4 ms·
>>We have to presume Kavanaugh's innocence because no witness has come forward to corroborate any claims. By the standards of criminal proceedings, yes. But th
by g8oz 8y ago
>>We have to presume Kavanaugh's innocence because no witness has come forward to corroborate any claims.
By the standards of criminal proceedings, yes. But this is a job interview, the standards for disqualifying someone are lower.
- firic 8y agoImagine if every time you wanted to apply for a competitive job you would get rejected simply because some woman claimed that you raped her.
- eigenstuff 8y agoWell, if you don't rape someone, generally that's not something you need to worry about.
- firic 8y agoDid Kavanaugh rape someone? I don't know. Are you 100% sure that he did? If not, lets assume that he didn't. Your statement is now wrong since he is worrying about that.
- krapp 8y ago>If not, lets assume that he didn't. Your statement is now wrong since he is worrying about that. "generally that's not something you need to worry about" is not a statement claiming that it's never something anyone, ever needs to worry about. It is still true that in general if you don't rape someone, you don't need to worry about being accused of having raped someone, because false rape accusations are statistically unlikely.
- jcadam 8y ago> But this is a job interview This makes me angry every time I read it. A failed job interview usually means you can just go back to whatever it was you were doing before you applied, none the worse for wear. A job interview shouldn't require you to defend yourself against scurrilous personal attacks which result in you becoming an unemployable social pariah if you fail.
- angry_octet 8y agoUgh, he'll still be a Federal judge with a lifetime appointment.
- fareesh 8y agoThat's not the sum total of his life. His neighbours won't look at him the same way. His coaching life has come to a complete end - no parents of young girls are going to be comfortable with him coaching them, and Harvard University has already terminated his lectures. This was not a job interview.
- alehul 8y agoWhile that's true, and I personally am leaning towards believing Ford, there's also these premises we must accept: (1) There will be millions of people against any Supreme Court nominee (2) The bar for dismissal of a Supreme Court nominee is accusations, even without corroboration Premise (1) is bound to be true, and premise (2) will be fulfilled if we decide Kavanaugh should not be nominated. The logical conclusion is thus likely: (3) Any of the millions of people against a Supreme Court nominee can come forward with accusations without corroboration and block their nomination While I think Kavanaugh's defensive and angry response is another valid issue, we could then just add a 3rd premise to the above where the uncorroborated claims would have to be met with anger by the nominee to be disqualified. It still seems like a screwed up system, with that third premise installed.
- jsjohnst 8y agoOr better yet, let’s consider him not getting the nomination because he lied under oath. Irregardless of where you stand on the Ford allegation (which is currently he said / she said, and nothing more, despite me believing what she said), it’s easily proveable that Kavanaugh lied under oath.
- angry_octet 8y agoI have a great counter-example for you: Gorsuch. The problem isn't supported much the accusations (though Ford gave powerful testimony) as his response. He is condemned by his own words. He was evasive, dissembling, maudlin, vengeful, conspiracy minded, hair splitting, seemingly conveniently forgetful, enraged at being questioned, sly, prevaricating, devious. In a word, dishonest. Not the qualities one wants for a judge on the highest court in the land.