US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1662

On July 13 2019 10:35 KwarK wrote:
Kavanaugh did not deserve to be on the SCOTUS lol. Firstly, nobody deserves that kind of appointment. Positions as a public servant aren't something people are owed, they're a duty and a responsibility. Secondly, Kavanaugh is very clearly not one of the top legal minds of the nation.

On July 13 2019 04:32 brian wrote:
i dont see the relevance to the current question. how does that factor into presumption of innocence and believing the accuser? doesn’t review of the evidence start after that? shouldn’t we hold these presumptions and beliefs initially regardless of the evidence, and hash that out in court?

hypothetically, anyway. understanding that this wasn’t court. but we’re using these terms so if you’ll pardon the analogy.

On July 13 2019 12:32 Introvert wrote:
lol Kavanaugh was one of the most well-regarded and admired federal judges, for his conduct, as well as his intellect and thoroughness. He deserved it in the sense that he was as well qualified as could be and the allegations against him were so flimsy and mismanaged that it would have been wrong to deny him the seat for that reason.

And this is coming from someone whodoesnt have high hopes for him as a conservative.

On July 13 2019 13:10 KwarK wrote:

Well-regarded and admired for his conduct by whom? Certainly not the American Bar Association who said that his conduct was unbecoming and did not endorse him for SCOTUS. Nor the 2,400 law professors who signed their names to a letter condemning him for his conduct in the hearings and opposing his confirmation. Nor former Former Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens who said that his conduct in the hearings should have disqualified him.

It's strange that one of the judges that you say is most well-regarded for his conduct has been so universally condemned for his conduct. Normally if an individual's conduct is well-regarded by their peers their peers do not collectively issue public documents condemning the conduct. It's most unusual.

Well-regarded and admired for his conduct by whom?

lol Kavanaugh was one of the most well-regarded and admired federal judges, for his conduct, as well as his intellect and thoroughness.

On July 13 2019 12:32 Introvert wrote:
lol Kavanaugh was one of the most well-regarded and admired federal judges, for his conduct, as well as his intellect and thoroughness. He deserved it in the sense that he was as well qualified as could be and the allegations against him were so flimsy and mismanaged that it would have been wrong to deny him the seat for that reason.

And this is coming from someone whodoesnt have high hopes for him as a conservative.

On July 13 2019 14:25 GreenHorizons wrote:


Lots of people lose job opportunities far less prestigious and profound for far less regardless of their qualifications lol.

Don't think I've had a job where I could have behaved a fraction as obnoxious as he did during the screening process and I've had some jobs with extremely low expectations.

It's not a criminal case, the allegations were (and his reaction) was more than enough to reasonably disqualify him from the Supreme Court, crocodile tears notwithstanding.

On July 13 2019 14:34 Introvert wrote:


how many people are laughably accused of gang rape and have US senators act like it's a serious allegation? (btw I hope everyone who bought that story still feels stinging embarrassment.)

no, you wont find me, or almost anyone on the right, saying that his behavior was out of place. For him to take it in a solemn manner would require that his interviewers do the same.

On July 13 2019 14:40 GreenHorizons wrote:


No, that's not how job interviews/screening work. They can treat you however they want and if you for a moment display behavior they consider undesirable you're gone.

That's before we even get to the countless people rejected for jobs because of their names.

It's a critically important role that requires a temperament better than what would would get you rejected from McDonalds. As far as the allegations go, you're free to interpret them as you wish and everyone else the same in the sense that a civil jury can. They just need to be mostly convinced he was sceevy, not that he's a rapist to reject him for the Supreme Court as citizens.

On July 13 2019 14:46 Introvert wrote:


there is no doubt that if he had conducted himself the way you describe he would have been toast. We know that this was not a normal job interview. and at any rate he was morally justified in his anger, at least to me.

On July 13 2019 14:56 GreenHorizons wrote:


Thomas made it, if he had acted like Kavanaugh he would have been toast.

You're right it's more important than a typical interview with higher standards. That he was so easily thrown into such obnoxious behavior would prevent him from having qualified to be a conflict manager (a job for children) on the playground at my local school so it's well below the expectations I would have for a SCJ.

You may consider it morally justified (like I do punching Nazis) but they both have consequences. Jail/retributive violence for punching Nazis, not being considered worthy of being a SCJ for Kavanaugh.

Not every person that punches a Nazi goes to jail and Kavanaugh made it on the court. The only unreasonable thing is thinking there's not a reasonable and legitimate argument that Kavanaugh shouldn't be a SCJ or believing that he suffered some uniquely grave injustice (particularly since he still got the job).

