6 ms·

Don't really think the Kavanaugh example really fits in with the rest. Sorry, if you want to be a Supreme Court justice, yes, you should should be held to a mu

Don't really think the Kavanaugh example really fits in with the rest. Sorry, if you want to be a Supreme Court justice, yes, you should should be held to a much higher standard. Yelling about "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" does indeed count as "partisan bitterness".

manfredo 8y ago
If allegation of a decades old crime at an unspecified date, time, and location, and with no corroborating evidence is enough to block a Supreme Court nomination then we're not going to be nominating new justices any time soon (Democrat or Republican).
- perfmode 8y ago
  His attitude while defending himself on the stand is the basis for which I would rescind his nomination. His behavior was not befitting of someone who is about to be conferred lifetime appointment to the highest court in the country. I don’t want him crafting laws and making decisions that impact huge groups of people.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    Behavior such as? Most people who I've seen criticize his behavior essentially boil down to criticizing him for not admitting guilt, or because he tried to discredit Ford - neither of which are valid points in my view. Defending oneself from an accusation inherently entails discrediting the accuser, to criticize defendants for doing so is essentially saying it should be socially unacceptable to defend oneself from an accusation. While I probably won't agree with Kavanaugh's court opinions, the opposition to his appointment also has negative effects. It was correlated with a drop in trust for alleged victims of sexual assault, for example: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/10/15/after-a-year-of-metoo-american-opinion-has-shifted-against-victims https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/10/15/after-a-...
    - lern_too_spel 8y ago
      He was often blackout drunk according to his classmates, but he repeatedly lied and said he wasn't.
    - jacobolus 8y ago
      Behavior such as repeatedly making easily disprovable statements (which numerous past acquaintances who had no particular reason to otherwise make public statements about his nomination called out as blatant lies), and pugnaciously asking a Senator whether she ever gets black-out drunk. After starting his career in politics as a vicious partisan hack e.g. involved directly in a conspiracy to undermine Judiciary Committee hearings, perjuring himself in his first judicial confirmation hearing, and spending his judicial career on tireless and extreme support for corporate interests, he should have not been the nominee; there are many less controversial and more respected choices among high-profile career members of the GOP. But if he had acted like an adult in the hearing and been willing to admit to being an angry drunken partier as in his teens and twenties who might have done stupid things and not remembered, and demonstrated some contrition and sign of personal growth, I and many others would have some respect for it. Instead, his behavior was the most hostile and disrespectful I have ever seen in a public hearing. I urge anyone curious about this to watch the 3 hour hearing for yourself. In my view his confirmation is a stain on the Senate and the Court. It cements the public perception that the rich and powerful can do anything they want, remain unapologetic, and face no consequences.
      - manfredo 8y ago
        He repeatedly stated that did consumed large quantities of alcohol in late high school and in college. Maybe there is diagreement over the exact degree of inebriation, but I am not so sure it's correct to say he lied. Regardless, the two points after are where the problematic nature of the complaints against Kavanaugh surface: > who sometimes shoved his penis in women’s faces, Another allegation which he denies. As I predicted, the core complaint is that he denies the allegations made against him. This is effectively constructing a situation in which the accused is guilty of something no matter what. Either 1) the accused does not defend themselves and is guilty of the alleged crimes, or 2) the accused does defend themselves, but in the world view you've constructed this makes them guilty of hostility and disrespect. > and demonstrated some contrition Contrition for what? He denies said allegations. Again, when you get to the bottom of it this is essentially criticizing the fact that Kavanaugh maintained his innocence. This is what was so pernicious about the Kavanaugh hearings that bothered even me, a lifelong Democrat. The fact that merely trying to defend oneself against an allegations is grounds for negative character judgement is at odds with the core principles of justice. > and sign of personal growth, I and many others would have some respect for it. If going from a binge drinking teenager to Supreme Court nominee (let alone Justice) doesn't demonstrate personl growth I don't know what does. This is greater growth than most people on HN will likely achieve (myself included). Update: It appears the above poster had since edited their comment. My response took a while to write, so it could be that their edit was made before my response was done. I urge commenters not to assume bad faith on their part.
  - jerf 8y ago
