Sen. Feinstein Claims She Received Info On Kavanaugh And Sent It To FBI

[Jimmy Higgins]

Last time I checked, that stolen SCOTUS seat has a Trump appointee sitting in it, so no.

It wouldn't even have raised one eyelid had he been nominated by a Clinton presidency!

Al Franken resigned from the Senate for allegedly brushing someone's butt during a photo op. So... no!

You men THIS Al Franken....................................https://www.vox.com/2018/5/21/17352...on-democrats-leann-tweeden-kirsten-gillibrand

If so he did much more than accidentally brush someone's arse!

And that'd be what?

 

[angelo]

If you click on the link all will be revealed!

 

[ZiprHead]

Perhaps your standards of comportment are lower than my own. I wouldn't carry myself that way in a job interview -- which this wasn't, for the political dimension you're attempting to deny -- and if I did I could fairly expect to be shot down.




Now, if he was applying for a spot as night-clerk at the local Stop-n-Go, you might have a point. But when you sit as a judge on the highest court in the land, the expectations (at least for most of us!) are a little higher. Your persistent refusal to acknowledge the gravitas of his position as part of the context of this testimonydoesn't speak well of your point. "It was only a job interview!" -- but even if it was only for the Carl's Jr down the street, as a hiring manager, his demeanor would be off-putting. That he's in your word "interviewing" for a seat on the highest bench in the land, I expect more.

You clearly find his behavior acceptable. We have a fundamental disagreement about how judges should carry themselves.

He was combative against those who had already decided to vote against him - and some of whom were accusing him.
Now, if that hearing had been the only thing we know of him, sure, that would call into question what his ability. But his track record swamps that evidence with a lot more evidence (indeed, I'm not even sure he was being emotional or delivering an Oscar-winning performance to get the political effect he intended). I think there are good reasons to vote against him (especially if Roe v. Wade and other cases were correctly decided). But I don't think evidence agains his ability coming from this hearing is one of them.

You asked what answer I objected to. You quote my reply which is specific, and you start wandering around with unrelated claims. Stick to your own point. Why, exactly, did you ask me that question? Simply to buy more time on the soapbox? Perhaps you could address my concern directly rather than skirt it?

Here, I'll make it easy for you: if I am asked "Have you ever killed another human being?" under oath, my answer would be "No." It would not be "No, have you?" The fact of his trying to turn the question around on his interlocutor is telling.

On the other hand, his reputation was seriously tainted among legal scholars because of that hearing. That gives a reason to vote against: to protect the reputation of the SCOTUS. Of course, if he had behaved in a calm manner, plenty of people would accuse him of being cold, etc., and would still hate him. In short, the reputation of the Court was going to be damaged regardless.

And you know this how? Be specific and link sources, because otherwise I'm just going to regard this as you pulling a supposition out of your keister. You have no idea how he would have been treated, and we both know that.

It is the nature of the the process that begins by impeachment and continues with a trial by the Senate. The person is found guilty if the accusation succeeds. I'm saying is morally wrong to find someone guilty and punish them without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt.

And I'm saying, "tough shit." It is a political process and it doesn't abide the standards you hold dear. Kavanaugh, Trump, and others should be aware of that fact as well. You should as well.

As I was told as a rank airman, "It is not enough to avoid impropriety; you must avoid the appearance of impropriety." And the fact is that it sure appears like he lied under oath, which I hope you agree is improper. And of all people, a judge and prospective justice ought to be aware of that requirement.

But it's a correct opinion. Why do you think evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is required in criminal proceedings?

Because unlike not getting a job, you get stripped of freedom or even life. Your false equivalence here is silly, and your opinion does not comport with reality or settled thought on the topic.

Yes, that's very probable, though at this point, perhaps more evidence is required from my epistemic perspective. I would need to know more about the interviews of the classmates, etc. But "very probable" is, well, very probable.
As for the follow-up investigation, the results are not public, but it is safe to say that it did not produce more evidence about that, because it was not even trying: they weren't assessing perjury, but sexual offenses.
Also, I think if the FBI were to investigate him for perjury, there is a good chance that they would find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yet you spend thousands of words here defending him, on the basis of an incomplete investigation, and then pronounce a "good chance" of him probably being guilty of a felony which would disqualify him from a judgeship.

I was not talking about the merits of the lie. The content of the lie was irrelevant to the point I was making. Your reply "I really don't care what he lied about" does not engage my point.

This may come as a surprise to you, but this conversation has two sides. I am not bound by your arbitrary limits on what will and won't be discussed. The point you were making, by the way, was definitely about "merit", because you were positing whether or not it would change your opinion of his ability to be a judge. If the content of the lie is unimportant to that judgement, you either shouldn't care, or you should stand against his elevation.

I'm a guy that tries to disambiguate ambiguous assessments, like "unfitness" here, or "disqualifying". So, I considered to senses in which something could be "disqualifying" (a similar analysis would apply to "unfit"), when I said:

As for whether committing the crime of lying under oath is disqualifying, we need to be more precise about what one means by "disqualifying". If the question is whether we should significantly lower our credence that he will do a good job, then the answer is "no", given that his track record as a judge - for good or ill - is far weightier than any such evidence, so it pretty much swamps everything.
On the other hand, if he did lie under oath and there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of that, then arguably he does not deserve to be in the Supreme Court, so it's disqualifying in that sense.

Note that my assessment was not based on what he lied about, but rather, on whether we are assessing his capability to perform the duties of the job, or his moral character and whether he deserves the job (or more precisely but more cumbersome, whether it is the case that he deserves not to get the job).

You don't get it. Any lie under oath is disqualifying for a "job interview" for a judgeship. We have both legal and ethical standards that seem to surpass yours. A liar can perform the duties of a judge. The question is should we as a society entrust a liar with that authority? My answer is a definitive no.

All the philosophizing in the world isn't going to change that. A dishonest judge is a dishonest judge. I can't put it any simpler than that. If you're okay with dishonest judges, that's on you.

No, it was not. If you want to discuss that, I offer to do so. Your implication I want to avoid that is false (other than my generally wanting to avoid long debates here because it's too taxing, but I already posted when I shouldn't have, so I'm playing already), and so is your implication that I'm a Kavanaugh supporter. I'm not anyone's supporter in this context.

No, you've already said that the nature of his lie might inform your weighing of his ability to sit on the bench, and that goes directly to fitness. Just because I'm addressing standards you don't hold doesn't mean they're not pertinent. Just because it's not what's on your mind doesn't mean it isn't a consideration.

If you don't support him, I'm sorry for my insinuation. But look back over your posts here and tell me it's not an understandable mistake.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you click on the link all will be revealed!

Underwhelmed as to your point. Franken was accused of doing things that were much less devastating as sexual assault... and he resigned.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I agree, but I stand with Angra Mainyu in saying we saw an extremely weak case that he is a rapist or sexual harasser or assaulter, which is what people all over the place have been claiming. He shouldn't be on the court, but he also shouldn't be slandered in that way given no convincing argument or evidence.

As a criminal case, it's weak. But this wasn't a criminal trial. It was an examination of Brett Kavanaugh's fitness to serve on the Supreme Court.

It was entirely appropriate for the Senate Judiciary Committee to listen to what Ford had to say about Brett Kavanaugh assaulting her as a teenager. It was entirely appropriate for them to ask a few pointed questions about Kavanaugh's yearbook entries and his reputation as a mean drunk. All of a Supreme Court nominee's past actions are weighed and measured during the nomination process. Sometimes it's rough on the nominee, but the alternative is to have Supreme Court Justices who weren't thoroughly vetted, and that would be worse.

Kavanaugh should have been well aware of what was in store when Trump picked him.

Sure, but what wasn't appropriate was the 24/7 political and media circus painting him as a rapist in a clear attempt to keep a Trump nominee off the court.

 

[Arctish]

I agree, but I stand with Angra Mainyu in saying we saw an extremely weak case that he is a rapist or sexual harasser or assaulter, which is what people all over the place have been claiming. He shouldn't be on the court, but he also shouldn't be slandered in that way given no convincing argument or evidence.

As a criminal case, it's weak. But this wasn't a criminal trial. It was an examination of Brett Kavanaugh's fitness to serve on the Supreme Court.

It was entirely appropriate for the Senate Judiciary Committee to listen to what Ford had to say about Brett Kavanaugh assaulting her as a teenager. It was entirely appropriate for them to ask a few pointed questions about Kavanaugh's yearbook entries and his reputation as a mean drunk. All of a Supreme Court nominee's past actions are weighed and measured during the nomination process. Sometimes it's rough on the nominee, but the alternative is to have Supreme Court Justices who weren't thoroughly vetted, and that would be worse.

Kavanaugh should have been well aware of what was in store when Trump picked him.

Sure, but what wasn't appropriate was the 24/7 political and media circus painting him as a rapist in a clear attempt to keep a Trump nominee off the court.

I don't know what sort of media you watch but that wasn't what I saw. I saw a lot of articles, opinion pieces, and news segments on sexual assault, conduct unbecoming of a candidate for high office, whether teenaged indiscretions should impact one's adult career, lying vs. truthiness, the reasons Trump wanted this particular judge on the Supreme Court, and the political maneuverings of members of the US Senate.

The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice, one of just nine people who interpret the Constitution and uphold or overturn laws, is a really big deal. The vetting process should garner a lot of attention, especially when there's controversy over some of his/her past actions.

If you think Kavanaugh had it rough you should check out Bork's appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Kavanaugh got his golden ticket punched before he cried and yelled and implied he would not be a fair judge on any issue brought before the court by Democrats.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I agree, but I stand with Angra Mainyu in saying we saw an extremely weak case that he is a rapist or sexual harasser or assaulter, which is what people all over the place have been claiming. He shouldn't be on the court, but he also shouldn't be slandered in that way given no convincing argument or evidence.

As a criminal case, it's weak. But this wasn't a criminal trial. It was an examination of Brett Kavanaugh's fitness to serve on the Supreme Court.

It was entirely appropriate for the Senate Judiciary Committee to listen to what Ford had to say about Brett Kavanaugh assaulting her as a teenager. It was entirely appropriate for them to ask a few pointed questions about Kavanaugh's yearbook entries and his reputation as a mean drunk. All of a Supreme Court nominee's past actions are weighed and measured during the nomination process. Sometimes it's rough on the nominee, but the alternative is to have Supreme Court Justices who weren't thoroughly vetted, and that would be worse.

Kavanaugh should have been well aware of what was in store when Trump picked him.

Sure, but what wasn't appropriate was the 24/7 political and media circus painting him as a rapist in a clear attempt to keep a Trump nominee off the court.

He was heading to the bench until this came out near the ending of confirmation process, so enough of the bullshit. The press reported on what was an actual story, and did a boatload more research into allegations and people who knew Kavanaugh than the FBI ever did.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sure, but what wasn't appropriate was the 24/7 political and media circus painting him as a rapist in a clear attempt to keep a Trump nominee off the court.

I don't know what sort of media you watch but that wasn't what I saw. I saw a lot of articles, opinion pieces, and news segments on sexual assault, conduct unbecoming of a candidate for high office, whether teenaged indiscretions should impact one's adult career, lying vs. truthiness, the reasons Trump wanted this particular judge on the Supreme Court, and the political maneuverings of members of the US Senate.

The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice, one of just nine people who interpret the Constitution and uphold or overturn laws, is a really big deal. The vetting process should garner a lot of attention, especially when there's controversy over some of his/her past actions.

If you think Kavanaugh had it rough you should check out Bork's appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Kavanaugh got his golden ticket punched before he cried and yelled and implied he would not be a fair judge on any issue brought before the court by Democrats.

Imagine how Ginsburg (nominated by Reagan) felt as he was denied the bench (by Republicans) because of marijuana use!

 

[Copernicus]

Or Leland Keyser who doesn't know what Ford was talking about and doesn't know why she was named as a witness? And then Ford threw her under the bus when questioned at the Ford-Kavanaugh hearing? But Kavanaugh is one of those people, so it's okay to run him threw the mud.

"Threw her under the bus" how, exactly?

Ford said Keyser was there. Keyser said she didn't remember being there. Was there something else?

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1045380447293902849?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1045380447293902849&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fsarahd-313035%2F2018%2F09%2F27%2Fthat-was-insane-christine-blasey-ford-just-threw-friend-leland-keyser-under-the-bus-and-called-her-a-liar%2F

That tweet containing a Fox News snippet from Ford's testimony is your basis for claiming that Ford "threw her under the bus"??? Did you even watch the clip? Ford was asked to ascribe "any motivations" to Leland regarding her lawyer's letter, which claimed no knowledge of having attended the party. Leland had, in fact, apologized to Ford for not writing the letter herself, but leaving it to her lawyer to write on her behalf. The reason was that Leland was preoccupied with health issues at the time.

The person who posted your tweet tried to spin it falsely as some kind of nasty remark, as if Ford were trying to claim that Leland was lying. But the actual testimony was quite sympathetic to her friend. The clip (which I suspect you never watched, let alone Dr. Ford's entire testimony) revealed that Leland would not have remembered the party, because Ford never told her about the attack at the time. Hence, there was no need to require Leland's testimony. She had no reason to remember it. Leland is now very definitely backing Ford's testimony, which means she believes that she may have been at that party. The fact that she didn't remember it does not mean she wasn't there.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Why would an FBI agent need coaching about a polygraph test? Having polygraph testing is part of the training program and a requirement to be accepted into training. Each applicant is tested twice, once on drug use and once on espionage activities. Merrick is lying.

https://www.fbi.gov/audio-repository/news-podcasts-inside-background-checks-for-new-applicants.mp3/view

Actually, Merrick said that Ford gave McLean advise precisely when McLean was trying to get into the FBI, and had to pass the test. I found a link with the full transcript, except for Merrick's name: https://twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/1047293294567456770.

Do you have a transcript by someone under oath before congress....not from twitter or faked?

Sorry, but I don't have that. However:

1. Parts of that letter posted on Twitter were quoted also in the NYT and several other media outlets (e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/politics/blasey-ford-republicans-kavanaugh.html, https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12136960). They match exactly the twitter post.
2. The NYT and CNN identified Merrick as the person who wrote the letter.
3. Ford's lawyers and McLean denied it (e.g., https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/03/politics/kavanaugh-accuser-polygraph/index.html ).
4. No one has debunked the authenticity of the letter.

You can find more info if you like, but I'd say it's pretty clear that the letter is authentic. What is not clear is who's lying, let alone why.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Perhaps your standards of comportment are lower than my own. I wouldn't carry myself that way in a job interview -- which this wasn't, for the political dimension you're attempting to deny -- and if I did I could fairly expect to be shot down.

I would not engage in the repeated false accusation you're making against me, or generally in the gross and continuing misrepresentation of what I'm saying. Obviously, there was a political dimension. It was indeed a political job interview. I am not remotely trying to deny that. It's not even important. My point is it was a job interview, rather than a trial, whereas impeachment + trial by the Senate for an offense is, well, a trial. The political dimension does not make it not a job interview. It makes it a political one. Still not a trial. If you want to call it something other than a job interview, suit yourself. But it's a pointless - and false - accusation you raise.

Now, if he was applying for a spot as night-clerk at the local Stop-n-Go, you might have a point. But when you sit as a judge on the highest court in the land, the expectations (at least for most of us!) are a little higher. Your persistent refusal to acknowledge the gravitas of his position as part of the context of this testimonydoesn't speak well of your point. "It was only a job interview!" -- but even if it was only for the Carl's Jr down the street, as a hiring manager, his demeanor would be off-putting. That he's in your word "interviewing" for a seat on the highest bench in the land, I expect more.

The "only" is your word. But my point obviously remains true: They examine him, and they make their choice, with a lot of leeway.

You clearly find his behavior acceptable. We have a fundamental disagreement about how judges should carry themselves.

Actually, I provided no good reason for you to suspect that I find his behavior acceptable. In fact, I do not find it acceptable, though how unacceptable it is depends strongly on whether he is a guilty person denying a real attempt to commit rape (+ assault) or a person not guilty of that charge defending himself.

You asked what answer I objected to. You quote my reply which is specific, and you start wandering around with unrelated claims. Stick to your own point. Why, exactly, did you ask me that question? Simply to buy more time on the soapbox? Perhaps you could address my concern directly rather than skirt it?

You have attacked me unfairly since you started replying to my posts in an non-pertinent manner, and you continue to do so. Let me make this clear to you: Your beliefs about most of what I have said in this thread and my intentions are simply not true, or warranted by the evidence available to you. I am addressing questions that were not pertinent, and you even accuse me of wandering about. My reply is pretty much on point, even though I didn't need to address that. I asked you because you insisted on your claims that were not related to my posts.

Here, I'll make it easy for you: if I am asked "Have you ever killed another human being?" under oath, my answer would be "No." It would not be "No, have you?" The fact of his trying to turn the question around on his interlocutor is telling.

Yes, it tells us that he very probably sees the interlocutor as an enemy, and somewhat less probably, it is trying to make that publicly known.

On the other hand, his reputation was seriously tainted among legal scholars because of that hearing. That gives a reason to vote against: to protect the reputation of the SCOTUS. Of course, if he had behaved in a calm manner, plenty of people would accuse him of being cold, etc., and would still hate him. In short, the reputation of the Court was going to be damaged regardless.

And you know this how? Be specific and link sources, because otherwise I'm just going to regard this as you pulling a supposition out of your keister. You have no idea how he would have been treated, and we both know that.

Obviously, I can't post links about what would have happened if he had behaved otherwise. It's enough to see how left-wingers attack not only him but generally all of their enemies. I'm making a rational very high probabilistic assessment.
As to how his reputation was tainted among legal scholars, I have links. Not all are against him, but it's clear that overall, his performance did not help them in that context:


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/us/politics/john-paul-stevens-brett-kavanaugh.html
https://reason.com/volokh/2018/10/02/judge-kavanagh-judicial-temperament-and
https://reason.com/volokh/2018/10/02/my-thoughts-on-the-judicial-temperament
https://reason.com/volokh/2018/10/04/a-short-response-to-eugenes-judicial-tem

It is the nature of the the process that begins by impeachment and continues with a trial by the Senate. The person is found guilty if the accusation succeeds. I'm saying is morally wrong to find someone guilty and punish them without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt.

And I'm saying, "tough shit." It is a political process and it doesn't abide the standards you hold dear. Kavanaugh, Trump, and others should be aware of that fact as well. You should as well.

It's not the standards I personally hold dear. I'm saying it is morally wrong to do that.

As I was told as a rank airman, "It is not enough to avoid impropriety; you must avoid the appearance of impropriety." And the fact is that it sure appears like he lied under oath, which I hope you agree is improper. And of all people, a judge and prospective justice ought to be aware of that requirement.

If he did not lie, then no, it is not his fault. What is he supposed to do, if the truth looks like very probable lies?
Of course, he very probably lied. If the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt (after interviewing the witnesses about the meaning of those expressions, etc., it very probably would be if not already), it's okay to punish him for his wrongdoings. But without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt, it is not acceptable (even if it is legal) to intend to punish him for his wrongdoings (in the sense of giving him a deserve punishment, if that's not clear enough to you).

But it's a correct opinion. Why do you think evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is required in criminal proceedings?

Because unlike not getting a job, you get stripped of freedom or even life. Your false equivalence here is silly, and your opinion does not comport with reality or settled thought on the topic.

Your accusation of false equivalence is false and unjust. You just changed what we're talking about. It should be obvious to you that I wasn't demanding beyond a reasonable doubt evidence for a job interview, except to the extent that attempting to punish someone (even if by not giving him the job) by a wrongdoing is involved.

Yes, that's very probable, though at this point, perhaps more evidence is required from my epistemic perspective. I would need to know more about the interviews of the classmates, etc. But "very probable" is, well, very probable.
As for the follow-up investigation, the results are not public, but it is safe to say that it did not produce more evidence about that, because it was not even trying: they weren't assessing perjury, but sexual offenses.
Also, I think if the FBI were to investigate him for perjury, there is a good chance that they would find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yet you spend thousands of words here defending him, on the basis of an incomplete investigation, and then pronounce a "good chance" of him probably being guilty of a felony which would disqualify him from a judgeship.

Another unjust attack on me, with no relation to the matters at hand.

This may come as a surprise to you, but this conversation has two sides. I am not bound by your arbitrary limits on what will and won't be discussed. The point you were making, by the way, was definitely about "merit", because you were positing whether or not it would change your opinion of his ability to be a judge. If the content of the lie is unimportant to that judgement, you either shouldn't care, or you should stand against his elevation.

You should not to keep grossly misrepresenting this exchange, and generally my posts. You should stop doing that (yes, I know you believe you're not doing that, but you should realize that).

If you don't support him, I'm sorry for my insinuation. But look back over your posts here and tell me it's not an understandable mistake.

It was not an understandable mistake.

Well, it's "understandable" in the sense one can understand why people tend to make such mistakes, attack opponents on the internet, attribute beliefs, intentions, and assertions that the other person does not have, grossly misrepresenting what the other person said, etc., without ever realizing what they're doing and always believing they're on the right even if they haven't understood what the other person is talking about, etc., but that's not what "understandable" means in this context.

But now I'm just trying to get out of the thread, though it's difficult due to my tendency to reply to reply when accused, when my posts are misrepresented, etc. But I would say this: have you considered why interactions on the internet (or other media) involving political, religious or moral discussions tend to be so terribly hostile?.
There are plenty of causes, but a key one is people jumping to conclusions about the beliefs and intentions of their opponents. In the political context here, left wingers and right wingers tend to demonize each other, and what makes it so hard to stop is that they actually believe their own accusations of their opponents. Not all wingers do that, of course. But it seems to be a widespread behavior.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It would have kept him from getting into the SCOTUS. But that's the only difference.

If his ambition is more important than his integrity, he probably doesn't belong on the Supreme Court.

It really is that simple.

Probably, though in the part of my post you did not quote, I said "...and perhaps his standing with his own family". There is a reasonable chance that his children would have suffered as a result.

Note: I'm not saying I would support him for the SCOTUS. I would have voted against him if I had to, though not for the reasons many left-wingers called to vote against him.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

He was testifying under oath and therefore required to tell the truth.

He was also a federal judge, therefore he was required to not commit perjury.

If he wasn't likely to tell the truth when testifying under oath then he wasn't fit to be appointed to the Supreme Court, no matter how much Trump and his supporters wanted him there. In fact, if he's so likely to lie he isn't fit to be an officer of any court.

That is the wrong way to look at it. That he would be likely to lie under those circumstances is an assessment based on the available information. But why would he not be fit?
It's not as if the assessment that he would probably lie when asked about behaviors that happened decades ago and would keep him away from the court if he confessed them (in addition to family repercussions) makes it probable that he would not be competent at applying the law.
Would he be probably not morally fit, so he probably deserves to be not hired?
Okay, but that only gives you probably, and punishing him for probable moral badness is not right.

One could make a case that for the sake of the court's reputation - not because of what he deserves -, it would be better to vote against him due to the probability that he would lie. But it's a weak case. It's better to see whether it can be conclusively established that he did break the law. Or argue for a vote against him on different grounds.

 

[Arctish]

He was testifying under oath and therefore required to tell the truth.

He was also a federal judge, therefore he was required to not commit perjury.

If he wasn't likely to tell the truth when testifying under oath then he wasn't fit to be appointed to the Supreme Court, no matter how much Trump and his supporters wanted him there. In fact, if he's so likely to lie he isn't fit to be an officer of any court.

That is the wrong way to look at it. That he would be likely to lie under those circumstances is an assessment based on the available information. But why would he not be fit?

It's a federal crime to commit perjury in federal court. Those who commit crimes should not be appointed as judges.

The presence of a liar on the bench destroys the credibility of the court. A judge who lied under oath to get his job is not fit to conduct judicial proceedings or to administer oaths to others.

If you think he's a liar, or would become one if he wanted something badly enough, then you already admit he's got a major character flaw, the kind of flaw that renders him unfit to serve as an officer of the court.

It's not as if the assessment that he would probably lie when asked about behaviors that happened decades ago and would keep him away from the court if he confessed them (in addition to family repercussions) makes it probable that he would not be competent at applying the law.
Would he be probably not morally fit, so he probably deserves to be not hired?
Okay, but that only gives you probably, and punishing him for probable moral badness is not right.

One could make a case that for the sake of the court's reputation - not because of what he deserves -, it would be better to vote against him due to the probability that he would lie. But it's a weak case. It's better to see whether it can be conclusively established that he did break the law. Or argue for a vote against him on different grounds.

Kavanaugh displayed a temperament and demeanor unsuited to being a Supreme Court Justice when he yelled, cried, refused to give straight answers, and hinted at vengeance during his testimony. If he'd done that during a job interview where I work, I wouldn't hire him to answer the phone. He might be a brilliant legal scholar but he displayed almost no ability to examine matters dispassionately or to express his thoughts judiciously.

 

[angelo]

If you click on the link all will be revealed!

Underwhelmed as to your point. Franken was accused of doing things that were much less devastating as sexual assault... and he resigned.

The big difference being. One is presumed innocent until proven guilty, [ which he wasn't ] the other, as an image in my link shows, his paws all over that woman's breasts and more.

 

[ZiprHead]

If you click on the link all will be revealed!

Underwhelmed as to your point. Franken was accused of doing things that were much less devastating as sexual assault... and he resigned.

The big difference being. One is presumed innocent until proven guilty, [ which he wasn't ] the other, as an image in my link shows, his paws all over that woman's breasts and more.

He was never touching that woman in that photo. Perhaps a visit to an eye doctor is in order for you.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you click on the link all will be revealed!

Underwhelmed as to your point. Franken was accused of doing things that were much less devastating as sexual assault... and he resigned.

The big difference being. One is presumed innocent until proven guilty, [ which he wasn't ] the other, as an image in my link shows, his paws all over that woman's breasts and more.

He didn't touch her *self-moderated*. Your opinion is based on a staged photo that was, at worst, bad taste, not physical groping?! I wish people that knew so little about these things would stop talking about them. It is like arguing evolution with someone with no knowledge of science past, gravity makes things fall.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It's a federal crime to commit perjury in federal court. Those who commit crimes should not be appointed as judges.

I was asking why would he not be fit for its being likely that he would lie.

It's not as if the assessment that he would probably lie when asked about behaviors that happened decades ago and would keep him away from the court if he confessed them (in addition to family repercussions) makes it probable that he would not be competent at applying the law.
Would he be probably not morally fit, so he probably deserves to be not hired?
Okay, but that only gives you probably, and punishing him for probable moral badness is not right.

One could make a case that for the sake of the court's reputation - not because of what he deserves -, it would be better to vote against him due to the probability that he would lie. But it's a weak case. It's better to see whether it can be conclusively established that he did break the law. Or argue for a vote against him on different grounds.

Kavanaugh displayed a temperament and demeanor unsuited to being a Supreme Court Justice when he yelled, cried, refused to give straight answers, and hinted at vengeance during his testimony. If he'd done that during a job interview where I work, I wouldn't hire him to answer the phone. He might be a brilliant legal scholar but he displayed almost no ability to examine matters dispassionately or to express his thoughts judiciously.

That misses the point of my reply. I was replying to your post, in which you said:

He was testifying under oath and therefore required to tell the truth.

He was also a federal judge, therefore he was required to not commit perjury.

If he wasn't likely to tell the truth when testifying under oath then he wasn't fit to be appointed to the Supreme Court, no matter how much Trump and his supporters wanted him there. In fact, if he's so likely to lie he isn't fit to be an officer of any court.

My reply was:

That is the wrong way to look at it. That he would be likely to lie under those circumstances is an assessment based on the available information. But why would he not be fit?
It's not as if the assessment that he would probably lie when asked about behaviors that happened decades ago and would keep him away from the court if he confessed them (in addition to family repercussions) makes it probable that he would not be competent at applying the law.
Would he be probably not morally fit, so he probably deserves to be not hired?
Okay, but that only gives you probably, and punishing him for probable moral badness is not right.

One could make a case that for the sake of the court's reputation - not because of what he deserves -, it would be better to vote against him due to the probability that he would lie. But it's a weak case. It's better to see whether it can be conclusively established that he did break the law. Or argue for a vote against him on different grounds.

Now you're saying that because he displayed some temperament and demeanor, etc., but I'm challenging the contention that he was not fit because he was likely to lie.

 

[angelo]

The big difference being. One is presumed innocent until proven guilty, [ which he wasn't ] the other, as an image in my link shows, his paws all over that woman's breasts and more.

He was never touching that woman in that photo. Perhaps a visit to an eye doctor is in order for you.

No? Then what do you call this?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The big difference being. One is presumed innocent until proven guilty, [ which he wasn't ] the other, as an image in my link shows, his paws all over that woman's breasts and more.

He was never touching that woman in that photo. Perhaps a visit to an eye doctor is in order for you.

No? Then what do you call this?

I can't tell if his right hand is touching or not. The shadow under his right hand, under each finger for the length of the finger makes me think his hand is actually some distance from her but this is a 2d image so it may not look that way. In any case, the context of this is a series of inappropriate jokes "for the troops" that she also took part in by doing this to other people. That doesn't make it right but he wasn't trying to sexually assault her, he was making a joke on camera, and then he apologized and resigned over the whole thing.

To summarize:

Franken    Kavanaugh
touch?     pushed, threw, groped, grinded
joke       attempted rape
apology    no apology
resigned   did not resign