condemnations, and eventually a significantly lower likelihood that real victims will be believed. 

    So are these women making up these claims at the direction of someone else to slow/end Kavanaugh's nomination? After all they came out very close to the vote that it would be a good time to use that as a last ditch weapon. Or is this second woman feeling confident enough to come forward because she found out she wasn't the only victim of Kavanaugh? Even on both sides of the political spectrum you have republicans wanting to fully believe the allegations against Keith Ellison or Bill Clinton while at the same time fully believing any allegations against Trump or Kavanaugh are entirely false, while the opposite is true for many Democrats. The issue of whether an assault was committed by a political figure leads many to instantly take sides and puts the accusation in a very gray area. It seems the only time the abuser will be believed by the majority i if its the politicians own daughter, or that they drop out of their race/position when the accusations first come to light. If the politician maintains their stance that they never committed any crime, regardless of the side of the aisle they are on, the victim stands almost no chance to ever get justice.

    Finally in response to @MayCaesar this does have significant relation on Kavanaugh's ability to do his job. Say a case comes before the supreme court that extends the ability of sexual assault/rape victims to take legal action against their abusers. Kavanaugh is going to be the swing vote here and if he has a personal interest in not allowing his victims to be able to go after him then that is a serious concern. This could very well be something fought in courts. In Pennsylvania the catholic diocese is already fighting the ability of the victims to take legal action. They are more concerned with the possibility that their victims being able to take action against them could result in the bankruptcy of the diocese (which doesn't even mean they will cease to exist) than they are with the actual victims being able to get justice for the crimes against them. Many other states have started to follow suit with their own investigations and its possible a coalition of Catholics can come together to still try to protect the church from repercussions for their heinous crimes. If there is a legal battle that goes to the supreme court for this, then kavanaugh's history with/without sexual assault plays an important role in his vote.


    agsrZombieguy1987
  • agsragsr 881 Pts   -  
    @WordsMatter, I agree with you that it’s difficult to know for sure, but it seems like an unfounded allegation from far in the past.  I reserve a right to change my mind if more women come out with similar allegations though
    Live Long and Prosper
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 493 Pts   -   edited September 2018
    @agsr the fact that Ford brought it up in therapy so long ago really brings a lot of credibility to her accusation if the therapist can back it up. The therapist should have documents on the session, they are supposed to document every session.

    However with the revelation of the yearbook kavanaugh looks really bad now. Whether it's even true or not, Republicans should drop him and appoint another judge with less controversy before the midterms hit. It's not like there is a lack of conservative judges, and it would be simple to cut kavanaugh loose and still support the conservative agenda. If not the supreme Court is in jeopardy of being further delegitamized, probably the greatest threat to our democracy.
    YeshuaBought
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    I was raped when I was 22, so I know what it is like to be raped. You people have some nerve assuming rape victims are liars.
    George_Horse
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar Rape culture is when people ASSume that rape victims are only in it for money. Don't be a rape apologist.
    Zombieguy1987
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @YeshuaBought

    There is this legal principle called "presumption of innocence". Knowing how often people exploit the flawed legal system for personal gain, and refusing to consider a person guilty without any solid evidence, coupled with the high standing of Kavanaugh in the society - it is only reasonable to assume that, quite likely, this is a form of financial extortion. At the same time, like I said, it may be a genuine case as well.

    Emotional approach to the system of justice is highly inconstructive and should not be practiced in a modern society.
    Zombieguy1987
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 493 Pts   -   edited September 2018
    @MayCaesar there is a difference between the legal court and the public court. Presumption of innocence doesn't exist in the public court and if kavanaugh is successfully nominated it will tank public trust in the court, regardless of whether the allegations are true or not. This was never about the result in a legal court, the statute of limitations is already passed.
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar I was rped, so I think there should be an investigation. You were never raped, so you don't know what it is like, Democrats are calling for an investigation, Rethuglicans are trying to hush the matter. Rape culture is ehrn.
    Zombieguy1987
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar Rape culture is when people ASSume that rape victims are only in it for money. Don't be a rape apologist.
    Or maybe, just maybe.

    Democrats are creating false rape claims to take Republicans from power, which is insulting to real victims of rape. Because if this continues, no one will be able to tell if someone is faking, or a real victim. 

    The victim took 35 YEARS! Real evidence is gone by that time. Hell, she forgot literally everything that happened and only said "He did something illegal" with no irrefutable evidence. 
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 493 Pts   -  
    @Zombieguy1987 or what if it's sort of the opposite? What if Ford is telling the truth and Republicans got more women to come forward that could be more easily discredited so that no accusation would be believed? 
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @WordsMatter Presumption of innocence is a governing philosophical principle. It does not apply legally to the public space, but it should apply to it in principle. The society should learn to expect evidence when a certain claim with regards to one of its members is made. Otherwise we can just throw accusations around and get people ostracized over made up claims - as often happens.

