wiesiek wrote:how deep and broad you have to dig in someone life history to evaluate his personality for such position ? ,for ex.
I mean - it is not right to kick off somebody, `cause he was drunk 30 y.a., during his school days, and his behavior wasn`t quite right in that time.
From the 2nd hand - If such character is present in his mature personality - quite different story.
so how to really well evaluate the candidate?
we all know the story where lookin`crystal camin` out dirty...
Yes, two separate issues. But, the first one has two parts. How deeply a person's history should be considered depends on the position he seeks and what is learned in the vetting and research. If someone wants a job working with children, it'd be reasonable not to hire him if something negative about him and children came up in the research. Of course, people who have been convicted of crimes get hired all the time simply because no one looks for those crimes. Yeah, things that someone has done or been accused of in the past can disqualify him (or her), especially since there are other candidates.
Ah, but then your argument is about behavior that "wasn't quite right" when someone was a teenager. That's the problem. Either his behavior was right or it wasn't. But, even if it wasn't, he shouldn't be punished for it. Which means, for all intents and purposes, we think it was right --even if he did it.
Believe me, I know. My main delight as a teenage male was sexually harassing girls. In my day, that meant going exactly to the point where the girl says/does no. That means, no closer while dancing; moving my arm or hand to a suitable spot; or just stopping whatever I was doing. I was never so drunk, high or unconscious that it ever went further. But, if it had, and there's a 60 year old woman out there who'd say that I went too far, the first thing I'd do would be to apologize for having done something wrong.
If Kavanaugh would have said "I just don't remember", it would have been better because then he could say that it would have been wrong to do. Rather, he --and especially his supporters-- say that the woman is lying. I.e., he might have been drunk at the party with her in a room, but she's lying if she says he did anything; and, if he did, it wasn't as bad as she says.
Anyway, the second issue was how a past event reflects on a person's character today. How do we judge a judge? Well, the prez said that "they'd even investigate George Washington." Back in the day, school kids in the US were taught the story of Washington cutting down a cherry tree. When his father asked him, Washington replied "I cannot tell a lie." This story meant to show how trustworthy Washington was. The same test can/will be applied to a judge, or anyone. If it's found that Kavanaugh lied, he can't be trusted.
Oh, he'll be confirmed. He's not even a pussy-grabbing adulterous coveter of other men's wives, so his moral creds are ok. The threat that the Dems better watch out for their nominees is another joke. If it's found that they're pedophiles and rapists, cheats and frauds, etc., they shouldn't be there either. But, we ain't even close to wanting to clean house on the basis of morality. We're still investigating the priests and pastors.
Finally, no, I have no idea what happened between the teens. And, only the people in the room at the time do. So, I think it's stupid to say conclusively that one is lying. Sure, it's not hard to see a vast left-wing-Democratic-liberal-feminist conspiracy, or she's telling the truth.