Unfortunately I had to listen to the entire afternoon session for my job and now I'm feeling sick to my stomach. Just completely disgusted. Not the least bit surprised though.
Unfortunately I had to listen to the entire afternoon session for my job and now I'm feeling sick to my stomach. Just completely disgusted. Not the least bit surprised though.
First time in a while I've felt physically disgusted at US politics. I couldn't watch the whole thing, it was too much. I don't see how things can get better when a huge portion of the country is...
First time in a while I've felt physically disgusted at US politics. I couldn't watch the whole thing, it was too much. I don't see how things can get better when a huge portion of the country is on fucking Kavanaugh's side, ugh.
What struck me the most was how quick to aggression he was. I'd say that it would be a bad move for the republicans to continue pressing for his nomination, but at this point I'm not sure they...
What struck me the most was how quick to aggression he was.
I'd say that it would be a bad move for the republicans to continue pressing for his nomination, but at this point I'm not sure they care who fills the seat, just so long as he's their guy.
He has no-one defending him. The Senate Republicans are protecting themselves from showing how 11 old men are the wrong folks on this one....
He has no-one defending him. The Senate Republicans are protecting themselves from showing how 11 old men are the wrong folks on this one.
When asked if he found Ford credible, the Republican senator Orrin Hatch from Utah said, according to ABC News, “Well, it’s too early to say. I don’t think she’s un-credible. I think she’s an attractive, good witness, but it’s way early.”
Yeah, I felt that way too. I am not taking sides, but things are kind of stacked against Kavanaugh. They let Ford go first and it set the tone and people were commenting about how brave she was...
Yeah, I felt that way too. I am not taking sides, but things are kind of stacked against Kavanaugh. They let Ford go first and it set the tone and people were commenting about how brave she was and how sorry they were. And I just felt like they were already / had already built up in their mind's Kavanaugh is guilty based off of that. And he is kind of in a lose lose. If he straight up says it like it is, "THere is no proof. Prove I did it. If there is reasonable doubt you are not supposed to label me guilty." He comes off like a guilty ass hole, but if he doesn't address certain things because he knows how they will be taken then people will think he isn't fighting out of guilt for what he did. He can't go in there like Ford and smile and act charming because it will cause resentment, but when he doesn't do those things it still counts against him and people see him as this mean stern man. And he is on the defense here so people are going to read him less accurately. IDK... I just feel the favor is stacked against him on this one. And today favor is all that matter, not reasonable doubt or lack of evidence.
Whoa, did you really just say that because this isn't a real trial he doesn't deserve due process? I just don't agree with that. Due process still applies. Them wanting to penalize him with zero...
Whoa, did you really just say that because this isn't a real trial he doesn't deserve due process? I just don't agree with that.
Due process still applies. Them wanting to penalize him with zero proof is still wrong.
And a lot more is at stake than a job. This is more than an interview... he is trying to save his reputation and career... Being accused of these crimes have wide spread repercussions. Every where he goes from now on people are going to judge him like he did it. Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. But to trivialize this like it isn't a big deal and call it a job interview is cruel.
Kavanaugh even mentions due process.... This might not be a trial, but the same principles / reasoning apply and are being brought up by Kavanaugh and others. Doing that isn't saying this is a trial, it is pointing out how things work and how people look at this.
I think it's short sighted to trivialize this by calling it a simple job interview. And to say due process doesn't apply because this isn't an actual trial is silly. I mean think how cruel that is, "Keep in mind this isn't a trial so due process doesn't matter. Not having proof doesn't matter."
Republicans could have prevented this entire situation by actually vetting Kavanaugh, instead of rolling over for Trump's whims and trying to score a pre-midterm victory. There's not zero proof -...
Republicans could have prevented this entire situation by actually vetting Kavanaugh, instead of rolling over for Trump's whims and trying to score a pre-midterm victory.
