SCOTUS Nomination II: I Like Beer

[EgonSpengler]

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.

I've seen several things in the news lately that suggest women are getting mad, and turning against Trump and the Republican Party. Of course it's unclear whether or how much opinion polls are predictive of voter turnout. Historically, I think higher voter turnout tends to favor the Democratic Party and progressives, but I'll believe it when it happens.

And the opinions of the American people probably won't have any bearing on Kavanaugh's nomination, anyway. Of course, we knew that already. The GOP know full well that the American people are not behind them, and are taking steps to enact their policies accordingly. Ramming Kavanaugh through this week is just part of that larger strategy. Today, for example, Senators have a single day to review a single copy of the FBI report on Kavanaugh, in a locked room, in one-hour shifts.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Beat me to it @EgonSpengler

Yeah a single copy, in a locked room that they get to take turns reading. For an hour. And they can't talk about it.

Here's predicting the GOP will gaslight everyone and say the report completely exhonorates Kavanaugh and the Dems will say nuh uh but can't be specific due to the informal gag order. Here's hoping they break that and fight.

Watch Flake, Collins and Murkowski vote for him despite the moral landmine they know they are walking on.

Edit: They didn't even interview Kavanaugh! He's been accused of perjury and they didn't follow up on this?

 

[metalhead]

They weren't allowed to.

I'm sure the crowd that is mysteriously super-worried about what happens if women feel empowered to start naming people who sexually assaulted them have a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the people trying to confirm this guy are doing everything in their power to ensure nobody actually conducts a proper investigation into his background.

 

[Yeekim]

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

I don't know about "knee-jerk apologists", but I am completely capable of making a difference between the role of police, who is, for frigging obvious reasons, required by law to start an investigation in case of a slightest doubt, and the role of a court, who is, for equally obvious reasons, required to take the opposite approach.

May I kindly ask that you don't treat others as idiots because of a perceived difference in opinion?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

They weren't allowed to.

I'm sure the crowd that is mysteriously super-worried about what happens if women feel empowered to start naming people who sexually assaulted them have a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the people trying to confirm this guy are doing everything in their power to ensure nobody actually conducts a proper investigation into his background.

Yup. Part of me wonders if Flake thought this would go down differently. He came out and said this needed to be a real investigation after the GOP shackled it. He put pressure on Trump and Trump paid the idea of a real investigation lip service. But it's clear there was never going to be a real investigation so now I have to ask if Flake was ever serious about all this or if he was doing his best to provide a tiny fig leaf of moral cover for his compatriots.

And at this point I have no doubt how he and the other moderates are going to vote. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't know about "knee-jerk apologists", but I am completely capable of making a difference between the role of police, who is, for frigging obvious reasons, required by law to start an investigation in case of a slightest doubt, and the role of a court, who is, for equally obvious reasons, required to take the opposite approach.

Brett Kavanaugh is not in court

 

[metalhead]

I don't know about "knee-jerk apologists", but I am completely capable of making a difference between the role of police, who is, for frigging obvious reasons, required by law to start an investigation in case of a slightest doubt, and the role of a court, who is, for equally obvious reasons, required to take the opposite approach.

May I kindly ask that you don't treat others as idiots because of a perceived difference in opinion?

I'm treating you as ignorant, not an idiot, because you used the phrase "presumption of innocence" in a context where it simply does not belong. We don't have a "difference of opinion." You lack knowledge regarding the words you are using.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Brett Kavanaugh is not in court

Given that Kavanaugh seems to be boosting the polls for the GOP, do you still think the Dems will retake both branches of Congress with enough seats to impeach?

 

[Zelig]

I've seen several things in the news lately that suggest women are getting mad, and turning against Trump and the Republican Party.

It's not like Trump has ever done well with women, so that doesn't seem especially impactful.

Spoiler :

 

[Synobun]

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.

I do not understand how this is a valid response to what I said. Surely, as someone so immune to the "echo chamber", you could conduct your very own investigation into the facts available instead of reading hit pieces by INDEPENDENT BEN SHAPIRO as he regales us with his tale about the DISGUSTING Democrats?

This "see the facts from both sides" schpiel is clever but falls flat when the people you're engaging with don't need to resort to aimless hostile rhetoric. Can you pinpoint for us what the facts are in Ben Shapiro's piece? We're working off of sworn statements and verbatim quotes. What are you working off of?

 

[Yeekim]

Brett Kavanaugh is not in court

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.

I'm treating you as ignorant, not an idiot, because you used the phrase "presumption of innocence" in a context where it simply does not belong. We don't have a "difference of opinion." You lack knowledge regarding the words you are using.

If you recall, I explicitly said presumption of innocence CAN'T PROTECT HIM.
Because it does not - can not - apply in "a court of public opinion".

 

[Lexicus]

https://theintercept.com/2018/10/04...eme-court-confirmation-corporate-regulations/

Take, for instance, the famous SeaWorld case: After a trainer was eaten by a killer whale at SeaWorld, Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion at the D.C. Court of Appeals against new safety regulations, calling such measures “paternalistically” motivated. On environmental regulations, he ruled multiple times to overturn Clean Air Act regulations on cross-state pollution and climate change, in both cases arguing that the Environmental Protection Agency acted beyond its statutory bounds.

When it comes to corporations’ ability to affect elections, too, Kavanaugh has reliably sided with business interests. As The Intercept reported, Kavanuagh authored a pivotal decision in 2009 that helped clear the way for the infamous Citizens United ruling, which unleashed unlimited corporate spending in political campaigns the following year.