    Stand in his place for a week and tell me that. To echo manfredo, if the only people we can nominate to the Supreme Court are people who can just calmly sit there while the absolute worst accusations possible are flung against them, we're not going to be nominating new justices any time soon (Democrat or Republican). Or, alternatively, we're going to get a very, very distorted set of justices who lack all emotional affect or something. Or, looking at it from another view point, there is this idea floating around (you're not the first place I've heard it from) that simultaneously, poorly-founded [1] accusations of rape are really, really terrible, like, the worst thing ever, more than sufficient to scotch a nomination to any serious office of the land... but at the same time, a person who is so accused of literally the worst thing ever should also have no reaction to this and be completely impassive in the face of these nominally terrible accusations. Look, either it's that serious and it should be treated that seriously across the board, or it's not that serious at all, and it should be treated unseriously across the board. But if you try to have it both ways, the conclusion people are eventually going to come to is that it must not be serious. That's what's going to win out; are you sure you want that? Do you really want to say that the standard for reacting to being accused of serious crimes is that the accused should just wave the accusations away and be completely unaffected by them? Are you really asking for that to be the standard? Because if you think about it, I bet that's not what you want. [1]: You want to consider them true, you want to consider them false, that's your business, but I'm very comfortable characterizing the accusations as very poorly founded either way.
    - perfmode 8y ago
      That office is so important that I’m happy to wait until the right candidate shows up. And I don’t want republicans or Democrats. I want scientists of law with integrity. And there are plenty competent people with integrity. It is people who lack integrity that marginalize them.
      - brodouevencode 8y ago
        Shouldn't that office should be held to the same standards as the other three branches?
  - weberc2 8y ago
    "I don't like their attitude" is even more rife for abuse than blocking nominations on the basis of unsupported allegations...
- matt4077 8y ago
  You’re willfully misrepresenting the accusations, and completely ignoring the reaction to them that many considered to be even more problematic. But let’s not rehash this particular flamewar.
fareesh 8y ago
He was 100% right in speculating revenge on behalf of the Clintons in my opinion. It was a pointed reference to the accuser's lawyers, who kept her in the dark about the option of testifying privately. The lawyers had previously represented Bill Clinton. It's not a big leap, honestly.
moduspol 8y ago
Put yourself in his shoes for a moment, and pretend you're genuinely innocent of the accusations. Isn't a group of partisan operatives conspiring against you the most likely reason for very conveniently-timed and uncorroborated sexual assault allegations? But put that aside. Maybe he's actually guilty of at least one of them. Even then, though, some of the allegations ended up being false: Most recently here [1], but also here [2], and here [3], and here [4]. Four clear examples of accusations made that turned out to be completely false. So at best, one must acknowledge that this man endured a national media spotlight under four false accusations of sexual assault/rape, but came across as "too partisan" when speculating as to one of the few possible explanations for why these false accusers may have come forward. I sure hope I'm never in the situation he's in, but if I'm on national TV being essentially questioned if maybe I don't remember all the gang raping I did because of how drunk I was, I can assure you my answers will be far less dignified. [1] https://www.nationalreview.com/news/kavanaugh-accuser-admits-she-fabricated-allegations/ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/kavanaugh-accuser-admits... [2] https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fifth-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-recants/ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fifth-brett-kavanaugh-ac... [3] https://www.apnews.com/c5ecf76c62ec4c398e35020b5df01061 https://www.apnews.com/c5ecf76c62ec4c398e35020b5df01061 [4] https://www.npr.org/2018/09/20/649787076/kavanaugh-accuser-classmate-that-it-happened-or-not-i-have-no-idea https://www.npr.org/2018/09/20/649787076/kavanaugh-accuser-c...
- beat 8y ago
  The problem with Kavanaugh isn't what he did as a drunken teenager. It's what he did as a sober adult - his angry, petulant outbursts at senators. A Supreme Court seat isn't just a question of experience or background. It's a question of temperament. Even if he was completely innocent (and being too drunk to remember or too arrogant to think it important isn't the same as innocent), he should have been completely calm and peaceful with the senators. Think of it another way - it's a job interview. If you were crying and screaming about a conspiracy of your interviewers, would you get hired for any other job? The GOP should have pulled him and put forward another candidate, one without that controversy. They've managed to find such candidates before. The resemblance of the Kavanaugh vote to a bunch of men having their way with women and covering their mouths while they screamed was unsettling.