There's not zero proof - there are multiple separate but similar allegations from multiple witnesses who gave accounts of their stories to others before anyone knew about Bret Kavanaugh. Are you prepared to suggest this is a hoax? Cases are tried and people are convicted every single day with less force of evidence.
The career and reputation of one person is much smaller than the importance of a Supreme Court seat. It's a lifetime appointment with basically no chance of removal and an honor code of ethics. This is fair game. Let's also remember that Ford and Democrats requested an investigation, Kavanaugh and Republicans don't want one.
I think it's short sighted to trivialize the Supreme Court nomination and say that acts by Kavanaugh that bring to light his private moral compass are off-limits for any reason.
Basically this. The man is interviewing for a seat in the highest judiciary body we have. He ought to be squeaky clean, as non-partisan as we can reasonably ask, and abide by the principles he...
Exemplary
Basically this.
The man is interviewing for a seat in the highest judiciary body we have. He ought to be squeaky clean, as non-partisan as we can reasonably ask, and abide by the principles he would apply to others.
He has sexual assault and attempted rape allegations against him. Strange financial habits and debts that mysteriously vanished. He is angry, and combative, in his questioning right now. His nomination has suspicious circumstances surrounding it. He is not fully endorsing an FBI investigation into this, and the GOP is ramming him through without regard.
Maybe he's entirely innocent of everything, but that needs to be decided before we put him on the Supreme Court for what could be 40 years.
As things stand right now, he is not the best candidate for the job.
If he doesn't get confirmed then I'm sure he'll be just fine working with the job as a DC Circuit Judge he has now.
You're contradicting yourself here. First it was "just a job". Not it is a seat in the highest judiciary body. I mean that's pretty understandable. You really think he should just lay down and let...
The man is interviewing for a seat in the highest judiciary body we have.
You're contradicting yourself here. First it was "just a job". Not it is a seat in the highest judiciary body.
He is angry, and combative, in his questioning right now.
I mean that's pretty understandable. You really think he should just lay down and let them roll over him? I mean we don't know if he is guilty. Meaning there is a chance he isn't. Any innocent person being accused of this and having a shot at the supreme court taken away is going to be a little angry...
His nomination has suspicious circumstances surrounding it.
Has nothing to do with the allegations.
Maybe he's entirely innocent of everything, but that needs to be decided before we put him on the Supreme Court for what could be 40 years.
No one said we shouldn't.
If he doesn't get confirmed then I'm sure he'll be just fine working with the job as a DC Circuit Judge he has now.
He is going to be seen as a full on rapist for the rest of his life no matter how this turns out.
And I still don't agree with what you said about how this isn't a real trial so he doesn't deserve due process or being seen as innocent until proven guilty.
Yeah, and it's a job. This isn't a criminal trial in which conviction depends on a solid body of evidence which supports wrongdoing beyond all reasonable doubt. This a job interview. A job...
Exemplary
You're contradicting yourself here. First it was "just a job". Not it is a seat in the highest judiciary body.
Yeah, and it's a job.
This isn't a criminal trial in which conviction depends on a solid body of evidence which supports wrongdoing beyond all reasonable doubt. This a job interview. A job interview for a very authoritative judicial body. We don't need as much evidence to deny a man a job based on alleged wrongdoing as we do to convict him for the same.
My career necessitates an extraordinarily thorough background investigation. Allegations of sexual assault and extreme debts would be more than enough to preclude me from staying in my career, let alone get a promotion to the top of my field.
For-life appointments ought to have just as high a bar. Especially judiciary positions.
I mean that's pretty understandable. You really think he should just lay down and let them roll over him? I mean we don't know if he is guilty. Meaning there is a chance he isn't. Any innocent person being accused of this and having a shot at the supreme court taken away is going to be a little angry...
He should be able to compose himself like an adult.
