4 ms·

"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 alle

"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.

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.