Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
Concerning the Kavanaugh accusations ...
OBW, this statement above was quite telling. It shows just how effective biased media propaganda can be to influence the public. Kavanaugh was a public servant in the Bush administration and a distinguished judge. His life record was perfectly flawless. He was acclaimed with multiple accolades from those of both parties, but was now viewed as a dangerous addition to the high court because Trump had appointed him.
You, however, seem to have given him no benefit of the doubt in the face of these wild accusations. Kavaaugh admitted to nothing, yet you apparently saw incriminating evidence. You call him a "youthful fool," yet his academic accomplishments during his youth were exemplary. Everything he did had the highest honors. Perhaps your anti-Catholic bias is on display, who knows? But this Kavanaugh character, at least in your mind, deserved everything he got because Trump appointed him. Merely guilt by association and guilt by accusation.
Perhaps you might want to remember his chief antagonist during this time -- Michael Avenatti. Some of the media saw him as a savior of sorts, and even the leading candidate for the 2020 Democratic nomination. Except for your anti-Trump attitudes, my how things have changed in the last year and a half!
|
That's it. Shoot the messenger.
As I recall, BK did not admit to the serious charges, but did admit to issues with drinking — even underage. And some of his friends said that there was something that occasionally almost went off the rails when he was drinking. I think that would qualify as youthful foolishness, at a minimum.
And you really didn't read what I said, because I did not say he was unqualified or that he had done anything since college other than live and act in a very sound and professional manner. And I did not say he would be a bad judge. I did mention that both sides were looking to pigeon-hole any nominee as either for or against certain things — abortion issues being predominant — and that he did not really give cause for either side to think they had him in their pocket. And for that I respect him. We will see how well he actually lives up to the ideal of a constitutional scholar, though if he does, it will not make either side as happy as they might like.
It is clear that there was something amiss in the way opponents waited to spring the charges. But that does not prove anything to be untrue. And there were a variety of eye-witness accounts that suggested problems with both the charges as stated, and with claims of purity in the matter. I give both sides the benefit of the doubt and concluded that he would make a good judge. I just wished that it would have been without a cloud over character. Trump had the opportunity to move on to another nominee that might have a better record.
But if they really believed that they had someone who would truly rule to overturn aspects of Roe v Wade, then they had private conversations indicating that he would simply rule in certain ways without reference to rules of precedence or law, or to the constitution. The constitution does not simply lean conservative or liberal. It is not a sword that favors Republicans over Democrats (or the other way around for those looking in from the left). It is a sound framework in which the government has limitations and guidelines within which it must operate. It has less to say about the people who the government "rules." Therefore it should be understood more a limiter on how rules restrict the people and a block against excessive restriction against the people.
And abortion is a problematic issue. Most Christians accept that the Bible establishes life at conception. Under the constitution, you cannot deprive anyone of life without due process. And if we all (believers and unbelievers) accepted that life begins at conception, then that would mean that a separate determination (judicial proceeding) would be required to cause the death of any fetus. No blanket law could be understood as due process. Neither could a single prior court ruling. It would be like trying a murderer and seeking the death penalty.
But we do not have a nation-wide consensus on the point at which a fetus becomes a separate life subject to its own claims under the constitution. Maybe we are sufficiently there on the 3rd trimester. But less likely on the 2nd trimester. And depending on which poll you accept, there might be a slim majority that would even say the 1st trimester. But at "slim majority" you tend to fail with respect to other aspects of constitutional bounds.
But more important is that our calling should not just to be to "speak for the voiceless" by demanding that there be an end to all abortion as we hurl insults at those who disagree, but more importantly that we seek to help those who might otherwise feel compelled to take the route of abortion, whether just to change their mind on that issue, or even to find their hope in Christ. And also to help those who live on under a personal cloud because of past actions.
I agree that we need to speak for the voiceless. But somehow we need to find a way that is not simply to demonize or criminalize everyone on the other side of the issue.