5 ms·

Why are people outraged before a sentence is pronounced? Are allegations now enough to convict someone? What happened to the West? Is this the beginning of the

Why are people outraged before a sentence is pronounced? Are allegations now enough to convict someone? What happened to the West? Is this the beginning of the end ?

dbt00 8y ago
not a criminal trial, standards of evidence don't apply. You just watched a federal judge commit several baldfaced lies and rant about political hits. That's not acceptable conduct for the supreme court, full stop.
- fein 8y ago
  "We just coordinated a partisan effort to accuse you of sexual assault from an incident no one can remember that occurred 35 years ago, and drag you and your family through the media mud and also call you a gang rapist for an added bonus. Why are you so upset?" Do you expect the guy to be some sort of emotionless robot? This is classic Alisnky tactics combined with some form of infinite projected purity spiraling to raise the standard for an SC judge to inhuman levels. Thankfully, the right has finally come around to not caring about these tactics being employed by the left.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - r00fus 8y ago
    I expect that whoever the candidate is, they have a bit more damn decorum. This is a job-for-life. We can do better. Hell the guy who interviewed before (Garland) wasn't that bad.
pjc50 8y ago
There's no sentence or prosecution here, it's a job appointment. I'm unclear why there is apparently only one candidate and we can't just have someone less controversial.
- athenot 8y ago
  Not quite any job, a job for life. There's not really an Undo Button like normal jobs.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    Ah yes, he's being made a life peer with permanent political power.
  - asveikau 8y ago
    > There's not really an Undo Button like normal jobs. There's impeachment, but the only case of that I'm aware of for a supreme court justice is from the 19th century.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  Well, that's a matter of your starting assumptions. If you think the accusations are valid, then sure, go find someone else without the baggage, and let's nominate that person. If you think that there's no evidence supporting the accusations, though, you might suspect that they're manufactured political outrage. (You might even see a pattern with Bork and Clarence Thomas.) You start to wonder if it's possible to find someone for whom the other side won't manufacture outrage. At that point, trying to find someone "less controversial" is a fool's errand.
- throwaway5250 8y ago
  There were a number of candidates, and one was chosen by the head of the Executive branch. The Senate then gets to approve or deny the choice. This is all in the Constitution. If I recall correctly, the bar used to be 60% for approval, by gentleman's agreement. A few years ago, the Democrats decided to discard that agreement (executing the so-called "nuclear option"). Now they're paying the price. Ultimately the electorate will judge what was done. At the moment, it appears that they're leaning against the Democrats' strategy, but we'll know more after the mid-term results are in.
  - evanrich 8y ago
josteink 8y ago
#metoo, SJWs and social media lynchmobs happened.
Taniwha 8y ago
this is not a trial, it is a job interview - I wouldn't hire a potential employee who behaved the way Kavanaugh behaved in his interview, especially for this job
woodpanel 8y ago
I hope it's not the end, but it's certainly a devolution. Immoral moralization will draw anyone who's not going 100% with the program to eventually vote for the Trumps, AfDs, Farages etc.
tzs 8y ago
Part of the outrage is that the Senate first tried to not consider the allegations at all. Then they didn't listen to all of the evidence known at the time when they did hold hearings. Then they used a limited FBI investigation that appears to have skipped a lot of evidence. Enough people who knew Kavanaugh in high school, college, and law school have now come forward with memories that contradict some of his recollections and testimony, especially about the frequency and severity of his drinking, that even if he did NOT do anything to Ford in high school they should raise at least sufficient doubts about his fitness for the Court on other grounds to justify more investigation. Yet, the Senate majority is rushing to vote. What's the hurry? A couple years ago they said there is no problem whatsoever with the Court only having 8 Justices for an extended time (at least three Senators--Burr, Cruz, and Paul--said they were willing to hold it open for five years if Clinton got elected). Surely they can take a couple weeks or even a month now and thoroughly vet Kavanaugh?
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  I'm thinking its time to pull the plug. Why are we looking to lower the bar for this guy? We can find somebody, easy, who doesn't drink like a fish and harass women. Maybe a woman judge would fill the bill? We're not trying to fill this post with not-quite-the-bottom-of-the-barrel, and we should stop trying. Lets try somebody clean to start with? Look for the best, instead of the not-the-worst? And this dude is not being 'unfairly treated', forget that. I don't get to be a Supreme Court Justice either. Almost nobody does. He wants to do public service he can go volunteer at a Senior Center. Hell, he can take up woodworking, I don't care. He should just get the hell off the stage and lets start looking again.
  - krapp 8y ago
    >Why are we looking to lower the bar for this guy? He could be on tape taking bribes from underage Russian hookers while smoking crack cigarettes wrapped in pages of the Bible, but if the Republicans think he'll kill Roe V. Wade and keep it dead for the rest of his life, they'll take him.
  - repolfx 8y ago
FabHK 8y ago
There's a big difference between * criminal justice (where you mete out punishment, and want to act only against confirmed bad people (and in case of doubt, you don't act), and therefore you require very strong evidence against someone), and * examining candidates for one of the most elevated positions in government (where you hand out power, and want to appoint only confirmed good people (and in case of doubt, you don't appoint), so fairly weak evidence against someone is enough.) That's not really a particularly hard distinction to grasp.
- ck425 8y ago
  This. In our industry we reject good candidates all the time, as we'd rather many false negatives than one false positives. This is the same. Hell in ways it's even more important. It's a job for life, with a stupid amount of influence.