manfredo 8y ago

If allegation of a decades old crime at an unspecified date, time, and location, and with no corroborating evidence is enough to block a Supreme Court nomination then we're not going to be nominating new justices any time soon (Democrat or Republican).

perfmode 8y ago
His attitude while defending himself on the stand is the basis for which I would rescind his nomination. His behavior was not befitting of someone who is about to be conferred lifetime appointment to the highest court in the country. I don’t want him crafting laws and making decisions that impact huge groups of people.
- manfredo 8y ago
  Behavior such as? Most people who I've seen criticize his behavior essentially boil down to criticizing him for not admitting guilt, or because he tried to discredit Ford - neither of which are valid points in my view. Defending oneself from an accusation inherently entails discrediting the accuser, to criticize defendants for doing so is essentially saying it should be socially unacceptable to defend oneself from an accusation. While I probably won't agree with Kavanaugh's court opinions, the opposition to his appointment also has negative effects. It was correlated with a drop in trust for alleged victims of sexual assault, for example: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/10/15/after-a-year-of-metoo-american-opinion-has-shifted-against-victims https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/10/15/after-a-...
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    He was often blackout drunk according to his classmates, but he repeatedly lied and said he wasn't.
  - jacobolus 8y ago
    Behavior such as repeatedly making easily disprovable statements (which numerous past acquaintances who had no particular reason to otherwise make public statements about his nomination called out as blatant lies), and pugnaciously asking a Senator whether she ever gets black-out drunk. After starting his career in politics as a vicious partisan hack e.g. involved directly in a conspiracy to undermine Judiciary Committee hearings, perjuring himself in his first judicial confirmation hearing, and spending his judicial career on tireless and extreme support for corporate interests, he should have not been the nominee; there are many less controversial and more respected choices among high-profile career members of the GOP. But if he had acted like an adult in the hearing and been willing to admit to being an angry drunken partier as in his teens and twenties who might have done stupid things and not remembered, and demonstrated some contrition and sign of personal growth, I and many others would have some respect for it. Instead, his behavior was the most hostile and disrespectful I have ever seen in a public hearing. I urge anyone curious about this to watch the 3 hour hearing for yourself. In my view his confirmation is a stain on the Senate and the Court. It cements the public perception that the rich and powerful can do anything they want, remain unapologetic, and face no consequences.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      He repeatedly stated that did consumed large quantities of alcohol in late high school and in college. Maybe there is diagreement over the exact degree of inebriation, but I am not so sure it's correct to say he lied. Regardless, the two points after are where the problematic nature of the complaints against Kavanaugh surface: > who sometimes shoved his penis in women’s faces, Another allegation which he denies. As I predicted, the core complaint is that he denies the allegations made against him. This is effectively constructing a situation in which the accused is guilty of something no matter what. Either 1) the accused does not defend themselves and is guilty of the alleged crimes, or 2) the accused does defend themselves, but in the world view you've constructed this makes them guilty of hostility and disrespect. > and demonstrated some contrition Contrition for what? He denies said allegations. Again, when you get to the bottom of it this is essentially criticizing the fact that Kavanaugh maintained his innocence. This is what was so pernicious about the Kavanaugh hearings that bothered even me, a lifelong Democrat. The fact that merely trying to defend oneself against an allegations is grounds for negative character judgement is at odds with the core principles of justice. > and sign of personal growth, I and many others would have some respect for it. If going from a binge drinking teenager to Supreme Court nominee (let alone Justice) doesn't demonstrate personl growth I don't know what does. This is greater growth than most people on HN will likely achieve (myself included). Update: It appears the above poster had since edited their comment. My response took a while to write, so it could be that their edit was made before my response was done. I urge commenters not to assume bad faith on their part.
- jerf 8y ago
  Stand in his place for a week and tell me that. To echo manfredo, if the only people we can nominate to the Supreme Court are people who can just calmly sit there while the absolute worst accusations possible are flung against them, we're not going to be nominating new justices any time soon (Democrat or Republican). Or, alternatively, we're going to get a very, very distorted set of justices who lack all emotional affect or something. Or, looking at it from another view point, there is this idea floating around (you're not the first place I've heard it from) that simultaneously, poorly-founded [1] accusations of rape are really, really terrible, like, the worst thing ever, more than sufficient to scotch a nomination to any serious office of the land... but at the same time, a person who is so accused of literally the worst thing ever should also have no reaction to this and be completely impassive in the face of these nominally terrible accusations. Look, either it's that serious and it should be treated that seriously across the board, or it's not that serious at all, and it should be treated unseriously across the board. But if you try to have it both ways, the conclusion people are eventually going to come to is that it must not be serious. That's what's going to win out; are you sure you want that? Do you really want to say that the standard for reacting to being accused of serious crimes is that the accused should just wave the accusations away and be completely unaffected by them? Are you really asking for that to be the standard? Because if you think about it, I bet that's not what you want. [1]: You want to consider them true, you want to consider them false, that's your business, but I'm very comfortable characterizing the accusations as very poorly founded either way.
  - perfmode 8y ago
    That office is so important that I’m happy to wait until the right candidate shows up. And I don’t want republicans or Democrats. I want scientists of law with integrity. And there are plenty competent people with integrity. It is people who lack integrity that marginalize them.
    - brodouevencode 8y ago
      Shouldn't that office should be held to the same standards as the other three branches?
- weberc2 8y ago
  "I don't like their attitude" is even more rife for abuse than blocking nominations on the basis of unsupported allegations...
matt4077 8y ago
You’re willfully misrepresenting the accusations, and completely ignoring the reaction to them that many considered to be even more problematic. But let’s not rehash this particular flamewar.

