I haven't been following the Kavanuagh proceedings at all, but I see people posting (mostly memes) about it on their Facebook feed.
I don't know all the details, but I think I'm correct to say the sexual assault stuff is allegation (rather than based on evidence).
Sexual assault is I guess generally an allegation type of thing. But often you could at least prove that a sexual encounter happened. And the "he said / she said" would be in regards to whether there was coercion.
Note that it's a combination of (1) an inherently murky thing to determine and (2) such an important thing to determine.
And it's much easier to corroborate stories and get a sense of what happened when it's dealt with sooner rather than later. So just speaking in general (like not even as it relates to the Kavanaugh thing), I feel like you cough up your benefit of the doubt the longer you wait.
And if you wait 30 years, there ought to be a really compelling reason to take it seriously.
Especially if you wait 30 years and then there's an obvious incentive to smear someone, there ought to be compelling reasons to take it seriously.
It's one thing to not know what to think*. But if you're one of those people who assumes the allegations have to be true to the point where you're outraged about it and heavily invested and posting updates on Facebook and looking at it like it's an important moral issue of our time.. you just aren't very bright.
*Anything is possible, but assuming a high degree of likelihood just because someone says so.. is insane, and a dangerous place to be.
The social justice crowd is causing it.
The unintended consequence of loosely believing and rallying behind all claims is that eventually you get some false claims (believe it or not, there are some sick and demented people who happen to have a vagina, and would smear people if they know they'll be believed). And then it dampens the sting of all similar claims, which is awful for actual victims and favorable for rapists.
(If people are used to rape allegations being sometimes false, there's less pressure against rape.)
Ultimately, it's potential victims who are protected by the presumption of innocence and reasonable standards of skepticism.
(And someone who waits 30 years and speaks up when there are obvious political motivations in play is a perfect example of something to at least be skeptical about.)
And again, if you can't see that, you aren't very bright, and you're making our beautiful world a tiny bit less safe.
I submit that the Supreme Court doesn't matter much at all anyways. It's nothing to get worked up over. Do you expect that you'll be there one day, and Kavanaugh will swing the outcome for you?
Ya ya.. "but they rule on all these major things that trickle down to us in some way".
Like what? lol
It's all a show. If you really care which judges are up there.. you need to turn off the TV, delete YouTube, and go take a walk.
In general the court system is so inaccessible to regular people trying to resolve disputes. Not cost-effective or good at helping if someone wrongs you. It's all top-heavy. It's all about large corporations sorting things out with each other. The only thing regular people care about is avoiding it, and not getting caught up in it because of the drug that they used.
All that's really important is maintaining the framework of presuming innocence and needing to prove guilt.
And while Kavanaugh's nomination process isn't a criminal trial, just going by the way some of these justice injustice warriors talk.. I don't get the vibe that they care too much about that framework.
Wildly backwards. Dangerous people.