As an example, Hillary Clinton was questioned for 11 hours by the House Select Committee on Benghazi. She managed to keep her cool, and Brett here starts off his first hour of questioning by being combative, obstructive, and angry. That is not a manner with which I want a Supreme Court nominee to conduct themselves. I bring Hillary into this because in his opening statement today, Nominee Kavanaugh blamed this all on the Democrats as "revenge on behalf of the Clintons".
Has nothing to do with the allegations.
No it does not. But it should be addressed through the confirmation process. It is relevant to his politics, character, and his motivation.
No one said we shouldn't.
The Republicans seems very keen on avoiding an FBI investigation. One would think that an accused person would jump at the chance to have a full investigation into the allegations surrounding them, to try and prove their innocence.
Nope. He is going to be seen as a full on rapist for the rest of his life.
Not if he fully endorses an FBI investigation, and that investigation yields no evidence to support the allegations of (what I think is now) four women against him. Perhaps such an investigation would prove that this is all a "calculated and orchestrated political hit" from " left-wing opposition groups", and completely clear his name.
This is what due process looks like for a judicial nominee's confirmation process. Questions about the person are raised in congress, and he is even being given a chance to answer to accusations...
This is what due process looks like for a judicial nominee's confirmation process. Questions about the person are raised in congress, and he is even being given a chance to answer to accusations about periods in his past (even with the totally unrealistic claim that he has never blacked out in his life--weak stomach or no that dog don't hunt).
I don't understand why this is a response to my comment. This comment should be a stand alone comment because it deters a pre existing conversation and takes view away from more relevant points...
I don't understand why this is a response to my comment. This comment should be a stand alone comment because it deters a pre existing conversation and takes view away from more relevant points that were made by distracting and talking about different issues. You talk about this nomination being a big deal, but don't once touch on how calico trivialized it as just a "job".
You're on about something else. Nothing you wrote really touches on anything I wrote about. Exaggerating and asking if I think it is a hoax is silly. I straight up said, I don't know if he is guilty or isn't. I straight up said he could be guilty.
Let's start at the top. I made a comment about how I don't know if he is guilty or not but I feel like the odds are stacked against him regardless. Then calico comes in with "Keep in mind this isn't a trial." Two problems with that. I never said it was a trial. Secondly, saying due process doesn't matter here because it isn't an actual trial is extremely short sighted and cruel. And proves my point about the odds being stacked against Kavanaugh.
Like I mentioned, the whole hoax comment is a real reach...
Cases are tried and people are convicted every single day with less force of evidence.
Exactly. I made that exact point and how it is wrong... I don't know why you're making my point for me...
The career and reputation of one person is much smaller than the importance of a Supreme Court seat.
Nope. You are being short sighted. This kind of thing can keep a person out of work for life. This kind of thing literally affects a person for life whether innocent or guilty. That is no small thing. Not small at all.
See you're confusing things here. You're taking the fact that I am talking about how serious this all is and the huge consequences it all has and the fact that i am making it a part of how I look at all of this and considering these things as me supporting Kavanaugh. Everyone deserves due process. Everyone deserve people to look at things logically and unbiased when accused of these things. Saying they don't because you don't like the person is wrong.. Telling me I must be a Kavanaugh supporter simply because I believe in due process is ridiculous.
So if this nomination is a huge deal and a supreme court decision is a huge deal, then you agree calico was wrong to trivialize this as an every day run of the mill job and saying being up for that position is a tiny little thing.
I think it's short sighted to trivialize the Supreme Court nomination and say that acts by Kavanaugh that bring to light his private moral compass are off-limits for any reason.
Who said anything was off limits? I said he deserves due process. You really don't think he deserves due process because you simply don't like him? That's a horrible mentality. I mean how in the world are you even going to say that.
Me: I think he deserves due process whether he is guilty or nnocent
You: How dare you say it is off limits to question this man!!!!!!
Due process involves questioning him.. It's like you have things you want to say and get out and you're more focused on that than reading what was written.
I never even spoke about the nomination or supreme court seat. So how you can say I said anything about it is kind of bizarre.
