Quantcast
Should Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination Continue?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Should Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination Continue?

Should Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination Continue?

Yes 53 47.32%
 
No 41 36.61%
 
Trump should pick a new canidate 18 16.07%
 
Total:112
Puppyroach said:
She is way to credible, he was giving false statements, and when you look into what Mark Judge describes in his book, and match it with the names Ford provided and what it says in Kavanaughs calendar, that party happened without a shadow of a doubt. Whether or not he committed the attempted tape is another matter but he is to emotional and inconsistent do even be considered for on of the most important jobs in the country.

Mark Judge's book is a work of fiction. He just used names close to his buddies. But, an autobiography it is not. 

And your bar for her truth is exceptional low, while being the reverse for him. Not a good model to follow. Especially given how inconsistent and uncorroborated Ford was. 



Around the Network
Signalstar said:
No it should not continue. Kavanaugh proved he is a vengeful, partisan hack with his responses yesterday. He blamed democrats and the left for conspiring against him. He will be a judge for all Americans but he showed his animus to half the country. He only did this because he knows he only needs 51 votes rather than 60. The lower threshold means he only has to appeal to the conservative base. Trump should pick another conservative judge.

This is a very troubling comment.  That Kavanaugh should be angry with people set in a deliberate attempt to destroy his reputation is no failing as a human, a judge, or anything else.

This does not reflect on Kavanaugh's ability to be a judge.  This was a quintessentially personal attack that will follow him for the rest of his life regardless of the outcome of any vote.  Even before this, I feared for his life because Democrats' outlandish statements about him being a danger to millions of lives certainly could cause someone to go vigilante.  That was merely irresponsible.  But now his daughters are receiving death threats and threats of being raped.  His wife is receiving the same.  It will not just go away.  It is a nightmare that is not going to end when the television cameras are turned off and armchair analysts return to their daily lives after judging his guilt or innocence based on purely superficial aspects of testimony instead of the actual facts before them.

This is his life going forward.

And here you are, calling him a partisan hack for directing emotion at the people primarily responsible for it?  If he is innocent, then he should be applauded for superhuman restraint.



Here are my conclusions in the matter. First, I believe Kavanaugh is innocent of the accusations. The inability of anyone else to put him at the scene, the shifting story from the accuser and the gaps therein, Kavanaugh's calendar leaving little room for this encounter to occur, and the behavior of Ford's team in coordinating with the Democrats, including the delay for flying and her claiming not to be aware that there was an option to testify from home leave this well below any threshold to convict.

Second, I can't say that I'm 100% sure. It's here where I get annoyed that Ford's testimony was left to stand. It was the responsibility of someone to ask tough questions about the holes within the story and see if it falls apart or can withstand scrutiny. Without that I can't make a better judgement beyond a critique of her performance in rather superficial terms.

Third, I would let Kavanaugh go if I could. It's something of a sin because it allows for the destruction of a man, but such things happen in politics all the time (and while we're at it, the politics of putting him on the court are bad as well). As I said, I can't be 100% he's innocent and I can't say I'd like to allow someone guilty of such a charge on the court, and many people will genuinely believe he's guilty due to an accuser that appeared credible and received no challenge. Having him on the court will hurt its credibility going forward. And while I believe the Supreme Court could use a bit more side-eye from the public, this is not the way I'd like it to come about. It also discourages other potential nominees from putting themselves through this. But, alas.

That said, I can't blame anyone for wanting to move forward.

Fourth, judiciary committee hearings for Supreme Court seats should be abolished as direct punishment to the Democrats for the way this has been handled. Democrat antics during this one have demonstrated that they serve no useful purpose beyond giving politicians a platform for grandstanding. This is the 6th one I have watched, and none have risen above the level of political theater. Perhaps better work is done on the lower courts, but the Supreme Court with the cameras in view make for a recipe of nothing good.

Fifth, a new set of rules for judicial nominees should be created in a bipartisan manner, setting consistent rules for documents and other procedural matters, and creating automatic mechanisms for floor votes after a certain period of time.



NightlyPoe said:

Fourth, judiciary committee hearings for Supreme Court seats should be abolished as direct punishment to the Democrats for the way this has been handled.

The way Murphy's Law works, however, the Republicans would likely end up changing things to make it easier to push nominees through uncontested, only for the next vacancy not to pop up until the Democrats have retaken the White House and/or Congress.



No one should be appointed as a judge while they are under investigation for a serious crime. Doing so throws their court into disrepute and undermines public confidence in the sanctity of their station. If confirmed, it should include conditions that must be met before his duties begin. The investigation should reach its natural conclusion, and if they press charges, he must be found Not Guilty on all counts. Innocent until proven guilty, but his appointment is a conflict of interest of epic proportions under the current circumstances.

Last edited by SuaveSocialist - on 29 September 2018

Around the Network
OlfinBedwere said:

The way Murphy's Law works, however, the Republicans would likely end up changing things to make it easier to push nominees through uncontested, only for the next vacancy not to pop up until the Democrats have retaken the White House and/or Congress.

I don't see a downside to that.  Democrat nominees don't face the sort of smears that Republican nominees do.  Heck, Sotomayor made a statement of her inherent gender and ethnic superiority multiple times.  Statements that should have scuttled her nomination, but hardly made a ripple.

SuaveSocialist said:
No one should be appointed as a judge while they are under investigation for a serious crime. Doing so throws their court into disrepute and undermines public confidence in the sanctity of their station. If confirmed, it should include conditions that must be met before his duties begin. The investigation should reach its natural conclusion, and if they press charges, he must be found Not Guilty on all counts. Innocent until proven guilty, but having someone act as judge while under criminal investigation is a conflict of interest of epic proportions.

Kavanaugh isn't under any criminal investigation whatsoever.  The incident has yet to even be reported to the local and state authorities that would make such a determination.  Beyond which, the statute of limitations has long passed (attempted rape has none, but even if we had ironclad proof Ford was speaking facts, her description ends the encounter well short of that crime).

Edit:  It appears I was mistaken by some false news reports on the statute of limitations.  The statute of limitations on rape has also expired.

Perhaps you're mistaking the FBI's involvement, but they're not investigating this criminally.  It's just a background check that they'll pass on to Congress.  There is no federal law involved to investigate.  Basically, the whole FBI thing is a delaying tactic and an opportunity to confuse people who don't realize that the FBI isn't investigating it as a crime.

Last edited by NightlyPoe - on 29 September 2018

PwerlvlAmy said:
Absolutely continue. Innocent until proven guilty. No evidence that he's guilty(thus far). Vote should happen by mid next week as it passed the committee earlier today to send it to the floor and the 7th FBI check will be pretty quick.

I feel like I can be of help on this notion. For those that don't have a legal background, there is actually no explicit guarantee of "innocent until proven guilty" established in the US Constitution. Instead case law and precedent from the Supreme Court have established the notion as a combined part of the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendment. There is no dispute in American legal precedent that there is presumption of innocence.

However, this doesn't mean the idea isn't misinterpreted. Presumption of innocence is ONLY a guarantee for criminal defendants. To better place that in the wording of the Constitution, such manners of due process are only guaranteed when life, liberty, or property are at stake. Finally, it must be a government actor that seeks to seize life, liberty, or property.

In Judge Kavanaugh's case, he is not a criminal defendant nor is a government actor seeking to seize his life, liberty, or property. Judge Kavanaugh is not owed this presumption. Frankly, as a Judge, he knows in this setting he isn't owed much of anything. However, Senate committee rules due try to provide some forms of due process to have a fair hearing when questioning nominees. 

 

For a lot of good reasons which I wont' get into here, presumption of innocence has little worth outside of the criminal context. Civil cases do not have this presumption for instance. Really it is meant to be a check on the executive branch to prevent unfair trials and proceedings where the government already enjoys more power. 



NightlyPoe said:
OlfinBedwere said:

The way Murphy's Law works, however, the Republicans would likely end up changing things to make it easier to push nominees through uncontested, only for the next vacancy not to pop up until the Democrats have retaken the White House and/or Congress.

I don't see a downside to that.  Democrat nominees don't face the sort of smears that Republican nominees do.  Heck, Sotomayor made a statement of her inherent gender and ethnic superiority multiple times.  Statements that should have scuttled her nomination, but hardly made a ripple.

SuaveSocialist said:
No one should be appointed as a judge while they are under investigation for a serious crime. Doing so throws their court into disrepute and undermines public confidence in the sanctity of their station. If confirmed, it should include conditions that must be met before his duties begin. The investigation should reach its natural conclusion, and if they press charges, he must be found Not Guilty on all counts. Innocent until proven guilty, but having someone act as judge while under criminal investigation is a conflict of interest of epic proportions.

Kavanaugh isn't under any criminal investigation whatsoever.  

they're not investigating this criminally.  

Didn’t mean to say they were, but they are investigating a serious crime (as opening statement indicates), so apart from needing to rephrase my closing statement, everything before it still stands.



SuaveSocialist said:

Didn’t mean to say they were, but they are investigating a serious crime (as opening statement indicates), so apart from needing to rephrase my closing statement, everything before it still stands.

Not really.  The term "investigating" is a misnomer.  They're just going to conduct interviews and forward them without recommendation.  In this case, the FBI is a glorified transcription service.



NightlyPoe said:
SuaveSocialist said:

Didn’t mean to say they were, but they are investigating a serious crime (as opening statement indicates), so apart from needing to rephrase my closing statement, everything before it still stands.

Not really.  The term "investigating" is a misnomer.  

Federal Bureau of _____________ (full in the blank)