    @YeshuaBought This attribution is irrelevant. I have been assaulted and beaten by a group of thugs so hard, I could not get off my bed for a few days - but that never caused me to treat every assault accusation as a proof of someone's guilt.
    Burden of proof is a universal concept. Unless someone proves that Kavanaugh took unlawful action against them, their claims are moot. I do agree that this claim warrants an investigation, but it is unreasonable to take a stance on what actually happened in the lack of solid evidence.
    Jamahoo
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 493 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar yes that is how society *should* work, but it doesn't. He is already guilty to so many people. It is in the best interest of the society to cut him loose and not put what many forgot believe to be a criminal on the supreme Court, the last bastion of defence to our democracy. There are so many judges just as conservative that won't damage public trust in the institution as much as Kavanaugh's appointment. Yes it's unfair to him, and maybe this would just be repeated with another candidate, maybe not, but he should fall on the sword to protect faith in the supreme Court. That faith has been declining for a long time and if he is appointed I would not be surprised to see Democrats pack the court as soon as they get the power to. 
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar If you don't believe these women, I don't believe you. Blocked.
    Zombieguy1987George_Horse
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -   edited September 2018
    Wow @YeshuaBought
    That’s  your counter argument.

    Blocking people

    10/10 would debate again 
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 493 Pts   -   edited September 2018
    For anyone interested here is an article on the greater context and meaning of these allegations, from what I believe to be one of the most trustworthy news sources I have come across, McClatchyDC https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/mcclatchydc/

    https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/justice/supreme-court/article218939200.html

    Also a question to further debate on this topic. Take this question outside of this specific context and try to answer it on a more philosophical level.

    If you were to lead a smear campaign weaponizing fake sexual assault accusations, what steps would you take to make it as effective and likely to succeed as possible? How many people would you employ to make accusations? What details would you want them to include/exclude? How many corroboraters would you employ to back up the stories, if at all, and to what degree? What would make you consider taking the approach of sexual assault claims over claims of any other crimes? What goals would be easily achieved via sexual assault accusations, and what goals would be hard to achieve with sexual assault accusations?  how risky would you consider it to approach people to make false claims/corroborate without them taking the offer to the public? The claim of fake claims is easy to make and happens often but I feel like these deeper questions are rarely explored if ever, and I truly believe in getting into the smallest of details.

    Please take a lot of time to consider these questions and don't just respond with your first reactions.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @WordsMatter ;I think that, in contrary, it is worth pushing back against this narrative, unless the accusations are evidentially confirmed. The trust in the Supreme Court can be lost and regained; the trust of people in each other, however, is something that persists for much longer. If Americans are wiling to turn on each other over mere accusations from random people, then we have much bigger problems than simple erosion of faith in the lawmaking institutes.

    Somehow we still, in the 21st century, live in the environment where people's careers are destroyed with a few accusatory words alone. Strauss-Kahn had a very good chance to become the president of France, over the disastrous Hollande with one of the lowest ratings among all presidents throughout the whole human history - however, a hotel worker from NYC accused him of sexual harassment, and even though his name was cleared of everything and the worker was proven to have made the entire story up, Strauss-Kahn's name was forever tainted and his presidential nomination was no longer considered.

    This is a very serious problem, and, in my opinion, taking a hard stance against it is much more important, than giving in to the pressure from people who judge others based on emotions and not facts - in favor of the Court that "looks good".
    Jamahoo
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 493 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar I'm curious on your response to the questions posed in my most recent post. Also another question I wanted to add, but didn't want to rush the post getting caught in the spam filter for editing it twice; how risky would you consider it to approach people to make false claims/corroborate without them taking the offer to the public? 

    I'm seriously concerned about the standing of the supreme Court in the public eye. We've already had many county clerks refuse to issue marriage certificate to gay couples even after the supreme Court settled the issue. The courts job isn't to enforce the law but to tell us what the law is. If half the voting public doesn't believe in their ruling, or worse if those that enforce the law don't adhere to the ruling, then we are no longer a society of laws. I'd rather 100 people's lives be ruined by fake claims, including my own, than to have a significant portion of the public refuse to respect the ruling of the supreme Court. 

    I also think there isn't a distinction between what is worse, allowing innocent people to have their lives ruined by a false claim, or being so skeptical of all claims that many victims never get Justice. There are so many factors that go into whether a claim is believed or not and it's important to consider those factors in every case. However that discussion would be an entire other post if you want to get into the factors that influence believability.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    There are a number of aspects of this whole discussion (not just what's written in this particular forum, but in general) that confound me, but probably the greatest of those is how people treat the accusers. I honestly don't get it because there seems to be a push and pull that just doesn't make sense to me. There's a difference between how we react to an accusation of sexual abuse/assault, and how we investigate accusations of the same. It's reasonable to say that we shouldn't jump to conclusions regarding those accusations, and that some responses are overzealous, but I think what makes revelations like this so toxic is not solely (or, for that matter, even chiefly) how we respond to the accused. At worst, the accused is only a victim of the accusation itself, and while there is certainly reason to be cautious about how quickly we jump to conclusions about them (particularly prior to an investigation), there can be quite a bit more at stake for the accuser. They are potentially revisiting an extremely personal and damaging experience, one which they may have believed they put behind them. They are subject to their own set of threats, often resulting from accusations regarding their motives and whether what they experienced ever happened. Assuming that they are liars is a large part of why so many of the sexually abused do not come forward, even (or especially) after the most traumatic of incidents. 

