Scott thinks Roy Moore should step aside and the accusations are clear. Nancy Pelosi thinks John Conyers is a hero and his accusers are anonymous.
There seems to be a huge difference between these two characters. One has just been accused of indecent activities 40+ years ago, while the other has been paying off an unknown number of women for an unknown number of years. My first thought is there should be a long line of abused folks if Moore is a purported pedophile...pedophiles don't seem to rehabilitate, especially by themselves. But anyway, should we jump to the conclusion that any accusation of a person is true and banish them from society? Oddly, that doesn't seem to happen to Democrats even when they apologize for their indecency and corruption. I also have this perverted tendency to take apologies and payoffs as confirmations of the allegations...but then again I'm not real bright.
Lady Justice has a balance scale, a blindfold and a sword; Nancy is no lady justice. Democrats and RINO's are quick to yell EQUALITY; yet avoid that word when it doesn't fit their agenda. Why not add some sanity to the she said - he said rhetoric? I think all states have "statutes of limitation" for filing charges; sexual harassment (and that needs to have a legal definition) should be no different. If a complaint is not filed with a law enforcement agency in a timely manner it should be ignored. I would prefer a 30-day time limit; but certainly within 90 days while facts are still fresh on the mind of those involved. An accusation made based on an alleged event that is 40 years late has no credibility and the motivation for the 'revelation' is suspect.
I don't believe the accusers of Moore because they waited almost 40 years to make a complaint, and then only in the media, not with legal authorities. There had been many opportunities to come forward previously, so this appears to be an "October Surprise" type operation. There is nothing immoral about dating younger women, In fact, Judge Moore married one just a couple of years later, to whom he has been faithfully married since. The hypocrisy of these moralistic judges based on hearsay is overwhelming.
I like Tim Scott (and Erick Erickson) a lot. And I am not a big fan of Moore. But I think it is possible to try too hard to get to moral clarity. I don't think the Roy Moore situation lends itself to moral clarity. The dating teenagers thing can be interpreted different ways. At least one very serious charge seems credible, but that does not mean it is true. Should we disqualify people from the Senate because they are believably accused? I don't think it is clear that we should.
Senator Scott is correct and not so correct at the same time. Is it in the best interests of the Republican party to lose a seat for six years? Maybe? Is it at the same time the best interests of the country to elect a pro-abortion zealot? Depends on who might not have a voice if his goals help out in the least of silencing those voices. I do not hang my hat on the life or death of everything based on one senate seat in Alabama, that being said we do know what the Democratic guy represents factually without allegation. Roy Moore, however, we do know that he is the antithesis to his opponent and he is being alleged to be a slimeball thirty plus years ago. Alleged. that is all.