SCOTUS Nomination II: I Like Beer

[El_Machinae]

If the focus continues to be in the "victims must be believed" story, this will backfire enormously.

You're correct, of course, that we should continue to assess the credibility of individual accusers. There will always be bad ones. Can't help that.

But there's also the error of not taking in credible stories, even if they were found by 'the other'. Otherwise, you get a party that nominated a sexual assaulter for President.

 

[Yeekim]

how many times do we have to tell you this is independent of the justice system? it's a job interview.

Nor are we conducting a judicial process here.
But myself would rather spend a year or two behind bars than be on a receiving end of similar accusation.

 

[Yeekim]

You choose not to believe her because you don't wish to believe her.

Kavanaugh is a liar who is unfit to be on the Supreme Court, independent of whether we believe Ford or not. Period. Nothing else matters.

I dont think any of the posters outside of the US have any reason to particularly care who receives that position. Yes, Kavanaugh has shown himself to be unfit, not because of what he may have done in highschool, but because of his present behaviour. It is foregone conclusion. It is not interesting to discuss.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It is not interesting to discuss.

Perhaps. But it is the topic of the thread.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Nor are we conducting a judicial process here.
But myself would rather spend a year or two behind bars than be on a receiving end of similar accusation.

Have you ever experienced either? If not, then you're in no position to judge between the two.

I'm guessing Donald Trump would rather keep his allegations and just as soon stay out of prison, rather than trade the former for the later... just a guess.

I dont think any of the posters outside of the US have any reason to particularly care who receives that position. Yes, Kavanaugh has shown himself to be unfit, not because of what he may have done in highschool, but because of his present behaviour. It is foregone conclusion. It is not interesting to discuss.

It's always tough to discuss things when you're wrong.

 

[Sommerswerd]

There is also Tom Hardiman but I'm pretty sure they only bring him up every time to troll the libs. And to be fair, it's a troll I respect.

What about Amul Thapar?

Hahahahahahahahahahaha... yeah no... he was never a serious consideration anymore than any of the women were... just window dressing to make the selection process seem "diverse"... and also... to make it seem like there was an actual "process"... Kavanaugh was set for a coronation right from the start.

And they would've got away with it... if it wasn't for that meddling Congresswoman and her mangy College Professor.

 

[Hehehe]

If he hadn't done anything, he would have been candid at his Senate hearing. That's what innocent people do. They tell the truth.

Before the hearings and revelations about the targeted defense preempting one of the allegations, I would agree.

But... you have seen the hearings, right? Or at least read transcripts? Is that someone who you would want on a lifelong post making deliberations that quite genuinely steer the course of society for decades afterwards? If he is innocent, his behaviour during this situation has been extremely unbecoming today and not thirty-five years ago. The deflections, non-answers, angry rants, and conspiracy theorizing are all sad indications of what to expect for the next forty years from someone who is meant to guide a nation from a place of moral and legal aptitude.

From my perspective, he threw himself under the bus by behaving the way he has. Being defensive is fine. Being angry is fine. But everything surrounding this has been handled poorly on his part. I wouldn't trust him to fairly deliberate on the sort of cases that cross the Supreme Court, political opinions aside. I would feel the same of a judge that leaned Democrat.

It seems like you guys a couped up in an echo chamber, and I'm not going to take your word for it. That's why I wish there were an independent investigation. If you guys are right, then I'm sure the court will see it that way too.

Hehehe has conveniently once again framed this about whether or not Kavanaugh can be proven to have attempted rape to his subjective, shifting standard.

Hehehe's not debating in good faith. Anyone that suggests you should confirm a known perjuror that implicitly threatened the opposition with reprisals is not arguing from a position of rationality. He's trying to shift the goal posts just enough to get his guy through at which he likely can't be removed from his life appointment.

And that's not even touching on whether or not he committed sexual assaults.

I guess this is a great way to summarize our disagreement. According to you, everyone who isn't 100% on board with the lynchmob is just not discussing this in good faith. When it comes to this case, I find the absolute fanaticism to be insane and off-putting. I think this should be the kind of "let the cooler heads prevail"-type of thing. I mean look, you at least understand the wider context in which this is all happening?

 

[Yeekim]

Have you ever experienced either? If not, then you're in no position to judge between the two.

No I haven't, but I don't see how it follows I can't have a preference.

I'm guessing Donald Trump would rather keep his allegations and just as soon stay out of prison, rather than trade the former for the later... just a guess.

I'm guessing you're right. Probably just one of many differences between myself and him.

It's always tough to discuss things when you're wrong.

It is. But what am I wrong about, exactly?

That's why I wish there were an independent investigation.

