The Kavanaugh Hearings

You may also like...

75 Responses

  1. victorious says:

    I disagree with this . “The people of God, those who are entrusted with the ministry of reconciliation, could have helped us all seek justice and righteousness in this situation, “

    What is true for some is not true for all. Jesus has his people ministering reconconciliation to some, calling and encouraging brothers and sisters back to their true identities where they learn to communicate and influence via the the ways of Christ. ( The children of Israel saw His works but Moses knew His ways, I.e the Scripture approved Moses model of humilty before Godpersonally )

    I was one of them. My efforts to be lead by and join with Christ in interacting with others do not need to be noticed, reported on, go,viral,or be leveraged as a platform or receive rockstar fueled branding.

    Neither do yours . Your service to Christ and His people and in this world are valued. Beware of rendering premature judgment upon your own works or whether God valued them.

    We are all called to prophesy in the sense that we have words and ways of value and influence in our witness to and of Christ that in most cases are personal and private.

    However, they are recognized and blessed and remembered by Christ and those that are impacted by them in the moment or somewhere down the line.

  2. Steve says:

    Personally I think this should be a no brainier for any body in their right mind. Let the Senate vote and be done with this tragic period in American history.

  3. Michael says:

    I may not be in my right mind…wouldn’t be the first time…

  4. Jean says:

    In addition to the contrast of calm vs. angry, there was the contrast between candid and evasive.

  5. Jim says:

    I don’t know anyone who was in favor of Kav’s addition to the court who is now against it due to the accusations. Perhaps someone here will speak up and say that they thought that Kav was fully qualified until the allegations came to light.

    Let’s be honest, this is a party-line issue.

  6. Jim says:

    I guess i meant “Cav” for Cavanaugh

  7. Steve says:

    Well I agree with Victorious that there are probably many Christians doing the work of reconciliation that we never hear about. However, Michael I also hear your exhortation for what is really going to be needed going forward especially after this vote no matter the outcome.

  8. Kevin H says:


    I for one was favorable to Kavanaugh’s addition to the Court before the accusations. While I am now not ardently against it, I am stuck in the muddy ground of not knowing what the right direction now is.

  9. Em says:

    Two things became clear to me yesterday – i was able to watch the coverage of the two people – the woman is, at best, a troubled soul and the Democrats were exploiting her to the maximum. ( i take pride in having no party affiliation)

  10. Kevin H says:


    I’m not sure if I follow your disagreement to the post. I don’t see Michael saying that Christians need to be seeking out the spotlight in their efforts of reconciliation or that necessarily everyone needs to get involved in the efforts of reconciliation in this particular case. But I very much agree with his assessment that too many Christians bore the partisan sword to attack the other side and gain victory for their side when they could have fared much better in seeking reconciliation and righteousness instead.

  11. Rocksy says:

    Watching the opening statements and questioning a yesterday proved much more insightful than just reading them. It is a sad situation all around and it’s definitely a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation. I believe she was sexually assaulted. I also believe she has way more to prove than Kavanaugh, who seems to have at least some of his ducks in a row. Before this “hearing” I had never heard Kavanaugh speak, only read about him. I expected him to be much more likeable, calm, and controlled. He came off a bit arrogant, irrational, evasive, and partial. I know much of that is situational during this emotional time but some of it is quite telling too.

  12. Martin Luther's Disciple says:


  13. Michael says:

    My apologies for the misspelling…multi tasking makes a fool of me often.

  14. Em says:

    Rocksy, i have heard and watched Kavanaugh speak previously he is measured, analytical and wise as you’d expect of a jurist
    What we saw yesterday was what i would expect of a man whose family was wounded…

    Are both Ford and Kavanugh sincere (i think so) or just devious actors? How can we know for certain? Only God knows – praying for a good outcome to a nasty political display

  15. Rocksy says:

    Em, agreed. I tend to think they both are telling “their truth” (as much as I hate that saying). I really hope we can see God’s wisdom and grace poured out on this situation. I’m also glad to know that Kavanaugh is not typically like this. Not hard to believe, obviously. But, staying a bit calmer under stress, pressure and questioning would work far more to his advantage than trying to turn the questions around on the senators and entirely evading some questions, however loaded they may be. I just think if he had been a little less defensive it would have shaded him in a bit more favorable way.

