EPTYeah, I don't really want to hear what Republicans have to say about the qualifications of Supreme Court nominees. They have less than 0 credibility on the subject.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3576
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
Yeah, I don't really want to hear what Republicans have to say about the qualifications of Supreme Court nominees. They have less than 0 credibility on the subject. | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32740 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42518 Posts
On April 05 2022 10:15 Doc.Rivers wrote: Dems probably shouldn't complain about the treatment of KBJ until the republicans bring sketchy claims of serious criminality and demand an FBI investigation into them. The precedent for SC hearings has been set, and it ain't pretty. A woman who was sexually assaulted came forward and said that based on her experience with him she felt he lacked the character to be on the highest court in the land. The Democrats weren’t involved beyond saying maybe she has a point. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2602 Posts
On April 05 2022 11:06 KwarK wrote: A woman who was sexually assaulted came forward and said that based on her experience with him she felt he lacked the character to be on the highest court in the land. The Democrats weren’t involved beyond saying maybe she has a point. In the end it was quite conclusive proven that those claims had no merit and were not corroborated. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10428 Posts
On April 05 2022 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: From the Associated Press. Why bother even having these hearings? It's such nonsense. Jackson is literally one of the most qualified SCJ nominees of the past 50 years, but the Republican monolith insists on putting party before country. + Show Spoiler + https://twitter.com/AP/status/1511088800365219848 I agree these hearings are a waste of time. They should just skip ahead to where they all vote along party lines and be done with it. | ||
|
Nick_54
United States2230 Posts
On April 05 2022 11:06 KwarK wrote: A woman who was sexually assaulted came forward and said that based on her experience with him she felt he lacked the character to be on the highest court in the land. The Democrats weren’t involved beyond saying maybe she has a point. A woman CLAIMED she was sexually assaulted. A very important distinction. Looks like KBJ will be voted in shortly. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42518 Posts
On April 05 2022 11:18 gobbledydook wrote: In the end it was quite conclusive proven that those claims had no merit and were not corroborated. No it wasn’t. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21630 Posts
On April 05 2022 11:18 gobbledydook wrote: Except for the part where the FBI investigation was a complete sham. Tips were not investigated and collaborating witnesses and others who came forward were not interviewed.In the end it was quite conclusive proven that those claims had no merit and were not corroborated. The FBI closed its extended background check of Kavanaugh after four days and did not interview either Blasey Ford or Kavanaugh. The FBI also disclosed to the Senate this June – two years after questions were initially asked – that it had received 4,500 tips from the public during the background check and that it had shared all “relevant tips” with the White House counsel at that time. It is not clear whether those tips were ever investigated. The FBI said in its letter to two senators – Sheldon Whitehouse and Christopher Coons – that the FBI did not have the authority under the 2010 MOU at the time to “unilaterally conduct further investigative activity absent instructions from the requesting entity”. In other words, the FBI has said it would have required explicit instructions from the Trump White House to conduct further investigation under the existing 2010 guidelines on how such investigations ought to be conducted. Wray is likely to face scrutiny on why information that was specific to the allegations of sexual misconduct was not fully explored, including evidence that was reportedly offered to investigators by an alleged witness named Max Stier, an attorney and former classmate of Ramirez, who reportedly notified senators that he had witnessed an event similar to the one recounted by Ramirez. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/14/brett-kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-documentsStier’s account was never examined by the FBI. | ||
|
Doc.Rivers
United States404 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On April 06 2022 00:02 Doc.Rivers wrote: Fact is that when these accusations don't come out until 35 years after the fact, it's just so easy to make up accusations that we'd be going down a dangerous road to start DQing people on that basis. There are some tidbits of corroboration like Stier's statement, but there are other witnesses who denied Ramirez's claim. Then there were the dem political operatives who convinced Ford to come forward and represented her. Among other issues. Your point amounts to "why didn't she come forward sooner if it really happened", which does not deserve a serious response. It belies near 0 understanding of what it's like to go through the trauma of something like sexual assault, and to have to live with it. And then, to see your attacker nominated to the highest court in the land. Even if her claims had been investigated and borne out, Ford trashed her life to say anything at all. There are always people ready with pitchforks when a woman stands up to accuse someone of sexual assault. Her life will always be made worse by these people for speaking out, even if the assault actually happened. People have very little incentive to make this stuff up, Ford sure didn't accuse Kavanaugh for kicks. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 06 2022 00:20 NewSunshine wrote: People have very little reason to make this stuff up, Ford sure didn't accuse Kavanaugh for kicks. I mean regardless of whether or not the Ford claims are true or not, this statement is clearly false. There is a very plain and simple incentive for accusing a man of sexual assault: the fact that the existence of any such claim, regardless of evidence or lack thereof, has a significant adverse effect on the credibility of that man. The "why would she lie" justification can be dismissed out of hand - especially if encouraged by Democrats, there is a clear and evident reason to lie. No shortcuts; you have to actually prove the claim to the appropriate standard of proof. | ||
|
Doc.Rivers
United States404 Posts