    We can't control how individuals consider the claims of the accuser and the accused, but what I think should change is how our elected officials engage with issues like this. In particular, an investigation like this shouldn't turn into a political football. Democrats shouldn't assume that Kavanaugh is or has been a sexual deviant. Republicans shouldn't (though many have) assume that the accusers are actively lying. Respecting that an investigation has not yet been carried out, and therefore that enough uncertainty exists as to warrant a stay on any remarks regarding the outcome of such an investigation, should be a given. Apparently, it's not. Similarly, without any public remarks from the accusers and the accused, many are already assuming the validity of those remarks. I don't think it should be so difficult for our elected officials to show a basic respect that comes with active consideration of the statements from both sides, yet many have already made clear that they have strong biases for one side. That's not how they should approach it before the investigation because it colors their ability to respect what they hear from the investigation.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    Respecting that an investigation has not yet been carried out, and therefore that enough uncertainty exists as to warrant a stay on any remarks regarding the outcome of such an investigation, should be a given.

    That statement is inaccurate.  Kavanaugh has already been subjected to 6 background investigations.

    Kavanaugh, who served in the George W. Bush White House, has already completed six FBI background checks.
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whats-the-fbis-role-in-the-kavanaugh-proceedings/

  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:
    Respecting that an investigation has not yet been carried out, and therefore that enough uncertainty exists as to warrant a stay on any remarks regarding the outcome of such an investigation, should be a given.

    That statement is inaccurate.  Kavanaugh has already been subjected to 6 background investigations.

    Kavanaugh, who served in the George W. Bush White House, has already completed six FBI background checks.
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whats-the-fbis-role-in-the-kavanaugh-proceedings/

    The FBI did not investigate this claim during those 6 background investigations because they wouldn't have had any reason to do so. This accusation did not exist in the public record until very recently. The fact that these investigations were done is indicative of how clean Kavanaugh's record is in general, but to our knowledge, it provides absolutely no information regarding the encounters his accusers levy at him. If the FBI has previously interviewed any of these women or asked Kavanaugh about these interactions, I will gladly stand corrected, but considering that none of these women came forward during the Bush administration, they would probably have little reason to have taken these measures.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  

    The FBI did not investigate this claim during those 6 background investigations because they wouldn't have had any reason to do so. This accusation did not exist in the public record until very recently. The fact that these investigations were done is indicative of how clean Kavanaugh's record is in general, but to our knowledge, it provides absolutely no information regarding the encounters his accusers levy at him. If the FBI has previously interviewed any of these women or asked Kavanaugh about these interactions, I will gladly stand corrected, but considering that none of these women came forward during the Bush administration, they would probably have little reason to have taken these measures.
    The FBI may not have interviewed these particular women, but they did question former classmates, friends, teachers, etc.  The accusers provide no evidence, and almost no information, as to their allegations.  There is no way to prove the encounters actually happened, and it's almost impossible to disprove them as that amounts to proving a negative.  Since these allegations were either false or the actions of of a man who hadn't yet matured but surely has since then, does any of this really matter?
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:

    The FBI did not investigate this claim during those 6 background investigations because they wouldn't have had any reason to do so. This accusation did not exist in the public record until very recently. The fact that these investigations were done is indicative of how clean Kavanaugh's record is in general, but to our knowledge, it provides absolutely no information regarding the encounters his accusers levy at him. If the FBI has previously interviewed any of these women or asked Kavanaugh about these interactions, I will gladly stand corrected, but considering that none of these women came forward during the Bush administration, they would probably have little reason to have taken these measures.
    The FBI may not have interviewed these particular women, but they did question former classmates, friends, teachers, etc.  The accusers provide no evidence, and almost no information, as to their allegations.  There is no way to prove the encounters actually happened, and it's almost impossible to disprove them as that amounts to proving a negative.  Since these allegations were either false or the actions of of a man who hadn't yet matured but surely has since then, does any of this really matter?
    Considering there has been no investigation of these cases, of course there is no evidence. Hell, they haven't even presented a case as of yet beyond statements of what they claim to have occurred. I don't know when, in the short time since they've levied these accusations, you expect them to have presented whatever evidence they may have to support their claims. You may be correct that there is no substantive proof to support their claims, but I think they should be given the opportunity to present what they have, and to have their claims receive further investigation.