Into what? No independent investigation is going to produce any conclusive evidence about a rape attempt, alleged to have taken place 36 years ago.
And it has been convincingly (for me, at least) argued he is unfit based on his more recent behavior without a need for any investigation.

 

[Hehehe]

Into what? No independent investigation is going to produce any conclusive evidence about a rape attempt, alleged to have taken place 36 years ago.
And it has been convincingly (for me, at least) argued he is unfit based on his more recent behavior without a need for any investigation.

Investigation into whether or not Kavanaugh perjured himself. I know that the democrat echo chamber is absolutely convinced he is guilty. I also know that the republican echo chamber is convinced he isn't. As far as the facts of the matter go, it seems like a case of he said she said. A man is about to get railroaded based on a bunch of he said she said at a time of extreme political polarization. I don't mean to sound dramatic, but if this goes wrong, this whole affair could turn out to be first step in some end of the Roman republic level stuff.

 

[Yeekim]

first step in some end of the Roman republic level stuff.

You wanted to write "yet another step" I'm sure.
EDIT:

Investigation into whether or not Kavanaugh perjured himself.

Based on my (admittedly cursory) understanding of the thing, this would, in practice, be similarly unworkable, as it would get bogged down in a mire of legal complexity about what does or does not constitute perjury.

Statements that entail an interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often draw inaccurate conclusions unwittingly or make honest mistakes without the intent to deceive.

In some jurisdictions, contrary to popular misconception, no crime has occurred when a false statement is (intentionally or unintentionally) made while under oath or subject to penalty. Instead, criminal culpability attaches only at the instant the declarant falsely asserts the truth of statements (made or to be made) that are material to the outcome of the proceeding.

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

 

[Hehehe]

You wanted to write "yet another step" I'm sure.

Yeah, I guess that would have been a better way to phrase it. And in the end, I guess this Kavanaugh thing won't really matter, no matter which way it goes. Both sides will simply do whatever they can to get whatever outcome they want, and whatever happens, both sides will consider it illegitimate if it doesn't go their way. If it weren't this Kavanaugh thing, then it would be something else.

 

[metalhead]

Investigation into whether or not Kavanaugh perjured himself.

What's with this weird insistence that people are incapable of looking at statements and judging them to be lies?

 

[Hehehe]

What's with this weird insistence that people are incapable of looking at statements and judging them to be lies?

I know this must be confusing for you, since you live in an echo chamber. The republicans are also making a lot of claims, many of which are opposite to yours. Forming a balanced, nuanced and truthful view of the events would require sorting out all the opposing claims, careful weighting of the evidence, careful evaluation of both sides of the argument, etc. etc. It takes a lot of work. I'm not sure you're capable of that kind of thing, and I can't be bothered to do it myself. That's why I'd like to have some neutral body to do the legwork. US justice system is considered more or less trustworthy, right? Or is there a media outlet that both democrats and republicans trust?

 

[Sommerswerd]

No I haven't, but I don't see how it follows I can't have a preference.

You can have a preference. It's just an uninformed preference, and there is no value in it, in terms of the argument you are making. You are trying to make the point that the accusations Kavanaugh is facing are so bad that jail time would be preferable. My point is you have no idea what you're talking about, since you've experienced neither.

I'm guessing you're right. Probably just one of many differences between myself and him.

Another more important difference is that he's faced these allegations, you haven't. And you've just conceeded that a person who's actually faced them would prefer them to jail time, thereby admitting that your uninformed position is, in-fact, wrong.

It is. But what am I wrong about, exactly?

Many things, but for one example, see above.

I'll also note that "I don't care about this anyway" and similar, is a common go-to for folks who have been debunked but are unwilling to just admit they are wrong and move on. You're obviously interested in this topic because you keep posting about it. Saying "it doesn't interest me" was just a transparent dodge of the fact that your argument has been exposed as garbage.

 

[metalhead]

I know this must be confusing for you, since you live in an echo chamber. The republicans are also making a lot of claims, many of which are opposite to yours. Forming a balanced, nuanced and truthful view of the events would require sorting out all the opposing claims, careful weighting of the evidence, careful evaluation of both sides of the argument, etc. etc. It takes a lot of work. I'm not sure you're capable of that kind of thing, and I can't be bothered to do it myself. That's why I'd like to have some neutral body to do the legwork. US justice system is considered more or less trustworthy, right? Or is there a media outlet that both democrats and republicans trust?

It's weird that you assume I haven't done that. I guess because you can't actually refute my conclusion, this is the argument you are left with.