Because it was written in response to the things you wrote. I'm also responding to your earlier posts in the thread. It may not be a point-to-point response because those get pretty tedious after...
I don't understand why this is a response to my comment.
Because it was written in response to the things you wrote. I'm also responding to your earlier posts in the thread. It may not be a point-to-point response because those get pretty tedious after a while.
You are saying that Kavanaugh deserves due process, which apparently means questioning him even though he has refused to be questioned by the FBI. Do you not see that as a circular argument? Kavanaugh must be given due process -> Due process is questioning him -> Kavanaugh refuses to be questioned by the FBI -> Kavanaugh must be given due process -> etc.
I straight up said, I don't know if he is guilty or isn't. I straight up said he could be guilty.
Well this is a binary question, he is either guilty or he isn't. If he isn't guilty, then the multiple allegations made against him must be false. If the allegations against him are false, then the conspiracy has been decades in the making, considering the women making them have documented sharing their story with other people prior to Kavanaugh being well-known.
You are being short sighted.
You are weighing the life and reputation of one man against a deciding vote on a court whose decisions can last lifetimes and effect millions of people. Please tell me how that makes me short sighted?
And again - his reputation is only on the line because Republicans didn't do their due diligence. He never should have made it to the nominee stage, and then he should have been withdrawn before today's hearing.
So if this nomination is a huge deal and a supreme court decision is a huge deal, then you agree calico was wrong to trivialize this as an every day run of the mill job and saying being up for that position is a tiny little thing.
Frankly if I applied for a job to flip hamburgers and multiple independent witnesses gave the interviewer credible accounts of past sexual assault, I wouldn't expect to get the job. Can you explain why Kavanaugh shouldn't be disqualified and why a Supreme Court nomination has a lower barrier to entry than burger flipping? Do you realize that Kavanaugh and Republicans are the ones that don't want an investigation?
You think he's being denied due process. You think his reputation is being destroyed. I'm saying that he's declining a thorough and good faith investigation (if you have another definition of due process please share it). I'm saying that his reputation being destroyed is his own fault and that of Republicans who didn't vet him. He flew too close to the sun.
To be clear, it isn't that Kavanaugh is refusing to be interviewed by the FBI. It's that he is refusing to call for the FBI investigation into his background to be reopened. Yet while this point...
To be clear, it isn't that Kavanaugh is refusing to be interviewed by the FBI. It's that he is refusing to call for the FBI investigation into his background to be reopened. Yet while this point is true, it is on Trump to actually order it to happen. Only the White House has the authority to listen to anyone's request that a background investigation be reopened. I think Kavanaugh has done himself few favors, but this isn't as bad as you're making it seem. It's not good! But it's not as though Kavanaugh is actively refusing FBI interviews if the FBI asks.
This is a wonky point, I admit, but this is a lapse that I see happening regularly enough to want to be precise about. Kavanaugh isn't refusing FBI interviews. He's refusing to ask for the White House to reopen the background investigation the FBI conducted for his supreme court nomination. It would be a non-partisan set of interviews with relevant witnesses conducted by career professionals, but it also would not be legally binding (i.e., it doesn't come with legal punishments like perjury for lying, unlike statements to congress).
For people arguing "Due process" for this hearing, this is due process. He is getting a chance to have his side heard and for evidence to be evaluated. Not by a jury of his peers per se, but this also is a job interview, not a criminal investigation. So the burden of proof necessary for weighting these statements doesn't have to be "beyond all reasonable doubt." It can just be "in light of what these women think this nominee did to them, in light of this candidates record on the bench and within the W administration, and in light of other moments in this candidate's career and background, are they fit to become the next associate justice to the top court in this country?" It's this second question, though not as catchy, that lawmakers have to be asking when reviewing this testimony. Due process applies for a criminal proceeding, absolutely. It also applies to literally everything where there is process. And if the main concern is over defamation, guess what! There are processes Judge Kavanaugh has available to pursue this matter further. They take time. Time that this congress has decided it doesn't have. So he probably shouldn't get the job at least until these matters are resolved (if they ever do get resolved).
