As far as I understand, this isn't really about him or the Supreme Court, the Republicans want to close this matter quickly in order to protect the president from impeachment and support the...
As far as I understand, this isn't really about him or the Supreme Court, the Republicans want to close this matter quickly in order to protect the president from impeachment and support the presidential pardon as much as possible.
I wonder if it ever crosses their mind that changing the basics of how we lead the country—forcing through a nomination despite what looks like it's going to be an at-best perfunctory FBI...
I wonder if it ever crosses their mind that changing the basics of how we lead the country—forcing through a nomination despite what looks like it's going to be an at-best perfunctory FBI investigation (they haven't even interviewed Ford, for example, and are talking about possibly being done with their supposedly week-long investigation today), a President who actively states his opinion on an as-yet determined outcome by bemoaning it's "unfairness"—I wonder if they think about possible ramifications if the tables are turned and Democrats overtake Congress next January?
Does it even bother them that these fundamental rule changes could lead to an as-radical-as-Trump Democrat taking office, and for instance deciding to end the war on drugs and pardon all prisoners convicted of drug charges, something entirely possible if they make the Presidential pardon all-powerful (including State charges, as some have suggested)? Because the rules they're eager to change now will surely be treated as precedent for future nominations. "He's not as bad as Kavanaugh" could become the new standard.
I'm an upper-middle-class white male, but not from the same kind of frat background as guys like Kavanaugh. I don't see myself when I look at the Republican party, either.
I'm an upper-middle-class white male, but not from the same kind of frat background as guys like Kavanaugh. I don't see myself when I look at the Republican party, either.
Exactly. It is this weird, paranoid fetish, like going through life worried that you are going to be falsely convicted of murder. Is it possible? Yes, absolutely. Is it a healthy, reasonable...
Exactly. It is this weird, paranoid fetish, like going through life worried that you are going to be falsely convicted of murder. Is it possible? Yes, absolutely. Is it a healthy, reasonable concern to have as a wealthy, privileged person in a developed country? No - you have essentially every possible protection that could exist. You are far more likely to be able to get away with murder than to be falsely convicted of murder.
Now if you're secretly in the Mafia or something, where you might be a murderer yourself and certainly have peers that are, then yeah, being concerned about being implicated in a murder might actually be a legitimate concern.
Most people don't need to worry about false accusations, but Kavanaugh said in his opening statement, possibly suggesting the Republicans might conjure up false allegations for future democratic...
Most people don't need to worry about false accusations, but Kavanaugh said in his opening statement,
This grotesque and coordinated character assassination will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions, from serving our country. And [...] what goes around comes around,
possibly suggesting the Republicans might conjure up false allegations for future democratic appointments if his nomination fails.
For instance, they could fund a group of people dedicated to slandering a decorated war hero. Or claim that a campaign aide was secretly assassinated. To a certain extent, rumors and dirty tricks...
For instance, they could fund a group of people dedicated to slandering a decorated war hero. Or claim that a campaign aide was secretly assassinated.
To a certain extent, rumors and dirty tricks have always been a part of the political landscape and some people will always have an appetite for consuming them. These things also normally have an ecosystem that is largely in highly partisan media, not in testimony before the Senate. If we grant for a moment that this is the case and false allegations are being brought in front of the Senate, then there should be some independent body (the FBI, for instance) investigating the claims and perjury charges should follow if such allegations are demonstrably false.
The statistics of false rape allegations and the fact that I don't rape people or associate with rapists alleviate any potential fear of false rape allegations I might have.
The statistics of false rape allegations and the fact that I don't rape people or associate with rapists alleviate any potential fear of false rape allegations I might have.
That's a bit cavalier. Do you sleep with people? Because unless you're in a solid, monogamous relationship, if you have sex, you can easily be accused of rape. S/he drinks a bit too much, agrees...
That's a bit cavalier. Do you sleep with people? Because unless you're in a solid, monogamous relationship, if you have sex, you can easily be accused of rape. S/he drinks a bit too much, agrees to go home with you, and regrets it the next morning. It happens quite a bit. Wives have accused husbands of rape. Did he really rape her, or do the laws where she lives provide better for her in cases where the husband is convicted of a serious crime?
Thankfully we have courts, and unless the claim is provably credible you're not likely to serve prison time, but your reputation, job prospects, and future earnings can be severely impacted.
I don't think it's cavalier at all knowing myself, the people I associate with, and the people who raised me. I've slept with one person--my wife--for the last 3 years of marriage and 11 years...
I don't think it's cavalier at all knowing myself, the people I associate with, and the people who raised me. I've slept with one person--my wife--for the last 3 years of marriage and 11 years being together. Never had a one night stand or any sex outside of an established, monogamous relationship.
if you have sex, you can easily be accused of rape. S/he drinks a bit too much, agrees to go home with you, and regrets it the next morning. It happens quite a bit.
You're talking about two different situations. Having sex is one thing and does present some inherent level of risk, but having a one night stand/casual sex when one or both parties have been drinking increases that risk exponentially. Since I haven't placed myself in those situations, I don't need to worry about the risk of an incident from my past coming back to haunt me in the form of a rape allegation.
Wives have accused husbands of rape. Did he really rape her, or do the laws where she lives provide better for her in cases where the husband is convicted of a serious crime?
I never said marital rape doesn't happen, but the prospect of this accusation seems incredibly alien to me personally. The odds of my wife, best friend, life partner, and fellow parent to our son coming forward with a rape allegation directed at me are effectively zero. Couldn't imagine that happening with any of my couple friends either. Maybe I've had a sheltered life, maybe I'm showing my privilege. I just don't see the reason to be fearful of false allegations given the relatively boring life I've lived and the statistics of their occurrence.
The single men I've called my best friends over the years respect women and consent. I doubt they're worried about a false allegation either even though they have sex outside of monogamous relationships. When you're a good person that treats others respectfully, these issues organically remain outside the realm of possibility.
My own thoughts on Kavanaugh are that a vague accusation without date, place, corroborating witnesses or evidence, recalled from the distance of thirty years, should not be sufficient evidence to...
My own thoughts on Kavanaugh are that a vague accusation without date, place, corroborating witnesses or evidence, recalled from the distance of thirty years, should not be sufficient evidence to influence the Supreme Court nomination process. I think the standard of innocent until proven guilty should apply here too and we should treat Kavanaugh as though he's innocent until there's better evidence.
It's frustrating for me to see mainstream newspapers summarizing this as a race and gender issue. "Oh, you think that because you're a white man?" When did this kind of blatant racism and sexism become okay? Or, I'm sorry, is that my "male fury" talking?
The Washington Post would and should never treat other race and gender groups this way. Why do they think it's okay to treat white men like this?
Let's assume the best case scenario for Kavanaugh and assume that he did not commit any of the alleged sexual misconduct he's alleged to have. Even then what we are left with is: A candidate who...
Exemplary
Let's assume the best case scenario for Kavanaugh and assume that he did not commit any of the alleged sexual misconduct he's alleged to have. Even then what we are left with is:
A candidate who openly lies--let's call it how it is--about his drinking behavior and is incredibly evasive when answering questions about his drinking behavior.
A nominee to the Supreme Court who openly threatened political payback for these accusations.
A nominee to the Supreme Court who calls the allegations part of a "political hitjob" by Democrats and The Clintons.
How is he supposed to be an unbiased and nonpartisan member of a hallowed institution in American politics after that behavior? You can't seriously be suggesting that we just ignore the fact that he did these three things just because the base accusation leading to the hearing might not be proveable, are you?
He has disqualified himself in the process of denying the very serious allegations against him, whether they are true or not. And anyone who disagrees with that will have to answer for their willingness to support a candidate who is on the record getting involved in and exacerbating partisan tensions around his own hearing.
from the transcript Can reasonably be interpreted as a threat to the left / political payback
This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. This is a circus. The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades. This grotesque and coordinated character assassination will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from serving our country. And as we all know, in the United States political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around
I agree with you that the accusation itself with no other detail is not sufficient to influence the nomination process, but would you say that his conduct since the accusation is becoming of a...