fareesh 8y ago

He was 100% right in speculating revenge on behalf of the Clintons in my opinion. It was a pointed reference to the accuser's lawyers, who kept her in the dark about the option of testifying privately. The lawyers had previously represented Bill Clinton. It's not a big leap, honestly.

moduspol 8y ago

Put yourself in his shoes for a moment, and pretend you're genuinely innocent of the accusations. Isn't a group of partisan operatives conspiring against you the most likely reason for very conveniently-timed and uncorroborated sexual assault allegations? But put that aside. Maybe he's actually guilty of at least one of them. Even then, though, some of the allegations ended up being false: Most recently here [1], but also here [2], and here [3], and here [4]. Four clear examples of accusations made that turned out to be completely false. So at best, one must acknowledge that this man endured a national media spotlight under four false accusations of sexual assault/rape, but came across as "too partisan" when speculating as to one of the few possible explanations for why these false accusers may have come forward. I sure hope I'm never in the situation he's in, but if I'm on national TV being essentially questioned if maybe I don't remember all the gang raping I did because of how drunk I was, I can assure you my answers will be far less dignified. [1] https://www.nationalreview.com/news/kavanaugh-accuser-admits-she-fabricated-allegations/ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/kavanaugh-accuser-admits... [2] https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fifth-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-recants/ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fifth-brett-kavanaugh-ac... [3] https://www.apnews.com/c5ecf76c62ec4c398e35020b5df01061 https://www.apnews.com/c5ecf76c62ec4c398e35020b5df01061 [4] https://www.npr.org/2018/09/20/649787076/kavanaugh-accuser-classmate-that-it-happened-or-not-i-have-no-idea https://www.npr.org/2018/09/20/649787076/kavanaugh-accuser-c...

beat 8y ago
The problem with Kavanaugh isn't what he did as a drunken teenager. It's what he did as a sober adult - his angry, petulant outbursts at senators. A Supreme Court seat isn't just a question of experience or background. It's a question of temperament. Even if he was completely innocent (and being too drunk to remember or too arrogant to think it important isn't the same as innocent), he should have been completely calm and peaceful with the senators. Think of it another way - it's a job interview. If you were crying and screaming about a conspiracy of your interviewers, would you get hired for any other job? The GOP should have pulled him and put forward another candidate, one without that controversy. They've managed to find such candidates before. The resemblance of the Kavanaugh vote to a bunch of men having their way with women and covering their mouths while they screamed was unsettling.