New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

[JoeMorgue]

Okay given the most massive benefit of the doubt here...

I understand, purely conceptually, the idea that potentially setting a precedent that could be interpreted as "any accusation is enough to remove someone for consideration for a high office" is a bad thing.

I can, again purely conceptually, understand some easiness with the "beyond reproach" standard in a world where literally anyone nominated for anything is going to be smeared with something just for belonging to "the other side."

But people are trying to paint this as a "Boy who cried wolf" scenario where, sure you could maybe argue the Boy (The Democrats) has cried wolf (sexual harassment accusations) a few too many times but the reason he's crying wolf right now is... there is a wolf... right there. I mean we can see it. Someone who cries wolf actually seeing a wolf and crying wolf is a thing that can still happen. The moral of the Boy Who Cried Wolf story isn't "Therefore wolves don't exist" or "Therefore we can't keep the wolf out of the field."

But now the people of the village (the Republican majority) want to let the wolf (Kavanaugh) eat the flock (the American people) just to teach the boy (the Democrats) who cried wolf a lesson.

 

[Stacko]

Are we supposed to have some kind of Affirmative Action for White Men Potentially Falsely Accused? Do we have to overlook an obvious perjury to make up for the fact that he had to defend himself against an allegation of sexual assault?

FTFY. And yes it is. White fragility is a hell of a drug.

 

[Belz...]

kavanaugh's, Leland's, PJ's, Ford's testimony/statements you mean?

It appears that she conflated various events and claims, and that while something happened to her, that her memory is so faulty that she misidentified the people involved.

Could you give me your impression of Kavanaugh's behaviour at the hearings Friday? I'd like to know how he ended up looking, to you.

 

[The Big Dog]

Okay given the most massive benefit of the doubt here...

I understand, purely conceptually, the idea that potentially setting a precedent that could be interpreted as "any accusation is enough to remove someone for consideration for a high office" is a bad thing.

I can, again purely conceptually, understand some easiness with the "beyond reproach" standard in a world where literally anyone nominated for anything is going to be smeared with something just for belonging to "the other side."

But people are trying to paint this as a "Boy who cried wolf" scenario where, sure you could maybe argue the Boy (The Democrats) has cried wolf (sexual harassment accusations) a few too many times but the reason he's crying wolf right now is... there is a wolf... right there. I mean we can see it. Someone who cries wolf actually seeing a wolf and crying wolf is a thing that can still happen. The moral of the Boy Who Cried Wolf story isn't "Therefore wolves don't exist" or "Therefore we can't keep the wolf out of the field."

But now the people of the village (the Republican majority) want to let the wolf (Kavanaugh) eat the flock (the American people) just to teach the boy (the Democrats) who cried wolf a lesson.

oof, that is a hell of a long way to torture an analogy...

 

[acbytesla]

As someone who most here probably see as conservative (I don't think I am, particularly, but the GOP platform does match my positions most closely even if I agree with a few Democrat planks), this is a very difficult situation to parse.

On the one hand, we have a very credible accusation from Ford. I think a very reasonable position to take is -woah, step back, dump this guy and find someone who is above reproach.

On the other hand, we have a strong denial from a guy who, outside this whole process, seems to be credible. He's been a federal judge and been through the vetting process before. If he didn't do this, then another reasonable position is to stand up against false allegations because the alternative is to allow every candidacy to become derailed by unverifiable allegations.

How are we supposed to judge this kind of thing? Are we just supposed to back away from someone with any such allegation? I know this isn't a criminal trial, but it is a Federal investigation. If you cannot corroborate the claim -no one remembers such a party, no one else witnessed it, she told no one afterwards- then how can you reasonably move forward? In such an investigation, we should adhere to an innocent until proven guilty philosophy.

Now, having seen the testimony, my own position is that the GOP should dump him. He lied, pure and simple. He may actually not have done the assault, but he covered up his youthful problems with drinking (which has been corroborated by many others) and the whole "boofing", "Devil's triangle", "Renate Alumni" stuff which -c'mon man we aren't stupid! I think the best outcome here is to remove his name from consideration and just let him keep on keeping on as a Federal Judge.

But I can still see the other position -back him- as somewhat reasonable. Are we really going to condemn a guy who, by all current accounts, 1)would never do such a thing, 2)does not seem to have the drinking problem anymore and 3)was appointed and has served as a Federal Judge for 12 years, -political positions aside- without such controversy?

I don't think it's as cut and dried as many here would argue but I would err on the side of dumping him, were it in my hands.

This is a false equivalence. He's still a judge and will continue to be. No one is condemning the guy. We aren't talking about sending him to prison based on this. We are just not going make him one of the 9 highest judges in America for life.

What troubles me about all of this is that they didn't properly vet this guy to begin with and still aren't.

 

[C_Felix]

Is Kavanaugh really the best candidate the republicans (Trump?) could come up with? Does this mean that anyone else considered for the post is even less suitable?

BK had/has two things going for him:
1) His age
2) His idea/thoughts about if a sitting President can be indicted.

