|
Then again, Kavanaugh may need counsel at his table if he's not going to directly answer Mitchell's questions and instead wax poetic.
|
Kavanaugh should just tell Feinstein that this is her fault for sitting on it.
|
Whether it’s Dem Senators or Mitchell, he should want counsel. Considering the emotion in his opening address, as you describe, he could easily go too far in counterjabs against his questioners/their insinuations.
I’ll check out the video and transcript later. Can unverified accusations of actions thirty years in the past ruin a man? That’s a cultural moment. I didn’t see the entirety of Ford’s testimony, so this is assuming she didn’t rally additional rememberances and facts to her side in the parts I missed. Can you imagine relationships at elite schools and parents of teenage boys at these schools after all this? Wow.
|
Kavanaugh is not helping himself by fighting the senators. He's right in what he's saying, but the optics aren't good.
|
Kavanaugh should know better than this. Answer questions clearly and directly. Don't argue with the questioner. It never works.
|
Kavanaugh was not well prepared for the FBI investigation question. The correct answer is that the FBI wouldn't have done or found anything different than what has been provided to the committee.
|
Look at Senator Graham. Best thing to ever happen to him was McCain dying. It's like the passing of that rotten, self-absorbed man restored Graham's testicles.
|
On September 28 2018 02:45 IgnE wrote:
i see brett kavanaugh as embodying all the contradictions and hypocrisies that make social conservatism a completely untenable order of norms, despite any supposed advantages which might flow therefrom (see eg tyler cowen etc)
I actually haven't done a deep dive on Kavanaugh's jurisprudence. What specifically do you not like about it?
|
Blumenthal looks like a suitcase.
|
On September 28 2018 04:07 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +i see brett kavanaugh as embodying all the contradictions and hypocrisies that make social conservatism a completely untenable order of norms, despite any supposed advantages which might flow therefrom (see eg tyler cowen etc) I wish that this were what was being focused on instead of all attention being devoted to these accusations. Hardly hear anything at all about what kind of judge he might have been, what effect it would have on the country etc. I think people have no patience for such involved questions and would much rather have salacious sex scandals to endlessly discuss.
I agree with this and it's not clear how much more bipartisan support he would have if that was the focus of criticism.
On September 28 2018 04:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 02:22 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 02:00 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 01:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 01:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 01:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 01:14 xDaunt wrote:
Yes, credible and true are distinct concepts. Our system is intentionally set up to avoid speaking in terms of "truth," but with the goal of seeking the truth. "goal of seeking the truth" seems to be something people imagine/project onto the system, not it's innate goal let alone practical outcome. It's about manipulating facts to create stories, one favorable to prosecutors the others favorable to the defense. Having seen people go through the justice system, prosecutors are perfectly content to favor a story over the truth if it gets them a conviction and the same goes for defense lawyers (meaning gets them an acquittal). The whole "adversarial" part gives it away imo. EDIT: This might be easier for you to understand my point if instead you imagine a defense lawyer crossing a witness to a crime where they did in fact see the defendant commit the crime but upon cross their credibility is destroyed. That's not truth seeking at all. The adversarial system is specifically designed to seek truth. If you set two competing narratives against each other, and give them license to rip into each other and call out each others holes and inconsistencies, what emerges is something that the finder of fact can assess as something roughly approximating the truth. Certainly many truths are brought forward in this process. Until we find some magic way to perfectly relay historical events, this is the best that we're going to be able to do. You get what approximates the best story for the particular jury that was selected but you don't get closer to the truth than a non-adversarial system of fact finding and investigating. Just to take the example I described. A defense lawyer has to try to undermine the truth to properly defend their client in an adversarial system. That is not truth seeking just because the prosecutor is trying to tell his own story (that's still not the truth and he doesn't care as long as it fits the facts) that makes the guy guilty. As a matter of fact lots of cases are decided without either side presenting what actually happened in adversarial systems. You're conflating two different issues -- the merits of adversarial system and the problem of bad prosecutors. First, and of course, the prosecutor is supposed to tell a narrative showing that the defendant is guilty. That's the prosecutor's job. However, the prosecutor is legally and ethically required not to prosecute people whom the prosecutor knows or reasonably believes is innocent. That's why Nifong got fucked sideways for prosecuting the Duke LaCrosse rape case. You're presuming the adversarial system is better than a non-adversarial system in their ideal states and I fully reject that premise. At best you're argument is that due to the problems of bad actors in the systems an adversarial one is preferable to a non-adversarial system which, in that way you're right, that it is indeed a different argument. Actually, you have it backwards. I acknowledged that a nonadversarial system would be better in its ideal, but currently impossible state. In your understanding who is the person/role who's priority is presenting the truth and who is their adversary in an adversarial system? I'd also mention there are functional (arguably better) non-adversarial systems outside of the US. Neither party in an adversarial proceeding is the "champion of the truth." Both parties are responsible for presenting their respective cases.
