In larger terms, this was all supposedly done to protect Roe, right? That’s the rationale for withholding the letter, for dragging the process out. But what we saw today set the advancement of women decades behind.

If even a daughter of immense privilege, a woman of the highest educational qualifications, a woman who has known nothing but luxury can’t find a way to deal with something very bad that happened a very long time ago without letting it turn her into a shaking, cowering mess decades later, how can you trust women to carry out any tasks of responsibility?

Shitty things happen to human beings all the time. Things that are a lot shittier than this can happen. If women are reduced to a sea of uncontrollable emotions for decades and decades by such things, then it kind of makes sense to keep them away from responsible positions.

Obviously, this is not true. Obviously, women are resilient and very capable of holding their shit together. Every single woman I know closely is carrying a heavier burden than what we heard today and is doing it with strength, authority and courage. I just wish so badly that we saw such women on TV. Because this is what actual women really are.

17 thoughts on “Setback”

  1. This stupid farce is going to be over very quickly. The Judicial Committee has decided to hold its vote tomorrow morning, which obviously means that the votes are there to move the nomination to the full Senate, and Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed to the Supreme Court over the weekend with at least one blue-dog Democratic vote.

    The Democrats have blown this one big-time. It’s all over!


  2. Nothing of value was gained by this charade. At the end of the day this is still a “she said, he said” scenario where no credible witness or evidence exists and the political/ideological positions continue to drift apart.

    I also agree with Clarissa that this leaves women in bad standing. I also know women who have been through much worse than Dr.Ford and they have made an effort to leave those bad moments behind in the past so that they can move on to better things. I really don’t see the value of bringing up and reliving bad memories many decades after the event has taken place. Is there any value to this? I am genuinely curious.

    This may be going off tangent here, but this whole #metoo, new wave feminism, etc. continues to demonstrate how rather than allowing for constructive dialogue and understanding, it devolves into irrational emotion based arguments where nobody really wins. Can’t wait for this movement to just be over so we can move on to much more pressing issues.


  3. American Bar Association seeks delay in nomination of Trump’s Supreme Court pick

    WASHINGTON (BLOOMBERG) – The American Bar Association has called on the US Senate to delay a vote on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination until “after an appropriate background check into the allegations” made by university professor Christine Blasey Ford regarding sexual assault is completed by the FBI.

    “We make this request because of the ABA’s respect for the rule of law and due process under law,” ABA President Robert Carlson said in a letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, and the panel’s top Democrat, Ms Dianne Feinstein of California.

    “The basic principles that underscore the Senate’s constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less than a careful examination of the accusations and facts by the FBI.”
    The letter marked a last-minute hitch in Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination and came at the end of a tumultuous day in which Dr Blasey Ford, in an emotional appearance before the committee, accused Judge Kavanaugh of attacking her at a Maryland house party in 1982.

    She was followed by Judge Kavanaugh, who fiercely denied the allegations and lashed out at Democrats on the panel.

    The letter emerged before a planned vote on Friday (Sept 28) by the Judiciary Committee to advance the Kavanaugh nomination to the full Senate. Republican leaders were hoping to confirm him to the high court by early next week.

    “Each appointment to our nation’s Highest Court (as with all others) is simply too important to rush to a vote,” Mr Carlson said in the letter, which was provided by a Senate aide.

    The non-partisan organisation is composed of lawyers and law students and a high rating is highly prized by judicial nominees.

    “For 12 years, everyone who has appeared before me on the DC Circuit has praised my judicial temperament,” Judge Kavanaugh said on Thursday during his combative testimony.

    “That’s why I have the unanimous well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association.”

    Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina also mentioned the ABA’s assessment during an impassioned defence of Judge Kavanaugh on Thursday.

    “If you lived a good life, people will recognise it like the American Bar Association has – the gold standard,” he said. “His integrity is absolutely unquestioned.”


      1. In a normal world, it would matter that the ABA put out that statement. The ABA is a non partisan organization that determines among other things the accreditation of law schools. If a school is non-ABA-accredited, most states will not let those graduates even take the bar exam. You cannot practice without taking the bar exam, and a non-practicing lawyer is about as useful as an appendix.

        Many years ago, a law school rep came to my campus enthusiastically talking about a curriculum designed by Scalia, and an opportunity to take classes from Robert Bork. I had no idea who the heck Bork was at that point. Everyone lost interest when she had to say the school was non-ABA accredited. Right now that school has a lower than average pass rate for its state and was recently sanctioned by the ABA for its admissions standards.

        It would also matter that the dean of your top rated law school is calling for an FBI investigation.

        There’s only about two, or at best, three different law schools from which Supreme Court justices currently come from: Yale, Harvard and Columbia.

        But as you say, the Republicans have the votes and do not care. They could find a bunch of skeletons in an unmarked grave in the man’s backyard and they’d still vote to confirm him, sans a FBI investigation showing that he had nothing to do with their deaths.


        1. After yesterday, I don’t see how anybody can possibly see this as yet another late-hour attempt to stall the nomination until the elections. Democrats did not even prepare for questioning. There was a million questions they could have asked Kavanaugh but they didn’t even try. It was all about the repetitive and, frankly, way too transparent question of “but why don’t you want an FBI investigation”? They had a chance and they blew it. As usual, they are completely and utterly ineffective. It was not that hard to steer the conversation away from the clearly manipulative actions of Feinstein. But they just kept attracting attention to it and made it all about procedure. Which is a terrain where they can’t win in.

          What I did find absolutely stunning is that Kavanaugh couldn’t translate a very basic Latin phrase used widely in jurisprudence. He clearly didn’t know what it meant, even though it’s a legal term. So I immediately wonder, how knowledgeable is this guy? Is he really competent as a jurist? I’d be much more interested in that than in whether he made flatulence or barf jokes at 16.


          1. I didn’t watch the hearing so I have no real opinion on how it went. But is that such a bad strategy? We’ve seen the “yell a dumb but simple and easy to understand message constantly” tactic work out very well in the past, even though you or I may not be convinced by it. Going off in a bunch of directions can confuse people, even though it should make for a stronger argument.


              1. Jeff Flake is saying that the floor vote should be delayed for an FBI investigation, and if there isn’t an FBI investigation he’ll vote no. Almost all the blue dogs have announced they’re voting no, and Murkowski and Collins seem likely to vote no (though we won’t know until we know.) I wouldn’t be so sure.


    1. At this point I support an FBI investigation as that is the only thing that begin to clear the waters a bit.

      However, what do people really think is going to be found? There clearly is no material evidence to look at, no witnesses that remember the events, and the event took place 36 years ago!

      I mean, sure maybe they can uncover a few extra details, but I seriously doubt the FBI will be able to find anything that has not already been found and discussed. At the end of the day, this is just another Democratic stalling tactic and everybody with a basic understanding of law and politics knows that.


      1. The investigation is a ploy to drag things out until the election. Democrats will win and will tank the nomination. Nobody is even trying to pretend that it isn’t.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.