September 21, 2018
It’s all yours today…
December 2, 2017
March 22, 2014
May 20, 2013
As it is the Feast of St. Matthew the Evangelist, here is what the church historian Eusebius says about the writing of his Gospel:
Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to MARK, the author of the Gospel. It is in the following words: “This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” These things are related by Papias concerning Mark. But concerning MATTHEW he writes as follows: “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.” And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has already been stated. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.14-17)
Franklin Graham has opinions on the topic of attempted rape and teenagers.
Graham says: “it’s just a shame … that somebody can bring something up that he did as a teenager close to 40 years ago. That’s not relevant.”
He is Brett Kavanaugh. At the time in question, he was 17 years old.
She was 15, Christine Blasey, now Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.
“When questioned about the message that such a view sends to sexual abuse victims Graham said, ‘Well, there wasn’t a crime committed. These are two teenagers and it’s obvious that she said no and he respected it and walked away.'”
Another Graham quote: “Regardless if it was true, these are two teenagers and she said no and he respected that so I don’t know what the issue is.”
She says she was afraid he might inadvertantly kill her. That she got away because Brett’s friend Mark Judge piled on top of the both of them, and she was able to get away. SHE was the one who escaped this, not Brett Kavanaugh walking away respectfully when she said no.
I suppose I should not be shocked by this, but I am. Graham admits to a rebellious phase in his own youth. I have questions about what teenage Franklin did. Also, the message I get from this is that Franklin Graham thinks that women are trash.
Outside T. Fold,
I haven’t written here for a little while but I’ve got something in the works that I was going to send Michael, but you’re stealing some of my thunder. 🙂
I’ll save my thoughts for then…. but they ain’t good. 😉
~~[ Long pause to consider the nature of thunder and the inadequacy of a human to pilfer any thunder, much less someone else’s thunder. Okay, that was fun. ]~~
Here is a bit more thunder to steal. Or a nickname. I think that calling Franklin Graham an authoritarian extremist cleric is a statement of accuracy.
Was Professor Ford almost raped by Kavanaugh? I don’t know….
Why she can’t recall the date or the location of the house troubles me… a trauma so severe that you can’t recall where or when? Possible? I guess… dunno, tho… I think it would be etched in my memory, but that is just me
Wanting the accused to be questioned before the accuser is questioned is bizarre, but politics is beyond my understanding (i think i take pride in that lack)
Graham, on the other hand, should butt out – guess i should, too. ?
What is bizarre, is that the justice department has not ordered an independent investigation by the FBI of this serious matter.
For me, and anyone interested in the integrity of the Court, it is not to condemn what someone may have done decades ago when they were 17, but the present day honesty when being considered for a lifetime appointment to the highest Court in our land and one of the 3 co-equal branches of government.
The question is: In 2018, is Kavanaugh a bald-faced liar to the entire nation, including the alleged victim and the Senate that must advise and consent on his nomination, on the topic of his alleged prior sexual assault? (I don’t mention the POTUS, because he runs with liars, so he probably doesn’t care.)
a trauma so severe that she CAN remember WHO.
a trauma so severe that she has a hard time being in spaces where there isn’t a route of escape
a trauma so severe that she does not like to fly in planes (no escape route)
a trauma so severe that when house was remodeled, “she insisted that every room had to have an exit door to the outside.” (source: CNN story.)
. . . . . .
Upthread, I contemplated the nature of thunder, and the stealing thereof. Now I contemplate the nature of deep-seated primal fears.
I wonder if the tendency to blurt conclusions about how to respond, what to do, what to remember (or not) is a human psychological defense against the possibility that Something Really Really Bad Could Happen to Me at any time, and I have no control over that. So it’s easier to declare How I Would React when Something Bad Happens to someone else. (I’ve done the armchair prediction thing. I’ve had it done to me.)
It’s very difficult to set one’s own fear aside in order to be fully present with someone who has had Something Really Really Bad happen to them.
I think there is a deep primal fear about Bad Things I Cannot Control.
I also think that there are people who coerce and dominate others. Further, they use certain tactics to control the thoughts and actions of people to whom Bad Things Had Happened, so that the ones who assaulted others do not suffer any consequences of those actions. (The current top-trending Twitter hashtag — take a deep breath before you click and read, but I do recommend you read at least some of it: #WhyIDidntReport — is an outpouring in response to a ridiculous tweet from the Oval Office saying that the woman who endured an attempted rape should have contacted the FBI at the time, and since she didn’t, we should all not believe her.)