Why are people outraged before a sentence is pronounced? Are allegations now enough to convict someone? What happened to the West? Is this the beginning of the end ?

dbt00 8y ago

not a criminal trial, standards of evidence don't apply. You just watched a federal judge commit several baldfaced lies and rant about political hits. That's not acceptable conduct for the supreme court, full stop.

fein 8y ago
"We just coordinated a partisan effort to accuse you of sexual assault from an incident no one can remember that occurred 35 years ago, and drag you and your family through the media mud and also call you a gang rapist for an added bonus. Why are you so upset?" Do you expect the guy to be some sort of emotionless robot? This is classic Alisnky tactics combined with some form of infinite projected purity spiraling to raise the standard for an SC judge to inhuman levels. Thankfully, the right has finally come around to not caring about these tactics being employed by the left.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- r00fus 8y ago
  I expect that whoever the candidate is, they have a bit more damn decorum. This is a job-for-life. We can do better. Hell the guy who interviewed before (Garland) wasn't that bad.

pjc50 8y ago

There's no sentence or prosecution here, it's a job appointment. I'm unclear why there is apparently only one candidate and we can't just have someone less controversial.

athenot 8y ago
Not quite any job, a job for life. There's not really an Undo Button like normal jobs.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Ah yes, he's being made a life peer with permanent political power.
- asveikau 8y ago
  > There's not really an Undo Button like normal jobs. There's impeachment, but the only case of that I'm aware of for a supreme court justice is from the 19th century.
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
Well, that's a matter of your starting assumptions. If you think the accusations are valid, then sure, go find someone else without the baggage, and let's nominate that person. If you think that there's no evidence supporting the accusations, though, you might suspect that they're manufactured political outrage. (You might even see a pattern with Bork and Clarence Thomas.) You start to wonder if it's possible to find someone for whom the other side won't manufacture outrage. At that point, trying to find someone "less controversial" is a fool's errand.
throwaway5250 8y ago
There were a number of candidates, and one was chosen by the head of the Executive branch. The Senate then gets to approve or deny the choice. This is all in the Constitution. If I recall correctly, the bar used to be 60% for approval, by gentleman's agreement. A few years ago, the Democrats decided to discard that agreement (executing the so-called "nuclear option"). Now they're paying the price. Ultimately the electorate will judge what was done. At the moment, it appears that they're leaning against the Democrats' strategy, but we'll know more after the mid-term results are in.
- evanrich 8y ago

josteink 8y ago

#metoo, SJWs and social media lynchmobs happened.

Taniwha 8y ago

this is not a trial, it is a job interview - I wouldn't hire a potential employee who behaved the way Kavanaugh behaved in his interview, especially for this job

woodpanel 8y ago

I hope it's not the end, but it's certainly a devolution. Immoral moralization will draw anyone who's not going 100% with the program to eventually vote for the Trumps, AfDs, Farages etc.

tzs 8y ago

Part of the outrage is that the Senate first tried to not consider the allegations at all. Then they didn't listen to all of the evidence known at the time when they did hold hearings. Then they used a limited FBI investigation that appears to have skipped a lot of evidence. Enough people who knew Kavanaugh in high school, college, and law school have now come forward with memories that contradict some of his recollections and testimony, especially about the frequency and severity of his drinking, that even if he did NOT do anything to Ford in high school they should raise at least sufficient doubts about his fitness for the Court on other grounds to justify more investigation. Yet, the Senate majority is rushing to vote. What's the hurry? A couple years ago they said there is no problem whatsoever with the Court only having 8 Justices for an extended time (at least three Senators--Burr, Cruz, and Paul--said they were willing to hold it open for five years if Clinton got elected). Surely they can take a couple weeks or even a month now and thoroughly vet Kavanaugh?

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
I'm thinking its time to pull the plug. Why are we looking to lower the bar for this guy? We can find somebody, easy, who doesn't drink like a fish and harass women. Maybe a woman judge would fill the bill? We're not trying to fill this post with not-quite-the-bottom-of-the-barrel, and we should stop trying. Lets try somebody clean to start with? Look for the best, instead of the not-the-worst? And this dude is not being 'unfairly treated', forget that. I don't get to be a Supreme Court Justice either. Almost nobody does. He wants to do public service he can go volunteer at a Senior Center. Hell, he can take up woodworking, I don't care. He should just get the hell off the stage and lets start looking again.
- krapp 8y ago
  >Why are we looking to lower the bar for this guy? He could be on tape taking bribes from underage Russian hookers while smoking crack cigarettes wrapped in pages of the Bible, but if the Republicans think he'll kill Roe V. Wade and keep it dead for the rest of his life, they'll take him.
- repolfx 8y ago

FabHK 8y ago

There's a big difference between * criminal justice (where you mete out punishment, and want to act only against confirmed bad people (and in case of doubt, you don't act), and therefore you require very strong evidence against someone), and * examining candidates for one of the most elevated positions in government (where you hand out power, and want to appoint only confirmed good people (and in case of doubt, you don't appoint), so fairly weak evidence against someone is enough.) That's not really a particularly hard distinction to grasp.

ck425 8y ago
This. In our industry we reject good candidates all the time, as we'd rather many false negatives than one false positives. This is the same. Hell in ways it's even more important. It's a job for life, with a stupid amount of influence.