
Blasey Ford–Kavanaugh Testimony Tells a Tale of Two Internets - Tomte
https://www.wired.com/story/blasey-ford-kavanaugh-filter-bubbles/amp
======
ggm
I try to read both sides but "thinking outside the bubble" is hard. I try to
be empathetic to the R. Side, but it's just hard to construct an empathetic
response to conspiracy theory and legal reductionism. Where is the evidence of
compassion and understanding for a vulernable 15 year old girl? Where is
respect to the victims of sexual crime who often do struggle to come forward
in a timely manner?

The D. Side has not achieved a high legal bar. It wasn't a court of law, and
the onus of political proof isn't the legal one, and smear is a word with two
readings, a claim thrown in to deflect attention from serious doubt about
somebody and a literal truth: unproven allegations hang in the air.

I'm partisan. I believe implicitly in a right for women to control their own
reproductive state including the decision to terminate pregnancy and I do not
want this judge on the supreme Court bench. Probably I can't get distance from
the bubble in part because it that. I don't believe in moral equivalence
across left and right.

I will say that I don't think the candidate is a good one for a lifetime of
service on the supreme bench. He fails to show the mind of a neutral judge.
Same as Thomas btw.

~~~
75dvtwin
WRT your concern that Abortions would be prohibited if Kavanaugh is confirmed:

Brett Kavanaugh: "If confirmed to the D.C. Circuit, I would follow Roe v. Wade
faithfully and fully. That would be binding precedent of the Court. It's been
decided by the Supreme Court."

You may choose not believe him, but that's what's what he stated.

WRT the comparison with Clarence Thomas.

I agree the ferocity of these organized character assassination attempts are
similar, and they affected both man (and Kavanaugh's family in his case) --
were similar.

Both choked and teared up a bit.

See Thomas's response

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peEA-
fqmwDU&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peEA-
fqmwDU&feature=youtu.be&t=14m8s)

I am sure Kavanaugh will get the confirmation.

But I also hope the loophole, where 'the accused has the duty to prove
innocence, against the 11th hour, unsubstantiated accusations' \-- will be
clearly made illegal through the nomination/election/confirmation process.

While at a different level of absurdity and physical harm to the accused, all
together --- but US has a history sending people to death row without hard
evidence.

Seeing a version of it executed as a coordinated hit on a political scene, by
the Democrats -- is very disheartening.

There is no 2 sides, there is no moral equivalence, indeed. It is like
competing in sport, with the team that uses anabolic. Really, there is no
fairness or 'equality.

As far as feeling compassion for Dr. Ford. Given 'the evidence', that has not
be corroborated by even one person that she claimed was a witness.....

At this stage, I feel as much compassion for her, as I do for Crystal Gale
Mangum
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case)

~~~
fishtank
WRT your claim that Kavanaugh somehow will not contribute to the prohibition
(or extreme restriction) of abortions:

\- Kavanaugh was nominated after private meetings with a president who
promised to put anti-abortion judges on the court.

\- The president himself is not an expert on jurisprudence and selected
Kavanaugh from a list of anti-abortion judges provided to him by the
Federalist Society, which vets judges with respect to the likelihood of their
restricting abortion access.

\- There is a lot of wiggle room within the phrase "I would follow Roe v. Wade
faithfully and fully", enough to permit a decision that would allow states to
effectively outlaw abortion. He could technically not be lying in that
specific statement, yet still prohibit or largely restrict access to
abortions.

There is no good faith reason to believe that Kavanaugh's nomination is not a
threat to abortion access in America.

