What Kavanaugh deserves — and what we deserve from him
I really like and resonate with what Bai summarizes here, by separating the different issues
otherwise rolled into one huge protest on both sides.
1. First whether Ford's testimony has truth or not
2. Second, is it fair or fitting to judge a person out of context with the whole by just one incident, and should that define this person
3. Third, is Kavanaugh's response to allegations indicative of a denial/avoidance approach, and shouldn't a responsible ethical person give a more specific response instead of flat denials that create worse problems
I share Bai's bias in #1 and believe there is "likely" some truth to what Ford is saying.
I prefer that more people on left and right take the greater context into consideration, as in #2.
I totally agree that the correct response should not rely on attacking or discrediting Ford, but focus on resolving the questions and conflicts in a responsible and ethical manner.
But I disagree with Bai that Kavanaugh appears not to be the right person for the job based on that.
I believe people need to meet all these requirements first BEFORE questioning Kavanaugh or else
you get the same denial and discrediting approach back. You get what you give. So we cannot fully
judge Kavanaugh (or Ford's) words or character because NEITHER person is given a safe nonjudgment
context in which to take all things in full perspective. I don't see how it is fair to judge anyone given the
pressures both sides are under, pitted against each other like animals thrown into a ring to fight to the death.
So I would hesitate to judge either party, either side by this context of all or nothing, to win means to beat and bully the other side. Of course you are going to get denials and twisted half-statements out of such a setup!
What I would add to this, is the question I would like to ask of Kavanaugh as well as the current Justices.
I would like them ALL to be reviewed, and to ask them openly where they are free to answer:
What do they believe about political beliefs and creeds being pushed by parties through govt and courts?
1. Do they personally prefer to respect political beliefs equally as religious beliefs, and not impose one over another, where one side complains the other is imposing their own beliefs? Do they treat them as creeds?
Or do they think it's perfectly fair and legal to "take turns" where one side gets their beliefs to dominate,
and the other has to fight to check and balance that, back and forth, as part of the democratic process.
Is it fair to keep doing this and costing taxpayers time and money?
Or do they prefer that decisions be resolved by consensus to avoid this battle and bullying back and forth?
2. I would like to know which Justices believe it is more in keeping with the Code of Ethics for Govt Service,
and the First, Fourteenth, and Tenth Amendments, as well as Civil Rights laws against discrimination by Creed, to include all parties' beliefs equally in consensus based decisions to avoid (1) wasting taxpayer resources on political and legal battles over political religions and beliefs pushed by one party over another (2) discriminating by creed by establishing or prohibiting one creed or another just because no precedent has been agreed upon yet on whether the First Amendment free exercise/establishment clause applied to creeds, including political beliefs.
3. Lastly I would like to know WHICH Justices recognize WHICH beliefs as religious or political beliefs, religions or creeds that Govt should neither prohibit nor establish by law or force of law or ruling:
a. belief that health care is a right through govt and supercedes individual free choice
b. beliefs about LGBT orientation, identity, and marriage are all faith based and these issues should be protected and treated equally as creeds and beliefs and kept out of govt except by consent of the public
c. if political parties should recognize where their political religions or beliefs are against the beliefs of others, and agree to fund separate programs in order to fulfill advertisements and representations they have made to their own members; and agree not to abuse govt or legislative/legal processes to push beliefs onto other citizens and taxpayers. Otherwise, if the parties fail to fund and provide the policies, programs and services they promise to members, donors, voters and supporters, this constitutes false advertising, misrepresentation and fraud; and if they continue forcing such beliefs through govt, this constitutes Conspiracy to violate the equal civil rights, free exercise, and equal protection of others from discrimination by creed.
d. all parties owe restitution to taxpayers, donors, and members for such violations, and these resources should be paid back to the injured by investing restitution into party programs that fulfill campaign promises, instead of imposing policies through govt against the beliefs of other taxpayers.
Restitution should be voluntary, but the public should have full disclosure and right to know the policies and beliefs of all candidates and officials, in order to exercise INFORMED choice and consent which to fund.
I believe those questions are more important to ask of Kavanaugh and all current Justices, and all officials of govt and parties.