    As for questioning "former classmates, friends, teachers, etc.", I think it's safe to assume that that list is a) not exhaustive, b) did not include these women, and c) did not include every potential witness of these incidents. The fact that investigations occurred and that they found no evidence of wrongdoing is not evidence that these incidents never happened. It is up to these women to furnish support for their claims, and we certainly should not assume that Kavanaugh committed these acts, but these investigations do not absolve Kavanaugh of any wrongdoing. The fact that the Senate is refusing to allow any potential witnesses beyond Ford and Kavanaugh themselves doesn't exactly show a willingness to get to the bottom of this specific case.

    As for your last question, I personally don't think that being young and drunk makes for a valid excuse, particularly when we're talking about nominating someone to the highest court in the country. While some members of the Supreme Court may not be beyond reproach, I think it behooves our government to screen out anyone who has been guilty of sexual assault. Honestly, I don't care if he was 17 (at least with the Ford case); sexual assault is awful regardless of when it happens, and accountability for such acts doesn't end simply because someone got older. This isn't a speeding ticket, and it shouldn't be treated as though it doesn't matter.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  

    Considering there has been no investigation of these cases, of course there is no evidence. Hell, they haven't even presented a case as of yet beyond statements of what they claim to have occurred. I don't know when, in the short time since they've levied these accusations, you expect them to have presented whatever evidence they may have to support their claims. You may be correct that there is no substantive proof to support their claims, but I think they should be given the opportunity to present what they have, and to have their claims receive further investigation.

    Feinstein sat on the accusation for a month and a half just waiting for the 11th hour.  Ford appears to have been fine with that.  She doesn't even want to testify about it now.  If they thought it warranted an investigation, they should have made the accusations known from the very beginning.

    As for questioning "former classmates, friends, teachers, etc.", I think it's safe to assume that that list is a) not exhaustive, b) did not include these women, and c) did not include every potential witness of these incidents. The fact that investigations occurred and that they found no evidence of wrongdoing is not evidence that these incidents never happened. It is up to these women to furnish support for their claims, and we certainly should not assume that Kavanaugh committed these acts, but these investigations do not absolve Kavanaugh of any wrongdoing. The fact that the Senate is refusing to allow any potential witnesses beyond Ford and Kavanaugh themselves doesn't exactly show a willingness to get to the bottom of this specific case.

    We have heard from the potential witnesses;

    All named eyewitnesses dispute Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford’s story

    Finally, you ask that the FBI investigate Ms. Ramirez's claims. As you know, Judge Kavanaugh has gone through six FBI background investigations over the past 25 years. The FBI's investigations covered his time at Yale and uncovered nothing remotely similar to the misconduct alleged by Ms. Ramirez. Additionally, as the New Yorker story itself states, the publication could "not confirm[] with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party." And the New York Times spoke to several dozen people to corroborate Ms. Ramirez's allegations but "could find no one with firsthand knowledge." Indeed, the Times reports that Ms. Ramirez herself said she could not be sure Judge Kavanaugh did what she alleged in the New Yorker article. It's not clear how the FBI could further illuminate what transpired at a dormitory party 35 years ago. Even the liberal New York Times did not find these allegations "fit to print."

    There isn't enough for the FBI to even open an investigation.

    As for your last question, I personally don't think that being young and drunk makes for a valid excuse, particularly when we're talking about nominating someone to the highest court in the country. While some members of the Supreme Court may not be beyond reproach, I think it behooves our government to screen out anyone who has been guilty of sexual assault. Honestly, I don't care if he was 17 (at least with the Ford case); sexual assault is awful regardless of when it happens, and accountability for such acts doesn't end simply because someone got older. This isn't a speeding ticket, and it shouldn't be treated as though it doesn't matter.


    I disagree.  That isn't the precedent that has been set.  From the Kennedy's to Slick Willie to today with Keith Ellison, assaults are only taken seriously when politically advantageous.
    JamahooZombieguy1987
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 493 Pts   -  
    Classic @CYDdharta avoiding the majority of arguments made in the thread and not interacting with the topic on a deeper level
    CYDdharta
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    I do understand how the situation changed when Kavanaugh became the nominee for the Supreme Court justice, mainly because no one was going to engage with a discussion of an event like this if he was just under consideration for the nomination. Add to that the fact that Ford has received death threats for the accusation, along with a great deal of other backlash, and it's understandable that Ford probably didn't want this to ever become the spectacle that it is. Nonetheless, I somewhat agree with you that this should have been brought forward sooner, if only because I feel that it could have answered issues of timing as you've put it... not that I think anyone would have been more likely to take her seriously or treated her less poorly, but that's another issue.

