New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

[Bogative]

They don't have to be true to be damaging. Damaging is all that matters.

You should be an editor for the New York Times.

 

[theprestige]

Judges get older the more time they spend in office, and general observation and a Benjamin Einstein or somebody quote suggests that old people get more conservative as they age.

Most people, as they get older, have more to conserve, and less resources to conserve it with. Hopefully you're saving some of your surplus productivity from your most productive years, to support you during your increasingly less and ultimately non-productive years. As you get into those non-productive years, and start depending on those savings for survival, husbanding that scarce and dwindling resource becomes paramount.

Supreme Court Justices have six figure salaries, guaranteed lifetime employment, and decent health care. They are also, arguably, at the pinnacle of their profession. It's probably a lot easier to indulge progressive tendencies when you're living entirely at the apex of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Voters play a rather significant role is this, I'm not sure why you're being so dismissive of them.

And it's fine to want a more liberal court. That's a perfectly reasonable position, and one I expect most liberals will hold, just like it's fine and expected for conservatives to want a more conservative court. But that's very different from being worried about pure partisanship on the court, that justices will vote party line without regard to merits.

How was I dismissive of voters?

 

[Ziggurat]

How was I dismissive of voters?

By attributing SC appointments to some monolithic government entity.

 

[Bob001]

.....
Even accepting this (and I don't), it has no connection to Franken.

Why should it? Who says Franken and Kavanaugh should have any connection? They were each accused of specific misconduct in specific circumstances. What does Franken's basically clownish behavior before he was elected -- twice -- to an office from which dissatisfied voters could remove him at the next election have to do with Kavanaugh's (alleged) violent assault and public drunkenness before he was nominated to an irreversible lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court? Why do you insist on calling the situations comparable?

And surely you don't think every nominee is entitled to be confirmed? The question for the Senate was whether Kavanaugh was the best person for the job, just as it is for any hiring manager. Real conservatives should have been embarrassed by his attitude and demeanor. Rejecting him would just have meant the Federalist Society would have to put up a more suitable nominee.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

By attributing SC appointments to some monolithic government entity.

Whut? I admit when I wrote that I wasn't aware that it was only the president and senate who do it, but I still think US Government is acceptable shorthand. Even us foreigners are aware the US is a representative democracy so I dont see the need to specify who picks the government in every post.

 

[Ziggurat]

Whut? I admit when I wrote that I wasn't aware that it was only the president and senate who do it, but I still think US Government is acceptable shorthand. Even us foreigners are aware the US is a representative democracy so I dont see the need to specify who picks the government in every post.

Using "government" as shorthand isn't the problem. The problem is that the government doesn't act with singular and independent motive over successive administrations:

Interesting, fortunate that the US government is aware of this and appoints more conservative judges than liberal ones to compensate.

 

[theprestige]

And surely you don't think every nominee is entitled to be confirmed? The question for the Senate was whether Kavanaugh was the best person for the job, just as it is for any hiring manager.

I'm not sure that's true. Even a hiring manager doesn't get to select the "best person for the job". They're only selecting "best fit from available candidates". And that's necessarily a subjective thing.

The question for the Senate isn't so much, "is this the best person for the job?", as it is, "is this person acceptable?" More of an HR thing. Do they pass the background check? Is their CV accurate? It's not really practical for the Senate to reject nominees because they're holding out for "the best" - whatever that means.

President: "I like this guy."

Senate: "Enh. We don't really hate hate him. Confirmed."

 

[Bob001]

I'm not sure that's true. Even a hiring manager doesn't get to select the "best person for the job". They're only selecting "best fit from available candidates". And that's necessarily a subjective thing.

The question for the Senate isn't so much, "is this the best person for the job?", as it is, "is this person acceptable?" More of an HR thing. Do they pass the background check? Is their CV accurate? It's not really practical for the Senate to reject nominees because they're holding out for "the best" - whatever that means.

President: "I like this guy."

Senate: "Enh. We don't really hate hate him. Confirmed."

Aw, c'mon. Best available is so obvious that it shouldn't need to be said. The question is still whether Trump nominated the most suitable candidate from everyone available to him, including all sitting federal judges.

Historically, most Supreme Court nominees have been confirmed by large majorities of both parties because presidents of both parties have nominated candidates of such integrity and probity that there was no good reason to vote against them. Trump has broken that tradition. An appointment to the Supreme Court is for life. The Senate has an important and independent role in the process.

 

[Ziggurat]

Aw, c'mon. Best available is so obvious that it shouldn't need to be said. The question is still whether Trump nominated the most suitable candidate from everyone available to him, including all sitting federal judges.

The president should pick whomever he thinks is the best available. The senate can only decide if they're acceptable. A body of 100 members is never going to agree on who is best, available or not.

Historically, most Supreme Court nominees have been confirmed by large majorities of both parties because presidents of both parties have nominated candidates of such integrity and probity that there was no good reason to vote against them. Trump has broken that tradition.

Bwahahahaha! No, not even close. The change happened well before Trump, and it had nothing to do with integrity or probity of candidates. The change was when the process became politicized, starting with Bork. It's continuing to get even more politicized, but that's what's going on, not your tired "orange man bad" spin.