Jean, my understanding of the lack of an FBI investigation is that there is no concrete evidence for them to investigate so far
And , since Kavanaugh has been subject to, i believe, 6 FBI investigations already, do we trust the FBI??? Dunno, but we are, undoubtedly, nose deep in politics – thus in lies – from where i sit…
Jean, I think that the order to the FBI to investigate must come from the White House, not the Justice Department. I checked, though. More here with a Vox Explainer. Much more here.
1991: GHW Bush asked the FBI to investigate further. Agreed to by both Majority and Minority leaders of the Senate.
Currently, Democrats are saying, Investigate! and Committee chair Grassley says No. As does the White House. (see my comment above, re: coersive behaviors)
Thanks OTF. Your information is consistent with what I’ve read and heard too.
There is plenty to investigate. There is an alleged victim, and alleged perpetrator, at least one alleged eye witness. From there other potential people at the party. Where was it and specifically when. Was alcohol served. Was the two parties there at the same time. Was either apparently intoxicated. Lot’s of facts can be developed through interviews by the FBI.
I remember it was just a few months ago when the pay offs of Daniels and McDougal, for keeping silent on Trump’s affairs was “fake news” and they were liars. Then poor Michael Cohen got interviewed. A strange thing happened. At least now we know what Trump is capable and willing to do, even attempt to destroy the reputation of another, to protect and serve his interests.
Jean, (believe me when I say that a conversation like this can turn into a sh*t show – I should just stick to posting my baseball cards on Facebook.
Interview who (or is it whom.)? Dr. Ford has stated that she never told anyone, never discussed the incident. The 2 or 3 people mentioned have all stated the incident never happened or they have no knowledge of anything happening.
As to the where and the when, Senator Feinstein said that the accuser had no recollection where it was or when – and had no idea of what led her to go to the pool party.
Lastly, if the FBI investigates and comes up with nothing – is it over?
FWIW – do not assume that questioning the accusations or not being willing to lynch someone on a “he said, she said” accusation indicates that one has had no similar trauma in their life… The woman is a clinical psychologist? If the girl went thru that humiliation, there are thousands of her sisters out here who can empathise
Even tho the assertion is that the victim was afraid for her life, if she spoke up, it is the circumstances that surround this late accusation that don’t pass the smell test
Is she a hero or a plant? I just don’t know what is true here
Praying for God to give us a clear, provable outcome
Back to Duane’s post for Feast of St. Matthew the Evangelist, here is a good interview / commentary for Issues, etc.
“The 2 or 3 people mentioned have all stated the incident never happened or they have no knowledge of anything happening.” Not to the FBI.
“Lastly, if the FBI investigates and comes up with nothing – is it over?” Then the Senate has completed its due diligence.
What should be scarier is that anyone can become the victim of a false accusation.
As a friend of mine who is going through something like this now said, when I asked him how his wife could have been granted a TRO with no evidence given that she is under a DV RO with plenty of evidence of her abuse, “it seems like you have to be able to write well emotionally.”
Now he’s lost his daughter until it goes to court because mom wrote their 13 year old into the order, a daughter which a month-long custody evaluation with multiple professionals involved granted him majority custody. But her order is newer and the judge didn’t care about the older order, still in effect. She told the judge that she was “terrified” when she dropped off their daughter. He has video and audio recording of himself and his property (so it’s legal evidence) with her 50 ft away at the curb, he calmly narrating in the background. We discussed her mental state and agreed that in her world she probably really believes that he was raging or threatening her, rather than lying about it. Almost 30% of the population suffers from DSM-level diagnosable mental disorders and illnesses.
What Graham said was wrong, and what trump said was wrong (no surprise). What is scary is that any accusation that has a hint of credibility is believed.
My ex got a TRO on her brother-in-law based upon how she felt rather than a real threat. And what’s that father in Oregon who was convicted of raping his daughter (who’s likely mentally ill) but was just released due to work by The Innocence Project?
I don’t see how this mess is provable either way at this point, and being the media and political circus as it is, it’s far more significant that if any of us, our family or friends were in the same positions.