On April 06 2022 00:20 NewSunshine wrote: Your point amounts to "why didn't she come forward sooner if it really happened", which does not deserve a serious response. It belies near 0 understanding of what it's like to go through the trauma of something like sexual assault, and to have to live with it. And then, to see your attacker nominated to the highest court in the land. Even if her claims had been investigated and borne out, Ford trashed her life to say anything at all. There are always people ready with pitchforks when a woman stands up to accuse someone of sexual assault. Her life will always be made worse by these people for speaking out, regardless of how often their claims are true. People have very little reason to make this stuff up, Ford sure didn't accuse Kavanaugh for kicks. 100% of your responses to me are angry variations on "your post should not be taken seriously," so I'm not sure if you're being more serious on this occasion than others. But to say that SC nominees should not be DQ'd based on accusations of this sort is different from blaming a victim or worsening her trauma. There are two difficult to reconcile facts when it comes to these sexual assault accusations, and it's not effective as an argument to hold just one up as a slam dunk while ignoring the other: - Actual victims have their trauma worsened when they are not believed. - Not all accusations are truthful. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On April 06 2022 00:42 LegalLord wrote: I mean regardless of whether or not the Ford claims are true or not, this statement is clearly false. There is a very plain and simple incentive for accusing a man of sexual assault: the fact that the existence of any such claim, regardless of evidence or lack thereof, has a significant adverse effect on the credibility of that man. The "why would she lie" justification can be dismissed out of hand - especially if encouraged by Democrats, there is a clear and evident reason to lie. No shortcuts; you have to actually prove the claim to the appropriate standard of proof. Respond to my entire point, or not at all. Christine Ford did not just accuse Kavanaugh of assaulting her, and get to move on with her life. Any woman pays a price when they "rock the boat" and make an accusation, especially one as high profile as this. I tend not to believe that someone is willing to subject themselves to even more harassment just to score a couple of political points for the Democrats. What's even the end goal to lying anyway? If they moved on from Kavanaugh they still would've had 3 Justicial appointments. Maybe the goal is simply not to have a sexual deviant on the Supreme Court. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35131 Posts
Kavanaugh was treated harsher by Democrats because of the accusations made of him, regardless of whether or not they were true, because they were a serious accusation. Nothing like that has been levied at KBJ, from what I've seen, so she shouldn't be scrutinized the same way. Apples and oranges. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7288 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 06 2022 00:48 NewSunshine wrote: Christine Ford did not just accuse Kavanaugh of assaulting her, and get to move on with her life. Any woman pays a price when they "rock the boat" and make an accusation, especially one as high profile as this. I tend not to believe that someone is willing to subject themselves to even more harassment just to score a couple of political points for the Democrats. What's even the end goal to lying anyway? If they moved on from Kavanaugh they still would've had 3 Justicial appointments. Maybe the goal is simply not to have a sexual deviant on the Supreme Court. Being a public figure comes with its consequences. On the adverse side, harassment and death threats come with that territory. Some positive ones as well too depending on how it plays out. But all that is immaterial - there definitely is an incentive to lie, and while you don't have to assume by default that Ford is lying, there's not an a priori reason to assume she is telling the truth either. If Trump's appointee failed, he would appoint a different person; that is true. It would still be a political blow of some significance to have his chosen nominee fail in a highly public confirmation. That's a prize to the Democrats that is worth pushing people to make accusations for. As I said: No shortcuts; you have to actually prove the claim to the appropriate standard of proof. No, it doesn't mean that Ford was lying because there's an incentive to lie, but it does mean that these runaround justifications of "why would she lie" hold no credibility whatsoever, and you do actually have to prove it. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 06 2022 00:55 Gahlo wrote: The whole discussion is stupid anyway. Kavanaugh was treated harsher by Democrats because of the accusations made of him, regardless of whether or not they were true, because they were a serious accusation. Nothing like that has been levied at KBJ, from what I've seen, so she shouldn't be scrutinized the same way. Apples and oranges. Eh, that's not what I saw. They clearly didn't like him even before the accusations gained traction (something which I understand because Kavanaugh is, accusations aside, an obvious patsy, and because that nomination significantly reshaped the court), but they went all-in on the accusations as the seemingly most credible way to tank the nomination. The Gorsuch nomination also wasn't very friendly despite the fact that even people who don't like him admit that Gorsuch is a nominee whose credibility is hardly in doubt, but the votes just weren't there to stop that one. Regardless of which nominee you choose, the precedent for aggressive, unproductive opposition is significant, and KBJ is getting neither the most aggressive nor the most unproductive opposition. The outrage seems to come mostly from the fact that it is now the enemy party playing petty politics rather than the good guys, and yet in the grand scheme of things they're acting in a way that shows the resistance is little more than a token expression of party line opposition. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 06 2022 01:15 NewSunshine wrote: I don't have to prove anything, I'm not in a court of law, and you're not either. I'm stepping through what seems to me like simple logic, to illustrate why I'm much more inclined to take these accusations on good faith, than to assume she must be some kind of malicious political operative. I'm assuming she's a human being, and I'm operating under that assumption when I think on what her prospective risks and rewards are for saying something, and it doesn't balance out well for her. People have a hard enough time saying something when it isn't Trump's Supreme Court pick, and I'm just disappointed that the prevailing attitude here conveys very little understanding of what it's like to be a victim. They must be an actor. In the context here, I mean "you" in the sense of "people who in an official capacity represent the position you hold" - a group which, while technically not in legal proceedings because the alleged crime is too far in the past to be prosecuted, does have a standard of proof that is expected of them that is a few levels above personal theories and "why would she lie" rationalizations. You are certainly free, as someone who is not personally party to the confirmation process, to assume the best or worst about anyone you want who was party to that process. But perhaps there is some merit in considering the legal standard of proof of those claims, the very real incentives for either party to lie, and that there might be a good reason things went contrary to the way you assume they should have gone based on those factors. And for what it's worth, as quite a few of my last posts will show on the topic, I'm not particularly fond of Kavanaugh as a judge or as a nominee. I just dislike mob justice that much more. | ||
| ||