  16. Steve says:

    Unless any corroborating witness or evidence is presented contradicting his testimony, I’m actually totally convinced Kavanaugh is the perfect man for the job. My opinion of him went way up after hearing his opening statement. He is good man and my heart goes out to him and his family.

  17. Erunner says:

    Now Mr. Flake has thrown a huge monkey wrench into everything. Hopefully the one week FBI investigation he is calling for happens. What happens if five more people come forward with allegations? So sad to see.

  18. Steve says:

    Flake is a flake. The one week FBI delay is a joke. It doesnt work that may. Just look at the special counsel Muellers investigatuon which is never ending and was based on a lie. There is no intention to ever end the investigation and only serves to politicize the FBI even more.

  19. Jean says:

    Flake is following the recommendation of the ABA, which sent the Senate a letter requesting the FBI investigation to preserve the integrity of the process and ultimately the public’s trust in the Supreme Court.

  20. Steve says:

    Maybe I would go along if Flake if he could negotiate a deal to also open up the FBI investigation into Hillary’s email case that was decided before they interviewed anybody.

  21. Jim says:

    The FBI Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas investigation took three days. Although Flake’s idea is only binding on how he votes on the floor, I’d like to see the Senate call for the investigation, without unduly delaying the process, as would have been the case if Dianne F had turned over the docs in her possession when received.

  22. Jean says:

    Steve, if Cav is the man you have written that he is, then an FBI investigation will only serve his interests and support his assertion of honesty and honor.

  23. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Flake is my Senator here in Arizona. Between him an McCain we were left without representation. I am glad he is not running for reelection.
    That being said, I can support a one week delay for an investigation to cover what is already on the table as he requested. (In other words no new allegations).
    When the FBI report comes back clean, we will see if any Dems change and vote for confirmation.

  24. Headless Unicorn Guy says:

    “Personally I think this should be a no brainier for any body in their right mind. Let the Senate vote and be done with this tragic period in American history.”

    Which is how it’ll probably go –with a the vote breaking completely along Party Lines. The Dems are already vowing Revenge when THEY get the White House.

    Of such polarizations are Coups made. Followed by Cleansings.

  25. Kevin H says:

    I think what Senator Flake has asked for is prudent and reasonable.

  26. Headless Unicorn Guy says:

    I can’t remember where I heard this on the Web, but…
    “American Christians have sold their birthright for a seat on the Supreme Court.”

  27. Duane Arnold says:

    I may be wrong… and I hope that I am, but what I saw yesterday afternoon reminded me vividly of male students that I expelled for similar alcohol driven inappropriate behavior with young women in the college. There was astonishment, “what will this do to my reputation”, anger, “what will I tell my parents”, crying, and “what right do you have to do this to me”… Additionally, when I would suggest that instead of expulsion, we could ask the police to interview them and the girl(s), they immediately demurred.

    As I said, I hope that I am wrong, but all of us view these situations through the lens of our own experiences and prejudices.

  28. Steve says:


    Something to consider. Senator Feinstein could have initiated an FBI investigation back in June or July when these allegations first surfaced. Instead she leaked to the press further abusing Ford and muddying the water. Now she is demanding an FBI report. Flakes tone is not conciliatory but is exactly what Feinstein wanted all along. It takes attention of herself who should have an FBI investigation of her own with her Chinese spy driver she hired for years. This is a complete sham.

  29. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Headless – you probably heard it from some liberal apostate Lutherans.

  30. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Duane, your account is interesting but I must ask – before you expelled the students, did you require evidence to be produced or did you expel off accusations alone? This could be important.