 

[C_Felix]

I think there are a few forum members here who I would consider to be conservative who seem to have little to say on this matter. I would like to think that they know confirming Kavanaugh is beyond the pale. The only "conservatives" who seem to be supporting him would probably support him if he raped a donkey at his hearing and blamed it on Hillary Clinton. Some of them have literally been making the arguments that:

the politics are too important to care about Kavanaugh's character
the White Power agenda makes everything else secondary
he can't be prosecuted for attempted rape so it is no big deal if he did it

...and then I also think that the IRL blustering responses by people such as Lindsey Graham are concealing an uneasy conscience. That's just a suspicion with people like that.

I believe you should replace "conservatives" with "republicans." To me (at least) conservatives and republicans are different.

 

[varwoche]

It appears that she conflated various events and claims, and that while something happened to her, that her memory is so faulty that she misidentified the people involved.

Do you contend that the mis-identification occurred at the time of the event, or that she 'altered' her memory over time? The former seems a lot more plausible. If I leaned towards this scenario (I don't), I'd be speculating that she consumed more alcohol than she admits to.

 

[Segnosaur]

On the other hand, we have a strong denial from a guy who, outside this whole process, seems to be credible. He's been a federal judge and been through the vetting process before.
...
Now, having seen the testimony, my own position is that the GOP should dump him. He lied, pure and simple. He may actually not have done the assault, but he covered up his youthful problems...

You see, this is what I find a bit... strange. You first suggest he "seems to be credible", then you say "he lied" (maybe about other things, but he still lied.) Shouldn't the fact that he was willing to engage in perjury suggest that he is not quite as credible in his denials about the assault? Why are you suggesting he can lie about one thing but is totally believable on other things?

As for "going through the vetting process before"... vetting tries to find problems, but the people doing the investigation are not some sort of all-knowing psychic. Its possible for things to slip through the cracks.

But I can still see the other position -back him- as somewhat reasonable. Are we really going to condemn a guy who, by all current accounts, 1)would never do such a thing

Ummm.... not "all current accounts". Many people have stated that he was a "mean drunk". That he was disrespectful. So no, while nobody is claiming they witnessed the actual attacks, there are certainly people saying that it is consistent with his behavior at the time.

2)does not seem to have the drinking problem anymore

How do you know? Its certainly possible for someone to be a "functioning alcoholic".

 

[JoeMorgue]

oof, that is a hell of a long way to torture an analogy...

Well at least my analogy didn't sexually assault anyone in college so... I don't care.

 

[The Big Dog]

Do you contend that the mis-identification occurred at the time of the event, or that she 'altered' her memory over time? The former seems a lot more plausible. If I leaned towards this scenario (I don't), I'd be speculating that she consumed more alcohol than she admits to.

I think that the most natural explanation is a combination of both, with the drinking on the front end exacerbating the hinky memory on the back end.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

God, the eighties were fun for young men. We were channeling the idealization of the fifties and adding in cocaine and binge drinking.
Unlikely that any man who spent his formative years during that decade is suitable for high office if his behavior at that time were to be scrutinized.
Kavanaugh should have acknowledged that from the outset, IMO it would have made his denials more credible.

My formative years were in the 80s. I have never sexually assaulted anybody.

 

[phiwum]

Of the three, yes, Meadmaker has just made the first, but I have seen Slings and Arrows and TBD pretty much make the same case.

Skeptic Tank has explicitly made the second one. It is not an insult to call him a racist who believes in eugenics and an extermination of black people. It is his own self-described opinion.

The third one has been pointed out by River and a few others who say that he can't be touched legally.

Meadmaker, who is a decent bloke more or less, has indeed made the first claim. I'll give you that.

Skeptic Tank is best ignored, quite frankly, as clearly an outlier in these discussions. Just not really representative

I might have missed the claims he can't be touched legally, due to statutes of limitations. Such claims may well, likely are, true, but irrelevant.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well at least my analogy didn't sexually assault anyone in college so... I don't care.

Well, it appears that the analogy (and the original story it was based on... and the gentle readers who were exposed to it) were the victims here.

I thought the college story was that the passed out girl thought she saw a wiener?

 

[xjx388]

I defer to the ABA as the experts on the matter:



in other words, a partisan hack.

OK, political positions aside, that was in 2006. In the intervening years, he has had a pretty good record, enough so that he got their highest "well-qualified" rating.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well, it appears that the analogy (and the original story it was based on... and the gentle readers who were exposed to it) were the victims here.

I thought the college story was that the passed out girl thought she saw a wiener?

Well apparently you read the version of The Boy Who Cried Wolf where it's all the sheep's fault for being out in the field with their tasty flesh on display and we need to shame the sheep so...

 

[The Big Dog]

Of the three, yes, Meadmaker has just made the first, but I have seen Slings and Arrows and TBD pretty much make the same case.

I didn't make that claim, my position is that the claims are vague, completely uncorroborated and suspect, that there has been a huge rush to judgment and improper attempts to switch the burden onto Kavanaugh.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I defer to the ABA as the experts on the matter:



in other words, a partisan hack.

I doubt the American Bar Association knows more about the law than The Big Dog does.

 

[acbytesla]

My formative years were in the 80s. I have never sexually assaulted anybody.

Nor I or any of my friends that I know of.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I keep getting told that not sexually assaulting someone is a lot harder than it is.