In writing this, I was reminded that my own mother made false accusations of criminal elder abuse against me (only the financial one was investigated and dismissed, because it was easily provable as false), which she really believed in her mind.
45 years ago I accepted a dinner/movie date with a young man. Afterwards, he shoved me up against a wall and did all he could manage to do to me before I elbowed him severely and ran away, as fast as I could go. I hid for a while, making sure he wasn’t still in the area ready to pounce again.
I didn’t tell anyone. I was in the Navy and I was not about to submit myself to the humiliation of telling my story to the jolly guys on the Quarterdeck. “Oh yeah? Then what happened?” Right. It would have been worse that the original attempt.
I don’t remember the guy’s name. I don’t know if I ever knew his full name.
I don’t remember the date although I could narrow it down to the time I was at that Navy base.
I don’t know which of the numerous military barrack walls I was shoved up against.
I did not call the FBI, as your president seems to think I should have done if it really happened.
So do you believe me, Em? Did it really happen if I can’t remember all the details?
“What should be scarier is that anyone can become the victim of a false accusation.”
What of these scarier:
A) being raped
B) escaping from an attempted rape attempt
C) being falsely accused of raping someone?
(All three are experiences of being coerced. All are bad. The prevalence of A and B greatly outnumbers incidents of C. But yeah, when C happens to you, it’s certainly scary. Scarier than the others? Scariest, though? ?????)
Xenia, I believe you. I am so sorry that happened to you. You did not deserve that. It was not your fault.
I believe you.
I believe you.
I believe you.
Thank you, Outside T. Fold.
(and yes, I was composing my scarier rating comment at the same time Xenia was posting her comment. Did not see Xenia’s until after I posted mine)
Was this in high school?
To be honest, I don’t know what happened to Dr. Ford all those years ago. I am inclined to believe her. There are people that could be questioned under oath or by the FBI where lying ain’t allowed.
What I object to most strenuously are the reasons people give for not believing her… she doesn’t remember the house address, she doesn’t remember the exact date, she didn’t call the cops, she didn’t call the FBI. Anyone who has had these kinds of experiences know why she didn’t call the cops and why she doesn’t remember the details. We know why she was reluctant to tell anyone.
Because there’s something about this type of assault that make the victim feel guilty in a creepy way that you probably have to experience to understand.
I included above as a link, but alas, not enough contrast in appearance between text and linked text to make it stand out. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
? https://twitter.com/hashtag/WhyIDidntReport ?
If you desire to understand why people who’ve had experiences like these do not report, and what they do and don’t remember, I highly recommend perusing the tweet with that hashtag.
When Kavanaugh was nominated we knew he was in for a fight. A very big fight. Then the accusation came out. I imagine many immediately thought she was a liar and will not be persuaded otherwise. Those who defend her will not be persuaded otherwise. Everyone has their opinion with their iron clad defense. Many people I know don’t have a clue what to think or who to believe. For them it’s business as usual in Washington. Ms Ford deserves to be heard but it seems she may not testify. I’ll be flat out honest in stating I wouldn’t be surprised if either of them is lying. And I wouldn’t be surprised if either of them lied under oath. What a stinking mess.
What an interesting place our politics has taken our culture.
We’ve heard from the left that since she’s a woman, she has to be believed.
I imagine that some on the right will argue that she’s lying for whatever reason.
But what we have is an unsubstantiated accusation. She has offered no provable evidence except the who. No where, no when, no potential witnesses.
There is no why for Kavanaugh to be able to counter the accusation. None.
If she said on July 28, 1982 this happened, there is the potential for evidence to the contrary that Kavanaugh did not in fact to what he is accused of.
So, some will believe Dr. Ford because she is a woman and is on their side.
Some will believe Kavanaugh because he is on their side.
I say we have to believe the evidence.
And until there is any, just like in a court of law, we cannot convict a person, even in the court of public opinion, especially as Christians.
Is the accusation true? I have no idea. I have not seen any evidence.
But do we (as a culture) destroy a man and his reputation based on an non-provable accusation?
Some would answer that since he’s Trump’s nominee, that yes, yes we should. The ends justify the means, and if an innocent man suffers, so be it.
But what reaction should we as Christians have?
It’s definitely a stinking mess. If we applied the same standards to Congress and the presidency, the USA would have to adopt anarchy.