On July 13 2019 15:22 Introvert wrote:


I don't know if I've been quite that strident about it. And im not sure that just because he still got the job means he was treated fairly.

as for Thomas, I think the situations were different, although he had his moments

+ Show Spoiler +

On July 13 2019 16:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
I like how with Kavanaugh the measure of whether he's getting treated fairly is whether or not he gets that job he wanted (when he was already employed) for maybe having committed a horrible crime.

With Ford no-one has even mentioned all the death threats etc. she had to put up with just for having maybe been the victim of a horrible crime.

The treatment of the accused certainly shouldn't be better than the treatment of the accuser.

Its so partisan its fucking laughable to be honest.

On July 13 2019 14:20 Introvert wrote:


not quite right. We'll accept the premise that the aba's opinion is meaningful. As for



I'm sorry you didn't keep up while the confirmation was ongoing.

To the rest, it think your memory is faulty. First, the chairman came out with a letter saying that his confirmation should be suspended until there was an investigation. The full standing committee then came out and clarified that that was his personal opinion, and that their rating had not changed. Then, after the testimony, they came out said they were re-evaluating his unanimous "well-qualified" rating. After he was confirmed, they dropped it. So in fact, they never said he was unqualified nor did they "unendorse" him.

Even if I assume his conduct at the end of his hearing was universally condemned (it wasn't) we can note my use of past-tense.



of the three things I mentioned, only one is in doubt by any significant number of people, and it's not the one you mentioned.


edit: and no one cares about all the lawyers who were trying to get in on the virtue signal. The more reasonable people i saw were concerned that it was unwise if not unethical for them to make those statements in the first place.

On July 13 2019 22:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
1: Ford was highly credible. 2: Kavanaugh was not. He clearly lied about his drinking past (I find it extremely unlikely that someone could drink like he was drinking - and classmates attested it was a lot more than he himself claimed without ever being blackout drunk), lied about devil's triangle, pretended to be some type of choir boy which he clearly was not. I did not think the allegation itself was disqualifying, but I thought his behavior during the hearing was.

To clarify; alcohol is a very strong drug, yet one we as society have encouraged the use of. To me, that means it is inevitable that some young people are going to use too much of it and do stupid shit because of it. While use of alcohol is not a viable legal defense for crimes done, I think it is a very viable character-defense when describing acts 30+ years in the past. All you need to do is make a statement such as 'While I do not remember the behavior described by Ford and while I have a hard time believing that I could act in such a manner, it is true that I, as a young boy, was involved in excessive drinking with some friends and classmates, and it did happen on occasion that I drank beyond memory, and it did happen that I realized I had acted in a way my sober mind would find incomprehensible and indefensible. And consequentially, I have for the past 29+ years been conscious never to get as drunk as I used to get in my college years. While Ford describes vile behavior on my behalf, I believe it to be exaggerated, yet, for what there is of truth to it, I am deeply sorry, and I wish I had known about it earlier. I believe in atoning for my sins and using them as a springboard for personal betterment, and in some significant ways, I no longer identify with the man I was in college.'

Instead we get 'We and I liked beer and I still like beer'-entitled angry fratboy whose behavior was, while understandable, extremely unimpressive. And like GH says, that type of behavior in a regular job interview, be it for a fkn warehouse position, would be disqualifying to most job interviewers. (I mean, you also don't have to defend yourself from sexual allegations during most regular job interviews, so obviously not really comparable, but he still lost his cool. A supreme court justice should be exceptionally level-headed. )

Now, you can still argue that there's an element of Kavanaugh being treated unfairly. That is because all democrats feel that republicans stole a spot on the SC. I mean, it was Gorsuch taking that spot - but it still laid the foundation for the next republican nominee (any next nominees until balance is restored or a progressive lead is taken, honestly) to be put under such scrutiny that the entire process ends up delayed, with that as an explicit goal. Democrats must do this. But then someone like Gorsuch still ends up getting confirmed without all that big hubbub (yes I know there was posturing, but people always knew he was going to get confirmed) because he hasn't done or said a bunch of disqualifying shit. It's my understanding that Trump had a list of 25 candidates and he picked Kavanaugh semi-randomly from that list (well, this is basically what Trump said prior to picking him), and in that case, why not just go for the next one? To me, picking him is essentially a self-indictment - saying you don't have anyone better than him? Like, really?