 

[xjx388]

Why should it? Who says Franken and Kavanaugh should have any connection? They were each accused of specific misconduct in specific circumstances. What does Franken's basically clownish behavior before he was elected -- twice -- to an office from which dissatisfied voters could remove him at the next election have to do with Kavanaugh's (alleged) violent assault and public drunkenness before he was nominated to an irreversible lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court? Why do you insist on calling the situations comparable?

And surely you don't think every nominee is entitled to be confirmed? The question for the Senate was whether Kavanaugh was the best person for the job, just as it is for any hiring manager. Real conservatives should have been embarrassed by his attitude and demeanor. Rejecting him would just have meant the Federalist Society would have to put up a more suitable nominee.

I’m not sure why anyone should be embarrassed at his attitude and demeanor. If I’m accused of something so heinous and I know I didn’t do it, I can imagine myself being pretty damn upset and not hiding it.

If you want to make a hiring manager analogy, here’s the way I think of it: No other private sector hiring manager would be in this position. If I run a background check and nothing comes up that’s as far as it goes. I’m not going to chase down allegations from 20+ years ago. Im not going to call in people from the applicants past to dig up dirt. In K’s case, looking at him from a private sector hiring manager perspective and he’s in line for a promotion, he’s been employed with my firm for 13 years and has had a good record as an employee with no allegations from any female subordinates -in fact, his female subordinates have praised his mentorsship and professionalism. That and his vehement denials and lack of evidence would count a little more than unsubstantiated allegations from some person in his past in my evaluation. Why shouldn’t I promote him?

Looking at it as a candidate for the highest judgeship in the country, I can see that we should have high standards. At the same time, why shouldn’t his record as a judge in a pretty high federal position count for something? Why should we be so quick to dismiss someone who is qualified and nominated fairly by the President, given that record and the unsubstantiated, unevidenced and unprovable nature of the allegations ?

 

[Belz...]

I’m not sure why anyone should be embarrassed at his attitude and demeanor. If I’m accused of something so heinous and I know I didn’t do it, I can imagine myself being pretty damn upset and not hiding it.

To the point of accusing the Democrats of conspiracy on behalf of the Clintons?

 

[Cabbage]

Im not trying to deflect anything; I’m just trying to engage you on your arguments.

Do you think the Franken and Kavanaugh events are analogous? Because I don't think they are particularly analogous: The alleged Kavanaugh offenses were much, much worse than Franken's.

Then may I point out that Kavanaugh vehemently contested every aspect of the claims against him? Are you similarly agnostic about those claims?

Does it matter? I mean, we're just talking about my opinion here; I have no power to effect the world with my opinion. I'll answer your question, though: The accusations against Kavanaugh are far more severe and the main witness against him seemed to me to be significantly more credible than Franken's accusers. I don't think those accusations were of such a significant nature to warrant removing a man from his job, but I do think it's quite different in what amounts to an application for a job. A person does not have a right to a job he is applying for. It seems the wiser course would have been to choose someone without so much baggage for such an important (and intended to be non-partisan) position.

And this is without even addressing his demeanor in the investigation, along with the perjury: Even if I was agnostic about Kavanaugh (and I am not) that was enough to disqualify him from the Supreme Court in my opinon.

I agree. The Dems should have let the ethics committee investigate and rule on the claims -don’t railroad him. In Kavanaugh’s case the FBI did investigate and he was subjected to questioning in his hearing -more investigation than was afforded to Franken. Now we can argue about the adequacy of the investigation and hearing but you can’t deny K was subject to more investigation than Franken. What do you have evidence of that he perjured himself about, exactly? Remember that perjury is a very specific crime with a high bar -misremembering events from his youth would not meet that bar. Denying accusations that are not proven to be true (he said/she said) does not meet that bar.

At this link you will find an enumeration of a few instances that certainly have the potential for perjury:

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/2/17927606/brett-kavanaugh-perjury-lied-congress

I'll include a couple here:

1) Kavanaugh’s drinking: The Supreme Court nominee has been adamant that while he enjoys beer and perhaps at time drank “too many,” it was never to the point of passing out, blacking out, or even causing slight lapses in memory.

His characterization of drinking has been refuted by multiple friends and past roommates, as Vox’s Emily Stewart explained. He grew “belligerent and aggressive” as a drunk, according to Chad Ludington, one of Kavanaugh’s former classmates.

Liz Swisher, another former Yale classmate, recounted to CNN of Kavanaugh’s drinking: “There’s no problem with drinking beer in college. The problem is lying about it.”

2) His yearbook: During the testimony about the sexual allegations, Democrats asked Kavanaugh to define several lines in his yearbook, which appeared to reference sexual activities. As Vox’s Alex Abad-Santos explained, the word “boof,” a slang term that many have defined to mean anal sex, Kavanaugh defined as “flatulence.” Asked about the phrase “Devil’s Triangle,” which commonly refers to sex between two men and one woman, Kavanaugh said it was a drinking game akin to Quarters.