Did you see the link to Ben Wittes' article up there? He is a staunch conservative and friend of Brett Kavanaugh's. He says Kavanaugh should not be confirmed because of his lack of candor under oath. This isn't just a partisan conclusion; your desire to make it one is just frankly completely bogus.

This is the argument people turn to when they have literally nothing else. Inno has been making it for pages now. But actual fair-minded people across the political spectrum see the obvious truth. Don't paint your partisan refusal to do so as a universal problem. That is your problem alone.

 

[Yeekim]

thereby admitting that your uninformed position is, in-fact, wrong.

Your reading comprehension is seriously lacking. I said what MY preference would be. It does not mean that Kavanaugh's, Trump's or anyone else's has to be the same.
Moreover, this was a choice neither of them has actually faced. After all, in the real world, one can't choose to go to jail as a means to clear one's name.
Telling me that my preference is "wrong" is quite pretentious of you.
It also suggests that you would rather live with reputation of being a rapist. Well, you are free to have your own preferences.

I'll also note that "I don't care about this anyway" and similar, is a common go-to for folks who have been debunked but are unable to just admit they are wrong and move on. You're obviously interested in this topic because you keep posting about it. Saying "it doesn't interest me" was just a transparent dodge of the fact that your argument has been exposed as garbage.

Given that I am not a US citizen, I have absolutely no skin in the game about who your next supreme justice is. That much should be quite obvious. I also said right at the very beginning I don't think Kavanaugh (who I didn't know existed, before I read this thread, and Witte's article herein) is fit, so I have no idea what "argument" you have "exposed" or how.

I am posting in this thread because it also deals with a topic I do find interesting and disturbing: how allegations that by their very nature can be neither proven nor disproven can be used to destroy someone's life with near certainty while no statute of limitations or presumption of innocence can protect them.
That does not mean I have any particular reason to believe the accused is innocent in this case.
It means I feel like general society is in a kind of "damned if we do, damned if we don't" kind of situation and I don't see a good way out.
It also means I'm procrastinating at work, but that's kind of irrelevant here.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I love how you frame this as an issue that cannot be resolved 'by it's very nature'.

That's absurd.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Polls are showing a bounce for conservative candidates as the Kavanaugh backlash rebounds. They will ram him through. Let's hope the progressive backlash to that is even more fierce than the conservative one in his favor.

 

[Yeekim]

I love how you frame this as an issue that cannot be resolved 'by it's very nature'. That's absurd.

The "issue" can be "resolved" in an infinite number of ways.
I was talking about proving what happened in 1982.
You think it would even theoretically be possible to get "clear and convincing evidence"? Never mind "proof beyond reasonable doubt"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Legal_standards_for_burden_of_proof

 

[metalhead]

I am posting in this thread because it also deals with a topic I do find interesting and disturbing: how allegations that by their very nature can be neither proven nor disproven can be used to destroy someone's life with near certainty while no statute of limitations or presumption of innocence can protect them.

I'm gonna stop you right here, because you and all of the other knee-jerk apologists don't understand how the law works. Listen up, because I'm only gonna shout this once.

THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.

When you go report a crime to police, they presume you are telling the truth, or at least they are supposed to. As a threshold matter, crimes and civil cases are handled by FIRST presuming that the victim/plaintiff is telling the truth, fully and completely, and looking at the alleged facts in the light most favorable to the victim/plaintiff to determine if they add up to a crime.

Then, the crime/tort is investigated STILL not presuming the accused is innocent. If a case makes it past the threshold inquiry stage of determining that the victim/plaintiff has established a crime or civil cause of action through their allegations, than that presumption of truthfulness is carried through the entirety of the investigation/discovery phase.

Up until the moment a trial begins, there are no assumptions made regarding the defendant's innocence. There are several checks pre-trial to ensure the accused is protected, of course, but none of those actually presumes the accused is innocent - their outcome is dependent on the evidence which has been uncovered through investigation or discovery.

And then, in a civil trial, the defendant is STILL not presumed innocent. Liability is purely based on an evidentiary showing that the defendant more likely than not is the proximate cause of the harm at issue. That's it. There is no presumption at all. The facts are the facts.

It is only once a criminal trial begins that a presumption of innocence is invoked. That's it. At every step before that, our legal system presumes neither innocence nor guilt with regards to a defendant. It presumes the victim is telling the truth until the evidence shows otherwise, or until the accused is put on trial.

That is why the mantra is to "believe women." Only in rape cases do we say that we can't allow false accusations, even though the justice system functions to give all accusers credibility absent credible reasons to disbelieve them. But when the crime is sexual assault, suddenly the word of the victim isn't good enough. THAT is the perversion of justice. Not violating the "presumption of innocence." That DOES NOT EXIST.