I agree with you that the accusation itself with no other detail is not sufficient to influence the nomination process, but would you say that his conduct since the accusation is becoming of a Supreme Court Justice?
Whether or not he committed sexual assault, he's been practically wallowing in bad-faith omissions, mischaracterizations, and willful ignorance since the accusation. He finds it preferable to lie about statements in his yearbook rather than just say "yes, I made off-color jokes, as all teen boys in the '70s and '80s did". He's incapable of saying that yes, he abused alcohol, without throwing in "If every American who drinks beer or every American who drank beer in high school is suddenly presumed guilty of sexual assault, it will be an ugly, new place in this country", which is a ridiculous reframing of what's going on. He's been totally bereft of intellectual honesty.
None of this is criminal, but the Supreme Court's job is to be the ultimate grown-ups in the room. Spinning a web of nonsense during your own hearings isn't a good start, right? Drinking and making threesome jokes were acceptable behaviors for a football-playing teen in the '80s, but whataboutism and intentional oversights are (ideally) not acceptable behaviors for an SC Justice.
Shit, even if he did do it. We live in an America where the President brags on tape about committing sexual assault; a quarter of the Senate probably partook in drunken high-school grabbery. All Kavanaugh needed to say was "look, I was a jackass in high school, I drank a lot, I may have blacked out, and may have made Dr. Ford uncomfortable, and I apologize" -- at least that would demonstrate that he's mature now, which is more than he's managed so far.
I am a white American male. I don’t feel unfairly treated by the Washington Post, or anyone else for that matter. I think the people who feel that Brett Kavanaugh and the GOP in general are being...
I am a white American male. I don’t feel unfairly treated by the Washington Post, or anyone else for that matter. I think the people who feel that Brett Kavanaugh and the GOP in general are being unfairly treated, are the people who either can’t, or won’t adapt to the changing times.
The “good old days “ of the Republican Party are drawing to an end , and the rage on the part of these “old white men” is largely due to the fact that they are now being held accountable by an increasingly powerful base of women and minorities.
Perhaps it is unfair that “boys will be boys” behavior which occurred decades ago is coming back to haunt them, but that is the way it is now. The lessons young men are learning today from the old mistakes of their elders will make them better people. There are sure to be some victims caught in the crossfire, but this is a sea change that needs to occur.
As an aside, another reason why the press and, honestly most people, are so critical of Kavanaugh, is the way he’s behaving. He certainly does not have the temperament to hold a seat on the highest court in the land. Then again, neither does Trump with the presidency, but that’s an argument for another time.
No, "innocent until proven guilty" / "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not apply here, in any way. Kavanaugh is applying for a job promotion. There's no "you deserve a job promotion unless proven...
I think the standard of innocent until proven guilty should apply here too and we should treat Kavanaugh as though he's innocent until there's better evidence.
No, "innocent until proven guilty" / "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not apply here, in any way.
Kavanaugh is applying for a job promotion. There's no "you deserve a job promotion unless proven otherwise" evidentiary standard. Instead, the burden of proof is on Kavanaugh to prove that he deserves the promotion. The null hypothesis is that Kavanaugh remains in his current job at the DC Circuit.
You're conflating "innocent until proven guilty" with "deserves a promotion". Whether Kavanaugh deserves the promotion should be based on his legal career, legal philosophy, and the compatibility...
You're conflating "innocent until proven guilty" with "deserves a promotion". Whether Kavanaugh deserves the promotion should be based on his legal career, legal philosophy, and the compatibility of these with the Representatives of the American people.
When I say that Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty I mean that absent better evidence Kavanaugh should be considered innocent of rape. You are writing as if I claimed that Kavanaugh deserves the promotion unless it could be proven otherwise, which is disingenuous.
How about his honesty and temperament? Should those be taken into account? Suppose it were shown that Kavanaugh lied under oath when testifying to Congress. Do you believe that should disqualify...
Whether Kavanaugh deserves the promotion should be based on his legal career, legal philosophy, and the compatibility of these with the Representatives of the American people.
How about his honesty and temperament? Should those be taken into account?
Suppose it were shown that Kavanaugh lied under oath when testifying to Congress. Do you believe that should disqualify him from the promotion?
When I say that Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty I mean that absent better evidence Kavanaugh should be considered innocent of rape.
"Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard of evidence used in criminal cases. The statute of limitations has expired on Dr. Ford's allegations, which means no criminal charges will happen, now or at any point in the future, so the standard of evidence used in criminal cases is not relevant.
That does not mean that we flip the standard entirely, to "guilty until proven innocent". "Proven innocent" is a logical impossibility and so no one is advocating for it here. It means that an evidentiary standard between the two is used. Civil cases, for example, have no "beyond a reasonable doubt" - they use "more likely than not". If it's more likely than not than Kavanaugh attempted to rape Dr. Ford, and then lied about it under oath, I think that's enough to disqualify him from the promotion and send him back to his cushy $250k/year lifetime appointment on the DC Circuit.
That's not the argument being used as to why he doesn't belong on the supreme court. At worst, the argument "he might have raped" is lumped in with a litany of other arguments, such as the fact...
When I say that Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty I mean that absent better evidence Kavanaugh should be considered innocent of rape.
That's not the argument being used as to why he doesn't belong on the supreme court.
At worst, the argument "he might have raped" is lumped in with a litany of other arguments, such as the fact that he has very likely lied under oath (lots of conflicting testimony by credible sources), the fact that he has behaved unbecomingly on the stand, the fact that he has close ties with a judge who has been proven to be a known sexual harassers, the fact that he has made questionable decisions in his life and will not own up to them on the stand, and many other behaviors that make you think twice about the quality of his character and his judgement.
At best, it's being completely ignored as we have no definitive answer on whether or not he did rape Dr. Ford, and all the other facts are what are being used to argue precisely why he doesn't belong in an office with so much power. These facts show that he isn't (or at least it should be suspected that he isn't) capable of having this kind of power while simultaneously not abusing it.
I feel similarly about the specific accusations, while I have no great love of Kavanaugh, I really don't like the growing trend of "guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion"....
I feel similarly about the specific accusations, while I have no great love of Kavanaugh, I really don't like the growing trend of "guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion".
Having said that, the way he chose to comport himself during the hearing left me feeling more negatively about his character and impartiality than any of the he-said/she-said accusations.
I thought his initial statement was largely fine, but there was a lot of what, for lack of a better term, I'll call backtalk; refusing to clearly answer simple questions, getting hung up on...
I thought his initial statement was largely fine, but there was a lot of what, for lack of a better term, I'll call backtalk; refusing to clearly answer simple questions, getting hung up on distracting tangents, and an air that generally came off as unbecomingly petulant.
I still think poorly of the specific allegations as they have been presented so far, but I do expect a greater degree of composure and statesmanship, even in the most ridiculous and hostile circumstances, from a Supreme Court Justice.
I would highly encourage reading this article from Current Affairs, posted earlier in the week. The title is some click-bait nonsense, and honestly I feel like it would be a stronger piece had...
a vague accusation without date, place, corroborating witnesses or evidence, recalled from the distance of thirty years, should not be sufficient evidence to influence the Supreme Court nomination process
I would highly encourage reading this article from Current Affairs, posted earlier in the week. The title is some click-bait nonsense, and honestly I feel like it would be a stronger piece had they dropped the first few paragraphs and dove right into the analysis -- that said they perform a complete and thorough investigation of the consistency, frankness and demeanor of both parties' testimony. Kavanaugh's persistence in ... in the most charitable light I can muster... stretching or selectively presenting the truth to fit his own ends is fairly damning in it's own right.
The thing is that there are corroborating witnesses. The GOP just decided not to include them in the hearing. The whole hearing was setup as a he-said-she-said farce. There really should be an...
The thing is that there are corroborating witnesses. The GOP just decided not to include them in the hearing. The whole hearing was setup as a he-said-she-said farce. There really should be an investigation...even though Kavanaugh is against it.
Why not? It's a job interview for a lifetime position that carries the power to set case law and legal precedent that will affect millions for decades to come. The fact that even one person is...
My own thoughts on Kavanaugh are that a vague accusation without date, place, corroborating witnesses or evidence, recalled from the distance of thirty years, should not be sufficient evidence to influence the Supreme Court nomination process.
Why not? It's a job interview for a lifetime position that carries the power to set case law and legal precedent that will affect millions for decades to come. The fact that even one person is willing to come forward and denounce Brock Kavanaugh as a man who thinks nothing of taking advantage of women is neither irrelevant nor immaterial.
This is not a criminal trial. Brock Kavanaugh has not been charged with an offense. The presumption of innocence does not apply here, and should not be permitted to apply. Instead, the burden of proof should be firmly on Kavanaugh's shoulders; it should be up to him to prove his worthiness for the power with which he is to be entrusted.
Thus far he has failed miserably to do so.
Why do they think it's okay to treat white men like this?
Take a look at the vast majority of the people who run things in the US. You should notice two salient characteristics:
They're white.
They're men.
White men are absolutely fair game for harsher treatment and greater scrutiny because of their disproportionate presence among the elite.
Ok, so basically with what you are proposing anyone who doesn't like the nomination for any reason may just lay an accusation and stop that person from going into a position, and since, as you've...
he presumption of innocence does not apply here, and should not be permitted to apply
Ok, so basically with what you are proposing anyone who doesn't like the nomination for any reason may just lay an accusation and stop that person from going into a position, and since, as you've mentioned, that isn't a court of law, it's not perjury. How do you suppose people should defend themselves from a politically motivated defamation, if they are expected to prove that something didin't happen 30+ years ago? It's not a reasonable standard. Tomorrow I may say that you've raped me 30+ years ago while we were in private in your apartment and no one heard me because I've been too scared to scream. You proposing opening a door for anyone (or maybe just women, I don't really know if in the US you get the same standards for bot sexes) to stop any nomination to any position and having to prove nothing. Do you think it's a reasonable policy?
White men are absolutely fair game for harsher treatment and greater scrutiny because of their disproportionate presence among the elite.
But how do you project other peoples position on an individual? Sounds really racist to me, because you are suggesting double standards for individuals based on attributes they were born into and have no control over.
Let's dispense with the slippery-slope fallacy and discuss what's actually happening in reality, shall we? Dr. Ford's accusation isn't a "it was only the two of us, alone, and there's no way to...
Tomorrow I may say that you've raped me 30+ years ago while we were in private in your apartment and no one heard me because I've been too scared to scream.
Let's dispense with the slippery-slope fallacy and discuss what's actually happening in reality, shall we?
Dr. Ford's accusation isn't a "it was only the two of us, alone, and there's no way to prove anything beyond he-said / she-said". Her allegation is that Mark Judge was present in the room as well, and participating in the assault. Having Judge testify under oath as well is an obvious step that can be taken to try to establish the truth of what happened. Why do you think the Republican-controlled committee didn't subpoena him to testify?
I don't really know the current situation there, I just have a huge problem with how demifiend puts it. If the proof comes out that's a whole other thing.
I don't really know the current situation there, I just have a huge problem with how demifiend puts it. If the proof comes out that's a whole other thing.
Considering the abuse Dr. Blaisey Ford has endured since coming forward, and considering the abuse most women face when they accuse somebody of raping them, I don't believe politically motivated...
How do you suppose people should defend themselves from a politically motivated defamation, if they are expected to prove that something didin't happen 30+ years ago?
Considering the abuse Dr. Blaisey Ford has endured since coming forward, and considering the abuse most women face when they accuse somebody of raping them, I don't believe politically motivated defamation is common enough to be a problem worthy of my attention.
What interests me is why you think it's so important.
How do you suppose people should defend themselves from a politically motivated defamation, if they are expected to prove that something didin't happen 30+ years ago? It's not a reasonable standard.
I don't care. Remember: this is a job interview for a lifetime appointment. IMO, the President should have had Brock Kavanaugh investigated to within an inch of his life before even thinking of nominating him for a position on the Supreme Court of the United States. This drunken assclown got to the Senate Judiciary Committee with less scrutiny than I would get if I wanted a software development job on a US military project that required security clearance.
So don't even think of talking to me about reasonable standards. I'm not interested.
Tomorrow I may say that you've raped me 30+ years ago while we were in private in your apartment and no one heard me because I've been too scared to scream.
And I would say, "Good luck proving that in court," because I'm not up for a Supreme Court nomination.
You proposing opening a door for anyone (or maybe just women, I don't really know if in the US you get the same standards for bot sexes) to stop any nomination to any position and having to prove nothing. Do you think it's a reasonable policy?
You know what? I do think that women should get an absolute veto over a SCOTUS nomination if they're willing to say on national television that the nominee raped them. I don't think you would even think of doing something like that without a damned good reason. Not when you can expect to face the scrutiny and abuse Dr. Blaisey Ford has done with more grace and patience than Kavanaugh has shown.
But do you have anything to back that up? People lie, and they do so constantly. No good system is built on trust, everything should be verifiable, else it falls apart exactly where it's weak - in...
You know what? I do think that women should get an absolute veto over a SCOTUS nomination if they're willing to say on national television that the nominee raped them.
I don't believe politically motivated defamation is common enough to be a problem worthy of my attention.
But do you have anything to back that up? People lie, and they do so constantly. No good system is built on trust, everything should be verifiable, else it falls apart exactly where it's weak - in the human factor.
I think you have some naive views of women if you think that no women would lie in order to get to some political goal, or even to get money from someone with a political goal - people have done much worse things for both money and politics. Consider the wiki article on false rape accusations - it's between 2% and 10%, and these aren't the numbers with which you could ever confidently say "oh yeah, let's just give people a universal backdoor to nominations". With a huge position you could bet that people would find one person in these 2% to just spin their schemes. Basically unless that number is 0% you just can't have this kind of a vulnerability in your system, unless it's desirable for you and you just want to have the ability to exploit it.
I wonder about percentage of people interested in having to go and testify in front of Congress about extremely personal and traumatic experiences, while receiving death threats, being forced from...
With a huge position you could bet that people would find one person in these 2% to just spin their schemes.
I wonder about percentage of people interested in having to go and testify in front of Congress about extremely personal and traumatic experiences, while receiving death threats, being forced from their home, oh and just for the cherry on top, having wild conspiracies spread about them, with about 40% of America thinking you're a liar (or worse)...
My guess? A very, very low number.
I'm not saying it couldn't ever happen, but someone willing to go through all that should at least be taken seriously.
Nobody came forward and accused Neil Gorsuch of rape even though it was well known that he would be a conservative, if not reactionary, judge. While the absence of an accuser doesn't guarantee the...
But do you have anything to back that up?
Nobody came forward and accused Neil Gorsuch of rape even though it was well known that he would be a conservative, if not reactionary, judge. While the absence of an accuser doesn't guarantee the absence of any wrongdoing on Gorsuch's part because many people will seize upon any excuse they can to dismiss an accusation of sexual assault, it's certainly suggestive.
This is getting tedious. It's not like she said, "Brock Kavanaugh raped me", and the Senate Judiciary Committee immediately lynched the son of a bitch on her word alone. We already have safeguards...
This is getting tedious. It's not like she said, "Brock Kavanaugh raped me", and the Senate Judiciary Committee immediately lynched the son of a bitch on her word alone.
We already have safeguards in place. The FBI is supposedly investigating Dr. Blaisey Ford's claims right now. She testified under oath, and could be prosecuted for perjury. She's got thousands of people howling for her blood just because she had the temerity to come forward.
So, which one is it? Can we agree that the outcome of the probe should be the decisive factor here or not?
You know what? I do think that women should get an absolute veto over a SCOTUS nomination if they're willing to say on national television that the nominee raped them.
It's not like she said, "Brock Kavanaugh raped me", and the Senate Judiciary Committee immediately lynched the son of a bitch on her word alone.
So, which one is it? Can we agree that the outcome of the probe should be the decisive factor here or not?
Ok, let's do a thought experiment. Imagine a reality in which the probe comes out false, yet the nomination had already been cancelled, and now Brett is suing his accuser for perjury and...
Ok, let's do a thought experiment. Imagine a reality in which the probe comes out false, yet the nomination had already been cancelled, and now Brett is suing his accuser for perjury and defamation, but the seat is lost to another person. Would this be fair? Even more so, if he wins his couter-lawsuit, should then he be compensated for his sabotaged career? And by whom? To what extent?
Yeah, have fun with that. I've already made up my mind on the subject: Brett Kavanaugh is an asshole. He should lose his seat on the DC Circuit Court and be disbarred for his conduct in front of...
OK, let's do a thought experiment.
Yeah, have fun with that. I've already made up my mind on the subject:
Brett Kavanaugh is an asshole. He should lose his seat on the DC Circuit Court and be disbarred for his conduct in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The Republican establishment seems to consist mainly of rapists and their enablers. Fuck 'em all and let their rapist God sort 'em out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination You've said elsewhere in this thread that you're not from the US. It might be prudent to learn more about US politics &...
You've said elsewhere in this thread that you're not from the US. It might be prudent to learn more about US politics & history before opining so strongly about how things should work here. If I, as an American, wanted to weigh in on the politics in your home country, it'd be reasonable to expect the same from me.
Thanks for the link! I'm weighting in more on principle than anything here, that's why I avoid talking about the present case in hand. But the fact that a similar case had happened already is a...
Thanks for the link! I'm weighting in more on principle than anything here, that's why I avoid talking about the present case in hand. But the fact that a similar case had happened already is a new one to me.
i feel like you're really overestimating the ability of politically motivated defamation of the sort this would be to take place and get as far as it has. any serious rape (or similar) accusation...
i feel like you're really overestimating the ability of politically motivated defamation of the sort this would be to take place and get as far as it has. any serious rape (or similar) accusation that makes waves politically is almost certainly going to be vetted before it ever comes out, and if there's little or nothing to an allegation, it's probably never going to go anywhere. one of the only allegations i can think of that even fits that bill which has gone anywhere is the one against keith ellison (a democrat), and even that one has been dunked on repeatedly by media and other investigations and is basically only taken seriously by partisans. fact of the matter is, defamatory smears like this just do not happen in politics, because with so many eyes on them they're incredibly easy to dismantle if they have no substance.
Then where is the vetting or any other proof in this case? AFAIK there wasn't any, and so the nomination had been suspended for a week for a probe. But if there was vetting why the probe? If I'm...
any serious rape (or similar) accusation that makes waves politically is almost certainly going to be vetted before it ever comes out
Then where is the vetting or any other proof in this case? AFAIK there wasn't any, and so the nomination had been suspended for a week for a probe. But if there was vetting why the probe? If I'm wrong here correct me, I'm not following this closely, not being from the US. I've only gotten into this argument because I don't believe there is ever a time and a place where guilty until proven innocent is a good or moral principle to follow.
this is one of the few cases where the vetting is happening largely after the fact because ford's letter was originally confidential between her and her congressional representatives. it got out...
this is one of the few cases where the vetting is happening largely after the fact because ford's letter was originally confidential between her and her congressional representatives. it got out before her story had been completely vetted by congress, and as a consequence she came public because she wanted to tell the story on her terms rather than on the terms of second hand reporting. had the letter stayed behind closed doors, it's likely that most of how this has played out would not have happened in the first place, and there would not be an FBI probe of this sort.
IANAL, but reading the US criminal code it appears to me that if she was testifying under-oath, it can still be considered perjury: edit: yeah, you can definitely face perjury charges for lying to...
having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
The reason why the principle of innocent until proven guilty is used in criminal proceedings is because it limits the damage of false or bad faith accusations and because it's more difficult to...
The reason why the principle of innocent until proven guilty is used in criminal proceedings is because it limits the damage of false or bad faith accusations and because it's more difficult to demonstrate an allegation is false than that one is true. Both of those reasons apply here so there's no reason not to use the same standard.
Imagine that we threw "innocent until proven guilty" out the window for the Supreme Court nomination process. Any Justice could be indefinitely delayed by any person who could credibly allege wrong doing. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but if we followed the principles you're suggesting it could happen in the future.
White men are absolutely fair game for harsher treatment and greater scrutiny because of their disproportionate presence among the elite.
Jews are disproportionately represented among elected officials and among the wealthiest one percent. Presumably you also believe that Jews are "fair game for harsher treatment"?
There is nothing in the Constitution that prescribes how the Senate must go about confirming the President's choice, only that they must do so. If the Senate wanted to, they could subject Brock...
Imagine that we threw "innocent until proven guilty" out the window for the Supreme Court nomination process. Any Justice could be indefinitely delayed by any person who could credibly allege wrong doing.
There is nothing in the Constitution that prescribes how the Senate must go about confirming the President's choice, only that they must do so. If the Senate wanted to, they could subject Brock Kavanaugh to the sort of hazing rituals he'd remember from his college years, demand that he suck Mitch McConnell's dick and swallow every drop, command him to prune DC's cherry trees with a herring, or quiz him on the aerial velocity of an unladen swallow.
Likewise, if Kavanaugh doesn't like the way he's being treated, all he has to do is withdraw from the nomination process. It's not like he's been drafted into the Vietnam-era US Army.
Jews are disproportionately represented among elected officials and among the wealthiest one percent. Presumably you also believe that Jews are "fair game for harsher treatment"?
Only if by "Jews" you actually mean evangelical Christians. :)
But white men do dismiss rape and sexual assault allegations, just as you've done in this very post. Pointing out that white men trivialise crimes of sexual violence isn't sexist nor racist...
When did this kind of blatant racism and sexism become okay?
But white men do dismiss rape and sexual assault allegations, just as you've done in this very post. Pointing out that white men trivialise crimes of sexual violence isn't sexist nor racist because it's factually correct.
I think we can do better on Tildes than to generalize massive groups on the basis of skin color and sex. Specific people, all too many of them, trivialize these crimes, but that does not extend to...
I think we can do better on Tildes than to generalize massive groups on the basis of skin color and sex.
Specific people, all too many of them, trivialize these crimes, but that does not extend to everyone who shares random physical characteristics with them.
I've noticed something: it's mainly right-wingers who worry about prejudice targeted toward white dudes. Everybody else has more pressing concerns, like the discrimination people who aren't white...
I've noticed something: it's mainly right-wingers who worry about prejudice targeted toward white dudes. Everybody else has more pressing concerns, like the discrimination people who aren't white or male still face all too often at the hands of white dudes with more power and money than any individual can be trusted not to abuse.
It's almost as if the concern about anti-white/anti-male prejudice was an effort to preserve the unearned dominance of white men in society.
honestly i don't think you can really apply the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty" here, given the significance of the position to which he's being appointed. in an optimal world, that...
My own thoughts on Kavanaugh are that a vague accusation without date, place, corroborating witnesses or evidence, recalled from the distance of thirty years, should not be sufficient evidence to influence the Supreme Court nomination process. I think the standard of innocent until proven guilty should apply here too and we should treat Kavanaugh as though he's innocent until there's better evidence.
honestly i don't think you can really apply the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty" here, given the significance of the position to which he's being appointed. in an optimal world, that would be how it works, but the man's already an incredibly polarizing figure who will probably undermine the legitimacy of the court in the eyes of some people. if kavanaugh can't be reasonably exonerated (much less is proven to be guilty of sexual misconduct) him being confirmed to the court will probably permanently damage its credibility in a time where it's one of the few remaining bastions of bipartisanship in this country. i really don't know or think that's something people can take a chance on, even if it means that we have to assume kavanaugh isn't necessarily innocent when ordinarily we might.
Let there be an FBI investigation or any criminal investigation necessary and let it last as long as necessary - the only caveat is that it shouldn't unduly delay the nomination process. If...
That would be why an FBI investigation is necessary
Let there be an FBI investigation or any criminal investigation necessary and let it last as long as necessary - the only caveat is that it shouldn't unduly delay the nomination process. If Kavanaugh is confirmed and later found guilty at the end of a long running investigation then remove him from the Supreme Court and send him to prison.
Ford did claim that Mark Judge was a witness to the events that took place but the Senate refused to call him to testify.
Judge submitted sworn testimony denying the events took place. There were other people Ford claimed were at the party and they also weren't called to be present but only submitted sworn testimony that they didn't recall the events in question. Also, there were two individuals who claimed that they and not Kavanaugh attacked Ford - they weren't present either.
that seems more than enough to at least pause and investigate those claims.
There have been background checks a new one is happening, the aggrieved parties have heard their stories heard and investigated. Your bar seems met here.
There is no rush to fill this seat as the GOP demonstrated in keeping open Scalia's seat for a year and refusing to give Merrick Garland a hearing, let along a vote.
There is a difference between an organized majority of Senators deciding to delay a confirmation and granting that same power to anyone who can make a plausible allegation of wrong doing on the part of the nominee.
It seems pretty clear that you did not read the article
I did read the article. There are many examples of inappropriate attacks on white men. Please avoid such baseless insults. While tildes is new we can help to set a higher standard in terms of comments instead of this.
Kavanaugh's defenders in the article are described as "furious" and Rush Limbaugh is their "id". White men are unsettled and fearful by women gaining power, not that there might be legitimate disagreement here, it's just men being furious or scared and wanting women oppressed. "The sounds and images of angry men could have a lasting impact on the Republican brand" imagine writing this about any other gender, racial, or political group.
the only mechanism by which to do that is impeachment, which is ultimately political and thus unlikely to happen given the high bar to clear. only one SCOTUS judge has ever been impeached--200...
If Kavanaugh is confirmed and later found guilty at the end of a long running investigation then remove him from the Supreme Court and send him to prison.
the only mechanism by which to do that is impeachment, which is ultimately political and thus unlikely to happen given the high bar to clear. only one SCOTUS judge has ever been impeached--200 years ago-- and he was acquitted. it won't happen like that.
The harder the Republicans push to get Brock Kavanaugh confirmed, the more convinced I get that the GOP establishment consists mainly of rapists and people who aid and abet rapists. If Trump or...
The harder the Republicans push to get Brock Kavanaugh confirmed, the more convinced I get that the GOP establishment consists mainly of rapists and people who aid and abet rapists.
If Trump or McConnell had had the sense to throw Brock Kavanaugh under the bus the second Dr. Blaisey Ford's accusations came out, the GOP wouldn't be in this position.
It's a small point, but it's Brett Kavanaugh. You may be mixing his name up with Brock Turner, another white guy who refuses to be held accountable for his own actions and believes he should be...
Brock Kavanaugh
It's a small point, but it's Brett Kavanaugh. You may be mixing his name up with Brock Turner, another white guy who refuses to be held accountable for his own actions and believes he should be able to sexually assault someone without repercussions.
You may be mixing his name up with Brock Turner, another white guy who refuses to be held accountable for his own actions and believes he should be able to sexually assault someone without repercussions.
You were intentionally misleading for a joke? Damn, people, can we have one serious discussion without puns and jokes? I don't know about anyone else, but it really derails my interest and I end...
You were intentionally misleading for a joke? Damn, people, can we have one serious discussion without puns and jokes? I don't know about anyone else, but it really derails my interest and I end up closing an otherwise interesting thread when I get annoyed at the never ending attempts at lame humor. Sorry to add this here, but you all seem to actually care enough to at least listen to my peeve. Still, definitely not going to hold my breath about any change in this regard.
It was a joke, but it was also a deadly serious comment on how the archetype of the young male athlete from a "good family" (where good means white and at least upper-middle-class) who gets away...
You were intentionally misleading for a joke?
It was a joke, but it was also a deadly serious comment on how the archetype of the young male athlete from a "good family" (where good means white and at least upper-middle-class) who gets away with rape and sees nothing wrong with what he did is common enough that the names of individual perpetrators don't really matter.
A year ago it was Brock Turner. Now it's Brett Kavanaugh. Next year it will be some other asshole who can't see women as anything but mindless fuck toys. The names change, but the song remains the same because we keep putting young male athletes on pedestals and excusing their abuses as youthful excess with platitudes like "boys will be boys".
I guess for me is I don't know who Brock Turner is, I missed that one last year. So, I was believing you were either misinformed or had an agenda that I couldn't figure out by using some nickname....
I guess for me is I don't know who Brock Turner is, I missed that one last year. So, I was believing you were either misinformed or had an agenda that I couldn't figure out by using some nickname. It was when I finally found out it was a joke, that I got fed up and closed the thread. But then I thought about it and opened it back up enough to leave my previous comment. I understand the seriousness of and respect what you are trying to get at, but your attempt left me feeling the opposite. I guess if I was on the "in" it might have come across differently.
So this is off topic but I misread the title as "Male furry and fear" and thought for a second Kavanaugh was outed as being a furry. Oh man, that would have been hilarious.
So this is off topic but I misread the title as "Male furry and fear" and thought for a second Kavanaugh was outed as being a furry.
oh please, no. the furry community is already dealing with rings of youtube zoophiles and their hordes of dickriders trying to play it off as no big deal. i can't imagine what would happen if they...
oh please, no. the furry community is already dealing with rings of youtube zoophiles and their hordes of dickriders trying to play it off as no big deal. i can't imagine what would happen if they found a way to be dragged into this gigantic ordeal.
As far as I understand, this isn't really about him or the Supreme Court, the Republicans want to close this matter quickly in order to protect the president from impeachment and support the presidential pardon as much as possible.
I wonder if it ever crosses their mind that changing the basics of how we lead the country—forcing through a nomination despite what looks like it's going to be an at-best perfunctory FBI investigation (they haven't even interviewed Ford, for example, and are talking about possibly being done with their supposedly week-long investigation today), a President who actively states his opinion on an as-yet determined outcome by bemoaning it's "unfairness"—I wonder if they think about possible ramifications if the tables are turned and Democrats overtake Congress next January?
Does it even bother them that these fundamental rule changes could lead to an as-radical-as-Trump Democrat taking office, and for instance deciding to end the war on drugs and pardon all prisoners convicted of drug charges, something entirely possible if they make the Presidential pardon all-powerful (including State charges, as some have suggested)? Because the rules they're eager to change now will surely be treated as precedent for future nominations. "He's not as bad as Kavanaugh" could become the new standard.
I think it's too late now, Republicans have no room to step away from Trump. Only the next elections can change anything.
I'm an upper-middle-class white male, but not from the same kind of frat background as guys like Kavanaugh. I don't see myself when I look at the Republican party, either.
Exactly. It is this weird, paranoid fetish, like going through life worried that you are going to be falsely convicted of murder. Is it possible? Yes, absolutely. Is it a healthy, reasonable concern to have as a wealthy, privileged person in a developed country? No - you have essentially every possible protection that could exist. You are far more likely to be able to get away with murder than to be falsely convicted of murder.
Now if you're secretly in the Mafia or something, where you might be a murderer yourself and certainly have peers that are, then yeah, being concerned about being implicated in a murder might actually be a legitimate concern.
Most people don't need to worry about false accusations, but Kavanaugh said in his opening statement,
possibly suggesting the Republicans might conjure up false allegations for future democratic appointments if his nomination fails.
For instance, they could fund a group of people dedicated to slandering a decorated war hero. Or claim that a campaign aide was secretly assassinated.
To a certain extent, rumors and dirty tricks have always been a part of the political landscape and some people will always have an appetite for consuming them. These things also normally have an ecosystem that is largely in highly partisan media, not in testimony before the Senate. If we grant for a moment that this is the case and false allegations are being brought in front of the Senate, then there should be some independent body (the FBI, for instance) investigating the claims and perjury charges should follow if such allegations are demonstrably false.
The statistics of false rape allegations and the fact that I don't rape people or associate with rapists alleviate any potential fear of false rape allegations I might have.
That's a bit cavalier. Do you sleep with people? Because unless you're in a solid, monogamous relationship, if you have sex, you can easily be accused of rape. S/he drinks a bit too much, agrees to go home with you, and regrets it the next morning. It happens quite a bit. Wives have accused husbands of rape. Did he really rape her, or do the laws where she lives provide better for her in cases where the husband is convicted of a serious crime?
Thankfully we have courts, and unless the claim is provably credible you're not likely to serve prison time, but your reputation, job prospects, and future earnings can be severely impacted.
I don't think it's cavalier at all knowing myself, the people I associate with, and the people who raised me. I've slept with one person--my wife--for the last 3 years of marriage and 11 years being together. Never had a one night stand or any sex outside of an established, monogamous relationship.
You're talking about two different situations. Having sex is one thing and does present some inherent level of risk, but having a one night stand/casual sex when one or both parties have been drinking increases that risk exponentially. Since I haven't placed myself in those situations, I don't need to worry about the risk of an incident from my past coming back to haunt me in the form of a rape allegation.
I never said marital rape doesn't happen, but the prospect of this accusation seems incredibly alien to me personally. The odds of my wife, best friend, life partner, and fellow parent to our son coming forward with a rape allegation directed at me are effectively zero. Couldn't imagine that happening with any of my couple friends either. Maybe I've had a sheltered life, maybe I'm showing my privilege. I just don't see the reason to be fearful of false allegations given the relatively boring life I've lived and the statistics of their occurrence.
The single men I've called my best friends over the years respect women and consent. I doubt they're worried about a false allegation either even though they have sex outside of monogamous relationships. When you're a good person that treats others respectfully, these issues organically remain outside the realm of possibility.
My own thoughts on Kavanaugh are that a vague accusation without date, place, corroborating witnesses or evidence, recalled from the distance of thirty years, should not be sufficient evidence to influence the Supreme Court nomination process. I think the standard of innocent until proven guilty should apply here too and we should treat Kavanaugh as though he's innocent until there's better evidence.
It's frustrating for me to see mainstream newspapers summarizing this as a race and gender issue. "Oh, you think that because you're a white man?" When did this kind of blatant racism and sexism become okay? Or, I'm sorry, is that my "male fury" talking?
The Washington Post would and should never treat other race and gender groups this way. Why do they think it's okay to treat white men like this?
Let's assume the best case scenario for Kavanaugh and assume that he did not commit any of the alleged sexual misconduct he's alleged to have. Even then what we are left with is:
How is he supposed to be an unbiased and nonpartisan member of a hallowed institution in American politics after that behavior? You can't seriously be suggesting that we just ignore the fact that he did these three things just because the base accusation leading to the hearing might not be proveable, are you?
He has disqualified himself in the process of denying the very serious allegations against him, whether they are true or not. And anyone who disagrees with that will have to answer for their willingness to support a candidate who is on the record getting involved in and exacerbating partisan tensions around his own hearing.
Somehow I’ve missed this. Do you have a source?
from the transcript
Can reasonably be interpreted as a threat to the left / political payback
I agree with you that the accusation itself with no other detail is not sufficient to influence the nomination process, but would you say that his conduct since the accusation is becoming of a Supreme Court Justice?
Whether or not he committed sexual assault, he's been practically wallowing in bad-faith omissions, mischaracterizations, and willful ignorance since the accusation. He finds it preferable to lie about statements in his yearbook rather than just say "yes, I made off-color jokes, as all teen boys in the '70s and '80s did". He's incapable of saying that yes, he abused alcohol, without throwing in "If every American who drinks beer or every American who drank beer in high school is suddenly presumed guilty of sexual assault, it will be an ugly, new place in this country", which is a ridiculous reframing of what's going on. He's been totally bereft of intellectual honesty.
None of this is criminal, but the Supreme Court's job is to be the ultimate grown-ups in the room. Spinning a web of nonsense during your own hearings isn't a good start, right? Drinking and making threesome jokes were acceptable behaviors for a football-playing teen in the '80s, but whataboutism and intentional oversights are (ideally) not acceptable behaviors for an SC Justice.
Shit, even if he did do it. We live in an America where the President brags on tape about committing sexual assault; a quarter of the Senate probably partook in drunken high-school grabbery. All Kavanaugh needed to say was "look, I was a jackass in high school, I drank a lot, I may have blacked out, and may have made Dr. Ford uncomfortable, and I apologize" -- at least that would demonstrate that he's mature now, which is more than he's managed so far.
I am a white American male. I don’t feel unfairly treated by the Washington Post, or anyone else for that matter. I think the people who feel that Brett Kavanaugh and the GOP in general are being unfairly treated, are the people who either can’t, or won’t adapt to the changing times.
The “good old days “ of the Republican Party are drawing to an end , and the rage on the part of these “old white men” is largely due to the fact that they are now being held accountable by an increasingly powerful base of women and minorities.
Perhaps it is unfair that “boys will be boys” behavior which occurred decades ago is coming back to haunt them, but that is the way it is now. The lessons young men are learning today from the old mistakes of their elders will make them better people. There are sure to be some victims caught in the crossfire, but this is a sea change that needs to occur.
As an aside, another reason why the press and, honestly most people, are so critical of Kavanaugh, is the way he’s behaving. He certainly does not have the temperament to hold a seat on the highest court in the land. Then again, neither does Trump with the presidency, but that’s an argument for another time.
No, "innocent until proven guilty" / "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not apply here, in any way.
Kavanaugh is applying for a job promotion. There's no "you deserve a job promotion unless proven otherwise" evidentiary standard. Instead, the burden of proof is on Kavanaugh to prove that he deserves the promotion. The null hypothesis is that Kavanaugh remains in his current job at the DC Circuit.
You're conflating "innocent until proven guilty" with "deserves a promotion". Whether Kavanaugh deserves the promotion should be based on his legal career, legal philosophy, and the compatibility of these with the Representatives of the American people.
When I say that Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty I mean that absent better evidence Kavanaugh should be considered innocent of rape. You are writing as if I claimed that Kavanaugh deserves the promotion unless it could be proven otherwise, which is disingenuous.
How about his honesty and temperament? Should those be taken into account?
Suppose it were shown that Kavanaugh lied under oath when testifying to Congress. Do you believe that should disqualify him from the promotion?
"Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard of evidence used in criminal cases. The statute of limitations has expired on Dr. Ford's allegations, which means no criminal charges will happen, now or at any point in the future, so the standard of evidence used in criminal cases is not relevant.
That does not mean that we flip the standard entirely, to "guilty until proven innocent". "Proven innocent" is a logical impossibility and so no one is advocating for it here. It means that an evidentiary standard between the two is used. Civil cases, for example, have no "beyond a reasonable doubt" - they use "more likely than not". If it's more likely than not than Kavanaugh attempted to rape Dr. Ford, and then lied about it under oath, I think that's enough to disqualify him from the promotion and send him back to his cushy $250k/year lifetime appointment on the DC Circuit.
That's not the argument being used as to why he doesn't belong on the supreme court.
At worst, the argument "he might have raped" is lumped in with a litany of other arguments, such as the fact that he has very likely lied under oath (lots of conflicting testimony by credible sources), the fact that he has behaved unbecomingly on the stand, the fact that he has close ties with a judge who has been proven to be a known sexual harassers, the fact that he has made questionable decisions in his life and will not own up to them on the stand, and many other behaviors that make you think twice about the quality of his character and his judgement.
At best, it's being completely ignored as we have no definitive answer on whether or not he did rape Dr. Ford, and all the other facts are what are being used to argue precisely why he doesn't belong in an office with so much power. These facts show that he isn't (or at least it should be suspected that he isn't) capable of having this kind of power while simultaneously not abusing it.
I feel similarly about the specific accusations, while I have no great love of Kavanaugh, I really don't like the growing trend of "guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion".
Having said that, the way he chose to comport himself during the hearing left me feeling more negatively about his character and impartiality than any of the he-said/she-said accusations.
I'm not sure what you mean by how he chose to comport himself. Care to clarify?
I thought his initial statement was largely fine, but there was a lot of what, for lack of a better term, I'll call backtalk; refusing to clearly answer simple questions, getting hung up on distracting tangents, and an air that generally came off as unbecomingly petulant.
I still think poorly of the specific allegations as they have been presented so far, but I do expect a greater degree of composure and statesmanship, even in the most ridiculous and hostile circumstances, from a Supreme Court Justice.
I'm surprised Brock Kavanaugh hasn't been caught on tape raving, "I can't believe I'm being persecuted like this for twenty minutes of action."
I would highly encourage reading this article from Current Affairs, posted earlier in the week. The title is some click-bait nonsense, and honestly I feel like it would be a stronger piece had they dropped the first few paragraphs and dove right into the analysis -- that said they perform a complete and thorough investigation of the consistency, frankness and demeanor of both parties' testimony. Kavanaugh's persistence in ... in the most charitable light I can muster... stretching or selectively presenting the truth to fit his own ends is fairly damning in it's own right.
The thing is that there are corroborating witnesses. The GOP just decided not to include them in the hearing. The whole hearing was setup as a he-said-she-said farce. There really should be an investigation...even though Kavanaugh is against it.
Why not? It's a job interview for a lifetime position that carries the power to set case law and legal precedent that will affect millions for decades to come. The fact that even one person is willing to come forward and denounce Brock Kavanaugh as a man who thinks nothing of taking advantage of women is neither irrelevant nor immaterial.
This is not a criminal trial. Brock Kavanaugh has not been charged with an offense. The presumption of innocence does not apply here, and should not be permitted to apply. Instead, the burden of proof should be firmly on Kavanaugh's shoulders; it should be up to him to prove his worthiness for the power with which he is to be entrusted.
Thus far he has failed miserably to do so.
Take a look at the vast majority of the people who run things in the US. You should notice two salient characteristics:
White men are absolutely fair game for harsher treatment and greater scrutiny because of their disproportionate presence among the elite.
Ok, so basically with what you are proposing anyone who doesn't like the nomination for any reason may just lay an accusation and stop that person from going into a position, and since, as you've mentioned, that isn't a court of law, it's not perjury. How do you suppose people should defend themselves from a politically motivated defamation, if they are expected to prove that something didin't happen 30+ years ago? It's not a reasonable standard. Tomorrow I may say that you've raped me 30+ years ago while we were in private in your apartment and no one heard me because I've been too scared to scream. You proposing opening a door for anyone (or maybe just women, I don't really know if in the US you get the same standards for bot sexes) to stop any nomination to any position and having to prove nothing. Do you think it's a reasonable policy?
But how do you project other peoples position on an individual? Sounds really racist to me, because you are suggesting double standards for individuals based on attributes they were born into and have no control over.
Let's dispense with the slippery-slope fallacy and discuss what's actually happening in reality, shall we?
Dr. Ford's accusation isn't a "it was only the two of us, alone, and there's no way to prove anything beyond he-said / she-said". Her allegation is that Mark Judge was present in the room as well, and participating in the assault. Having Judge testify under oath as well is an obvious step that can be taken to try to establish the truth of what happened. Why do you think the Republican-controlled committee didn't subpoena him to testify?
I don't really know the current situation there, I just have a huge problem with how demifiend puts it. If the proof comes out that's a whole other thing.
Considering the abuse Dr. Blaisey Ford has endured since coming forward, and considering the abuse most women face when they accuse somebody of raping them, I don't believe politically motivated defamation is common enough to be a problem worthy of my attention.
What interests me is why you think it's so important.
I don't care. Remember: this is a job interview for a lifetime appointment. IMO, the President should have had Brock Kavanaugh investigated to within an inch of his life before even thinking of nominating him for a position on the Supreme Court of the United States. This drunken assclown got to the Senate Judiciary Committee with less scrutiny than I would get if I wanted a software development job on a US military project that required security clearance.
So don't even think of talking to me about reasonable standards. I'm not interested.
And I would say, "Good luck proving that in court," because I'm not up for a Supreme Court nomination.
You know what? I do think that women should get an absolute veto over a SCOTUS nomination if they're willing to say on national television that the nominee raped them. I don't think you would even think of doing something like that without a damned good reason. Not when you can expect to face the scrutiny and abuse Dr. Blaisey Ford has done with more grace and patience than Kavanaugh has shown.
But do you have anything to back that up? People lie, and they do so constantly. No good system is built on trust, everything should be verifiable, else it falls apart exactly where it's weak - in the human factor.
I think you have some naive views of women if you think that no women would lie in order to get to some political goal, or even to get money from someone with a political goal - people have done much worse things for both money and politics. Consider the wiki article on false rape accusations - it's between 2% and 10%, and these aren't the numbers with which you could ever confidently say "oh yeah, let's just give people a universal backdoor to nominations". With a huge position you could bet that people would find one person in these 2% to just spin their schemes. Basically unless that number is 0% you just can't have this kind of a vulnerability in your system, unless it's desirable for you and you just want to have the ability to exploit it.
I wonder about percentage of people interested in having to go and testify in front of Congress about extremely personal and traumatic experiences, while receiving death threats, being forced from their home, oh and just for the cherry on top, having wild conspiracies spread about them, with about 40% of America thinking you're a liar (or worse)...
My guess? A very, very low number.
I'm not saying it couldn't ever happen, but someone willing to go through all that should at least be taken seriously.
Nobody came forward and accused Neil Gorsuch of rape even though it was well known that he would be a conservative, if not reactionary, judge. While the absence of an accuser doesn't guarantee the absence of any wrongdoing on Gorsuch's part because many people will seize upon any excuse they can to dismiss an accusation of sexual assault, it's certainly suggestive.
So, just because it never happened before, you think it's ok to put unverifiable backdoors into the system?
This is getting tedious. It's not like she said, "Brock Kavanaugh raped me", and the Senate Judiciary Committee immediately lynched the son of a bitch on her word alone.
We already have safeguards in place. The FBI is supposedly investigating Dr. Blaisey Ford's claims right now. She testified under oath, and could be prosecuted for perjury. She's got thousands of people howling for her blood just because she had the temerity to come forward.
So, which one is it? Can we agree that the outcome of the probe should be the decisive factor here or not?
It's both, because not getting a cushy job isn't the same as your job interview turning into a summary execution.
Ok, let's do a thought experiment. Imagine a reality in which the probe comes out false, yet the nomination had already been cancelled, and now Brett is suing his accuser for perjury and defamation, but the seat is lost to another person. Would this be fair? Even more so, if he wins his couter-lawsuit, should then he be compensated for his sabotaged career? And by whom? To what extent?
Yeah, have fun with that. I've already made up my mind on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination
You've said elsewhere in this thread that you're not from the US. It might be prudent to learn more about US politics & history before opining so strongly about how things should work here. If I, as an American, wanted to weigh in on the politics in your home country, it'd be reasonable to expect the same from me.
Thanks for the link! I'm weighting in more on principle than anything here, that's why I avoid talking about the present case in hand. But the fact that a similar case had happened already is a new one to me.
i feel like you're really overestimating the ability of politically motivated defamation of the sort this would be to take place and get as far as it has. any serious rape (or similar) accusation that makes waves politically is almost certainly going to be vetted before it ever comes out, and if there's little or nothing to an allegation, it's probably never going to go anywhere. one of the only allegations i can think of that even fits that bill which has gone anywhere is the one against keith ellison (a democrat), and even that one has been dunked on repeatedly by media and other investigations and is basically only taken seriously by partisans. fact of the matter is, defamatory smears like this just do not happen in politics, because with so many eyes on them they're incredibly easy to dismantle if they have no substance.
Then where is the vetting or any other proof in this case? AFAIK there wasn't any, and so the nomination had been suspended for a week for a probe. But if there was vetting why the probe? If I'm wrong here correct me, I'm not following this closely, not being from the US. I've only gotten into this argument because I don't believe there is ever a time and a place where guilty until proven innocent is a good or moral principle to follow.
this is one of the few cases where the vetting is happening largely after the fact because ford's letter was originally confidential between her and her congressional representatives. it got out before her story had been completely vetted by congress, and as a consequence she came public because she wanted to tell the story on her terms rather than on the terms of second hand reporting. had the letter stayed behind closed doors, it's likely that most of how this has played out would not have happened in the first place, and there would not be an FBI probe of this sort.
IANAL, but reading the US criminal code it appears to me that if she was testifying under-oath, it can still be considered perjury:
edit: yeah, you can definitely face perjury charges for lying to congress while under oath, it's just hard to do (you have to prove intent)
The reason why the principle of innocent until proven guilty is used in criminal proceedings is because it limits the damage of false or bad faith accusations and because it's more difficult to demonstrate an allegation is false than that one is true. Both of those reasons apply here so there's no reason not to use the same standard.
Imagine that we threw "innocent until proven guilty" out the window for the Supreme Court nomination process. Any Justice could be indefinitely delayed by any person who could credibly allege wrong doing. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but if we followed the principles you're suggesting it could happen in the future.
Jews are disproportionately represented among elected officials and among the wealthiest one percent. Presumably you also believe that Jews are "fair game for harsher treatment"?
There is nothing in the Constitution that prescribes how the Senate must go about confirming the President's choice, only that they must do so. If the Senate wanted to, they could subject Brock Kavanaugh to the sort of hazing rituals he'd remember from his college years, demand that he suck Mitch McConnell's dick and swallow every drop, command him to prune DC's cherry trees with a herring, or quiz him on the aerial velocity of an unladen swallow.
Likewise, if Kavanaugh doesn't like the way he's being treated, all he has to do is withdraw from the nomination process. It's not like he's been drafted into the Vietnam-era US Army.
Only if by "Jews" you actually mean evangelical Christians. :)
There's a point at which the name thing stops being funny and just becomes tiresome.
But white men do dismiss rape and sexual assault allegations, just as you've done in this very post. Pointing out that white men trivialise crimes of sexual violence isn't sexist nor racist because it's factually correct.
I think we can do better on Tildes than to generalize massive groups on the basis of skin color and sex.
Specific people, all too many of them, trivialize these crimes, but that does not extend to everyone who shares random physical characteristics with them.
White men have been dishing out such treatment for centuries. There's no reason we can't take a bit of it in return.
You are welcome to your own opinion, but I will continue to strive for a world where nobody is pre-judged by the coincidences of their birth.
I've noticed something: it's mainly right-wingers who worry about prejudice targeted toward white dudes. Everybody else has more pressing concerns, like the discrimination people who aren't white or male still face all too often at the hands of white dudes with more power and money than any individual can be trusted not to abuse.
It's almost as if the concern about anti-white/anti-male prejudice was an effort to preserve the unearned dominance of white men in society.
honestly i don't think you can really apply the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty" here, given the significance of the position to which he's being appointed. in an optimal world, that would be how it works, but the man's already an incredibly polarizing figure who will probably undermine the legitimacy of the court in the eyes of some people. if kavanaugh can't be reasonably exonerated (much less is proven to be guilty of sexual misconduct) him being confirmed to the court will probably permanently damage its credibility in a time where it's one of the few remaining bastions of bipartisanship in this country. i really don't know or think that's something people can take a chance on, even if it means that we have to assume kavanaugh isn't necessarily innocent when ordinarily we might.
Let there be an FBI investigation or any criminal investigation necessary and let it last as long as necessary - the only caveat is that it shouldn't unduly delay the nomination process. If Kavanaugh is confirmed and later found guilty at the end of a long running investigation then remove him from the Supreme Court and send him to prison.
Judge submitted sworn testimony denying the events took place. There were other people Ford claimed were at the party and they also weren't called to be present but only submitted sworn testimony that they didn't recall the events in question. Also, there were two individuals who claimed that they and not Kavanaugh attacked Ford - they weren't present either.
There have been background checks a new one is happening, the aggrieved parties have heard their stories heard and investigated. Your bar seems met here.
There is a difference between an organized majority of Senators deciding to delay a confirmation and granting that same power to anyone who can make a plausible allegation of wrong doing on the part of the nominee.
I did read the article. There are many examples of inappropriate attacks on white men. Please avoid such baseless insults. While tildes is new we can help to set a higher standard in terms of comments instead of this.
Kavanaugh's defenders in the article are described as "furious" and Rush Limbaugh is their "id". White men are unsettled and fearful by women gaining power, not that there might be legitimate disagreement here, it's just men being furious or scared and wanting women oppressed. "The sounds and images of angry men could have a lasting impact on the Republican brand" imagine writing this about any other gender, racial, or political group.
the only mechanism by which to do that is impeachment, which is ultimately political and thus unlikely to happen given the high bar to clear. only one SCOTUS judge has ever been impeached--200 years ago-- and he was acquitted. it won't happen like that.
The harder the Republicans push to get Brock Kavanaugh confirmed, the more convinced I get that the GOP establishment consists mainly of rapists and people who aid and abet rapists.
If Trump or McConnell had had the sense to throw Brock Kavanaugh under the bus the second Dr. Blaisey Ford's accusations came out, the GOP wouldn't be in this position.
It's a small point, but it's Brett Kavanaugh. You may be mixing his name up with Brock Turner, another white guy who refuses to be held accountable for his own actions and believes he should be able to sexually assault someone without repercussions.
You were this close to getting the joke.
You were intentionally misleading for a joke? Damn, people, can we have one serious discussion without puns and jokes? I don't know about anyone else, but it really derails my interest and I end up closing an otherwise interesting thread when I get annoyed at the never ending attempts at lame humor. Sorry to add this here, but you all seem to actually care enough to at least listen to my peeve. Still, definitely not going to hold my breath about any change in this regard.
It was a joke, but it was also a deadly serious comment on how the archetype of the young male athlete from a "good family" (where good means white and at least upper-middle-class) who gets away with rape and sees nothing wrong with what he did is common enough that the names of individual perpetrators don't really matter.
A year ago it was Brock Turner. Now it's Brett Kavanaugh. Next year it will be some other asshole who can't see women as anything but mindless fuck toys. The names change, but the song remains the same because we keep putting young male athletes on pedestals and excusing their abuses as youthful excess with platitudes like "boys will be boys".
I guess for me is I don't know who Brock Turner is, I missed that one last year. So, I was believing you were either misinformed or had an agenda that I couldn't figure out by using some nickname. It was when I finally found out it was a joke, that I got fed up and closed the thread. But then I thought about it and opened it back up enough to leave my previous comment. I understand the seriousness of and respect what you are trying to get at, but your attempt left me feeling the opposite. I guess if I was on the "in" it might have come across differently.
Fair enough. That's just the risk I take when I use allusion for rhetorical effect.
There are several of those? We should down white men until we figured out what is going on!
So this is off topic but I misread the title as "Male furry and fear" and thought for a second Kavanaugh was outed as being a furry.
Oh man, that would have been hilarious.
oh please, no. the furry community is already dealing with rings of youtube zoophiles and their hordes of dickriders trying to play it off as no big deal. i can't imagine what would happen if they found a way to be dragged into this gigantic ordeal.