In addition, Kavanaugh has ruled against consumer rights, against labor organizers, and against class action lawsuits — a record that places him squarely in the Fortune 500’s corner. The Constitutional Accountability Center, after analyzing key rulings on workers rights, corporate regulations, and multinational corporate liability, found that Kavanaugh “has sided with corporate and business interests even when consumers, workers, and regulatory agencies had the text of the law and precedent on their side.” Similarly, the progressive consumer rights group Public Citizen analyzed Kavanaugh’s decisions and found that the judge sided with big business in 76 percent of cases brought before him in the D.C. circuit.

Incidentally, this is the real reason Republicans are desperate to confirm Kavanaugh. His appointment will be very nearly the endpoint of their decades-long strategy to subvert the will of the American people by installing hard-right judges who will reliably curtail the ability of electoral majorities to act to check the power of elites.

And this, not increasing political polarization, is the real "wider context" here. It's this that's going to cause a civil war because "those who make peaceful change impossible make violent revolution inevitable." It will end up being similar to the 1850s when the Supreme Court made slavery and the power of the slaveholding class immune to action by the democratic legislature. Secession and civil war followed a bare handful years after the Dred Scott decision, in large part because in response to that case the Northern states elected a political party whose position was basically "the Supreme Court can go fudge itself."

Given that Kavanaugh seems to be boosting the polls for the GOP, do you still think the Dems will retake both branches of Congress with enough seats to impeach?

I mean, I never expected that to happen this year. 2020, 2022, 2024, maybe.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Fair. I just think by 2020 we'll be too caught up in the latest scandal to deal with Kavanaugh, even if we had impeachable majorities in both houses.

 

[Yeekim]

They will ram him through.

If this happens, I freely admit I have totally misidentified what the larger concern is here.

 

[Hehehe]

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.

Aren't you the guy who once got blown out of the water by your own link, because you didn't even bother to read the study your argument was based on? As for this "obvious truth", I think we all know that these claims would not stand up to any kind of proper scrutiny, such as a court of law. What's your argument here? "Bruh let's railroad an incredibly sensitive political nomination no trial no perjury no nothing needed just trust me bruh"

I do not understand how this is a valid response to what I said. Surely, as someone so immune to the "echo chamber", you could conduct your very own investigation into the facts available instead of reading hit pieces by INDEPENDENT BEN SHAPIRO as he regales us with his tale about the DISGUSTING Democrats?

Conducting a proper investigation would include reading all pieces, including hit pieces, and like I said, doing it properly would require a huge amount of work.

This "see the facts from both sides" schpiel is clever but falls flat when the people you're engaging with don't need to resort to aimless hostile rhetoric.

I'm treating you as ignorant

Hehehe's not debating in good faith.

etc. etc.

Ultimately, I'm not sure there's even any point debating this. The lynch mob has already made up its mind. As for me, I guess I'll just wait for the FBI investigation, that seems like the closest thing to an impartial review we're ever going to get.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

If this happens, I freely admit I have totally misidentified what the larger concern is here.

Ok. I'll take this. Thank you.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Here's predicting the GOP will gaslight everyone and say the report completely exhonorates Kavanaugh

Oh wow. The White House tweeted at 2:30 AM exactly this.

 

[metalhead]

If you recall, I explicitly said presumption of innocence CAN'T PROTECT HIM.
Because it does not - can not - apply in "a court of public opinion".

Nor should it. You were saying that it was "disturbing" that the presumption of innocence couldn't protect him, but the whole framing was absurd, because the presumption of innocence doesn't exist in the universe of things which could possibly protect the falsely accused. It was a non sequitur in that context.

You're also mistaken on what it means to "prove" something. You can absolutely prove these allegations, even 35 years later. It's another bad faith use of legal standards with no regard for what they mean to say that you can't "prove" it. Of course you can. Beyond reasonable doubt, even.

 

[metalhead]

As for this "obvious truth", I think we all know that these claims would not stand up to any kind of proper scrutiny, such as a court of law. What's your argument here? "Bruh let's railroad an incredibly sensitive political nomination no trial no perjury no nothing needed just trust me bruh"

You refuse to look at any actual facts as they have been described over and over in this thread. You admit to being poorly informed on the issue. And you think I need to read hit pieces in order to decide whether obvious lies are obvious lies?

The sad part of this is you have flat out refused to look at any facts and just write everything off as some partisan game. I don't know what you get out of remaining wilfully ignorant and trolling people who actually pay attention to facts, but this is just getting pathetic and tiresome.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Your reading comprehension is seriously lacking. I said what MY preference would be.

Yeah I got that. YOUR preference is uninformed and thus has no value towards the argument you are making. An informed person would never have the preference that you claim. Do you "comprehend" that?

Telling me that my preference is "wrong" is quite pretentious of you.

Your preference is uninformed and told you as much. I don't give a rat's patootie if you find that "pretentious". People who take dubious positions often resort to name-calling (as arrogant, pretentious, condescending and similar) those who point out that their positions are faulty, because its easier than just recognizing/acknowledging the flaws in their argument.

It also suggests that you would rather live with reputation of being a rapist.

Strawmanning... another bog-standard tactic of people who are uncomfotable just admitting that their argument is poor.

Given that I am not a US citizen, I have absolutely no skin in the game about who your next supreme justice is.

Another very commonly employed variant of "I don't care about this anyway" and similar is "I'm not even from the US so I don't care about this". Again, its a transparent tactic when ones argument has failed.

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.

Concern trolling is another transparent tactic we've seen employed by conservatives and Kavanaugh's defenders in this and other threads.