While he and other classmates admitted the yearbook was full of exaggerations, those definitions Kavanaugh provided under oath didn’t hold up with classmates at Georgetown Prep, as the New York Times’s David Enrich reported:

which is followed by this Tweet:

Based on extensive interviews by me and @katekelly with Kavanaugh's former Georgetown Prep classmates, what he just said about the meanings of "boofed" and "Devil's Triangle" is not true.

I find it rather difficult to believe that sexual references of that nature from a man's adolescence could be so easily forgotten in healthy middle age.

Can I prove he committed perjury? No. As I've been arguing in the Elizabeth Warren thread, that's a rather high bar to cross: It requires knowledge of a man's state of mind at the time for definitive "proof". That's rather nearly impossible. So let me be absolutely clear:

1. I am not proposing a criminal indictment of Kavanaugh for perjury. Insufficient proof.

2. I am in fact proposing the evidence is sufficient to keep him from getting the job.

Let me give you an example. Suppose you or I are seeking a baby sitter for a 4 year old child. You (or I) hear rumors that a certain job applicant is rumored to be a child molester. Indeed, that is the whole purpose of his baby sitting side hustle. Now, if it's merely rumor, I would certainly think twice about going to the police with such hearsay. But I know damn well I would never hire him as my baby sitter. I feel rather confident that you would not, either.

The point is you're confusing two different standards of evidence. The standard of evidence required to indict and convict and strip away the Constitutional rights of a man is necessarily a much higher standard than the evidence required to disqualify a man from a job.

And I thank you for sharing them. I still don’t think you’ve thought everything through. From where I sit, I don’t think either of those gentlemen should have been subjected to what they went through based on vague and uncorroborated accusations. I am not one of those who thinks the mere existence of allegations -especially allegations arising from distant events that are uncorroborated and have scant evidence- should warrant much investigation at all. Serious allegations require real evidence to take seriously and publicly drag people’s reputations through the mud.

No. Serious allegations only require a credible witness. You make the mistake that many Trump apologists make (I'm not saying you are one; I'm not sure and from seeing you around I tend to think you are not): That the evidence is required to justify the investigation. No No No No, complete BS, you have it backwards:

The investigation is to see if there is corroborating evidence.

Arguments against your positions are not necessarily deflections and they definitely aren’t attacks on you personally.

I still think bringing up Kavanaugh is pretty much a deflection as it is different enough to not be analogous. I acknowledge that arguments against my position aren't attacks on me personally, but some of the "arguments" I've seen here are so asinine and disingenuous that they deserve every bit of the scorn I give them: These "arguments" are merely gaslighting and spin, and it's important to me that they know I recognize their BS, so I make it clear to them that I have no respect for them.

I am not putting you in that category.

 

[Bob001]

The president should pick whomever he thinks is the best available. The senate can only decide if they're acceptable. A body of 100 members is never going to agree on who is best, available or not.

So Merrick Garland should have been confirmed, right?

Bwahahahaha! No, not even close. The change happened well before Trump, and it had nothing to do with integrity or probity of candidates. The change was when the process became politicized, starting with Bork. It's continuing to get even more politicized, but that's what's going on, not your tired "orange man bad" spin.

Bork (and Clarence Thomas) were uniquely controversial. Most nominees in the modern era -- including Rehnquist and Scalia -- were confirmed by substantial, bipartisan majorities. And some presidents had the sense to withdraw unfit nominees like Harold Carswell and Harriet Miers before the Senate considered them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

And the United States Senate is not -- or at least isn't supposed to be -- a rubber stamp. That's something else that has changed under Trump.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'll include a couple here:

Wow, that's some weak sauce. The first one, regarding drinking, there is no contradiction. They don't cite anyone saying Kavanaugh passed out or blacked out from drinking.

The second one, seriously? That's what you care about? How Kavanaugh defined "boofing"? Do you have even the slightest clue how ridiculous this makes the entire anti-Kavanaugh movement sound to normal people? And you think this is the path to electoral success?

 

[Ziggurat]

So Merrick Garland should have been confirmed, right?

That doesn't follow at all from anything I said.

 

[Bob001]

That doesn't follow at all from anything I said.

What you said is:

The president should pick whomever he thinks is the best available. The senate can only decide if they're acceptable.

The Senate was never even allowed to "decide," that is, to vote, on Garland. Different rules for Dems and Repubs, eh?

 

[Ziggurat]

What you said is:

Yes. And I assume that Obama picked the person he thought was the best.

The Senate was never even allowed to "decide," that is, to vote. Different rules for Dems and Repubs, eh?

Do you understand the difference between "can" and "must"?

And no, I fully expect that if the Dems have the Senate in 2024, they won't bring a Trump appointee for the Supreme Court to a vote. I may or may not like that, but it's perfectly within the bounds of normal political maneuvering.

 

[Bob001]

....
Do you understand the difference between "can" and "must"?
....

I understand that the Senate has specific Constitutional obligations and responsibilities, and the words "I don't feel like it" don't appear anywhere in the document.

 

[Ziggurat]

I understand that the Senate has specific Constitutional obligations and responsibilities, and the words "I don't feel like it" don't appear anywhere in the document.

The document doesn't require them to vote either, so you're not really going to make any headway on that basis.