SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion): Eight Becomes Nine

[Salodin]

Have you read any of kavanaughs criticisms? No, not fox news or cnn bullet points, but actually looked at his positions and how they mesh with current constitutional law?

It takes longer than it took to read your post to explain why hes unqualified, why hes nothing but a republican political activist in a judges robe, and why he actually wants to overturn roe v wade, but I'm gonna let you do the research, or in this case listening.

https://openargs.com

Any of the recent episodes with kavanaughs name in the title has great research put into it with an equally great analysis. It's actually a great podcast that I recommend you subscribe to, and they answer all your questions and more. If you do listen to it and still hold the same opinion I'd love to see why.

Also, kavanaugh is not spotless lol. But for real listen to the podcasts, it's great entertainment and they do a great job laying everything out and giving it straight. They also list all their sources too.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

I do wonder why you question dem tactics tho, since that has nothing to do with the judge or this situation.

The victim herself said she wanted to remain anonymous. Dems honored her wish until it was leaked out, likely by a dem staffer. How is that D senators fault though? Honestly, if not for the staffer, this would have gone to a vote on monday and we'd be done. I get the feeling your questioning dem motives, as if they couldn't possibly care that this woman was assaulted by a scotus nominee, and are only doing this because it might(?) be easier to prevent this nomination than otherwise. I mean, that logic makes no sense, since by your admission Republicans hold all the levers here. They could have voted on him by now if they wanted to, but they didnt, and its dems fault?

Republicans havent voted on this because they know its political suicide to just push this through like you think they should. I shouldn't have to say this, but people are blaming dems like they're holding this up. They're not, Republicans are.

Hah, I wish a nigga would call a vote on kavanaugh right now. Go right ahead!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[archibaldcrane]

If I'm going to make up an attempted rape allegation, I sure as fuck am not going to include a witness who is still friends with the assailant in my allegation.

That literally makes no sense as a fake story.

[Salodin]

That's not the only illogical leap I saw made lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

Shes a doctor in academia, who is now getting death threats to her and her family and had to go into hiding because she tried to remain anonymous when she sent a letter to her congressman.

But this is all definitely made up and a witch hunt and a smear job

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[archibaldcrane]

Well, Ed Whelan's "mistaken identity" theory just went down in flames.

https://twitter.com/andrewperezdc/st...44340497195008

They're really just trying to chum the water with alternate explanations, especially ones that don't involve directly attacking the accuser.

[Salodin]

Your Twitter is always so lit. How u do that?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[archibaldcrane]

Follow some interesting political people, some interesting leftists, and be extremely online in general.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[shukudai]

I've read several of the criticism's of Kavanaugh, as in trying to rule out the outlandish ones and stick with the valid ones but I'm finding that it's honestly rather difficult. Like political parties, there often seem to be two very broad sides and definitions for those things. I've seen them on both the left and right, and it boils down to what someone's view point is on the constitutional law. Like, I know little about the Supreme Court, but I'd bet money that Ginsburg would probably find some of Kavanaugh's stuff bullshit and outright lies, and Gorsuch would probably find the same stuff to be rational and logical. I think at this point, I lean more towards preferring an originalist rather than someone who treats it as a living document because that leads to the constitution being interpreted in ways it probably shouldn't be. By which I mean, there are probably improvements we could make to it, but we're not gonna get 'em all right and the ones we get wrong have massive potential for negative effects, so I err on the side of being cautious. If were going with presumption of innocence until proven guilty, we're saying we find it more important to possibly protect an innocent person than letting a guilty person go and when it comes to constitutional stuff, I think abiding by that principle works pretty well. Getting just one thing wrong at the constitutional level affects so many people and can have such huge effects that abiding by that same principle carries a lot of weight. I want change, things can't stay the same and literally will not say the same, but I'd rather we go slow on those changes.

As for why I question Dem tactics? I think you've got some of the pieces, but not in the right order I think. It's pretty fucking long, so no blame if you don't go through it and sorry for the wall of text!

