Reader React
Each week, the Observer-Reporter asks Facebook friends to respond to a question about an issue in the news. This week, we asked:
“How should the Senate proceed with Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination for Supreme Court in light of a sexual misconduct allegation made public against him last week?”
Tony Jacob DeLost: Curious timing. What’s the statute of limitations on when these accusations can no longer impede someone’s professional life?
Loretta Domino: Even if true … look at age. They were kids at a party, which is usually how kids made out … If anybody (self included) cried rape every time advancement (occurred) or a guy tried to make out … nobody is innocent … How is someone to show interest? Send them a note? You flirt and see where it goes.
Denise Mindo DeHaas: There are too many inconsistencies in this allegation. First, she said two men and then there were four. Also, she never shared this until 12 years ago, even though it occurred 30 years ago. Finally, there is no corroboration to the story. Proceed with the vote!
Sue Butler: Continue with it. The person filing the complaint is working with the Democrats … also has 65 women from same time frame saying NO WAY. And most importantly, why wait 30 years and then complain? Statute of limitations ever come into play? I can say I was looked at funny by a coach and sue nowadays. When does it end? Confirm him already.
Sandy Roux: Statute of limitations has nothing to do with it. He’s not going to be arrested. It goes to his morals to be a SCOTUS judge. And so you’re saying because she waited too many years to suit YOU, she shouldn’t be believed. She took a lie detector (test). Let him take one. And what’s hilarious is he claims he was never at “that” party. Which party? Does he know of a party (where) she was assaulted but he wasn’t there? Lame. He’s a thumbs-down now and will never be confirmed.
Steve Sisul: Typical Democrat obstructionism. These liberals will do anything to strengthen their cause. Why can’t some people see this?
Elizabeth Johnson: The Democrats released the letter and within 24 hours the Republicans released a letter with 65 women names from the school where the accuser came from. Who knew about the letter first, maybe in the documents they wouldn’t release to the Democrats before the beginning of this hearing … who is lying?
Faith Wysochanski Noll: Why wouldn’t Kavanaugh have had references from women given during the vetting process? Have you filled out a job application recently? They all ask for references. He would have been vetted for sexual harassment claims before being nominated. This is just part of the process for his being SCOTUS. It is dishonest to say that personal references vouching for his character are somehow proof of guilt, but I have seen this twisted comment made in several forms all over social media all day.
Rhonda Varner Sine: You know who doesn’t have any rape allegations about them? Merrick Garland. I seem to recall Republicans not wanting to even hold a confirmation hearing for him because it was too close to an election and it was eight months. Now they want to shove their guy through when Election Day is less than two months away and he’s got all this scandal and coverup surrounding him? What did Mitch McConnell say back then? “Let the voters decide?” Yeah, Mitch, let’s do that.
Oren Spiegler: It is not appropriate for an eleventh-hour accusation to be made against Judge Kavanaugh, which may derail his nomination, but what the Democrats are attempting to do is no less dirty than what the Republicans led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell perpetrated in 2016: having stolen a Supreme Court seat from President Barack Obama when they refused to even grant a meeting to a distinguished and highly qualified nominee, Judge Merrick Garland. Judge Kavanaugh wrote a book about the drunken antics he and his classmates engaged in as teenagers, rendering plausible the accusation made against him after decades have passed. Does anyone think that there is concern about what Kavanaugh may have done to a young woman by a president who has boasted of engaging in sexual assault, or from most Republican members of the Senate who have offered little or no criticism of a reckless president?
Bud Roberts: Has anyone been through an FBI background check? I have. They interview everyone and anyone who has known you since your were a small child. They ask multiple questions of each person, sometimes hundreds. The judge has been through three such checks – nothing, no one ever said a negative thing about him. Not one. Now, four days prior to the vote, this comes up from a known Democrat operative, who has cleaned all her internet radical postings – every one of them. She has reviews from students so bad that if in business she would have been fired a long time ago. This is a “Bork” and “Thomas” of the worst kind and once again by Democrats. It’s fake, she has no proof, cannot produce any proof, and he denies it and will do so under oath. Case closed. Move on.