    Regarding hearing from the witnesses, I am honestly just wondering why further witnesses aren't being included in the proceedings. Based on the information in those articles, I'm surprised that the Republican-controlled judiciary committee isn't calling these 3 people as evidence against her claims. The same holds for Ramirez. You would think that, if the claims of support that each has don't hold up at all, they would want to showcase just how faulty their case is and sweep both of these accusations out of the way with as much clarity at possible. Maybe they're just concerned about running up against the midterms, but I would hope that Republicans would be chiefly concerned with ensuring that their candidate is vindicated in the public eye before getting a vote. Maybe the investigation would turn up nothing, but that seems like all the more reason to pursue it. Some people may always think that Kavanaugh is guilty, no matter how much investigation is done, but most of us just want to see the due diligence done.

    As for that last comment... well, you're right that there's precedent against doing something like this. I personally think that precedent is pretty awful, and I think it needs to be changed. Honestly, I don't care who it takes down, but all elected officials need to be held accountable for sexual assaults like these. Politicians may only explore cases like these only when its politically advantageous, but just because that's how it is doesn't mean that that's how it should be. 
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    @Zombieguy1987 I was RAPED and refuse to tolerate rape culture.
    Zombieguy1987
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -  
    @Zombieguy1987 I was RAPED and refuse to tolerate rape culture.
    So your response is to block people who have different opinions 
  • George_HorseGeorge_Horse 499 Pts   -  
    I don't believe those women, and not because of their gender, but because when they claimed to be "sexually assaulted" by Brett, that they did not confront the authorities about the supposed "rapes" that occurred long ago. When you're raped, don't hold it back, call the police and tell them what happened. Even in the early 1980s, the system should have been no different to this present time. 
    Zombieguy1987
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill

    We're born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Only through our love and friendship can we create the illusion for the moment that we're not alone.~Orson Welles
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @WordsMatter

    I think the questions you posed, while valid, do not override the principle of presumption of innocence. It is not that I assume that the women are lying; it is that I do not take their words as expressions of truth until a properly conducted investigation collects evidence and confirms their claims. But to respond to the questions nonetheless, I would say that the primary reason to falsely accuse a rich person of sexual harassment is to force them to settle the suit with a large payment, as it tends to be less damaging to their reputation and, hence, finances than actually going through a due court process - even if that process in the end concludes that they are innocent. Again, Strauss-Kan's example shows that the damage done to the reputation of a person due to having to defend themselves against a sexual offense accusation cannot by any stretch of imagination be reversed by legal confirmation of their innocence: people do not remember Strauss-Kan as someone who was falsely accused, they remember him as someone who they thought could have been a sexual offender, and even if in the end he turned out not to be, that first image will forever cloud their judgment.

    I also do not think that your assertion on the comparable entities is correct. You said that it is better to have a public trust in court, even if it ruins 100 people's lives. But I do not think it is just the lives of the 100 people that are ruined; it is the lives of everyone that are in danger, when a due legal process is no longer seen as required in order to assert that someone is guilty of something. The more this negligence spreads, the more and more people will be affected by it - and eventually we will live in a state similar to any third world country, where the due legal process does not exist, and courts serve merely the interests of a certain class of people, at the expense of everyone else.

    On a similar note, what will the public trust in court will be like if the court is no longer seen as needed in order to assert that someone is guilty? These matters are interdependent, and letting dirty tactics revoke the candidacy of Kavanaugh right now is a big step towards making the legal system itself be easily manipulated though dirty tactics.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -   edited September 2018
    I don't believe those women, and not because of their gender, but because when they claimed to be "sexually assaulted" by Brett, that they did not confront the authorities about the supposed "rapes" that occurred long ago. When you're raped, don't hold it back, call the police and tell them what happened. Even in the early 1980s, the system should have been no different to this present time. 
    There is something intensely wrong with engaging in the kind of victim shaming you're doing here. Essentially, you're saying that since they did not report the crime, they should not be believed. It's one thing to say that someone's case has less support because they failed to report it when evidence was available, but it's quite another to argue that it's unbelievable that they didn't report it. There are scientifically-documented, psychological reasons why many abused individuals do not report their abuse, including fears of humiliation, a lack of confidentiality, and disbelief.

    http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/240971/original/sable—article.pdf

    You're essentially treating these women as less believable on the basis that they weren't the perfect victims, i.e. that they didn't seek justice for the abuse in a short period of time. In the words of a woman who was raped and chose not to report the crime for many years,

    "We are so often blamed: 'Why didn't you come forward? Why didn't you tell someone? Why did you tell someone but not in this way?'" Turkos said. "It makes us fall back into this 'perfect victim' narrative: this is how a rape victim should look like, this is how they should act, this is how they should behave, this is how they should report."