There's a latin phrase, "corruptio optimi pessima" that loosely translates to "the corruption of the best is the worst of all". If you believe that both left and right people are sincere and not evil/crazy/whatever, but rational actors with sincere beliefs (regardless of which is actually correct) and principles and working minds then what you end up with is political bloodsports:

What *really* happened 36 years ago? Seriously, only the people in that room know. This woman, who was sexually assaulted, didn't tell anyone for 32 years and has had to deal with it for that long, who's married, has children, probably worked hard to get where she is, who's a psychologist and professor of statistics at a pretty decent university, who's at least somewhat politically engaged (if I'm wrong here, let me know, I read multiple places that she was a Bernie supporter) - and yes, I'm viewing politically engaged (regardless of side) as a good thing - knows what happened. And knowing what she'd likely face from the media, the public, legally, how it would affect her family, the rest of her entire life, the horrible crap people would say, came forward. She's a fucking hero.

And, ding ding ding, in the other corner is Kavanaugh! Well educated, married, has two daughters. Volunteers for the homeless and youth basketball coach. Studied hard, worked hard because you need to get to work hard to get where he has. And you've got to have something, because at any given point in time almost half the country will agree with your rulings and opinions and the other half will hate you. He's got a verifiable record so clean it almost shines. He knew the nomination would be a messy, screwed up thing, but someone accusing him of rape? Seriously, after all he's done and achieved and now, no matter what, a bunch of people will believe he's a rapist for something he never did and never would do? What will his daughters and his wife think? Is being on the Supreme Court worth being a major contributor to the extreme polarization of the country? The answer was yes, you don't back down on principle, he know's he's a good judge, a perfectly good candidate and he certainly didn't do the things accused, this seems a pretty good time to demonstrate his principles, he signed on for whatever was coming. He didn't do what he's being accused of, and letting the accusers win is not acceptable. He's a fucking hero.

How does this tie into why I question Dem tactics? Conventional type thinking makes it a fight. Do you believe him, or do you believe her? One of the two is lying, and people pick a side, because the one who is telling the truth and acting on principle, fully knowing all that would happen? The other person? Ruined completely - and rightfully so - a major example to be used down the line, they lied and lied and lied, kept secret, on top of the act itself. It's utterly disgusting and abhorrent, and whatever side they were on, the other people on that side are going to be tarred as well to a degree.

I tend to look at it in a way I think is non-conventional though: We literally do not know what happened, and there aren't just two sides here. This is also clearly at the highest levels of the political arena as well. Could the entire thing be fabricated? Possible, but feels unlikely (100 to 1 odds, let's say). Could it be possible that Ford is making this up because she's extremely radical in her political beliefs/ideology that she sees this as a chance to make a difference by knowingly making the accusation? Yes, it's possible, but she'd also have to be aware of how it affected the country, and more specifically her family and their future, and come to the conclusion that this was more important. I'm sure people like that exist, but I believe they're an incredibly small minority and the question is how do we decide if she is in that incredibly small minority who not only have the thought in their head, but would act on it, in her situation? (let's say 80 to one odds). Or is it more likely that the story is somewhere in between? She may have written the letter to Feinstein, but we don't know what was in that letter (that I've seen to date), we don't know why she waited from July until know, we don't know if she leaked it, or a staffer leaked it or even if someone hacked it, we can just make our best educated guesses. When I see rhetoric that boils down to "Believe women!", I can't just agree. People do awful shit, and men and women are people, and even the best of us can do horrible things. When I see "He's a rapist... well, allegedly. But he's totally a sexual abuser!" I see plenty of room for him not to be.

When I see stories about how Kavanaugh liked to hire female clerks who had a "certain look", while the others just say "he hired women that looked like models, duh, it was so common people talked about", sure, it's possible but dear god I'd like to believe it's rare. Could the air quotes around "certain look" be meant to read as "We got this quote from someone, and we're trying to imply that it was about their physical attractiveness, because that's what we believe happened." or are they literally quoting it out of context, to make it seem that way. I can easily an offhand remark referring to that "certain look" to be meaning energetic, professional, or several other thing. Specifically, I can imagine thousands of people might say the same thing. This guy is either ten kinds of fucked up (as occasionally people in powers of position can be), or probably a pretty great guy who's human and has some possibly dumb faults in his past, but nothing that should disqualify him.

