Adventus

"The central doctrine of Christianity, then, is not that God is a bastard. It is, in the words of the late Dominican theologian Herbert McCabe, that if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you."--Terry Eagleton

"...doesn't philosophy amount to the sum of all thinkable and unthinkable errors, ceaselessly repeated?"--Jean-Luc Marion

“The opposite of poverty is not wealth; the opposite of poverty is justice."--Bryan Stevenson

Sunday, September 23, 2018

Well shut my mouth!


Lindsay Graham sez:

Elsewhere, he characterized Blasey Ford’s allegations as being “too old for a criminal trial. You’d never bring a lawsuit because it’s uncertain. You couldn’t even get a warrant.”

Wallace corrected that statement at the end of the interview, saying that “there is no statute of limitations on sex assault cases in Maryland, so there are weaknesses with the case, obviously, but she could legally bring it.”

“Well, it would go nowhere,” Graham responded.
This doesn't lower the bar, it buries it ten feet deep.  A court case would "go nowhere" so that's sufficient to put a Justice on the Supreme Court for life. I mean, ya can't ever prove anything, so what's the issue here?

Sen. Whitehouse, however, disagrees:

"This is such bad practice that even if they were to ram this guy through, as soon as Democrats get gavels, we're going to want to get to the bottom of this," the Rhode Island senator said on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper."

As I say, Graham isn't lowering the bar, he's trying to bury it.  An investigation of a sitting Supreme Court Justice.  Sure, why not?  The GOP held a seat open for a year, why can't the Dems investigate allegations against a nominee the GOP rammed through to approval?  Maybe the investigations would "go nowhere," too, but is this the standard of practice for appointments to the highest court in the land?  Which way, precisely, "ruins" Judge Kavanaugh's life, hmmm?

Adding, because it doesn't deserve a separate post:  heard an interesting statement this morning.  You don't doubt someone when they say their car was stolen; but a woman who alleges assault has to "prove" it.  Indeed, if I said someone hit me, punched me in the face, I'd hardly need show a bruise, or expect to.  But assault of a woman, especially sexual assault?  How much proof does she need to present, and how much proof it wasn't her fault?  If my car is stolen because I didn't lock it, it's still stolen.

We really do have to think deeply about how we adjudge allegations.  We employ different standards for different crimes, especially depending on who the victims are (Ted Cruz is convinced a white cop shooting a black man in that man's apartment is still grounds for giving the cop the benefit of the doubt.  Dual standards exist everywhere, and whom do they benefit?)

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home