Woman says Roy Moore initiated sexual encounter when she was 14

a reply to: Dfairlite

If he did, should he still step aside?

Yes. And not just because of this thing. But that's my opinion.
But the president has said so as well. Who am I to argue?

a reply to: Phage

You have no problem arguing with the president's view. I've seen it many times.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Gosh.
I'm busted.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Sadly, that is how most actual predators are caught: with time, they become more and more brazen until they finally go so far that they have to be caught. In their wake, before that happens, they leave a trail of victims with shattered lives.

Even sadder is that politics is reversing the progress made towards victims that could put these predators away sooner and save a lot of misery. At one time, not all that long ago, one could actually hear the defense of "she was asking for it," or "look what she was wearing!" That obviously kept most victims form coming forward. But then the country began to soften their attitude toward victims of sexual abuse and it became easier to come forward.

But then politics got involved. Sexual abuse is an easy claim to make against an opponent. It is hard as heck to prove or disprove, usually being a "he said, she said" case, and it carries with it that stigma of sexual perversion. People can be persuaded easily to believe the poor woman, even if the poor woman is lying, because there is a protective instinct in most men to protect women. Those are good things when the woman is being truthful, but when women started lying to do nothing more than destroy political opponents, the progress made toward believing victims started to fade. Now we're back to where we were decades ago, just instead of "she was asking for it," we use "she's probably lying." And as long as she is lying, that will never change.

Personally I believe any woman who knowingly and falsely accuses a man of sexual abuse should be convicted of a class C felony and sentenced thusly. That is not the same as being unable to prove a case; I am speaking of purposeful false charges. That is the only way we will ever be able to make progress again.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Personally I believe any woman who knowingly and falsely accuses a man of sexual abuse should be convicted of a class C felony and sentenced thusly.

Tort covers libel and slander. Perjury covers lying in court.

a reply to: Phage

They are the ones who validate (or invalidate) our laws, after all.

True enough, but that does not make them infallible. Supreme Court Justices are human and just as prone to selfish agendas and base desires as anyone else. Just because they make a decision, it does not follow that it is the right decision. It only follows that it is the decision that will be used as legal basis until it is overturned.

Until the infallible aliens come and set up their justice system, we have to live with this arrangement; it's just the best we can do.

I didn't consider your political affiliation. You were concentrating the DNC so I thought it appropriate to point out that it is not only Democrats who don't buy Moore's denials.

I concentrate on the DNC simply because the DNC (operating under the trade name "Washington Post") paid for and broke the story. The truth is there are plenty of establishment-minded Republicans in DC that also agree with the underhanded tactics used against those who reflect the will of the people.

One of the things I am looking forward to is seeing the faces on those in both parties when the Honorable Senator Judge Roy Moore walks in. Warren's head will likely literally explode. I plan on having a DVR recording when it does...

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

That's called a proposal for a new law.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Just what we need. More redundant laws. Because no one ever falsely accused anyone of anything before.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Just because they make a decision, it does not follow that it is the right decision.

Do you think the decision in Loving v. Virginia was wrong?

Warren's head will likely literally explode.

Literally?

a reply to: Phage

Do you think the decision in Loving v. Virginia was wrong?

I am not familiar with the case by that name. Please rephrase your question.

Literally?

We can only hope.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

That's the miscegenation case.

a reply to: TheRedneck

It's the case I quoted to you previously.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

www.law.cornell.edu...

We can only hope.

You seemed so certain.

a reply to: Phage

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Emphasis mine.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Yes. It is a right as defined by the Supreme Court.

Oh, I think I see where you're going. Women who are unable bear children have no right to marry? Is that what you're getting at?

a reply to: Phage

What is the need for marriage in a situation where no children will be born?

Are you suggesting a fertility test be part of obtaining a marriage license?

Does all this seem similar to Herman Cain scenario? When a person gets into a positive position then the attacks come? Where did the accuser(s) of Cain go after he dropped? Where will this accuser go when Moore drops....

If he is guilty then so be it, but once again decades and nothing until now.....

a reply to: Xtrozero

Yeah. That statute of limitations thing. Pesky.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Are you suggesting a fertility test be part of obtaining a marriage license?

It seems that with your interpretation, it should be. I don't hold with your interpretation. Neither did the Court with it's recent decision.

a reply to: Phage

That would violate privacy laws and with the inaccuracy of such tests it would unduly deny people their civil rights. But since there's no inaccuracy in determining whether a man and man or woman and woman can create a child, it's common sense to exclude them from marriage as it is in no way fundamental to our survival.

However, I would also accept that the government get out of the marriage business. Our fundamental rights shouldn't be regulated.