I flip it back for her, because she's received smears too, obviously. Just linking her to Bernie, since he's decently far to the left, to link her to leftist radicals and extremism makes me go "Uh, you can have been a Bernie fan without being an Antifa leader, y'know? Plenty of regular every day people were Bernie supporters, and not actually totally nuts. I can't believe I have to say this." What it boils down to for which way I lean on this specific topic is that I feel when Dems do something truly bad, this is more likely how they'd do it. There's just something very icky and slimy about the Democrats actions and commentary, the words and ideology they're using is too extreme and the ideas just don't hold up. I either believe they're sincere in their words and actions which would be somewhat frightening to me or they're just throwing everything they can think of and make up because they can't get what they want any other way. And this feels like that to me.

As for them not pushing it through because it'd be political suicide? I can't disagree, it would be political suicide to push it through, which, btw, which can also mean they're y'know, just doing the right thing, because they're not monsters. There's only so far they can go though, so we'll see if the testifying does happen, or if the original letter goes public. When I question Dem motives, I want to be clear that it's more the politicians that I distrust (some are pretty OK, or even good, but some are shit and some are liars and players, which is which everyone gets to decide for themselves, then go fight with the other side The average person in the US, I think, is pretty decent and might do some low key bad stuff from time to time, but not on this level, regardless of political belief. That's what makes this whole thing so drama ridden and has so many eyes on it: It's super important and everyone's looking for the drama. Not quite in the sense of say, XI dramaz, but more in the sense of drama in say professional theater. Like the most interesting drama ever on TV, except it's real, so of course we're watching it, and we want to see who told the truth, who lied, when they lied, and what they lied about, we want to catch them in it.

And, i'll check out the link, but I am worried because honestly, I saw Thomas Smith, and I thought he did super awfully in that Mythcon debate with Sargon on pretty much every level.

[kuronosan]

Wait, I stopped reading after "why she waited until x years ago to tell her psychiatrist".

Are you really asking that?

[arus2001]

Yeah, it's one thing to be skeptical, but another to basically victim blame for her not coming out in a time where it would likely be blown off as boys being boys. Rich ones, at that.

I mean, part of those whole #MeToo stuff is literally about blowing up this institutionalized sexism. Realistically, the republicans ahould wash their hands of the dude and pick someone else that both sides would agree on. Pie in the sky fantasy, they apologize for the shit they pulled with Garland and let the dems propose a pick. However, since we're in the Trump administration, it's just gonna be continuously doing the dumbest things possible while walking that tightrope between approval rating and committing crimes.

[Eurell]

snip

You know what would fix almost all of this? Allowing an investigation. To bad only the side that makes you feel icky is calling for that

[Salodin]

I've read several of the criticism's of Kavanaugh, as in trying to rule out the outlandish ones and stick with the valid ones but I'm finding that it's honestly rather difficult. Like political parties, there often seem to be two very broad sides and definitions for those things. I've seen them on both the left and right, and it boils down to what someone's view point is on the constitutional law. Like, I know little about the Supreme Court, but I'd bet money that Ginsburg would probably find some of Kavanaugh's stuff bullshit and outright lies, and Gorsuch would probably find the same stuff to be rational and logical. I think at this point, I lean more towards preferring an originalist rather than someone who treats it as a living document because that leads to the constitution being interpreted in ways it probably shouldn't be. By which I mean, there are probably improvements we could make to it, but we're not gonna get 'em all right and the ones we get wrong have massive potential for negative effects, so I err on the side of being cautious. If were going with presumption of innocence until proven guilty, we're saying we find it more important to possibly protect an innocent person than letting a guilty person go and when it comes to constitutional stuff, I think abiding by that principle works pretty well. Getting just one thing wrong at the constitutional level affects so many people and can have such huge effects that abiding by that same principle carries a lot of weight. I want change, things can't stay the same and literally will not say the same, but I'd rather we go slow on those changes.

As for why I question Dem tactics? I think you've got some of the pieces, but not in the right order I think. It's pretty fucking long, so no blame if you don't go through it and sorry for the wall of text!