It goes without saying that the theories about reporting or not reporting at the time are stupid. My daughter didn’t tell her grandmother nor her mother. Grandma actually used that as an excuse to say I was lying. Over a year later when D was physically safe, she made some comments indicating trauma. Grandma then called her a liar. Though some of that is cultural (girls aren’t protected), no excuse. We found alternate childcare.
Xenia, i remember your relating this traumatic encounter with a fellow sailor – i think you handled it exactly right…. yet people’s reactions aren’t cookie cutter identical…
On the other hand, to not know the neighborhood where this occurred or the approximate date is a little different than not knowing the address or the calendar date…. Did she block it out in order to get on with life? Could be… I have observed that very often troubled people go into the field of psychology – not all, of course
That said, this is still he said-she said and we’re left not knowing if she has correctly identified the drunk kid who went after her in a way so similar to your experience…. again i have seen – up close – women who can make up details, even events and believe they are factual… probably some men, too – dunno
So i cannot from either discount or believe Professor Ford for the present
I’m right where Erunner is on this for now
David– [quote]But what we have is an unsubstantiated accusation. She has offered no provable evidence except the who. No where, no when, no potential witnesses.[/quote]
She has offered the following evidence:
1) She first spoke about it in 2012 in context of marriage counseling. This is long before Brett Kavanaugh was nominated to be a Supreme Court Justice.
1a) There are notes of the therapist (big personage, B.K. named in notes). I believe that those notes were shown to the journalists at the Washington Post who wrote the story where she came out by name to tell her story.
1b) Her husband recalls that she named Brett Kavanaugh at that time during the therapy session.
2) SHE NAMED A WITNESS who was present when it happened. Name is Mark Judge. (Judge says “I don’t recall.”) He has also written a book describing being a blackout alcoholic in those days. (Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk)
3) She has undergone a lie-detector process with a person who is (I think?) retired from the FBI.
4) She is asking for FBI to investigate.
I watched an interview with her sister in law that took place this afternoon. S.I.L describes Dr. Blasey Ford as being a methodical statistician, working with evidence. Asking for the FBI to investigate is a behavioral scientist’s way of saying, You need more information. You need data.
OTF, Kavanaugh was not named in the therapy notes.
“Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.”
1a) is interesting because the WaPo story says as above. Did more come out?
oops. My error. 1a, above. The therapist noted that perp became big personage, but did NOT name Brett Kavanaugh. I regret this error.
j2theperson, it looks as tho we were posting at the same time. YOU ARE CORRECT! I came back to re-read what I wrote and noticed the error. (I left out the word “NOT.” Ouch.)
Not to beat a dead horse… but an allegation (her statement) by itself is not evidence. Especially without any corroborating details.
1) Even the notes, apparently, had errors. They stated that there were 4 boys in the room, not 2. Dr. Ford says that was an error. If that is, what else might be in error?
2) Judge denies this happens and said Kavanaugh never acted that way. So it goes to believeablity. Because he’s Kavanaugh’s friend and is supporting his defense, some will tend to not believe him, and since he’s Kavanaugh’s friend and is supporting his defense, some will tend to believe him.
3) The lie detector test. From what I understand, the test asked her if the story she stated, as stated, was true. Basically the tester asked her, “You just told me X, Y, and Z. Did you tell me X, Y, and Z?” They did not ask for the truthfulness or veracity of the claims.
4) What can the FBI investigate? There are no details. There are no other witnesses to call or to interview. There is no address to check up on, there is no date.
Again, I ask, as a Christian, what are we willing to do or accept in order for our political goals to be gained?
We should take off our political team jerseys and look at the evidence before ruining a man’s reputation.
If he’s innocent of the allegation, but we keep on insisting that he did it, are we bearing false witness?
And I can tell you how the testimony will go…
“Dr. Ford, did this happen?”
“Judge Kavanaugh, did this happen?”
Then the Dems will say she’s right because a woman can’t lie about this kind of allegation and the Reps will say he’s right because there’s no evidence.
Then after he’s confirmed we’ll continue the political circus and ignore any evidence.
Because that’s where our political culture has taken us.