So you see how neither side prioritizes the truth over the outcome they desire. If the answer to a question might hurt their chances they'd rather not ask even if it brings us closer to the truth.
By what metrics do you find it better at finding the truth than the non-adversarial system in say the Netherlands?
|
In sum, the hearing played out more or less as I expected it to. The Ford allegation is no more credible now than it ever was. It's still completely uncorroborated. I am disappointed in Mitchell. I didn't see her final few lines of questioning after the lunch break, but I think that she could have been a little more aggressive with some of her questions of Ford. I get that she doesn't want to look like someone who is beating up a female victim, but she played it too safe in my opinion. I'm also disappointed in Kavanaugh's lack of discipline while being questioned by the senators. He didn't do himself any favors with some of his outbursts. However, I think that he'll be fine in the end. His opening statement was terrific, and the GOP senators (particularly Graham) really went to bat for him. I especially liked seeing Feinstein squirm up there when grilled about the source of the leaks. She has a problem on that one.
|
On September 28 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
So you see how neither side prioritizes the truth over the outcome they desire. If the answer to a question might hurt their chances they'd rather not ask even if it brings us closer to the truth.
By what metrics do you find it better at finding the truth than the non-adversarial system in say the Netherlands?
I don't trust non-adversarial systems because I don't trust empowered bureaucrats to remain impartial in their jobs. God knows there's no shortage of corruption in government. Just look at this nonsense going on over at the DOJ/FBI. You're smoking something if you want to entrust legal process to the likes of them.
|
On September 28 2018 08:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
So you see how neither side prioritizes the truth over the outcome they desire. If the answer to a question might hurt their chances they'd rather not ask even if it brings us closer to the truth.
By what metrics do you find it better at finding the truth than the non-adversarial system in say the Netherlands? I don't trust non-adversarial systems because I don't trust empowered bureaucrats to remain impartial in their jobs. God knows there's no shortage of corruption in government. Just look at this nonsense going on over at the DOJ/FBI. You're smoking something if you want to entrust legal process to the likes of them.
That's not a metric by which you can assess it's better at finding the truth? Corruption is a separate issue from the system not being truth seeking by it's nature as well.
I'd add that from what I've read (admittedly not much) even corruption is less of an issue in their system than ours though.
|
On September 28 2018 08:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 08:08 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
So you see how neither side prioritizes the truth over the outcome they desire. If the answer to a question might hurt their chances they'd rather not ask even if it brings us closer to the truth.
By what metrics do you find it better at finding the truth than the non-adversarial system in say the Netherlands? I don't trust non-adversarial systems because I don't trust empowered bureaucrats to remain impartial in their jobs. God knows there's no shortage of corruption in government. Just look at this nonsense going on over at the DOJ/FBI. You're smoking something if you want to entrust legal process to the likes of them. That's not a metric by which you can assess it's better at finding the truth? Corruption is a separate issue from the system not being truth seeking by it's nature as well. I'd add that from what I've read (admittedly not much) even corruption is less of an issue in their system than ours though.
I don't even know how you'd create a metric for finding the truth. Information is necessarily incomplete in any legal setting. Regardless of whether you're talking about an adversarial or nonadversarial system, rules of evidence and other legal formalisms do more to affect what information is actually presented and considered than anything else.
|
On September 28 2018 08:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 08:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 08:08 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
So you see how neither side prioritizes the truth over the outcome they desire. If the answer to a question might hurt their chances they'd rather not ask even if it brings us closer to the truth.
By what metrics do you find it better at finding the truth than the non-adversarial system in say the Netherlands? I don't trust non-adversarial systems because I don't trust empowered bureaucrats to remain impartial in their jobs. God knows there's no shortage of corruption in government. Just look at this nonsense going on over at the DOJ/FBI. You're smoking something if you want to entrust legal process to the likes of them. That's not a metric by which you can assess it's better at finding the truth? Corruption is a separate issue from the system not being truth seeking by it's nature as well. I'd add that from what I've read (admittedly not much) even corruption is less of an issue in their system than ours though. I don't even know how you'd create a metric for finding the truth. Information is necessarily incomplete in any legal setting. Regardless of whether you're talking about an adversarial or nonadversarial system, rules of evidence and other legal formalisms do more to affect what information is actually presented and considered than anything else.