There's a latin phrase, "corruptio optimi pessima" that loosely translates to "the corruption of the best is the worst of all". If you believe that both left and right people are sincere and not evil/crazy/whatever, but rational actors with sincere beliefs (regardless of which is actually correct) and principles and working minds then what you end up with is political bloodsports:

What *really* happened 36 years ago? Seriously, only the people in that room know. This woman, who was sexually assaulted, didn't tell anyone for 32 years and has had to deal with it for that long, who's married, has children, probably worked hard to get where she is, who's a psychologist and professor of statistics at a pretty decent university, who's at least somewhat politically engaged (if I'm wrong here, let me know, I read multiple places that she was a Bernie supporter) - and yes, I'm viewing politically engaged (regardless of side) as a good thing - knows what happened. And knowing what she'd likely face from the media, the public, legally, how it would affect her family, the rest of her entire life, the horrible crap people would say, came forward. She's a fucking hero.

And, ding ding ding, in the other corner is Kavanaugh! Well educated, married, has two daughters. Volunteers for the homeless and youth basketball coach. Studied hard, worked hard because you need to get to work hard to get where he has. And you've got to have something, because at any given point in time almost half the country will agree with your rulings and opinions and the other half will hate you. He's got a verifiable record so clean it almost shines. He knew the nomination would be a messy, screwed up thing, but someone accusing him of rape? Seriously, after all he's done and achieved and now, no matter what, a bunch of people will believe he's a rapist for something he never did and never would do? What will his daughters and his wife think? Is being on the Supreme Court worth being a major contributor to the extreme polarization of the country? The answer was yes, you don't back down on principle, he know's he's a good judge, a perfectly good candidate and he certainly didn't do the things accused, this seems a pretty good time to demonstrate his principles, he signed on for whatever was coming. He didn't do what he's being accused of, and letting the accusers win is not acceptable. He's a fucking hero.

How does this tie into why I question Dem tactics? Conventional type thinking makes it a fight. Do you believe him, or do you believe her? One of the two is lying, and people pick a side, because the one who is telling the truth and acting on principle, fully knowing all that would happen? The other person? Ruined completely - and rightfully so - a major example to be used down the line, they lied and lied and lied, kept secret, on top of the act itself. It's utterly disgusting and abhorrent, and whatever side they were on, the other people on that side are going to be tarred as well to a degree.

I tend to look at it in a way I think is non-conventional though: We literally do not know what happened, and there aren't just two sides here. This is also clearly at the highest levels of the political arena as well. Could the entire thing be fabricated? Possible, but feels unlikely (100 to 1 odds, let's say). Could it be possible that Ford is making this up because she's extremely radical in her political beliefs/ideology that she sees this as a chance to make a difference by knowingly making the accusation? Yes, it's possible, but she'd also have to be aware of how it affected the country, and more specifically her family and their future, and come to the conclusion that this was more important. I'm sure people like that exist, but I believe they're an incredibly small minority and the question is how do we decide if she is in that incredibly small minority who not only have the thought in their head, but would act on it, in her situation? (let's say 80 to one odds). Or is it more likely that the story is somewhere in between? She may have written the letter to Feinstein, but we don't know what was in that letter (that I've seen to date), we don't know why she waited from July until know, we don't know if she leaked it, or a staffer leaked it or even if someone hacked it, we can just make our best educated guesses. When I see rhetoric that boils down to "Believe women!", I can't just agree. People do awful shit, and men and women are people, and even the best of us can do horrible things. When I see "He's a rapist... well, allegedly. But he's totally a sexual abuser!" I see plenty of room for him not to be.

When I see stories about how Kavanaugh liked to hire female clerks who had a "certain look", while the others just say "he hired women that looked like models, duh, it was so common people talked about", sure, it's possible but dear god I'd like to believe it's rare. Could the air quotes around "certain look" be meant to read as "We got this quote from someone, and we're trying to imply that it was about their physical attractiveness, because that's what we believe happened." or are they literally quoting it out of context, to make it seem that way. I can easily an offhand remark referring to that "certain look" to be meaning energetic, professional, or several other thing. Specifically, I can imagine thousands of people might say the same thing. This guy is either ten kinds of fucked up (as occasionally people in powers of position can be), or probably a pretty great guy who's human and has some possibly dumb faults in his past, but nothing that should disqualify him.