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/women-report-sexual-assaults-survivor-speaks/story?id=57985818

    It's fine if you don't believe them because of a lack of evidence. Frankly, that's a judgment call based on the person with whom you sympathize/empathize. But it's altogether different to dismiss them outright for how long it took them to report their abuse. Wherever you're setting your arbitrary deadline for reporting assault, it seems incredibly dismissive of the struggle women face after such abuse.
    George_Horse
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  

    Regarding hearing from the witnesses, I am honestly just wondering why further witnesses aren't being included in the proceedings. Based on the information in those articles, I'm surprised that the Republican-controlled judiciary committee isn't calling these 3 people as evidence against her claims. The same holds for Ramirez. You would think that, if the claims of support that each has don't hold up at all, they would want to showcase just how faulty their case is and sweep both of these accusations out of the way with as much clarity at possible. Maybe they're just concerned about running up against the midterms, but I would hope that Republicans would be chiefly concerned with ensuring that their candidate is vindicated in the public eye before getting a vote. Maybe the investigation would turn up nothing, but that seems like all the more reason to pursue it. Some people may always think that Kavanaugh is guilty, no matter how much investigation is done, but most of us just want to see the due diligence done.

    There is no way Kavanaugh will ever be vindicated, not by the mainstream media/Dem party.  To them, he is guilty simply because he's a Trump nominee. The only thing another investigation will do is give time for another accuser to come forward with yet another claim that has no corroboration.  The Dems are hoping Kavanaugh will eventually pull his nomination; failing that, they're trying to push his confirmation past the midterms when they hope to regain control of the house and/or senate.  He's had 6 FBI investigations already, what will a 7th investigation turn up?
    George_Horse
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame ;

    That is a reasonable notion though. If someone was silent for over 3 decades and then suddenly, exactly when the person is running for a high public position and such an accusation can hurt him the most, accuses them of a sexual assault - then it is very-very unreasonable to believe that their accusation is genuine. We do not have any evidence either way, but due to presumption of innocence, and due to this extremely unlikely "coincidence", the best assumption to make is that the accusation is false.

    There is no "victim shaming" involved here, because nobody has been proven to be a victim. There is simply a reasonable doubt involved. Much like some people started accusing Obama of having been born in Kenya due to some "uncovered evidence" exactly during his campaign, and were quickly proven wrong - it is most likely that here the outcome will be the same.

    On a side note, there is something wrong with our society when we question the individual's professional competence based on their possible misbehavior in a drunken state 30+ years ago. I would like to see anyone who 30 years ago was representative of who they are today. People change, and 30 years is a very long period for change (in fact, it is more than has passed since my birth).

    This whole story is a large political spectacle having nothing to do with whether Kavanaugh is actually guilty or not, nor with whether he is fit to occupy the position he is applying for. It is a usual "political scandal" that serves interests of a group of politicians, and Brett is caught in the middle of the show. Most people on both sides of the political spectrum have already decided what the answers to both "is he guilty?" and "is he fit for duty?" questions are. It is a sad state of affairs when these "controversies" have become a regular occurrence, rather than a rare aberration of the political system.

    11 Republicans voted for his candidacy, and 10 Democrats voted against it. They do not even pretend any more that they are in any way objective; they just do whatever their party leadership expects them to do.
    George_Horse
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:

    There is no way Kavanaugh will ever be vindicated, not by the mainstream media/Dem party.  To them, he is guilty simply because he's a Trump nominee. The only thing another investigation will do is give time for another accuser to come forward with yet another claim that has no corroboration.  The Dems are hoping Kavanaugh will eventually pull his nomination; failing that, they're trying to push his confirmation past the midterms when they hope to regain control of the house and/or senate.  He's had 6 FBI investigations already, what will a 7th investigation turn up?
    Maybe not, and that is a problem. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Democrats or the media have treated Kavanaugh fairly - in many respects, they haven't, though how much that has to do with being a Trump nominee is not clear (they didn't do this to Gorsuch). The problem I have with the Republicans, though, is that their efforts have largely favored making this go away as quickly as possible and proclaiming Kavanaugh's innocence. Both sides are playing this politically, and both sides are trying to get what they want: the Democrats want to delay this as much as possible to get a more moderate supreme court pick (unlikely in any case, but they're trying), and the Republicans want to blitz him through to get a fifth staunchly conservative member of the court. Both sides have ulterior motives, which makes it hard to believe that either is trying their damnedest to ensure that the truth of the situation is found. As for what the 7th investigation would accomplish, it would be focused on this particular case, which means it could theoretically be used to interview witnesses and ascertain some measure of the truth. In the end, it will probably conclude without certainty, but it's more about the symbolism than anything. Having an investigation shows that the government cares about these allegations and, hopefully, that they will take the outcome seriously. 
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 493 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar As a counterpoint to your Strauss-Kan example. Trump and Bill Clinton have both been accused of sexual assault/rape by many women yet we do think of them in those terms, even those who are against them generally don't bring those accusations up first thing. Even with Justice Clarence Thomas peoples' first reaction isn't to view and label him as a sexual assaulter. Maybe the difference here is Strauss-Kahn was a foreigner and so his power was not enough to protect him from allegations inside the US. When you hit a particular level of power it's almost impossible for sexual assault accusations to "ruin someone's life." Even if Kavanaugh gets dropped because of this he will experience no shortage of job and speaking opportunities. 

    you said
    "eventually we will live in a state similar to any third world country, where the due legal process does not exist, and courts serve merely the interests of a certain class of people, at the expense of everyone else.

