3 ms·
While 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
by alehul 8y ago
While 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.