  31. Kevin H says:


    I am fully aware of Feinstein’s delay in bringing about the allegations and have already stated to you on another thread that her actions in doing so were disturbing and wrong. Her behavior doesn’t change anything in regards to the possibility that the allegations could be true. We’ve been down this road before. We cannot say anything is “completely” this or “all” that when we simply do not with any certainty as to the truth of the allegations. With as explosive of a situation we are dealing with in this country right now and as important as a position this is, again I say it is prudent and reasonable for the FBI to do an investigation, but not to drag it out (one week is far from dragging it out). If the FBI finds no significant evidence corroborating the claims of Ford or others, then we can all have a greater peace of mind that due diligence was conducted before Kavanaugh would be seemingly confirmed. If the investigation does find significant evidence corroborating one or more of the claims, then hopefully the right thing happens and we move onto another candidate who is more likely to be of good and truthful character. I see much more chances of good coming about with a one week delay than without it.

  32. Duane Arnold says:


    Interviewed the girl(s), interviewed the boy(s), the night porters who witnessed what took place and gave all the opportunity to have their tutor (an adult) present during the discussion. Additionally, it was then adjudicated with myself, my second, the adult tutor and the elected head of the student body. Even then, the same scene transpired…

  33. j2theperson says:

    Duane, if the accusations had come multiple years after the fact and the only named witnesses said they had no memory of such a thing happening and the girl had remained utterly silent at the time would you have kicked the boy out and, if you had kicked him out, would you view his tears and anger as evidence of his guilt?

  34. JD says:

    30 year old story full of holes, held back even longer for some political drama by Senators Flaky Jake and Frankenstein. Really people?

  35. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    It’s all OK as long as the Dems apologize to Judge K when the FBI report comes back clean.

    On the other counts, I guess we will need to individually judge in our hearts if we can tolerate someone on the high court who likes beer and jokes about farts.

  36. Duane Arnold says:

    I’m not dealing with hypotheticals… only what I have seen. As I said, I hope that I am wrong. Even then, a “judicial temperament” was the last thing that was on display… and that is a worry.

  37. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Duane, Judge K’s ‘temperment’ yesterday actually worries you? 12 documented years on the bench are disqualified over a couple of hours of planned response? Hmmm, very curious that you worry about that.

  38. Em says:

    Gotta agree with MLD regarding Kavanaugh yesterday… His anger was razor sharp and correctly focused on the Senators’ handling of the accusations… what kind of husband and father wouldn’t be cut deeply by seeing his wife and children hurt?

  39. Duane Arnold says:

    I remain worried…

  40. Michael says:

    A few years ago a very prominent Christian celebrity was rumored to have been caught with his pants down.
    He woke me up at one in the morning to vigorously protest his innocence and proclaim his love of family.
    He was brilliant.
    He was also a lying sack of …multiple affairs, etc…
    He damn near convinced me during that call though…

  41. Eric says:

    Such a partisan case. I wonder how it would have played out had the parties been the other way around.

    I’m a foreigner but my few cents…
    1. From recent cases and discussion of I believe the accusations are probably true.
    2. I don’t think that disqualifies him from high office given that it was so long ago and he has a clean record since. The lack of additional victims emerging suggests it was limited and he grew out of it.
    3. however if it’s true, then he is lying now (either he knows he did it, or he knows he sometimes got too drunk to remember everything), which makes him unfit to be a judge.

    So many spokespeople are falling into predictable partisan lines. I admit it does for me on two counts:
    I lean to the left and I believe the accusations (though I think I also would regardless of parties)

    But also as an Australian I think the relationship here between government and judiciary is better. Most people can’t name any of the High Court judges, there is rarely any talk about them being split down party lines, the governing party’s right to appoint them is never seen as a valuable spoil of winning an election. If the govt wants to legislate on abortion or anything else they will. They try and write laws clearly enough that not too much interpretation is required (likewise our constitution is newer and needs less interpretation)

  42. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Interesting that someone lied to you, hence Judge K must have been a gang rapist. ?
    (Btw, that is OK and not the supposed white supremacist hand sign).

  43. Michael says:


    That is right on the edge of banning material.
    I did not say that and I will NOT have my words twisted.
    I’m merely suggesting that truth is hard to evaluate in these messes.