    On a similar note, what will the public trust in court will be like if the court is no longer seen as needed in order to assert that someone is guilty? These matters are interdependent, and letting dirty tactics revoke the candidacy of Kavanaugh right now is a big step towards making the legal system itself be easily manipulated though dirty tactics"

    It seems we share the same concern here but I fail to understand why you don't see how ramming a supreme court justice through in an extremely partisan manner will result in exactly what you speak against, a manipulation of the legal system through dirty tactics. I don't see how " the public trust in court will be like if the court is no longer seen as needed in order to assert that someone is guilty?" is relevant here. There is no court trying Kavanaugh. He faces no legal repercussions for the claims levied against him. What he is up against is the vetting process. How can the public have faith in a court where judges are not vetted?

    My concern in all of this is not primarily whether Kavanaugh is guilty or not, but my concern is that the way he is appointed to the court and vetted will further destroy public faith in the supreme court. This view is shared by Sen. Flake. I commend him tremendously for striking a deal with the Democrats to preserve the credibility of the court, and to keep it as apolitical as possible. https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/justice/supreme-court/article219204635.html#cardLink=row1_card1

    “I wanted to hear that at least there would be — if we took this action, which is a tough thing, obviously to get people to change the schedule that’s there — at least there would be some Democrats saying, ‘Hey, this is a better process,’” Flake told McClatchy. “To bring some of the country along, that they’d feel better about this.”
    “We can’t politicize the Supreme Court. It’s the last institution in this country that’s respected above all others, and we can’t lose that,” Flake said at the conclusion of the meeting. “I felt that if we could get both parties to work together, then it would be better.” - Sen. Flake

    I believe he is right in saying this. He has certainly reduced my worries around this process. However Kavanaugh has done the opposite, and I think committed a major faux pas for a supreme court Justice by deliberately attacking the democratic party as a whole, left-wing organizations, and Hillary Clinton.  https://www.apnews.com/29557f45334f470fb55bce5dacba591a/Nominee's-attack-on-Democrats-poses-risk-to-Supreme-Court
    Justices are supposed to be apolitical and unbiased, that is what gives the court authority over the other branches of government, its supposed to be impartial. Obviously 100% impartiality is impossible and justices will slip up at times. However the court has become terribly partisan over the last few decades. Democratic appointed nominees tend to vote democratic, and republican nominees tend to vote republican. This wasn't the case for the majority of American history and that was an important thing.

    We have an America now where "qualified" for a judge tends to mean that they fall in line with the ideology of the party that nominates them. A "good" judge is someone who has a "realistic" view of the world and "logically" rule on a proper interpretation of that view. Of course all these terms are loaded to mean that the judge simply shares the same ideological opinion as the nominators and will vote according to their agenda. Many tend to see their own ideology as the obviously correct ideology to hold and it contains the true interpretation of reality, while anyone who dissents falls outside of logic and reason and therefore can't possibly be a good judge. This is toxic to the court and has been eroding trust. What good is a court if the people have no faith in its rulings?

    I am not against Kavanaugh. There was some other thread posted on this site at least a month ago where I came out and said that I thought it would be ridiculous to think he wouldn't get confirmed as he is clearly qualified and experienced to hold the position. What changed for me here is how political this all became. Instead of taking the time to thoroughly vet his nomination many republicans, looking at you Graham, want to claim these accusations are purely a hit job or a circus and therefore should be entirely dismissed and the vote should be held immediately. Kavanaugh's comments in recent weeks made him sound so increasingly partisan and it seemed more like he was just any other politician running for a political office rather than an impartial judge being vetted for a vote to the supreme court. Now I don't really think his comments against the democrats represent a real threat of him taking partisan stances on future supreme court cases just because of a vendetta against the democrats at this point; it would also require him to convince 4 other justices to side with him in his vendetta which is even less likely. However he has put the seed of doubt in his ability to remain impartial into the minds of so many himself, or at least furthered what, if we assume this is purely a hit job, others started. He has handled this process very poorly.

    All that said moving forward I feel good about the direction of his nomination. Sen Flake making this agreement, as well as some republican senators still voicing concerns or at the least no committing to an aye vote has reduced the appearance of partisan influence in the whole process. These claims will be investigated, as they should be, not to levy some verdict or legal action against Kavanaugh, but to give those tasked with deciding whether he is fit to serve on the court all the information necessary to pass their judgement. Flake has shown there are at least some Republicans who aren't willing to push someone onto the court that shares their ideology regardless of circumstances. Now this all could have been avoided had McConnell never employed the Nuclear Option, which I think is a huge mistake and further opens the court up to partisan influence indefinitely. I would prefer a 66 vote requirement to confirm a judge to the Supreme Court to draw it back to the center and away from the extremes, but that's an entirely separate discussion. If After the FBI investigation no evidence found that makes the validity of these accusations plausible, a standard we use in lower courts to decide some cases, then I will be perfectly content with him being elected to the court. Sen Flake just single handedly restored a significant amount of trust in the Supreme Court impartiality if Kavanaugh is elected, but at the least restored trust in what is supposed to be the bipartisan confirmation progress.