The political culture is sad. I switched the radio yesterday between the conservative (Levin) and liberal (San Francisco radio host) stations. Levin is who he is, but at least he’ll shut down a caller going over the top, “ok, I can’t say that” Yes it might be passive aggressive, buy he did cut the caller off. The other host had a local caller say “our rapist president is of course going to nominate another rapist” Implying Trump knew that K was a rapist and nominated him because of that. The host said nothing.
When I was a tween or in my early teens, I read an article in the local paper reporting on an incident that happened locally. Basically, a man had gone out drinking and hooked up with two women. While he was hammered, they drove him around town to a bunch of different ATMs and had him withdraw cash to give to them. There were no claims that they “forced” him to do this; they merely took advantage of his inebriated state. When he sobered up he filed a police report and the women were arrested. The article was about how the women had recently had additional charges tacked on which brought the time they were facing up to 10 years. At the time (and to this day) this struck me as an excellent illustration of the double standard women face when reporting crimes and seeking justice. If it had been a woman who, while drunk, had had a man take advantage of her drunken state to have sex with her, the chance that, had she filed a police report, he would have faced charges–much less had additional charges added and to beef up the time faced–is nonexistent. There are child molesters who face less than the time these women were facing for taking advantage of a drunk man’s misplaced largesse. If it had been a woman complaining of being sexually assaulted or raped, the man would have claimed the sex was consensual and the incident would have been written off as a “he said/she said” situation even if the police could go to the bar and easily obtain video evidence of the woman being in a drunken state that would preclude her from being able to consent.
I want to live in a world were a woman can go to the police and complain about someone perpetrating an illegal act against her while she was drunk and for her to be shown the same level of concern and deference that drunk bozo who gave his money all away was shown. I want the crime she has alleged has been perpetrated against her to be viewed as seriously as the crime the drunk guy alleged was perpetrated against him.
What I do not want is to live in a world where the structure of the criminal justice system is altered for women because they’re women. I want women to be respected enough for their claims to be put through the full criminal justice process and not dropped at the very beginning, but I don’t want their claims to simply be accepted as true because they were made by a woman even if the only evidence is her word. I don’t want statutes of limitations, police jurisdictions, and basic due process to no longer apply because a woman has filed a sex crime complaint and women never lie.
If a woman files a complaint she should be treated with the same level of respect and care that a man would be treated, and her case should get the same resources and run the same course. But if she chooses not to file a complaint, then she should not have an expectation that the statute of limitations shouldn’t apply to her situation or that the other legal processes and mechanisms don’t apply.
In this specific case, Ford has brought her accusations well past when the statute of limitations ran out. Her “evidence” is so weak she wouldn’t even prevail in a civil suit. She wants the FBI to investigate, but the FBI has no jurisdiction. She raised her concerns in the context of Kavanaughs confirmation and the next step in that process is testifying before the panel which she seems hesitant to do.
If she wanted law enforcement to handle it she should have filed a police report (even if many years after the fact). If she wanted the courts to handle it she should have filed a civil suit. She went to her senator and raised her concerns there and basically chose that mechanism to deal with this, so she should follow the Senate’s process and testify and then be done with it.
As an aside, Dianne Feinstein handled this very badly. There was a process that would have allowed this to be looked quietly and in a more timely manner that would have preserved Ford’s privacy, but Feinstein chose to sit on this and bring it out in a way guaranteed to turn it into a circus.
We have processes and rules in place or a reason. This illustrates what happens when everybody ignores those processes and rules.
Trust in Christ, true God and true Man, Alone:
“We are to seek God as Paul tells us in I Corinthians 1:23, 24: ‘We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.’ Begin with Christ. He came down to earth, lived among men, suffered, was crucified, and then He died, standing clearly before us, so that our hearts and eyes may fasten upon Him. Thus we shall be kept from climbing into heaven in a curious and futile search after the nature of God.
“If you ask how God may be found, who justifies sinners, know that there is no other God besides this man Christ Jesus. Embrace Him, and forget about the nature of God. But these fanatics who exclude our Mediator in their dealings with God, do not believe me. Did not Christ Himself say: ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me’? Without Christ there is no access to the Father, but futile rambling; no truth, but hypocrisy; no life, but eternal death.”
The above quotation is by Martin Luther, from his lectures on Galatians.
@TNV: As a firm Trump supporter and Q tard, I would strongly object to anyone saying, my president chose K BECAUSE he himself is a rapist… These people are SICK!