Edit: maybe fewer "to be sures." I doubt I needed seven.
I don't mean this in a rude way, but are you new to politics? Nobody is trying to determine guilt or innocence up there. They are putting on a show for the people they hope are watching. When the...
And I just felt like they were already / had already built up in their mind's Kavanaugh is guilty based off of that
I don't mean this in a rude way, but are you new to politics?
Nobody is trying to determine guilt or innocence up there. They are putting on a show for the people they hope are watching.
When the vote happens it will go down party lines with possibly one or two dissenters from the Republicans more or less exactly as it would have without these allegations coming out. The question is, have the allegations done enough damage that enough Republicans feel they can't support him? Whether Kavanaugh is guilty or not will not factor into anyone's decision-making process.
Kavanaugh hasn't started his testimony yet. Each of the 21 senators get 5 minutes each then, and he gets his opening and closing remarks. We should also expect at least 2-3 breaks in that time,...
Kavanaugh hasn't started his testimony yet. Each of the 21 senators get 5 minutes each then, and he gets his opening and closing remarks.
We should also expect at least 2-3 breaks in that time, and a break when Ford is moved out of the room before Kavanaugh enters as they're not supposed to meet according to deals and such.
There are many hours left. Your submission is way hotter than you first assumed!
Unfortunately I had to listen to the entire afternoon session for my job and now I'm feeling sick to my stomach. Just completely disgusted. Not the least bit surprised though.
First time in a while I've felt physically disgusted at US politics. I couldn't watch the whole thing, it was too much. I don't see how things can get better when a huge portion of the country is on fucking Kavanaugh's side, ugh.
What struck me the most was how quick to aggression he was.
I'd say that it would be a bad move for the republicans to continue pressing for his nomination, but at this point I'm not sure they care who fills the seat, just so long as he's their guy.
Disgusted at what aspect specifically?
I'm not inclined to get into an extended exchange about this, but let's just say I am not happy with the conduct of the Republican senators.
I wasn't intending on an exchange I was just wondering what your actual opinion was. To each their own
Here's a better feed for 'LIVE: Professor Christine Blasey Ford & Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh testify (Day 1)'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zVOkb3CdZ0
What.
They're using the prosecutor to talk to Kavanaugh too?!
I didn't see that coming. Not one bit.
Why not?
He has no-one defending him. The Senate Republicans are protecting themselves from showing how 11 old men are the wrong folks on this one.
https://people.com/politics/orrin-hatch-christine-blasey-ford-attractive-pleasing
What can a prosecutor of sexual assault possibly get out of Kavanaugh if he says "this never happened". Ok. What more is there then?
Stuff on his drinking habits or his character? I don't get it.
Yeah, I felt that way too. I am not taking sides, but things are kind of stacked against Kavanaugh. They let Ford go first and it set the tone and people were commenting about how brave she was and how sorry they were. And I just felt like they were already / had already built up in their mind's Kavanaugh is guilty based off of that. And he is kind of in a lose lose. If he straight up says it like it is, "THere is no proof. Prove I did it. If there is reasonable doubt you are not supposed to label me guilty." He comes off like a guilty ass hole, but if he doesn't address certain things because he knows how they will be taken then people will think he isn't fighting out of guilt for what he did. He can't go in there like Ford and smile and act charming because it will cause resentment, but when he doesn't do those things it still counts against him and people see him as this mean stern man. And he is on the defense here so people are going to read him less accurately. IDK... I just feel the favor is stacked against him on this one. And today favor is all that matter, not reasonable doubt or lack of evidence.
Something to keep in mind is that he's not on trial, this process is essentially a job interview.
Whoa, did you really just say that because this isn't a real trial he doesn't deserve due process? I just don't agree with that.
Due process still applies. Them wanting to penalize him with zero proof is still wrong.
