Lessons to be learned from the Kavanaugh Hearing

[BStrong]

The greatest lesson I've learned as an outsider is that the US justice system is even more politicized and partisan than I thought. The US is thus not a nation of laws. I don't know what should be blamed for this, but I suspect the fault lies in your veneration for the US constitution and especially originalist readings of said 200+ year old document.

We're not a nation of laws because we follow the law as laid out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

Maybe a touch of the old Bastinado would have got the truth out of Kavanaugh?

 

[Ziggurat]

Strawman

I don't think you know what that term means. It certainly doesn't apply here.

Garland never got his Constitutionally proscribed hearing

The constitution doesn't proscribe a hearing.

Compared to that Kavanaugh has it easy - from Ford.
The Democrats are not the ones making the accusation.

Kavanaugh is getting his name dragged through the mud by Democrats. They are absolutely making the accusations. And those accusations are intended to personally destroy Kavanaugh.

The assertion that he has it easy compared to Garland is laughable on its face. What impact did the refusal to hold hearings on Garland have on Garland? It prevented him from getting a position on the Supreme Court, but otherwise it did nothing to him. His reputation hasn't been besmirched, he hasn't had his personal life put under a microscope, he hasn't had his children publicly attacked.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

You think Kavanaugh wants to swap with Garland?
Didn't think so.

 

[smartcooky]

Lessons

1. Follow the procedures of precedent, don't make it up as you go along.

2. Vet ALL nominees thoroughly.

3. Release ALL documentation in the nominee's paper trail; show that there is nothing to hide.

4. When a nominee equivocates and refuses to answer direct, relevant questions about past and possible future judicial decisions, end the process right there and decline the nomination.

5. The moment a nominee lies about anything under oath, end the process right there and decline the nomination.

 

[applecorped]

Lessons that will never be learned here

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, Republicans just refuse to consider those nominees, instead.

Which is far, far less toxic that what's going on now.

And I'll remind you that Gorsusch, or whatever his name is, didn't have to go through all this.

Likely because there were no midterms that Dems could hope to delay past. But it could be because the Dems have just become that much more toxic.

Can we stop with the partisan rhetoric and whataboutism now?

No, Belz, we cannot. Because I didn't start it. Had you addressed that objection to the one who did, then perhaps we could find some common ground. Unsurprisingly, you did not.

 

[Belz...]

Kavanaugh is getting his name dragged through the mud by Democrats. They are absolutely making the accusations.

I thought the accusations came from alledged victims of Kavanaugh?

And those accusations are intended to personally destroy Kavanaugh.

Why didn't they do it to the previous nominee?

Face it, Kavanaugh made himself look horrible at the hearing last week. He had the opportunity to take it like a man and appear reasonable, turning the lack of evidence against him into an advantage. He blew it.

The assertion that he has it easy compared to Garland is laughable on its face.

Now that's a strawman.

 

[Ziggurat]

You think Kavanaugh wants to swap with Garland?

I've got no idea, nor is that my claim. My claim is that the process now is doing far more damage to Kavanaugh than it did to Garland. Do you dispute this?

 

[smartcooky]

Kavanaugh is getting his name dragged through the mud by Democrats. They are absolutely making the accusations. And those accusations are intended to personally destroy Kavanaugh.

No, a number of women are making accusations against him, and the fact that he has piled lie, upon lie, upon lie is the reason why his name is being sullied.

The lesson for him, and for other potential nominees is.. be honest. Answer questions truthfully, and without dodging or equivocation. If he had been honest about his heavy drinking when he was and school and college instead of trying to paint himself as some kind of noble choir boy, he would have garnered a ton more respect. He, and he alone is the reason he finds himself in the position he is now.

 

[Loss Leader]

I'm worried that all the Republicans have learned since Anita Hill is to be polite to the female witness before completely ignoring her.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I've got no idea, nor is that my claim. My claim is that the process now is doing far more damage to Kavanaugh than it did to Garland. Do you dispute this?

Yes I do.

If Garland had it better than Kavanaugh, why wouldn't he want to swap?

 

[dmaker]

Kavanaugh is getting his name dragged through the mud by Democrats. They are absolutely making the accusations. And those accusations are intended to personally destroy Kavanaugh.