Jean’s 8:53 is, not only a treasure, but a reminder – the God described IS why we worship Him and there is more, an eternity full of more
“As a firm Trump supporter and Q tard, ”
We’re more diverse than I knew…I guess that’s a good thing…
So, CNN is reporting that the final person Ford identified as being at the party (a person who turns out to be a longtime close female friend of Ford) has denied having any knowledge or memory of attending the supposed party or of having ever been at any party with Brett Kavanaugh. At what point can we reasonably say these claims are not credible? Are we as a nation now allowed to get off this collective train to Crazyville?
It seems the bulk of the American Christian world has gone insane. They want a theocrat in the Supreme Court, thus nullifying the constitution that judges are expected to uphold. This whole mess with Ford is a smokescreen to the actual problem, Kavanaugh will overturn mountains of stuff that has created equality and basic human decency. He is a damnable radical who is strictly a political hire, and would never be considered in any other context. Christians want this, and they will get it. The fall of Christianity is apparently not happening.
bob, Trump only acknowledged that he engages in sexual assault, or was that locker room talk?
Reuben, so what flavor of Democrat look aid are you drinking – or did your Geoge Soros talking points show up in the mail yesterday?
Personally I have more confidence in the constitution than you do in that I think it is impossible for a justice to destroy it. The committee couldn’t find evidence for what you suggest – hence they trotted out Dr. Ford.
MLD, I am not a Democrat, you know this, and make no apologies for them. Again, Ford is secondary to what Kavanaugh will do in the Supreme Court. He will bring about your theocracy. You want it, you will get it.
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.”
Jan. 1 1802
Thats my Kool Aid. He will violate the single most important mandate there is, and you will support it. This is not about Ford.
Not being a Democrat does not mean that you do not feed at their trough or drink their kool aid.
I don’t know about you but I have not heard Judge K invoke the name of God in his testimony nor did I hear the accusation that he has previously made a ruling from a ‘theocratic’ position.
Still, he would be only 1 of 9 justices and not capable of overturning anything on his own. You are fear mongering – otherwise you would show some evidence.
Im just pulling this stuff off the interwebs man…
The American Public Health Association cited four decisions in the past decade Kavanaugh has made in regarding Medicare: he agreed in a decision against HHS that allowed hospitals to challenge Medicare reimbursement determinations; he concluded that HHS violated federal legislation when it changed its Medicare reimbursement adjustment formula without providing adequate notice and opportunity for comment; he rejected patients’ efforts to disclaim their Medicare Part A benefits to secure private insurance; and he deferred to Congress in allowing CMS to recover mistaken Medicare Part D prescription drug premium refunds through the participants’ Social Security benefits rather than allowing the participants to avoid recovery through waiver.
“Those last two decisions by Kavanaugh give me pause,” Rockenstein said, echoing some of the American Public Health Association’s concerns.
“We have a large elderly population in this country,” she continued, “and if one is legally entitled to certain medical benefits, they should be able to have them without having to sacrifice another set of medical benefits.”
Kavanaugh argued in a 2015 dissent that Obamacare’s mandate for contraception coverage infringed on the rights of religious organizations, a stance some religious liberty groups have hailed. He also dissented from a decision last fall that permitted an undocumented immigrant teen to have an abortion — although some conservatives have accused him of being too cautious in that case, and have even called it grounds for keeping him off the Supreme Court.
Kavanaugh has suggested he may be open to widening the flow of public funding to religious schools. In an essay last year for the American Enterprise Institute, he cheered the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s efforts to reverse prior Supreme Court attempts at “erecting a strict wall of separation between church and state” — especially when it comes to schools. He also predicted during a CNN appearance in 2000 that the court would one day uphold school vouchers.
He sided against U.S. meatpackers who argued that the Department of Agriculture was violating the First Amendment by requiring labels disclosing where each step of the meat production process took place. In a concurring opinion, Kavanaugh said the government has historically had an interest in supporting American manufacturers, farmers and ranchers against foreign competition. (Ultimately, Congress rescinded the regulation.)
And in a 2014 ruling over an EPA rule on toxic mercury from power plants, Kavanaugh wrote in a dissent that EPA had acted wrongly in not weighing costs when it first decided to write a regulation. A year later, a 5-4 Supreme Court propelled Kavanaugh’s reasoning into the majority.