And a lot more is at stake than a job. This is more than an interview... he is trying to save his reputation and career... Being accused of these crimes have wide spread repercussions. Every where he goes from now on people are going to judge him like he did it. Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. But to trivialize this like it isn't a big deal and call it a job interview is cruel.
Kavanaugh even mentions due process.... This might not be a trial, but the same principles / reasoning apply and are being brought up by Kavanaugh and others. Doing that isn't saying this is a trial, it is pointing out how things work and how people look at this.
I think it's short sighted to trivialize this by calling it a simple job interview. And to say due process doesn't apply because this isn't an actual trial is silly. I mean think how cruel that is, "Keep in mind this isn't a trial so due process doesn't matter. Not having proof doesn't matter."
Republicans could have prevented this entire situation by actually vetting Kavanaugh, instead of rolling over for Trump's whims and trying to score a pre-midterm victory.
There's not zero proof - there are multiple separate but similar allegations from multiple witnesses who gave accounts of their stories to others before anyone knew about Bret Kavanaugh. Are you prepared to suggest this is a hoax? Cases are tried and people are convicted every single day with less force of evidence.
The career and reputation of one person is much smaller than the importance of a Supreme Court seat. It's a lifetime appointment with basically no chance of removal and an honor code of ethics. This is fair game. Let's also remember that Ford and Democrats requested an investigation, Kavanaugh and Republicans don't want one.
I think it's short sighted to trivialize the Supreme Court nomination and say that acts by Kavanaugh that bring to light his private moral compass are off-limits for any reason.
Basically this.
The man is interviewing for a seat in the highest judiciary body we have. He ought to be squeaky clean, as non-partisan as we can reasonably ask, and abide by the principles he would apply to others.
He has sexual assault and attempted rape allegations against him. Strange financial habits and debts that mysteriously vanished. He is angry, and combative, in his questioning right now. His nomination has suspicious circumstances surrounding it. He is not fully endorsing an FBI investigation into this, and the GOP is ramming him through without regard.
Maybe he's entirely innocent of everything, but that needs to be decided before we put him on the Supreme Court for what could be 40 years.
As things stand right now, he is not the best candidate for the job.
If he doesn't get confirmed then I'm sure he'll be just fine working with the job as a DC Circuit Judge he has now.
You're contradicting yourself here. First it was "just a job". Not it is a seat in the highest judiciary body.
I mean that's pretty understandable. You really think he should just lay down and let them roll over him? I mean we don't know if he is guilty. Meaning there is a chance he isn't. Any innocent person being accused of this and having a shot at the supreme court taken away is going to be a little angry...
Has nothing to do with the allegations.
No one said we shouldn't.
He is going to be seen as a full on rapist for the rest of his life no matter how this turns out.
And I still don't agree with what you said about how this isn't a real trial so he doesn't deserve due process or being seen as innocent until proven guilty.
Yeah, and it's a job.
This isn't a criminal trial in which conviction depends on a solid body of evidence which supports wrongdoing beyond all reasonable doubt. This a job interview. A job interview for a very authoritative judicial body. We don't need as much evidence to deny a man a job based on alleged wrongdoing as we do to convict him for the same.
My career necessitates an extraordinarily thorough background investigation. Allegations of sexual assault and extreme debts would be more than enough to preclude me from staying in my career, let alone get a promotion to the top of my field.
For-life appointments ought to have just as high a bar. Especially judiciary positions.
He should be able to compose himself like an adult.
As an example, Hillary Clinton was questioned for 11 hours by the House Select Committee on Benghazi. She managed to keep her cool, and Brett here starts off his first hour of questioning by being combative, obstructive, and angry. That is not a manner with which I want a Supreme Court nominee to conduct themselves. I bring Hillary into this because in his opening statement today, Nominee Kavanaugh blamed this all on the Democrats as "revenge on behalf of the Clintons".
