Or very angry about being accused. There are some men who cannot accept that they are not seen as desirable by all women. Admitting that they do not always obtain consent is a huge embarrassment.
Is a job as one of your Supreme Court justices seen as something where personal embarrassment is a factor in selection for the post?
I think if the guy lies under oath about anything at all, he’s
A. not fit for the job, and
B. Not reliable in his testimony.
Politics clearly is a factor in your justice system. I was appalled driving through Missouri a few years back to see roadside advertising for judicial elections. You want judicial corruption, that’s how you get it.
Sure, some men are unjustly accused of rape. It’s an easy hit against a man for a woman, especially if they have been having a relationship and it’s now come to an end. No woman likes to be discarded.
But the way to vindication there is exactly the reverse of what we saw in the Kavanaugh thing. The man tells the truth because he knows he didn’t rape the woman, and the woman lies for the same reason. Unless the jury is stacked — you ever read To Kill a Mockingbird? — the truth usually becomes apparent. It’s generally enough to demonstrate that yes, the two had sex, and others in the same circle knew about it. If it comes down to he-said-she-said about a private act, then the presumption of innocence applies.
Unless the characters of the two parties lead an unbiased observer to conclude that one party is telling lies.
It’s a shame that there wasn’t an independent investigation into this. I hope — for America’s sake — that there is an open investigation into the justice system at all levels. The sort of thing we set up a Royal Commission here for.