  44. j2theperson says:

    Our personal experiences that remind us of this situation are all fairly irrelevant. I’m generally the first to assume an allegation of sexual impropriety is true, and I initially thought whatever was being alleged was probably true. But she hasn’t really presented any evidence to support her claims, and I find it pretty devastating to her case when not only the 3 men she named completely deny any knowledge of such a party happening but even her close female friend who shares her political views and believes her story still provides sworn testimony that she has no memory of ever meeting Kavanaugh at any time or of being at such a party. And part of her story (I.e. the number and gender of the people at the party) keep shifting. It’s also very troubling how she made it so hard to interview her formally after she made her allegations.

    Kavanaugh and his supporters also make good points in my opinion that he’s been in positions where people were actively looking for dirt on him and there’s never been a breath of scandal in this area for his entire professional life. Also, it is unlikely that a person who did those sorts of terrible things in high school and college would just stop once he became an adult.

    I’m not saying that I’m 100% positive Kavanaugh is innocent but as it stands, right now, I strongly feel that the weight of the evidence rests firmly on his side. And it seems ridiculous to me for people to be looking to examples of their experiences with other people to in any way inform them of the truth of this matter.

  45. Michael says:

    “And it seems ridiculous to me for people to be looking to examples of their experiences with other people to in any way inform them of the truth of this matter.”

    People are saying Kavanaughs performance proves his innocence.
    I say I’ve seen better performances from guilty people.

    My hope is that the FBI investigation brings some closure.

  46. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Duane, don’t worry, be happy.
    On the bright side, our TV is never on during the day but my wife has been out of town all week and the local Phoenix channel broadcast the hearings. So I watched.
    Afterwards do you know what I found out? Divorce Court is still on ( I am sure I hadn’t thought of it in 20-30 yrs) – I watched both days AND has anyone here heard of a show called TMZ? I may change my afternoon routine.

  47. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Michael – you could have just said truth is hard to untangle without the pastor example.

  48. Michael says:


    The emphasis on Kavanaughs performance necessitated a word of caution.

  49. Linnea says:

    Both appeared credible in their testimonies…let’s pray that God’s truth prevails. I am, however, suspect of how the Dems handled Dr. Ford’s letter. Too many missing details to have 100% certainty of the boy who attacked her. It’s a sad day for America.

  50. Michael says:

    I’m suspect of the whole lot of them…it’s embarrassing.

  51. pstrmike says:

    Brilliant analogy, Michael. I have no idea who to believe on this case. Two people who have both lived rather privileged lives claiming injustice. The irony of it all, and yet there is some truth out there somewhere.

    It is clear that both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh are symbols of two very large agendas. This case demonstrates again how divided this country is along political, ethical, and cultural lines. Neither side has any idea or for that matter, any desire to communicate with the other side. Someone cue up “Wooden Ships” by CS&N.

    Good word, Linnea.
    I’m tired of reading my facebook feeds with reactionary comments from both my conservative and liberal friends. I marvel at their certainty. How did we all get so damn brilliant?

  52. Michael says:

    pstrmike just said all I think…

  53. Steve says:

    Now that Ford has Kavanaugh calendar it seems to me she can be refreshed of her memory and and she can make her story align with the alleged abuse in a new FBI report.

    Of course the limited scope investigation will need another investigation into the biased FBI investigators when it comes out clean during the promised Kavanaugh impeachment hearings.

    We have seen how this game is played.

  54. Steve says:

    “I marvel at their certainty. How did we all get so damn brilliant?”

    It’s called presumption of innocent.

  55. Dan from Georgia says:

    Sad times indeed where no one can say anything these days without some yahoo/yahoos interpreting everything through the lens of politics/partisanship.

    I will spare you all my opinion on who is truthful/lying because the online world is full of it right now…

    …and by full of it, you know where I am going with that.

    Besides, this is not the hill I am dying on.