That's what I want to know before I fund and support any more politics.
I really like and resonate with what Bai summarizes here, by separating the different issues
otherwise rolled into one huge protest on both sides.
1. First whether Ford's testimony has truth or not
2. Second, is it fair or fitting to judge a person out of context with the whole by just one incident, and should that define this person
3. Third, is Kavanaugh's response to allegations indicative of a denial/avoidance approach, and shouldn't a responsible ethical person give a more specific response instead of flat denials that create worse problems
I share Bai's bias in #1 and believe there is "likely" some truth to what Ford is saying.
I prefer that more people on left and right take the greater context into consideration, as in #2.
I totally agree that the correct response should not rely on attacking or discrediting Ford, but focus on resolving the questions and conflicts in a responsible and ethical manner.
But I disagree with Bai that Kavanaugh appears not to be the right person for the job based on that.
I believe people need to meet all these requirements first BEFORE questioning Kavanaugh or else
you get the same denial and discrediting approach back. You get what you give. So we cannot fully
judge Kavanaugh (or Ford's) words or character because NEITHER person is given a safe nonjudgment
context in which to take all things in full perspective. I don't see how it is fair to judge anyone given the
pressures both sides are under, pitted against each other like animals thrown into a ring to fight to the death.
So I would hesitate to judge either party, either side by this context of all or nothing, to win means to beat and bully the other side. Of course you are going to get denials and twisted half-statements out of such a setup!
What I would add to this, is the question I would like to ask of Kavanaugh as well as the current Justices.
I would like them ALL to be reviewed, and to ask them openly where they are free to answer:
What do they believe about political beliefs and creeds being pushed by parties through govt and courts?
1. Do they personally prefer to respect political beliefs equally as religious beliefs, and not impose one over another, where one side complains the other is imposing their own beliefs? Do they treat them as creeds?
Or do they think it's perfectly fair and legal to "take turns" where one side gets their beliefs to dominate,
and the other has to fight to check and balance that, back and forth, as part of the democratic process.
Is it fair to keep doing this and costing taxpayers time and money?
Or do they prefer that decisions be resolved by consensus to avoid this battle and bullying back and forth?
2. I would like to know which Justices believe it is more in keeping with the Code of Ethics for Govt Service,
and the First, Fourteenth, and Tenth Amendments, as well as Civil Rights laws against discrimination by Creed, to include all parties' beliefs equally in consensus based decisions to avoid (1) wasting taxpayer resources on political and legal battles over political religions and beliefs pushed by one party over another (2) discriminating by creed by establishing or prohibiting one creed or another just because no precedent has been agreed upon yet on whether the First Amendment free exercise/establishment clause applied to creeds, including political beliefs.
3. Lastly I would like to know WHICH Justices recognize WHICH beliefs as religious or political beliefs, religions or creeds that Govt should neither prohibit nor establish by law or force of law or ruling:
a. belief that health care is a right through govt and supercedes individual free choice
b. beliefs about LGBT orientation, identity, and marriage are all faith based and these issues should be protected and treated equally as creeds and beliefs and kept out of govt except by consent of the public
c. if political parties should recognize where their political religions or beliefs are against the beliefs of others, and agree to fund separate programs in order to fulfill advertisements and representations they have made to their own members; and agree not to abuse govt or legislative/legal processes to push beliefs onto other citizens and taxpayers. Otherwise, if the parties fail to fund and provide the policies, programs and services they promise to members, donors, voters and supporters, this constitutes false advertising, misrepresentation and fraud; and if they continue forcing such beliefs through govt, this constitutes Conspiracy to violate the equal civil rights, free exercise, and equal protection of others from discrimination by creed.
d. all parties owe restitution to taxpayers, donors, and members for such violations, and these resources should be paid back to the injured by investing restitution into party programs that fulfill campaign promises, instead of imposing policies through govt against the beliefs of other taxpayers.
Restitution should be voluntary, but the public should have full disclosure and right to know the policies and beliefs of all candidates and officials, in order to exercise INFORMED choice and consent which to fund.
I believe those questions are more important to ask of Kavanaugh and all current Justices, and all officials of govt and parties.
That's what I want to know before I fund and support any more politics.