Then I have no choice but to reject your claim that cross-examination (and by extension the adversarial system) is the best we have and that finding the truth is the goal of the adversarial system in the first place, even under ideal circumstances.
|
On September 28 2018 09:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 08:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 08:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 08:08 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
So you see how neither side prioritizes the truth over the outcome they desire. If the answer to a question might hurt their chances they'd rather not ask even if it brings us closer to the truth.
By what metrics do you find it better at finding the truth than the non-adversarial system in say the Netherlands? I don't trust non-adversarial systems because I don't trust empowered bureaucrats to remain impartial in their jobs. God knows there's no shortage of corruption in government. Just look at this nonsense going on over at the DOJ/FBI. You're smoking something if you want to entrust legal process to the likes of them. That's not a metric by which you can assess it's better at finding the truth? Corruption is a separate issue from the system not being truth seeking by it's nature as well. I'd add that from what I've read (admittedly not much) even corruption is less of an issue in their system than ours though. I don't even know how you'd create a metric for finding the truth. Information is necessarily incomplete in any legal setting. Regardless of whether you're talking about an adversarial or nonadversarial system, rules of evidence and other legal formalisms do more to affect what information is actually presented and considered than anything else. Then I have no choice but to reject your claim that cross-examination (and by extension the adversarial system) is the best we have and that finding the truth is the goal of the adversarial system in the first place, even under ideal circumstances.
You do realize that cross-examination and leading questions are used in non-adversarial systems, right?
|
On September 28 2018 09:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 09:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 08:54 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 08:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 08:08 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
So you see how neither side prioritizes the truth over the outcome they desire. If the answer to a question might hurt their chances they'd rather not ask even if it brings us closer to the truth.
By what metrics do you find it better at finding the truth than the non-adversarial system in say the Netherlands? I don't trust non-adversarial systems because I don't trust empowered bureaucrats to remain impartial in their jobs. God knows there's no shortage of corruption in government. Just look at this nonsense going on over at the DOJ/FBI. You're smoking something if you want to entrust legal process to the likes of them. That's not a metric by which you can assess it's better at finding the truth? Corruption is a separate issue from the system not being truth seeking by it's nature as well. I'd add that from what I've read (admittedly not much) even corruption is less of an issue in their system than ours though. I don't even know how you'd create a metric for finding the truth. Information is necessarily incomplete in any legal setting. Regardless of whether you're talking about an adversarial or nonadversarial system, rules of evidence and other legal formalisms do more to affect what information is actually presented and considered than anything else. Then I have no choice but to reject your claim that cross-examination (and by extension the adversarial system) is the best we have and that finding the truth is the goal of the adversarial system in the first place, even under ideal circumstances. You do realize that cross-examination and leading questions are used in non-adversarial systems, right?
Not with the intent to discredit rather than establish the truth. That was my point.
|
Other thing that was clear to me after today’s hearing is this: Spartacus and Kamala Harris are lightweights. The democrats need to look elsewhere for 2020.
|
With the Senate Judiciary Committee holding a vote at 9:30 A.M. tomorrow, a Senate insider has told Townhall that Kavanaugh has the votes to make it out of committee and the votes to be confirmed on the floor for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Sens. Flake (R-AZ), Collins (R-ME), Murkowski (R-AK), and Manchin (D-WV) are expected to vote in favor of Kavanaugh. All the Republicans are voting yes. Also, in the rumor mill, several Democrats may break ranks and back Kavanaugh. That’s the ball game, folks.
Source.
Good. Justice will be served.
|
I will say this much: it's been a busy week and I haven't had the time to actually listen in on the hearing. But I wanted to know what was happening, so I was looking for sources that live blog it. One way or another I could swear that there's two alternate realities at play here, one in which Ford & co are making nonsensical accusations that are supported by nothing and the other in which they made powerful, damning statements that would convince any sane individual that Kavanaugh has no place in public office.
I'm quite certain that we'll have a vote, and whichever way it goes we won't be talking about this ever again in a month. The accusations were put forth, it was weighted in the vote, and whatever the outcome it will be a done deal and that's that. This is certainly one of the most blatant cases I've seen in a while where a bunch of people can look at the very same thing and everyone sees exactly what they wanted to see, with no real sense of objective truth being apparent from just gleaning the sum of opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