.

I thought Dr. Ford was making the allegation. Do you believe her to be a political operative?

 

[Belz...]

Like I said, the 2016 election just broke some people on both sides of the aisle.

 

[Ziggurat]

I thought the accusations came from alledged victims of Kavanaugh?

You say that like Ford is out there alone, the only one saying anything. She's not. She has been given a platform by the Democrats, who have cynically advanced and exploited her claims in a manner that, if her claims were true, would constitute a gross miscarriage of justice against her.

Ford isn't remotely credible and is only getting attention because of the Democrats, but the other accusers are simply laughable.

Why didn't they do it to the previous nominee?

I just told you. See the previous post.

Face it, Kavanaugh made himself look horrible at the hearing last week. He had the opportunity to take it like a man and appear reasonable, turning the lack of evidence against him into an advantage. He blew it.

That's bull ****. Nobody is ever under any obligation to just roll over for abuse and slander. You also seem to be forgetting that the abuse didn't start with Ford either. Remember all those protesters that marred the beginning of his hearings? They weren't just random nutjobs. Those were people specifically given access to the hearings by the Democrats, for the purpose of doing exactly what they did. There's no issue of "evidence" involved there.

You're basically trying to create a Kafka-like standard: mistreat a man, and if he objects to his mistreatment, then that ends up justifying the mistreatment.

Now that's a strawman.

No, it isn't. It's what The Great Zaganza said: Kavanaugh had it easy compared to Garland. Go back and read his post.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I've got no idea, nor is that my claim. My claim is that the process now is doing far more damage to Kavanaugh than it did to Garland. Do you dispute this?

I'd say most of the damage was done by Kavanaugh. He could have taken the high road and come out of this looking like a Justice. Instead he started foaming at the mouth and Graham had to yell at people so that Kav didn't look so stupid by comparison.

You can see it in his wife's eyes: why are you going down this path?

 

[Belz...]

You say that like Ford is out there alone, the only one saying anything. She's not. She has been given a platform by the Democrats, who have cynically advanced and exploited her claims in a manner that, if her claims were true, would constitute a gross miscarriage of justice against her.

Uh-huh. How is that relevant to whether her accusations are true?

Ford isn't remotely credible

Oh? Why not?

That's bull ****. Nobody is ever under any obligation to just roll over for abuse and slander.

Already addressed: no, but you're supposed to act like you have a thick enough skin to be able to handle the kind of job you're applying for. He showed himself an immature, thin-skinned narcissist. You know, like Obama.

You're basically trying to create a Kafka-like standard: mistreat a man, and if he objects to his mistreatment, then that ends up justifying the mistreatment.

I've given a very short example of what he could've said at the hearing that would've made him look humble and level-headed earlier today. So it's not like a frothing-at-the-mouth rant was his only option.

No, it isn't. It's what The Great Zaganza said: Kavanaugh had it easy compared to Garland. Go back and read his post.

I did, and that's not what he said, unless I missed a different post. If I did, I disagree with him.

 

[dmaker]

You're basically trying to create a Kafka-like standard: mistreat a man, and if he objects to his mistreatment, then that ends up justifying the mistreatment.

.

Lying under oath is now objecting to mistreatment?

 

[smartcooky]

Ford isn't remotely credible

So you think she is lying?

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes I do.

On what possible grounds?

If Garland had it better than Kavanaugh, why wouldn't he want to swap?

I just called you out on your attempt to substitute one claim for another, and now you try it again. Did you think I wouldn't notice?

I've got no idea of whether or not he would want to swap. It depends on how much he values a supreme court seat, and that is unknowable from the outside, including to you. If they value the seat differently, it's even possible that neither would want to switch or that both would want to switch (meaning that they could both prefer their own situation or they could both prefer the others').

But I never made any claim related to or dependent upon how much either of them values a SC seat. My claim was only about the nomination process itself. If claiming a $100 million lottery required that you get your hand chopped off, some people would probably still do it. That doesn't make it OK to chop off the hands of lottery winners.

 

[Ziggurat]

So you think she is lying?

Likely but not for certain. It's quite possible she believes what she's saying. But it is very, very unlikely that her claims are actually true.