Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)

[dublinbluenose]

 

[ilikecheese]

We are quickly becoming a banana republic with a despot leader.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

you're still doing it...shame.

Ditto.
(And thanks for proving my point)

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

How awesome would it be if -
The liberal wing was just honest and said "Our concern is Roe v Wade, and we will do absofreakinglutely anything in our power to prevent a 5-4 conservative SCOTUS that may or may not overturn it"
The conservative wing was just honest and said "Our concern is Roe v Wade, and we will do absofreakinglutely anything in our power to get a 5-4 conservative SCOTUS that may or may not overturn it"

Everyone in between is being drawn into a black/white "If Kavanaugh isn't a rapist then he's a liar/no he's not". The national discussion is simply competing conjecture, soundbites and memes being hurled. There will be will be a biter loser, and a vindictive winner. There will be unimaginative collateral damage - the people front and center, their families and friends, the political system, democratic processes and basic human decency. Friendships destroyed via social media, festering hatred for total strangers and a continued move toward an inflexible "all or nothing". And there will be another nominee at some point. This year, next year, next administration whatever, and it will be just as vicious. And the crux of it is a 1973 SCOTUS ruling.

Is there a point where we, as citizens, realize that we are unwittingly destroying our society by being forced into one of two intolerant camps? That the price of "victory" is absolutely unacceptable? That we, as diverse as we are, on aggregate, still have far more in common than not? God I hope we do.

Roe is obviously important.

It’s far from the only concern when it comes to Kavanaugh though.

 

[LinekersLegs]

I think he is guilty as charged personally...

Is there a particular thing the judge said/did that influenced you Pete?

Iirc you didn’t see Dr Ford’s testimony (but some of Kavanaugh’) so unlike many of us I don’t think you were comparing/contrasting one account up against another and I’m guessing that, despite being conservative, you aren’t particularly invested one way or another if he gets confirmed. So just interested if you are coming to that conclusion about whether he was credible based on his testimoney alone what struck you as off/an evasion/lie.

 

[TheBigIguana]

We are quickly becoming a banana republic with a despot leader.

I have joked about keeping enough cash on hand to get out if necessary. It may not be so much of a joke anymore. There is something toxic brewing here.

 

[Ghoat]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/why-i-wouldnt-confirm-brett-kavanaugh/571936/

Really good piece.

That is a good read and there isn't much a reasonable person can take issue with. The only point I would disagree with is that "he should have withdrawn if he couldn't defend himself with a high degree of factual certainty without attacking Ford." (slightly paraphrased). I do totally agree with "don't attack Ford" part. That being said, the author of the piece asked Kavanaugh to do something impossible. If you are accused of committing an act at an unspecified place on an unspecified date...it's a logistical impossibility for you to PROVE it's false. Think about that. How would you prove you WEREN'T at a specific place on a specific date when you aren't given the date or place? You can dispute the act you are accused of, but you can't prove it. You can't even give solid circumstantial evidence because you don't even have a defined circumstance.

I think it's intellectually dishonest to "know" someone is guilty because they can't disprove a specific action didn't occur when you remove all time and places references which are the only ways the accused has to provide proof, in the form of an alibi, they didn't/couldn't have committed the accusation. That being said, Dr Ford to me seemed very overwhelmed, a bit confused and very vague on several current events in the last month or two. And despite all of that, she seemed honest. But her credibility coupled with his inability to disprove a negative on undefined terms does mean he is guilty.

That being said in the best case (for BK) if we assume that he truly is being ruthlessly smeared in a political witch-hunt by the opposition (and assuming Dr Ford is an unwitting pawn), I think the case of his temperament is a valid concern. Deep down inside, I think any of us in that assumption would absolutely come unglued when given the latitude to finally speak out after a fortnight of having family, friends and self under assault without recourse. It may be hard to personally put everything aside, but there is an argument to be made "we expect judges to do just that".

I think either way, this will have far reaching effects on future confirmations, and they won't be positive for the Court of the process. My best guess is that the Senate votes 49-51 (or 49-50 with an abstention), with his "aggressive defense", rightly or wrongly, being the difference on the swing votes.

 

[ilikecheese]

That is a good read and there isn't much a reasonable person can take issue with. The only point I would disagree with is that "he should have withdrawn if he couldn't defend himself with a high degree of factual certainty without attacking Ford." (slightly paraphrased). I do totally agree with "don't attack Ford" part. That being said, the author of the piece asked Kavanaugh to do something impossible. If you are accused of committing an act at an unspecified place on an unspecified date...it's a logistical impossibility for you to PROVE it's false. Think about that. How would you prove you WEREN'T at a specific place on a specific date when you aren't given the date or place? You can dispute the act you are accused of, but you can't prove it. You can't even give solid circumstantial evidence because you don't even have a defined circumstance.

I think it's intellectually dishonest to "know" someone is guilty because they can't disprove a specific action didn't occur when you remove all time and places references which are the only ways the accused has to provide proof, in the form of an alibi, they didn't/couldn't have committed the accusation. That being said, Dr Ford to me seemed very overwhelmed, a bit confused and very vague on several current events in the last month or two. And despite all of that, she seemed honest. But her credibility coupled with his inability to disprove a negative on undefined terms does mean he is guilty.

That being said in the best case (for BK) if we assume that he truly is being ruthlessly smeared in a political witch-hunt by the opposition (and assuming Dr Ford is an unwitting pawn), I think the case of his temperament is a valid concern. Deep down inside, I think any of us in that assumption would absolutely come unglued when given the latitude to finally speak out after a fortnight of having family, friends and self under assault without recourse. It may be hard to personally put everything aside, but there is an argument to be made "we expect judges to do just that".

I think either way, this will have far reaching effects on future confirmations, and they won't be positive for the Court of the process. My best guess is that the Senate votes 49-51 (or 49-50 with an abstention), with his "aggressive defense", rightly or wrongly, being the difference on the swing votes.

You completely omitted your opinion on the core of the piece about Kavanagh proving beyond a shadow of a doubt he can not be trusted to be non partisan.

 

[Tubey]

That is a good read and there isn't much a reasonable person can take issue with. The only point I would disagree with is that "he should have withdrawn if he couldn't defend himself with a high degree of factual certainty without attacking Ford." (slightly paraphrased). I do totally agree with "don't attack Ford" part. That being said, the author of the piece asked Kavanaugh to do something impossible. If you are accused of committing an act at an unspecified place on an unspecified date...it's a logistical impossibility for you to PROVE it's false. Think about that. How would you prove you WEREN'T at a specific place on a specific date when you aren't given the date or place? You can dispute the act you are accused of, but you can't prove it. You can't even give solid circumstantial evidence because you don't even have a defined circumstance.

What he could have done is calmly state that he doesn't know what happened to Mrs. Ford, but he has no knowledge of it whatsoever and he can't help further as he was uninvolved.

Because you're right, he didn't have to prove it was false; he just had to make the case that there was no way of knowing if it were true.

Instead, he went off on one in a hysterical tirade, vowing revenge against Democrats for increasingly insane conspiracy theories and bringing out weird creepy calendars.

I'm always as objective as I can be as I understand the value of not allowing a personal view to cloud a judgement. Ahead of that hearing, I saw no reason to stop him taking his position as SCOTUS, but also I saw no reason to not have an FBI investigation to make sure. After the hearing, I objectively saw no reason to actually allow him to take the position, as he's a raving lunatic. In many ways, in relation to his suitability for the job, the Ford allegations are honestly now secondary.

 

[DanEFC92]

 

[DanEFC92]

 

[Ghoat]

You completely omitted your opinion on the core of the piece about Kavanagh proving beyond a shadow of a doubt he can not be trusted to be non partisan.

I guess because I'm really not sure. I guess we all want to believe that regardless how bitter a confirmation for a Justice is, that they will set that aside and make their rulings based on their interpretation of the law and the case before them, and not hold political grudges. I would hope if confirmed, he could be "blind". I hope the other 8 are the same. And if not him, then whomever follows, and whomever else follows in the future. I'm guess I'm saying I honestly have no idea. The notion that SCOTUS could become a partisan body with concealed political biases or grudges is an uncomfortable thought.

 

[ilikecheese]

I guess because I'm really not sure. I guess we all want to believe that regardless how bitter a confirmation for a Justice is, that they will set that aside and make their rulings based on their interpretation of the law and the case before them, and not hold political grudges. I would hope if confirmed, he could be "blind". I hope the other 8 are the same. And if not him, then whomever follows, and whomever else follows in the future. I'm guess I'm saying I honestly have no idea. The notion that SCOTUS could become a partisan body with concealed political biases or grudges is an uncomfortable thought.

He invoked a Clinton conspiracy as red meat to right wingers. It's simply not OK.

 

[LinekersLegs]

2018 summed up in one tweet...although I am slightly disappointed they didn’t get some reference to “red, red wine” in.

 

[Ghoat]

I don't think they have interviewed Kavanaugh either. And why bother with either? The stated purpose of the FBI interview was to look into the veracity of the allegations. Each gave about 3 hours of sworn testimony under oath in front of God and Country. Do you expect either to tell the FBI something different? That would be perjury. Do you think either suddenly "found" a new material witness with facts after all this? I'd be highly suspicious if either did. The only potential people who can give any corroboration to either are the three named witnesses who have made sworn statements through their lawyers. If their interviews align with their statements, then what?

I'm not sure what people reasonably could expect to come from this besides confirmation of what each involved/named person has stated. There are a total of 5 people named in this accusation including the accuser and the accused. 2 of those have testified under oath for hours each. The other three the FBI should interview about their statements, and turn over the transcripts. The FBI is in a hopeless situation, because there seems to be this expectation that they will find The Truth proving what each side "knows". Barring a shocking reversal, that was never going to happen. It's worth remembering that over half of the current Senators have law degrees. They know exactly what the FBI can and cannot do, especially when charged to do a lawful political investigation that is not criminal in nature.

It is already suggested that if nothing further is found, it was simply because the FBI didn't ask enough people. There are those that want the FBI scope basically expanded until something politically useful against Kavanaugh is found. If the FBI was shown reasonable accounts that he misrepresented the frequency and extent of his drinking, and that he appeared to act like a retarded drunk frat boy often when he was between 17-21 years old, it would be a political death sentence. But it would in no way mean he sexually assaulted Dr Ford as she has accused - and that was what the FBI was tasked with, by the President, at the request of the Senate committee.
On the other side, there are those that want Dr. Ford's connections to the political left investigated until a connection is found. And by the same token, if the FBI was able to indicate that Dr Ford incurred no expenses whatsoever and was compensated for making her allegations public by groups affiliated with the left...it would be explosive politically, but in no way means her allegations are fabricated. Nor is it what the FBI is for.

I think people get so lost in their ends justifying their means, they don't realize the implications of their "means". Using the FBI to conduct full scale investigations on political rivals until they reach the desired outcome may seem like justice at the time. Until the "other" party has power and uses federal law enforcement to discredit opposition.

Do we really want the FBI to become a de facto political sword of the party who has the will or clout to use it at the time? J Edgar Hoover says "be careful"