  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -   edited September 2018
    @MayCaesar

    There are so many things in here that I want to address, but I'm going to break it down to a few key points.

    What you're talking about is the question of motives, and I think the fundamental assumption you're making is that she's doing this for some kind of gain, whether for herself, a political end, or whatever else it might be. I don't doubt that that's possible, but it is also reasonable to assume, like so many victims of rape and sexual assault, that she delayed making the accusation for psychological reasons. As for the "why now" question, it's honestly not that surprising that someone who was victimized by a then-unknown figure might feel triggered to take action the moment that figure becomes a major presence on the national stage. Suddenly, this person whom Ford says assaulted her is showing up on news across the country, set to become one of the most powerful legal professionals in the nation. It seems entirely reasonable that they might, given the benefit of hindsight and the distance from the trauma itself, revisit their decision not to report it previously and choose to do something in the present.

    There is a reasonable question as to whether the motives of Ford or the other two women move beyond a need to seek justice for themselves and for other women they believe have been harmed by Kavanaugh. Again, I don't doubt that they may have other motives, though I don't think we should automatically assume that other motives were in play. Questioning their motives for coming forward and engaging with questions of how believable their arguments are on the basis of the actual facts of the case are not victim shaming.

    That being said, what I was responding to was the accusation that, because these women decided to do so after many years, which was the point @George_Horse was making. His argument, and I'll quote him now, is as follows:

    "I don't believe those women, and not because of their gender, but because when they claimed to be 'sexually assaulted' by Brett, that they did not confront the authorities about the supposed 'rapes' that occurred long ago."

    That is victim shaming, the argument that because a victim chooses not to come forward immediately after the crime, because they are, in effect, not the "perfect victim" who pursues justice rapidly in the wake of a crime, they are less believable in their accusation. You say there's no victim shaming going on here because there is no certainty that anyone was victimized, but I never specified that the kind of shaming I was talking about was directed at Ford or the other women. I'm talking about all victims of sexual abuse who did not come forward in a short time after an assault because his argument applies to all of them. Your argument is more focused on engaging with the issue of reasonable doubt, but again, that's evidence-based. It's not based on how long it took for someone to come forward. I won't argue that the availability of evidence changes over time and that it affects the ability of the individual to support their case objectively. What I do find problematic is the notion that, because they waited, a sexual assault victim is inherently less believable.


    The political situation is one where we agree. I don't think we're getting anywhere near a reasonable engagement with the situation, and much as I disagree with you on the importance of this particular allegation, I do believe that both sides could have handled this better. Party politics have been on full display from the start of this process, and it really should have been more objective, particularly on the part of our elected officials. We may not be able to control public opinion, but they certainly should have held themselves to a higher standard.

    As for your other point, I'm a little more torn. I understand the argument that someone should not necessarily be branded for life by something they did 30+ years ago. My problems are two-fold. One, the goal here isn't to make the 17-year-old Kavanaugh representative of his current self. I don't think anyone is arguing that all of the character traits he displayed at that age should be on the table as reasons to turn him down as a candidate for the USSC. What is being argued is that a specific behavior displayed at that age (and potentially at others shortly thereafter) is disqualifying. We can argue back and forth about the importance of that behavior (though I won't argue that his professional competence is entirely separate) in making future decisions, but I think characterizing this as you have is pretty off-base. Two, if Kavanaugh is guilty of having done this, I think there is an appropriate question of how he has handled the situation. This is hypothetical, but assuming that Kavanaugh did this, it speaks quite a bit to his character in regards to how he's engaged with his accusers. Again, it may not reflect on his professional competence, but there are other factors that may be relevant to the decision to appoint him to the USSC. I have no doubt that Kavanaugh has changed with time, and he has had the opportunity to show that through these hearings. I don't think he came off particularly well.
    George_HorseNathaniel_B
  • George_HorseGeorge_Horse 499 Pts   -  
    "I don't believe those women, and not because of their gender, but because when they claimed to be 'sexually assaulted' by Brett, that they did not confront the authorities about the supposed 'rapes' that occurred long ago."
    That is victim shaming, the argument that because a victim chooses not to come forward immediately after the crime, because they are, in effect, not the "perfect victim" who pursues justice rapidly in the wake of a crime, they are less believable in their accusation. 


    "If I wait and tell them 30 YEARS later they'll believe me for sure!"


    Nathaniel_B
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill

    We're born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Only through our love and friendship can we create the illusion for the moment that we're not alone.~Orson Welles
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch