How many accusers need to come forward before you believe the accused is guilty?

[DrZoidberg]

Yes, I do. She must have known that a 30 year old accusation of rape with no evidence wouldn't stick in a trained lawyer. It wouldn't even stick on a non-trained lawyer. It couldn't be anything but an attempt to smear his name and in extension the Republican party.

This would be the case regardless if the accusation was true or not.

It didn't stick because the Republicans didn't want it to stick. That says nothing about the truth.

1) His reaction makes it pretty likely he was guilty.

I think his reactions were rehersed to give the opposite impression. All we're doing is judging his acting abilities, not his guilt. Remember.. he's a trained lawyer. This is his job.

Don't you think you read him as guilty because you want him to be guilty?

2) She made several claims in her allegation. While they don't prove exactly what happened the fact that they check out makes it pretty clear something happened--and I have a hard time picturing it being anything other than an assault. That doesn't prove which of the partygoers was responsible but given #1 I'm pretty sure she named the right one.

Meh... almost something happening also sounds like that.

BTW, I think he's guilty to. But I also strongly believe that beyond reasonable doubt is important to maintain. And it's not. There's plenty of doubt here. It's 30 years... It was an impossible task nailing him.

So even if he's really guilty I think bringing it up now was complete bullshit.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's super hard to judge someone's reactions. People who are in shock do very strange things

This can be true. However, I think it's fair to expect a justice to to be reasonable even under pressure, as opposed to waxing lachrymotic over beer, of all things. Shit like that makes em doubtful.

(Ironically, it was a lawyer I dated a long time ago who told me this nugget: Any time I see someone cry in public, I ask myself "What is their motivation?")

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think his reactions were rehersed to give the opposite impression. All we're doing is judging his acting abilities, not his guilt. Remember.. he's a trained lawyer. This is his job.

Don't you think you read him as guilty because you want him to be guilty?

In general I don't put much faith in old allegations. If you want the system to take it seriously report it at the time.

However, as this one played out I became convinced she's telling the truth.

2) She made several claims in her allegation. While they don't prove exactly what happened the fact that they check out makes it pretty clear something happened--and I have a hard time picturing it being anything other than an assault. That doesn't prove which of the partygoers was responsible but given #1 I'm pretty sure she named the right one.

Meh... almost something happening also sounds like that.

BTW, I think he's guilty to. But I also strongly believe that beyond reasonable doubt is important to maintain. And it's not. There's plenty of doubt here. It's 30 years... It was an impossible task nailing him.

So even if he's really guilty I think bringing it up now was complete bullshit.

At this point I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Too many coincidences for it to be anything else.

 

[blastula]

No. In his case I'm sure he was instructed by Republican spin doctors. The whole thing stunk. First off... why does she accuse him of this now? I think the accusation, while true, the timing was probably politically motivated. I think it was all bullshit on all sides. Pure politically motivated theatre.

You think the accusation was political? She made it before he was nominated. As she has said, there were other qualified candidates. Stopping Kavanaugh wouldn't stop someone worse politically from being confirmed.

Yes, I do. She must have known that a 30 year old accusation of rape with no evidence wouldn't stick in a trained lawyer. It wouldn't even stick on a non-trained lawyer. It couldn't be anything but an attempt to smear his name and in extension the Republican party.

This would be the case regardless if the accusation was true or not.

If you're telling the truth, it's not a smear. And what does him being a lawyer have to do with it?

 

[DrZoidberg]

If you're telling the truth, it's not a smear. And what does him being a lawyer have to do with it?

If it's an accusation that couldn't possible stick, but you try anyway the purpose can only be to smear. What other possible motive could she have? Even if he's guilty she'd never get justice. Unless what she wanted is the smearing of his name.

I'm against punishing people for stuff they maybe did.

 

[blastula]

What do you mean by, stick? She wanted the Senate to know something important about him. You act like that's a bad thing. She's supposed to keep quiet because she didn't have video of the assault? A confirmation hearing isn't criminal court. There is no need for conclusive proof of an allegation against him for it to matter. If a Senator believed there was a 30% chance he was guilty, that would be good reason not to confirm him.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If a Senator believed there was a 30% chance he was guilty, that would be good reason not to confirm him.

I think that in combination with some other things it might be good reason. So, for example, Swetnick & Ramirez and the 4th accuser, but more importantly his on-the-job behaviors like choosing female interns who look like models or whatever it was. That shows something recent and related to the job and that he didn't really learn a lesson from his past youthful terrible errors. I mean, I might be willing to consider a person for justice who did something terrible at 17 if he admitted it or didn't comment on it. But this is a guy who seems not to have learned and still victimizes his victims and that seems to have a bearing on his job. So all things considered, too much risk. And that's not considering all the other stuff like the perjury and extreme partisanship.

 

[laughing dog]

If you're telling the truth, it's not a smear. And what does him being a lawyer have to do with it?

If it's an accusation that couldn't possible stick, but you try anyway the purpose can only be to smear. What other possible motive could she have? Even if he's guilty she'd never get justice. Unless what she wanted is the smearing of his name.

I'm against punishing people for stuff they maybe did.

So not being on the Supreme Court is punishment? That means over 300 million US citizens are being punished right now.

This was a job interview. Would you hire a babysitter who might molested a child?

 

[DrZoidberg]

What do you mean by, stick? She wanted the Senate to know something important about him. You act like that's a bad thing. She's supposed to keep quiet because she didn't have video of the assault? A confirmation hearing isn't criminal court. There is no need for conclusive proof of an allegation against him for it to matter. If a Senator believed there was a 30% chance he was guilty, that would be good reason not to confirm him.

To stick means prove he was guilty (beyond reasonable doubt). If she couldn't prove he was guilty it would be wrong to take it into consideration at all.

If we allow for that we've opened up for an awful precedent.

She should do what she wants. That's what a free society means. But I think she allowed herself to be a political tool for dome very bad people

 

[DrZoidberg]

If you're telling the truth, it's not a smear. And what does him being a lawyer have to do with it?

If it's an accusation that couldn't possible stick, but you try anyway the purpose can only be to smear. What other possible motive could she have? Even if he's guilty she'd never get justice. Unless what she wanted is the smearing of his name.

I'm against punishing people for stuff they maybe did.

So not being on the Supreme Court is punishment? That means over 300 million US citizens are being punished right now.

This was a job interview. Would you hire a babysitter who might molested a child?

So you think that anybody who is accused of rape is ineligible to be a judge on the supreme court? All that means is that we'll never be able to elect a judge to the supreme court again. Because anybody can accuse anybody of anything. It's a dangerous precedent.

 

[laughing dog]

So not being on the Supreme Court is punishment? That means over 300 million US citizens are being punished right now.

This was a job interview. Would you hire a babysitter who might molested a child?

So you think that anybody who is accused of rape is ineligible to be a judge on the supreme court? All that means is that we'll never be able to elect a judge to the supreme court again. Because anybody can accuse anybody of anything. It's a dangerous precedent.

Shift the goal posts much? Failure to be appointed to the SCOTUS is not a punishment.

I think Mr. Kavanaugh should not have been approved to be on the Supreme court because he demonststated a lack of judicial temperment in his hearing and revealed himself to be a rabid partisan who will be unable to even give the appearnce of impartiality on the bench. His appointment stains the current SCOTUS. In other words, he failed his job interview.

You did not answer my question - would you hire a babysitter who might have molested a child?

 

[Jarhyn]

So not being on the Supreme Court is punishment? That means over 300 million US citizens are being punished right now.

This was a job interview. Would you hire a babysitter who might molested a child?

So you think that anybody who is accused of rape is ineligible to be a judge on the supreme court? All that means is that we'll never be able to elect a judge to the supreme court again. Because anybody can accuse anybody of anything. It's a dangerous precedent.

Shift the goal posts much? Failure to be appointed to the SCOTUS is not a punishment.

I think Mr. Kavanaugh should not have been approved to be on the Supreme court because he demonststated a lack of judicial temperment in his hearing and revealed himself to be a rabid partisan who will be unable to even give the appearnce of impartiality on the bench. His appointment stains the current SCOTUS. In other words, he failed his job interview.

You did not answer my question - would you hire a babysitter who might have molested a child?

Yeah, I would say anyone who is accused of rape should have the allegations at least investigated fully, and only be considered 'vetted' if the allegations are either contradicted by real evidence (he XXX me in the back of his Toyota; he didn't own nor have access to a Toyota) or the person giving testimony fails some accepted metric of veracity (I.E. lie detector test; though lie detector tests are not actually a good example of such); the person had no alabi or a bad alabi (Such as that they were at the scene at a time in which the act was claimed to have happened (like being at Tobin's house, drinking with the guys and anyone they brought with). And if they are not cleared, we can just find someone else who is. It's not like there aren't literally hundreds of other federal judges and other persons qualified to sit on the SCOTUS.

The standard of evidence for an elevation should be that they deserve it, to the same degree that we apply to criminals, to make sure THEY 'deserve' it.

Edit: in other words, they should be TEMPORARILY ineligibile, PENDING verification of the claims.

 

[laughing dog]

Shift the goal posts much? Failure to be appointed to the SCOTUS is not a punishment.

I think Mr. Kavanaugh should not have been approved to be on the Supreme court because he demonststated a lack of judicial temperment in his hearing and revealed himself to be a rabid partisan who will be unable to even give the appearnce of impartiality on the bench. His appointment stains the current SCOTUS. In other words, he failed his job interview.

You did not answer my question - would you hire a babysitter who might have molested a child?

Yeah, I would say anyone who is accused of rape should have the allegations at least investigated fully, and only be considered 'vetted' if the allegations are either contradicted by real evidence (he XXX me in the back of his Toyota; he didn't own nor have access to a Toyota) or the person giving testimony fails some accepted metric of veracity (I.E. lie detector test; though lie detector tests are not actually a good example of such); the person had no alabi or a bad alabi (Such as that they were at the scene at a time in which the act was claimed to have happened (like being at Tobin's house, drinking with the guys and anyone they brought with). And if they are not cleared, we can just find someone else who is. It's not like there aren't literally hundreds of other federal judges and other persons qualified to sit on the SCOTUS.

The standard of evidence for an elevation should be that they deserve it, to the same degree that we apply to criminals, to make sure THEY 'deserve' it.

Edit: in other words, they should be TEMPORARILY ineligibile, PENDING verification of the claims.

If Kavanaugh had said "Look, I did a lot of stupid stuff when I was that age. I drank a lot, and I don't recall trying to rape Ms. Ford. If I did that, I am sorry, but I am a much different person than I was over 30 years ago." instead of his evasions, nasty passive- aggressive attacks on the mostly Democratic women senators who asked questions, and bizarre partisan conspiracy theories, I would have said this man has the temperment to sit on the SCOTUS even if I disagree with his philosophy.

IMO, he miserably failed the job interview. Frankly, I don't see how any rational Senator could defend a confirmation vote on non-partisan grounds. The US Senate let the US public down with that confirmation. It is not as if there were not plenty of other conservative lawyers with the proper temperment to do the job.

 

[Toni]

Shift the goal posts much? Failure to be appointed to the SCOTUS is not a punishment.

I think Mr. Kavanaugh should not have been approved to be on the Supreme court because he demonststated a lack of judicial temperment in his hearing and revealed himself to be a rabid partisan who will be unable to even give the appearnce of impartiality on the bench. His appointment stains the current SCOTUS. In other words, he failed his job interview.

You did not answer my question - would you hire a babysitter who might have molested a child?

Yeah, I would say anyone who is accused of rape should have the allegations at least investigated fully, and only be considered 'vetted' if the allegations are either contradicted by real evidence (he XXX me in the back of his Toyota; he didn't own nor have access to a Toyota) or the person giving testimony fails some accepted metric of veracity (I.E. lie detector test; though lie detector tests are not actually a good example of such); the person had no alabi or a bad alabi (Such as that they were at the scene at a time in which the act was claimed to have happened (like being at Tobin's house, drinking with the guys and anyone they brought with). And if they are not cleared, we can just find someone else who is. It's not like there aren't literally hundreds of other federal judges and other persons qualified to sit on the SCOTUS.

The standard of evidence for an elevation should be that they deserve it, to the same degree that we apply to criminals, to make sure THEY 'deserve' it.

Edit: in other words, they should be TEMPORARILY ineligibile, PENDING verification of the claims.

If Kavanaugh had said "Look, I did a lot of stupid stuff when I was that age. I drank a lot, and I don't recall trying to rape Ms. Ford. If I did that, I am sorry, but I am a much different person than I was over 30 years ago." instead of his evasions, nasty passive- aggressive attacks on the mostly Democratic women senators who asked questions, and bizarre partisan conspiracy theories, I would have said this man has the temperment to sit on the SCOTUS even if I disagree with his philosophy.

IMO, he miserably failed the job interview. Frankly, I don't see how any sentinent Senator could defend a confirmation vote.

I would have said that *maybe* he. has the right temperament. His behavior during the questioning was appalling.

 

[laughing dog]

If Kavanaugh had said "Look, I did a lot of stupid stuff when I was that age. I drank a lot, and I don't recall trying to rape Ms. Ford. If I did that, I am sorry, but I am a much different person than I was over 30 years ago." instead of his evasions, nasty passive- aggressive attacks on the mostly Democratic women senators who asked questions, and bizarre partisan conspiracy theories, I would have said this man has the temperment to sit on the SCOTUS even if I disagree with his philosophy.

IMO, he miserably failed the job interview. Frankly, I don't see how any sentinent Senator could defend a confirmation vote.

I would have said that *maybe* he. has the right temperament. His behavior during the questioning was appalling.

It was appalling, which is why I included in my conditional "instead of his evasions, nasty passive- aggressive attacks on the mostly Democratic women senators who asked questions, and bizarre partisan conspiracy theories". His performance made me wonder about his emotional stability and overall rationality.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It was appalling, which is why I included in my conditional "instead of his evasions, nasty passive- aggressive attacks on the mostly Democratic women senators who asked questions, and bizarre partisan conspiracy theories". His performance made me wonder about his emotional stability and overall rationality.

Well, he'll be voting based on partisan considerations of whatever best helps cement right wing ideology. It's not like he'll be listening to any arguments or applying any thinking to his decisions. Being rational and stable wouldn't help him do his job, so it's not all that important to the job.

 

[laughing dog]

It was appalling, which is why I included in my conditional "instead of his evasions, nasty passive- aggressive attacks on the mostly Democratic women senators who asked questions, and bizarre partisan conspiracy theories". His performance made me wonder about his emotional stability and overall rationality.

Well, he'll be voting based on partisan considerations of whatever best helps cement right wing ideology. It's not like he'll be listening to any arguments or applying any thinking to his decisions. Being rational and stable wouldn't help him do his job, so it's not all that important to the job.

I see you are a "glass 0.001% full" kind of person.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It's about quality, not quantity. Adding zero a million times still leaves you with zero.

It is amusing to see people more aligned to the Democrats finally saying "I believed the stories way back then". Sad, too. See, they may have believed back then, but never said so when it actually counted. Perhaps there is something to the stories saying that the Democratic Party just wants Hillary to go away, so now it is acceptable to acknowledge what everyone knew. A few years ago this was proof you just had irrational hatred of the Clintons.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's about quality, not quantity. Adding zero a million times still leaves you with zero.

Except you are not adding zeros.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So not being on the Supreme Court is punishment? That means over 300 million US citizens are being punished right now.

This was a job interview. Would you hire a babysitter who might molested a child?

So you think that anybody who is accused of rape is ineligible to be a judge on the supreme court? All that means is that we'll never be able to elect a judge to the supreme court again. Because anybody can accuse anybody of anything. It's a dangerous precedent.

Shift the goal posts much? Failure to be appointed to the SCOTUS is not a punishment.

I think Mr. Kavanaugh should not have been approved to be on the Supreme court because he demonststated a lack of judicial temperment in his hearing and revealed himself to be a rabid partisan who will be unable to even give the appearnce of impartiality on the bench. His appointment stains the current SCOTUS. In other words, he failed his job interview.

Being a supreme judge in USA is, above all, a political position. They are all partisan. That's why they're there.

Not a punishment of Kavanaugh. But certainly a punishment of all Republicans.

You did not answer my question - would you hire a babysitter who might have molested a child?

How about starting with explaining how the question is relevant and relates to the Kavanaugh election? I don't see the parallel. My babysitters won't wield political power while babysitting.