No it does not. But it should be addressed through the confirmation process. It is relevant to his politics, character, and his motivation.
The Republicans seems very keen on avoiding an FBI investigation. One would think that an accused person would jump at the chance to have a full investigation into the allegations surrounding them, to try and prove their innocence.
Not if he fully endorses an FBI investigation, and that investigation yields no evidence to support the allegations of (what I think is now) four women against him. Perhaps such an investigation would prove that this is all a "calculated and orchestrated political hit" from " left-wing opposition groups", and completely clear his name.
Still deserves due process no matter how you feel about him.
This is what due process looks like for a judicial nominee's confirmation process. Questions about the person are raised in congress, and he is even being given a chance to answer to accusations about periods in his past (even with the totally unrealistic claim that he has never blacked out in his life--weak stomach or no that dog don't hunt).
I have nothing more to say than I agree entirely, with the entirety of, @Diet_Coke's comment here.
I don't understand why this is a response to my comment. This comment should be a stand alone comment because it deters a pre existing conversation and takes view away from more relevant points that were made by distracting and talking about different issues. You talk about this nomination being a big deal, but don't once touch on how calico trivialized it as just a "job".
You're on about something else. Nothing you wrote really touches on anything I wrote about. Exaggerating and asking if I think it is a hoax is silly. I straight up said, I don't know if he is guilty or isn't. I straight up said he could be guilty.
Let's start at the top. I made a comment about how I don't know if he is guilty or not but I feel like the odds are stacked against him regardless. Then calico comes in with "Keep in mind this isn't a trial." Two problems with that. I never said it was a trial. Secondly, saying due process doesn't matter here because it isn't an actual trial is extremely short sighted and cruel. And proves my point about the odds being stacked against Kavanaugh.
Like I mentioned, the whole hoax comment is a real reach...
Exactly. I made that exact point and how it is wrong... I don't know why you're making my point for me...
Nope. You are being short sighted. This kind of thing can keep a person out of work for life. This kind of thing literally affects a person for life whether innocent or guilty. That is no small thing. Not small at all.
See you're confusing things here. You're taking the fact that I am talking about how serious this all is and the huge consequences it all has and the fact that i am making it a part of how I look at all of this and considering these things as me supporting Kavanaugh. Everyone deserves due process. Everyone deserve people to look at things logically and unbiased when accused of these things. Saying they don't because you don't like the person is wrong.. Telling me I must be a Kavanaugh supporter simply because I believe in due process is ridiculous.
So if this nomination is a huge deal and a supreme court decision is a huge deal, then you agree calico was wrong to trivialize this as an every day run of the mill job and saying being up for that position is a tiny little thing.
Who said anything was off limits? I said he deserves due process. You really don't think he deserves due process because you simply don't like him? That's a horrible mentality. I mean how in the world are you even going to say that.
Me: I think he deserves due process whether he is guilty or nnocent
You: How dare you say it is off limits to question this man!!!!!!
Due process involves questioning him.. It's like you have things you want to say and get out and you're more focused on that than reading what was written.
I never even spoke about the nomination or supreme court seat. So how you can say I said anything about it is kind of bizarre.
Because it was written in response to the things you wrote. I'm also responding to your earlier posts in the thread. It may not be a point-to-point response because those get pretty tedious after a while.
You are saying that Kavanaugh deserves due process, which apparently means questioning him even though he has refused to be questioned by the FBI. Do you not see that as a circular argument? Kavanaugh must be given due process -> Due process is questioning him -> Kavanaugh refuses to be questioned by the FBI -> Kavanaugh must be given due process -> etc.
Well this is a binary question, he is either guilty or he isn't. If he isn't guilty, then the multiple allegations made against him must be false. If the allegations against him are false, then the conspiracy has been decades in the making, considering the women making them have documented sharing their story with other people prior to Kavanaugh being well-known.
You are weighing the life and reputation of one man against a deciding vote on a court whose decisions can last lifetimes and effect millions of people. Please tell me how that makes me short sighted?