  56. Reuben says:

    Everyone still misses the point. This is about placing a Supreme Court Judge who is vile to the constitution. Pull Ford from the situation for a second, and anyone has their answer as to what they want with this country going forward. I, for one, stand firmly against the nominated Judge if only on the grounds that I believe in the separation of church and state.

  57. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    I love it how Reuben is the only one who has not missed the point – millions have missed the point except Reuben.

    Reuben, if you can show me “separation of church and state” in the constitution then we can talk. Do you understand that at the time of ratification, 12 of the 13 states / colonies had state churches? The constitution did not outlaw them – they faded away when they no longer served a purpose.

    So your objection to Judge K seems to be a fallacy on your part. You may just want to stick with “Judge K is a serial gang rapist.”

  58. Jean says:


    You are a better baseball card collector than pontificator on the constitution. I.e., you don’t know what you’re taking about.

  59. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Sorry to disagree with you but you can show me where that wall of separation keeps the church and Christians from being involved in government, politics, or public policy I’ll gladly review review it. There is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent a pastor from standing up in his pulpit and telling his people I demand that you vote for bill for Congress.
    The Constitution does prohibit the government from telling people how to worship or from establishing a certain religion and forcing people to follow that religion. This is pretty much like the Antichrist scenario in the end times Doom and Gloom.
    If I heard right I think all of the people in the committee were sworn in under God.

  60. Jean says:

    Your comment to Reuben factually erroneous and ridiculous.

    The First Amendment, which was not part of the original Constitution, and which did not apply to the States at all until after the Civil War (coming in under the 14 Amendment by holding of the Supreme Court) would surely have outlawed state churches.

    Your comment was both ignorant and misleading. That the point I am making.

  61. Jim says:


    Serious question-where in Kav’s judicial record to you see a desire to establish a State church?

  62. Jim says:


    The Bill of Rights were included in the original constitution ratified by the states.

  63. Reuben says:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” Literally the first line…

    “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” Thomas Jefferson, only the guy who wrote the first amendment…

  64. Jim says:

    And Kav’s record shows that he’s in favor of laws that would establish a religion?

  65. Jean says:

    Jim, they’re “amendments.”

  66. Reuben says:

    Jim, overturning Roe V. Wade is an establishment of religious opposition to the government, and now, the constitution. Even Trump acknowledges this. Overturning equality in marriage is religious opposition to the government, and now, the constitution. These are examples of religion legislating morality of their own standards on the government.

  67. Jim says:

    Jean, which were added before ratification. They are included in “the original”.

  68. Reuben says:

    Lest we forget the exact stated reasons why Thomas Jefferson had the foresight to make this constitutional law, study the history of your own American Christian forefathers, the Baptists of Danbury.

  69. Jim says:


    Aren’t Ginsberg’s opinions informed by her morality?

  70. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    I could be wrong but I think it was James Madison that wrote the first amendment along with the constitution on that Thomas Jefferson was still in France at the time. However they could have emailed back and forth. But I have to bail out for a while because I’m driving to California and I’m texting and driving at the same time. I am using voice commands.

  71. Jim says:

    Reuben, respectfully, you’re out of your lane. Jefferson had nothing to do with the first amendment, as it was written by Madison. The 1st amendment was inspired by the Church of England.

  72. Jean says:

    The information I have is that the US Constitution came into effect on or before 3/4/1798, and the Bill of Rights on 12/15/ 1791.

  73. Jim says:

    Jean, google is my friend. You’re correct. Sorry.

  74. Linnea says:

    So, I’m an older woman, and there’s not one of us that doesn’t have at least one story of inappropriate behavior from men. By that I mean, unwanted, but not inclusive of rape. Not one. I could tell you at least six circumstances that I recall from when I was younger. With the exception of one, I could not tell you the names of the perpetrators. And, I only recall the one because he lived in my neighborhood. We get over it. We go on. We realize that it was their problem, not ours. At least most of us do…

  75. Em says:

    Linnea, couldn’t have said it better. ?

    That said, one wonders if buried unhappiness looks for scaoegoats? Displacement? Something….. ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Phoenix Preacher

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading