4 ms·

There was significant criticism of him professionally before the multiple allegations of rape were made. It didn't matter. Then the multiple allegations of ra

There was significant criticism of him professionally before the multiple allegations of rape were made. It didn't matter. Then the multiple allegations of rape were made. And it still didn't matter. So let's not kid ourselves that there was ever any chance of stopping his confirmation. He's the political version of a made man.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jeffdavis 8y ago
"Then the multiple allegations of rape were made. And it still didn't matter." Do you think allegations should matter to the confirmation process? If the allegations are substantiated well-enough, the DA of Maryland could still charge him, right? The confirmation process does not seem like the right venue to seek justice for a crime like that.
- nicoburns 8y ago
  I'd argue that the standatd of proof required for "man should go to prison" should be higher than then for "man shouldn't be trusted with one of the most powerful judicial positions in the country"...
  - jeffdavis 8y ago
    What should be the standard for the latter?
    - matt4077 8y ago
      It doesn't require a standard of proof in the way that people don't work with a standard-of-proof 3-pronged test-of-likability for their spouses. Among the myriad reasons: the nature of the crime matters. If they got caught with a bit too much LSD in 1975 it doesn't matter even if proven & admitted and convicted. If, however, there's just a whiff of corruption then that's Game Over, next please. Hell, if they were arrested in bar fight just last year and spend a week in jail, that might even be a plus: first hand experience of the criminal justice system from "deep inside" could at least excuse a singular transgression (perhaps depending on what side of emacs-vs-vim they so drastically defended in that bar). So it's more of a calculation, as in probability X recency X seriousness X relevancy for job +/- all other factors. ...rather than any single standard of proof. And that's fine. That's how it has always been, and how it was originally envisioned.
- matt4077 8y ago
  Becoming a supreme court justice is one the highest privileges the US can bestow on any one citizen. There are (legal) limits to the factors that may or may not be considered in the Senate's deliberations. It's a fallacy to believe that the presumption of innocence, a principle of criminal law applies. This is rather easy to see, just by looking at history, and vast amount of facts that have been cited in votes against nominees, only a tiny fraction of which were ever the subject of a criminal trial. It's also intuitively obvious by considering the often-cited reasoning the the presumption of innocence: It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. Because this doesn't hold for supreme court justices, where I think most would agree it's better for ten excellent judges to be passed over in lieu of the second-best alternative, than to have one criminal decide what's law and what isn't.
dmix 8y ago
Allegations shouldn't ruin peoples careers. A conviction should be the bare minimum and even then depending on the crime. Even a criminal charge would have helped such an argument but even that wasn't the case here. If it wasn't for the politics of the situation I highly doubt so many people would be against such basic human right as due process.
- kevincrane 8y ago
  It wouldn't have ruined his career, it just would've said "maybe we shouldn't give him a promotion to a lifelong job until we thoroughly investigate whether or not he's a rapist".
  - dmix 8y ago
    That's might sound like persuasive way to phrase it but it doesn't represent the reality of the situation fairly or provide adequate context. Most importantly being a Supreme Court justice doesn't protect you from going to jail or from law enforcement from investigating your past behaviour... justices can be impeached. On the inverse of your position we also shouldn't prevent the promotion of people to important roles (this goes well beyond SC justices), having followed every legal rule correctly up to that point, merely because of a last minute allegation. Let alone an allegation that wasn't even brought directly to the attention of law enforcement requesting investigation first but rather to a political opponent of the judge in question. Even if the accusers sound persuasive it sets a very dangerous precedent that would make it easy to game the system and prevent any quality promotions merely based on unfounded allegations. This would almost certainly be open to abuse and hurt ALL political parties during future nominations, for any role, for decades to come. Absent at a very minimum a law enforcement decision to bring charges, the hearings should continue and the matters should be investigated afterwards should they warrant it.
  - koolba 8y ago
    Which would inevitably lead to a continuous stream of unprovable, yet also undisapprovable, allegations against every subsequent candidate. We saw the beginnings of that in the clearly fabricated follow up accusations.
skookumchuck 8y ago
> multiple allegations Some of them have turned out to be lies: https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/gop-chairman-refers-kavanaugh-accuser-for-criminal-probe/ https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/go...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jeffdavis 8y ago

"Then the multiple allegations of rape were made. And it still didn't matter." Do you think allegations should matter to the confirmation process? If the allegations are substantiated well-enough, the DA of Maryland could still charge him, right? The confirmation process does not seem like the right venue to seek justice for a crime like that.

nicoburns 8y ago
I'd argue that the standatd of proof required for "man should go to prison" should be higher than then for "man shouldn't be trusted with one of the most powerful judicial positions in the country"...
- jeffdavis 8y ago
  What should be the standard for the latter?
  - matt4077 8y ago
    It doesn't require a standard of proof in the way that people don't work with a standard-of-proof 3-pronged test-of-likability for their spouses. Among the myriad reasons: the nature of the crime matters. If they got caught with a bit too much LSD in 1975 it doesn't matter even if proven & admitted and convicted. If, however, there's just a whiff of corruption then that's Game Over, next please. Hell, if they were arrested in bar fight just last year and spend a week in jail, that might even be a plus: first hand experience of the criminal justice system from "deep inside" could at least excuse a singular transgression (perhaps depending on what side of emacs-vs-vim they so drastically defended in that bar). So it's more of a calculation, as in probability X recency X seriousness X relevancy for job +/- all other factors. ...rather than any single standard of proof. And that's fine. That's how it has always been, and how it was originally envisioned.
matt4077 8y ago
Becoming a supreme court justice is one the highest privileges the US can bestow on any one citizen. There are (legal) limits to the factors that may or may not be considered in the Senate's deliberations. It's a fallacy to believe that the presumption of innocence, a principle of criminal law applies. This is rather easy to see, just by looking at history, and vast amount of facts that have been cited in votes against nominees, only a tiny fraction of which were ever the subject of a criminal trial. It's also intuitively obvious by considering the often-cited reasoning the the presumption of innocence: It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. Because this doesn't hold for supreme court justices, where I think most would agree it's better for ten excellent judges to be passed over in lieu of the second-best alternative, than to have one criminal decide what's law and what isn't.

dmix 8y ago

Allegations shouldn't ruin peoples careers. A conviction should be the bare minimum and even then depending on the crime. Even a criminal charge would have helped such an argument but even that wasn't the case here. If it wasn't for the politics of the situation I highly doubt so many people would be against such basic human right as due process.

kevincrane 8y ago
It wouldn't have ruined his career, it just would've said "maybe we shouldn't give him a promotion to a lifelong job until we thoroughly investigate whether or not he's a rapist".
- dmix 8y ago
  That's might sound like persuasive way to phrase it but it doesn't represent the reality of the situation fairly or provide adequate context. Most importantly being a Supreme Court justice doesn't protect you from going to jail or from law enforcement from investigating your past behaviour... justices can be impeached. On the inverse of your position we also shouldn't prevent the promotion of people to important roles (this goes well beyond SC justices), having followed every legal rule correctly up to that point, merely because of a last minute allegation. Let alone an allegation that wasn't even brought directly to the attention of law enforcement requesting investigation first but rather to a political opponent of the judge in question. Even if the accusers sound persuasive it sets a very dangerous precedent that would make it easy to game the system and prevent any quality promotions merely based on unfounded allegations. This would almost certainly be open to abuse and hurt ALL political parties during future nominations, for any role, for decades to come. Absent at a very minimum a law enforcement decision to bring charges, the hearings should continue and the matters should be investigated afterwards should they warrant it.
- koolba 8y ago
  Which would inevitably lead to a continuous stream of unprovable, yet also undisapprovable, allegations against every subsequent candidate. We saw the beginnings of that in the clearly fabricated follow up accusations.

skookumchuck 8y ago

> multiple allegations Some of them have turned out to be lies: https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/gop-chairman-refers-kavanaugh-accuser-for-criminal-probe/ https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/go...