And again - his reputation is only on the line because Republicans didn't do their due diligence. He never should have made it to the nominee stage, and then he should have been withdrawn before today's hearing.
Frankly if I applied for a job to flip hamburgers and multiple independent witnesses gave the interviewer credible accounts of past sexual assault, I wouldn't expect to get the job. Can you explain why Kavanaugh shouldn't be disqualified and why a Supreme Court nomination has a lower barrier to entry than burger flipping? Do you realize that Kavanaugh and Republicans are the ones that don't want an investigation?
You think he's being denied due process. You think his reputation is being destroyed. I'm saying that he's declining a thorough and good faith investigation (if you have another definition of due process please share it). I'm saying that his reputation being destroyed is his own fault and that of Republicans who didn't vet him. He flew too close to the sun.
To be clear, it isn't that Kavanaugh is refusing to be interviewed by the FBI. It's that he is refusing to call for the FBI investigation into his background to be reopened. Yet while this point is true, it is on Trump to actually order it to happen. Only the White House has the authority to listen to anyone's request that a background investigation be reopened. I think Kavanaugh has done himself few favors, but this isn't as bad as you're making it seem. It's not good! But it's not as though Kavanaugh is actively refusing FBI interviews if the FBI asks.
This is a wonky point, I admit, but this is a lapse that I see happening regularly enough to want to be precise about. Kavanaugh isn't refusing FBI interviews. He's refusing to ask for the White House to reopen the background investigation the FBI conducted for his supreme court nomination. It would be a non-partisan set of interviews with relevant witnesses conducted by career professionals, but it also would not be legally binding (i.e., it doesn't come with legal punishments like perjury for lying, unlike statements to congress).
For people arguing "Due process" for this hearing, this is due process. He is getting a chance to have his side heard and for evidence to be evaluated. Not by a jury of his peers per se, but this also is a job interview, not a criminal investigation. So the burden of proof necessary for weighting these statements doesn't have to be "beyond all reasonable doubt." It can just be "in light of what these women think this nominee did to them, in light of this candidates record on the bench and within the W administration, and in light of other moments in this candidate's career and background, are they fit to become the next associate justice to the top court in this country?" It's this second question, though not as catchy, that lawmakers have to be asking when reviewing this testimony. Due process applies for a criminal proceeding, absolutely. It also applies to literally everything where there is process. And if the main concern is over defamation, guess what! There are processes Judge Kavanaugh has available to pursue this matter further. They take time. Time that this congress has decided it doesn't have. So he probably shouldn't get the job at least until these matters are resolved (if they ever do get resolved).
Edit: maybe fewer "to be sures." I doubt I needed seven.
I don't mean this in a rude way, but are you new to politics?
Nobody is trying to determine guilt or innocence up there. They are putting on a show for the people they hope are watching.
When the vote happens it will go down party lines with possibly one or two dissenters from the Republicans more or less exactly as it would have without these allegations coming out. The question is, have the allegations done enough damage that enough Republicans feel they can't support him? Whether Kavanaugh is guilty or not will not factor into anyone's decision-making process.
Kavanaugh hasn't started his testimony yet. Each of the 21 senators get 5 minutes each then, and he gets his opening and closing remarks.
We should also expect at least 2-3 breaks in that time, and a break when Ford is moved out of the room before Kavanaugh enters as they're not supposed to meet according to deals and such.
There are many hours left. Your submission is way hotter than you first assumed!
Sent you a pm. Deleted my two comments to avoid confusing people.
Thanks @Algernon_Asimov
Psst, you can click the "Topic Log" on the sidebar to see the history of changes.
TIL thanks.
Huh?
Thanks for fixing my tags. Was unsure on best way to tag it.
Oh. Is that all? I fix a dozen or more tags here every day. It's just routine. Nothing special. You're welcome, I suppose...
Was just being appreciative
Dot dot dot lol