Kavanaugh delivered a huge victory to conservatives in October 2016 when he wrote an opinion declaring the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — a powerful banking industry watchdog first envisioned by Elizabeth Warren — to be unconstitutional. Writing for a three-judge panel, Kavanaugh said the 2010 Dodd-Frank law had wrongly placed “enormous executive power” in the CFPB’s single director, which Republicans and the banking industry want to replace with a multi-member commission. Supporters of the CFPB accused Kavanaugh of acting as a partisan activist, and the constitutionality of the CFPB’s structure was later upheld.
President Donald Trump said during the 2016 presidential campaign that he would appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark case granting women the constitutional right to an abortion.
In his dissent, Kavanaugh wrote the Supreme Court had established “the government has permissible interests in favoring fetal life, protecting the best interests of a minor, and refraining from facilitating abortion.”
As part of Starr’s team, Kavanaugh helped draft the report recommending Clinton’s impeachment, in which he wrote independent counsel investigations can take “too long,” easily become “politicized,” and can go beyond their original scope. He also expressed doubt that a president can be indicted while in office.
This is what you want, right?
my apologies – I thought your concern was that judge K was a theocrat – I didn’t realize it was because he held different legal opinions than you.
J2theperson, as long as it accomplishes the intended goal of keeping Judge K off the bench, it will continue.
Facts be damned.
Can I say that?
“Kavanaugh has suggested he may be open to widening the flow of public funding to religious schools. In an essay last year for the American Enterprise Institute, he cheered the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s efforts to reverse prior Supreme Court attempts at “erecting a strict wall of separation between church and state” — especially when it comes to schools. He also predicted during a CNN appearance in 2000 that the court would one day uphold school vouchers.”
Oh I don’t know, maybe he just likes religious schools and thinks the socialist public schools should pay for religion for kids. Maybe he does not like the separation between church and state. It’s what you want, right?
Well… Not using public money for religious schools makes sense for a lot of reasons, BUT should the parents then be expected to pay for both the public and the private education systems? Maybe, there should be a tuition tax deduction for parents of those kids… then after they’ve raised their children, they can join the rest of us tossing monies in the public education pot again….
As to a Christian Supreme Court justice applying the rules of his faith to his adjudicating? Rule one would be “I have sworn on my Bible to apply the letter of the (civic) law!” I suppose there could then be cases where the law is so twisted that the judge would have to recuse himself (generic hin). God deliver us from such kaws
socialist public schools
What would this bunch say about libraries…traffic lights…roads
I guess they’re socialist too?
I hope you don’t think that public financing of religious schools is against the law or unconstitutional?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …” 1st Amendment
We should distinguish between a religious organization establishing a school with public funding, and one that establishes its religion in a school with public funding. IMO the constitution permits the former, while prohibiting the latter.
While the former is hypothetically possible, let’s see where it actually happens. The model and motivation for a religious organization establishing a school in the first place is no doubt in the latter in the vast majority of the cases.
As a member of a very small religion in the US, I am strongly against the use of public funds to establish schools which teach religion at variance with my small religion.
In my tradition, God has established the Church to teach religion; in the home parents are instructed to raise their children in the faith. In no case in Scripture is the instruction in religion delegated to the state.
MLD, did you not read the original quote from Thomas Jefferson I posted? I’m not interested in your opinion, I am on the wall of separation Kool Aid, I told you this, so get on with your opinions.
Reuben, but that ‘wall of separation’ is not in the constitution.
The Bill of Rights are strictly limiting the government – not the public.
Do you really believe in that wall? Are you just as ‘wall’ adamant when the conversation turns to taxing the church?
I’ll bury this here on a dead thread because i’m about to declare something extreme… Events related to me over the weekend are bizarre – one legal and one professor at a major university, friends of long standing, behaving like 13 year olds and feeling righteous and brave doing so?
I believe that the strange, highly emotionally charged over-reactions that we are seeing regarding current social/political issues is demonic….
My question is, to what end?
To unbury the thread… Em, I’ve also seen/ experienced demonic like manifestations in perceived “rational” people recently when discussing current politics and social issues… It reminds me of the movie, “They Live”…
To what end? Perhaps the separation of the sheep and the goats?!? Civil w@r II?
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.