Comments for Liberals /Socialists Rush not to Defend a Fellow Feminist, but to Defame a Good Man | Eastern North Carolina Now

Bobby Tony, that last comment of yours is the backbone of another thoughtful post from you. You put it in a post format, and I'll make sure Diane Rufino sees it; then she will comment and also well thought out. This would definitely pique her interest.

Commented: Thursday, September 20th, 2018 @ 10:21 am By: Stan Deatherage

This morning's blasphemy thought for the day.

We should do away with public hearings regarding confirmation hearings for cabinet officials as well as court justices. They are nothing more than campaign devices for the Senators to drum up support for their next election. Hearings should be done in private and voted on in public. Then any transcripts or documents related to the process released to the public.

Using the hearing to drum up public support for a candidate or party is not the purpose of the advice and consent principle. Our government has turned into the ultimate "Comic opera which denotes a sung dramatic work of a light or comic nature, usually with a happy ending," for everyone except the voters and the public. (wikipedia-Comic_Opera)

"There’s nothing in the Constitution that says nominees must testify at their hearings, or that hearings have to take place at all. The Senate could just vote. But, these days, they don’t — and there are several important reasons why.
The only thing the Constitution is clear about is that the public shouldn’t have the final vote on these nominees. For the “people at large” to hold the “power of appointment” would be “impracticable,” Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper #76. So, Article II Section II of Constitution says the President “shall nominate” the justices, “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.” At the time, state legislatures chose U.S. Senators, so the selection process was even further removed from the passions of the people. But for a long time, that “advice and consent” took place largely without any grilling of nominees."

time.com

Commented: Thursday, September 20th, 2018 @ 7:32 am By: Bobby Tony

Well, it looks to be over now in the alleged Brett Kavanaugh teenage fondling; the accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, as reported, will not testify on Monday when given the opportunity to publicly right this perceived wrong from 36 years ago.

The accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, expects the FBI now to investigate an alleged fondling from 36 years earlier before she testify against the accused, Brett Kavanaugh. The FBI is electing to not perform an investigation since this is not a Federal crime, and there is no need to run a background check on Judge Kavanaugh since they have already performed 6 investigations to date.

The FBI has already rightly declined further involvement in this sordid affair since this is simply not what they do. The FBI's involvement, should it choose to do so, would be to defer the alleged 36 year old fondling "case" to the Maryland authorities, and then if Maryland law enforcement agencies determine, by their general statutes, that this alleged fondling by a high school kid is a crime; then they can investigate, indict and prosecute, should they choose to do so.

Commented: Tuesday, September 18th, 2018 @ 10:01 pm By: Stan Deatherage

Good post for these times B.T. Wonderful message for this and future generations.

I had one son and three daughters, and knowing that there were guys out there like me, I was protective to a fault.

Commented: Tuesday, September 18th, 2018 @ 10:37 am By: Stan Deatherage

Bobby Tony, I was posting my last comment while you were posting yours, so, disregard its relevance to your wise words.

I lived those same days just as you did, and I was no choir boy, and I expected boundaries to be given by the female for I considered that the ground-rules for this sport of ours.

When one complains, 30 year later, that the ground-rules were not followed by someone deep in their past, I find there protestation specious at best.

If this what the MeToo Movement is all about, I find it completely arbitrary and capricious as a movement, and will disregard its relevance all together.

Commented: Tuesday, September 18th, 2018 @ 9:37 am By: Stan Deatherage

This is going to sound extremely crass and patriarchal, but regardless of the facts of this particular case, the limits of social behavior have always been enforced by the female in social interactions. As one who has occasionally (?) veered over the line in social interaction, I can attest that a firm slap or stern verbal assault often set me back on the straight and narrow. The fact is that only two people will ever know the truth about this incident. I am also aware that now both the people involved in this drama will forever be damaged by the current climate much more than they were to the original incident if it occurred as described.

There is no excuse for inappropriate behavior, but history has taught us that failure to respond at the time of the violation only encourages continued behavior from the perpetrator. Two of the best examples of this are the Holocaust and Slavery. This is by no means an excuse for the behavior but it took a violent course to correct those societal excesses. Even years later, we are still suffering from the seeds planted by assuming the status of victimhood. Identifying as a victim often provides the excuse that one cannot prevent events that happen to them. There is a distinct difference between identifying as a victim and actually being a victim. Please do not take this as blaming the victim, it is merely an observation that lack of reaction only serves to perpetuate the abuse.

I am aware of only one case where a willing victim actually changed the course of history, and we are still trying to learn from that lesson:
“And I , if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. “John 12:32

While I realize that it easier to say than to practice this principle, I often wondered how long Harvey Weinstein would have been able to get away with his shenanigans if the first aspiring actress would have raised holy hell at his first step over the line. I have no way to know if the current allegations are true, but I do know that they are a tactic used for the sole purpose of achieving a goal that could not be achieved by following the "advice and consent" principle under which judges are confirmed. Unfortunately, the Statues of Limitations does not apply to character destruction in a political battle. The purpose of this allegation is not the search for truth but a question of tactics, nothing more or less.

"Statutes of limitations, which date back to early Roman Law, are a fundamental part of European and U.S. law. These statutes, which apply to both civil and criminal actions, are designed to prevent fraudulent and stale claims from arising after all evidence has been lost or after the facts have become obscure through the passage of time or the defective memory, death, or disappearance of witnesses."

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

Commented: Tuesday, September 18th, 2018 @ 8:34 am By: Bobby Tony