The upshot if is that if you are willing to hang from the gibbet even if innocent, then you are morally developed. You know, like in the Soviet Union, in the 1930s.
* * *
I put that up again on the live-hearing open thread (second break), because the WaPo commentators, in the first break, trotted out their demands of what Kavanaugh must say to be believed (never gonna happen even if he does).

“How about the quality of understanding the law and applying the Constitution?Seems much more salient to me than the judge’s personal ethical moral development, if that development leads him to misinterpret the law and ignore the Constitution.”

Your review of that crap I studied in college, reminds me of the fact that it was – by and large – an ideology masquerading as a science, one intended to function as a replacement for older moral codes, in furtherance of a collectivist sociopolitical agenda, based on a Marxian influenced replacement anthropology.

“

Some beliefs of [Gilligan’s] theory are basic:

Persons are understood to have varying degrees of dependence and interdependence on one another.
Individuals impacted by the consequences of one’s choices deserve consideration in proportion to their vulnerability.
Details determine how to safeguard and promote the interests of those involved. WIKI

“From each according to their abilities, to each blah blah blah …”

Yeah we never quite get to individual cases as in who should be sacrificially cared for and why … because there are no individuals in this hothouse world with its suffocating metaphysics.

Oh and there is this, also from WIKI,

“Carol Gilligan’s research methods and the scarce availability of her evidence have been criticized by many scholars and psychological researchers (e.g. Christina Hoff Sommers). This was especially relevant for the publication of her book In a Different Voice, for many researchers have searched for the evidence, which had been kept confidential because of the sensitive nature of the subject. That was however, according to some, a sign of obstruction of evidence, which is a recurring flaw with her studies”

Yeah, how dare you demand for evidence. It’s so insensitive and UNCARING.

The upshot if is that if you are willing to hang from the gibbet even if innocent, then you are morally developed. You know, like in the Soviet Union, in the 1930s.

Thank You, Damon and Pythias is definitely it, I believe it was a European or Japanese cartoon series of classic short stories around the world. Happy Prince (a grandeur Prince statue enlisting the help of a bird separated from his pack to use the decorative jewels and gold coating of body to help the poor) was one of the episode I recall.

In the Kavanaugh case, the charges against the judge are not the same as the charges against Sir Thomas More (also a judge), but they are of similar character (denunciations) and substance (lies and insinuations). More is holding his own in court against the obviously biased judges, who seek to do the king’s will by any means, until Richard Rich gives his own perjured testimony (which occasions one of the best one-liners of the film, although it demeans a country which I hold most dear).
More sadly reproaches his one-time friend for selling his integrity for worldly and political gain. Could not the same be applied to Senator Feinstein and all of those complicit in the false accusations against Judge Kavanaugh?

“It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world … but for Wales?”

However, it is More’s closing speech, after the verdict, that is most appropriate here, as it was in the denunciation of Clarence Thomas. It is not hard to substitute current language for the words that described More’s alleged crime.

“Since the Court has determined to condemn me, God knoweth how, I will now discharge my mind … I am the king’s true subject, and I pray for him and all the realm. I do none harm. I say none harm. I think none harm. And if this be not enough to keep a man alive, then in good faith, I long not to live. Nevertheless, it is not for the Supremacy that you have sought my blood, but because I would not bend to the marriage!!”

Almost all the really good stories could be from the Old Testament. The next best collection is Shakespeare, and this sounds like a mangling of the plot of one of his play. However, the original story — one of the best of the Greek tales — is this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damon_and_Pythias

“In Greek historic writings, Damon and Pythias… is a legend illustrating the Pythagorean ideal of friendship. Pythias is accused of and charged with plotting against the tyrannical Dionysius I of Syracuse. Pythias requests of Dionysius to be allowed to settle his affairs on the condition that his friend, Damon, be held hostage and, should he, Pythias, not return, be executed in his stead. Eventually, Pythias does return, and the amazed Dionysius, impressed by the love and trust in their friendship, frees him and Damon.”

You may be remembering one of these, which I have not seen:

“For the 1962 film, see Damon and Pythias (film). For the Richard Edwards play, see Damon and Pythias (play).”