I flip it back for her, because she's received smears too, obviously. Just linking her to Bernie, since he's decently far to the left, to link her to leftist radicals and extremism makes me go "Uh, you can have been a Bernie fan without being an Antifa leader, y'know? Plenty of regular every day people were Bernie supporters, and not actually totally nuts. I can't believe I have to say this." What it boils down to for which way I lean on this specific topic is that I feel when Dems do something truly bad, this is more likely how they'd do it. There's just something very icky and slimy about the Democrats actions and commentary, the words and ideology they're using is too extreme and the ideas just don't hold up. I either believe they're sincere in their words and actions which would be somewhat frightening to me or they're just throwing everything they can think of and make up because they can't get what they want any other way. And this feels like that to me.

As for them not pushing it through because it'd be political suicide? I can't disagree, it would be political suicide to push it through, which, btw, which can also mean they're y'know, just doing the right thing, because they're not monsters. There's only so far they can go though, so we'll see if the testifying does happen, or if the original letter goes public. When I question Dem motives, I want to be clear that it's more the politicians that I distrust (some are pretty OK, or even good, but some are shit and some are liars and players, which is which everyone gets to decide for themselves, then go fight with the other side The average person in the US, I think, is pretty decent and might do some low key bad stuff from time to time, but not on this level, regardless of political belief. That's what makes this whole thing so drama ridden and has so many eyes on it: It's super important and everyone's looking for the drama. Not quite in the sense of say, XI dramaz, but more in the sense of drama in say professional theater. Like the most interesting drama ever on TV, except it's real, so of course we're watching it, and we want to see who told the truth, who lied, when they lied, and what they lied about, we want to catch them in it.

And, i'll check out the link, but I am worried because honestly, I saw Thomas Smith, and I thought he did super awfully in that Mythcon debate with Sargon on pretty much every level.

I'll just say you are doing a lot of victim blaming, whataboutism, but you are sincere and trying. I cant recommend enough that you check out those kavanaugh podcasts, especially the first 2 of them (the others are just icing on the cake but the real scandals are in the first 2). I'd really love to see what you think of this guy after his career is laid out to you. Think about it, how much do you really know? Some biased senators said hes overly qualified, others say they're worried he'll do things they dont politically want. I concur it's hard to see through the smear, but there are plenty of places you can go to learn more without having to have a law degree to keep up with what's going on. Plus, they give you sources! So you know hes not talking out of his ass like Kavanaugh is when he says Roe v Wade is "settled law".

You're trying hard to excuse Republicans here, but all you have to do is open a scotus nomination history book to see how they're not acting in good faith here. This is literally a reenactment of 1991, only this time people are more aware of sexual assault in our society. And again, the only ones delaying here are Republicans because they know how bad they got roasted last time this situation happened.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Day]

this is all just transparent democrat stall tactics to try to push past mid terms, i know it, you know it, we all know it.

[Tyche]

this is all just transparent democrat stall tactics to try to push past mid terms, i know it, you know it, we all know it.

You know, it can be both a stall tactic and realizing that putting someone on the supreme court accused of sexual assault is a bad idea. Nuance is hard.

[Tyche]

Wouldn't have been an issue if Trump listened to literally fucking everyone who said don't nominate the dude. Fucking idiot. Could have glided to a relatively easy political win by not nominating a god damned republican operative. Even Mitch McConnell seen this coming.

[Day]

Keith Ellison still in congress tho?

[Tyche]

Keith Ellison running for a lifetime appointment as one of the most influential people in this country?

Whatabout? Whatabout?

[Day]

He's a sitting member of congress not exactly the peanut guy at a baseball game

[Tyche]

And the president is sitting in office. What are you trying to say? Really. I don't get it. Like, what the fuck does Keith Ellison have to do with anything other than posting an awful whataboutism comparing the two.