I wonder...how would a mother with sons today advise him to assure he can never be 'credibly ' accused at any time for the rest of his life? Seems to me like the bar for credibly is very low.

---

(September 23, 2018 at 8:05 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(September 22, 2018 at 9:37 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Yes. Because he would have been a minor. IMO it is unethical to hold adults accountable for their entire lives because of juvenile crimes. Do you agree or not? Do you feel crimes committed when someone was a minor should punish them for the rest of their lives and prevent them from achieving as much as they possibly could as adults?

He could have been tried as an adult for his crimes, and so, yes, if true, I think that his behavior disqualifies him from being an associate SCOTUS judge.

Usually that requires a prior record of offenses and or an actual rape or murder.

When the time comes, the mother will just have an innocent sibling create a false alibi, thus vouching for the guilty boy's innocence.

I really hope Neo doesn't have daughters.

I'll just say if one of my daughters was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh, there would be no discussion about him being Supreme Court Justice. Nobody would even know his name. Or find his body. Don't care if he was 15 or 10.

(September 23, 2018 at 9:49 pm)Cecelia Wrote: I really hope Neo doesn't have daughters.

I'll just say if one of my daughters was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh, there would be no discussion about him being Supreme Court Justice.  Nobody would even know his name.  Or find his body.  Don't care if he was 15 or 10.

Seems about right

(September 23, 2018 at 9:13 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I wonder...how would a mother with sons today advise him to assure he can never be 'credibly ' accused at any time for the rest of his life? Seems to me like the bar for credibly is very low.

---

(September 23, 2018 at 8:05 am)Jehanne Wrote: He could have been tried as an adult for his crimes, and so, yes, if true, I think that his behavior disqualifies him from being an associate SCOTUS judge.

Usually that requires a prior record of offenses and or an actual rape or murder.

If he isn’t a rapist he’s probably safe.

(September 23, 2018 at 11:27 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(September 23, 2018 at 9:13 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I wonder...how would a mother with sons today advise him to assure he can never be 'credibly ' accused at any time for the rest of his life? Seems to me like the bar for credibly is very low.

---

Usually that requires a prior record of offenses and or an actual rape or murder.

If he isn’t a rapist he’s probably safe.

Or Conor Oberst. I’m not one to totally dismiss the rape epidemic just because about 5.5% of accusations are false (that still makes 94.5% true, after all), but I know it’s dangerous to go to the other extreme. Ideal method: start by assuming it’s plausible. Then investigate it further, and see whether they can potentially be corroborated. If they can be corroborated, they’re likely guilty. If it’s just a matter of “he said, she said,” just keep the accused on notice. If there are serious problems with the accuser’s story that make it not add up, then it’s safe to say it’s a false accusation. I’ve honestly been inclined to put Kavanaugh on notice in this case, but anyone who seriously thinks the President should be above the law has no place on the Supreme Court. And the fact that there’s another accuser shows he’s more likely to be guilty.

Seriously, if more people used this heuristic, Metoo would probably go a lot more smoothly.

And now there's a second victim. No wonder he was so eager to write up the Starr report, probably thought he'd get tips onhow to do it better.

When are the republitraitors going to realise that Rapey McRapeface is a liability?

(September 24, 2018 at 1:33 am)Wololo Wrote: And now there's a second victim. No wonder he was so eager to write up the Starr report, probably thought he'd get tips onhow to do it better.

When are the republitraitors going to realise that Rapey McRapeface is a liability?

When they realize that electing an orangutan with the political instincts of a character from Dostoevsky’s Demons And the finesse of a wrestling heel was probably a bad idea. Which is probably never.

(September 23, 2018 at 9:13 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I wonder...how would a mother with sons today advise him to assure he can never be 'credibly ' accused at any time for the rest of his life? Seems to me like the bar for credibly is very low.

---

(September 23, 2018 at 8:05 am)Jehanne Wrote: He could have been tried as an adult for his crimes, and so, yes, if true, I think that his behavior disqualifies him from being an associate SCOTUS judge.

Usually that requires a prior record of offenses and or an actual rape or murder.

Kiddos are tried as adults all the time who have no prior offenses, even for nonviolent crimes. He was 17 at the time of his act, not some child in middle school.

Wow Wooter still staunchly defending the crooked judge to be