By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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
NightlyPoe said:

I somewhat agree and that's more or less my official position.  However, the counterargument is valid as well.  What does it mean when anyone who submits their name to the Supreme Court can be defeated with unconfirmed and unconfirmable charges?  What does it mean for future nominees and their willingness to put their families through this?

And we're not talking about equal share here.  This is typical of the treatment of conservative appointments.  I cannot tell you how many nominees have been smeared with baseless charges of racism and such over the years even for lower courts.

While it is a political post and it does not take a criminal conviction to drop a nomination, the consequences of removing Kavanaugh are not as simple as moving onto the next nominee.  We will have established the Kavanaugh Precedent.  The real world result of which would be that any person who may or may not have known you in your past has veto power over your nomination and will wreck your reputation in the process.

I find it persuasive that such a system, particularly one uniquely stacked against Republican nominees, is not tenable.

The "Kavanaugh Precedent" relies on a large number of credible false accusers. While it is theoretically possible, I don't believe that it is practically likely enough to take the risk that the accusations in this particular case are true.

And of course, as you said "the counterargument is valid as well".  By plainly and visibly decrying to the country that if you accuse a powerful man of sexual assault, you will have every detail of your life picked apart, your family threatened, you will be shamed, doubted and accused of all manner of horrible deeds, you are telling victims to keep silent. By telling them that unless you have a written and notarized confession, you will not be believed and nothing will be done, you are telling them to keep silent. 

The role of the court is to protect the rights of the people. While explicitly that job is performed in the courtroom, I think this is equally impactful, though I suppose it is too late to do much about that one...



Around the Network
sundin13 said:
NightlyPoe said:

I somewhat agree and that's more or less my official position.  However, the counterargument is valid as well.  What does it mean when anyone who submits their name to the Supreme Court can be defeated with unconfirmed and unconfirmable charges?  What does it mean for future nominees and their willingness to put their families through this?

And we're not talking about equal share here.  This is typical of the treatment of conservative appointments.  I cannot tell you how many nominees have been smeared with baseless charges of racism and such over the years even for lower courts.

While it is a political post and it does not take a criminal conviction to drop a nomination, the consequences of removing Kavanaugh are not as simple as moving onto the next nominee.  We will have established the Kavanaugh Precedent.  The real world result of which would be that any person who may or may not have known you in your past has veto power over your nomination and will wreck your reputation in the process.

I find it persuasive that such a system, particularly one uniquely stacked against Republican nominees, is not tenable.

The "Kavanaugh Precedent" relies on a large number of credible false accusers. While it is theoretically possible, I don't believe that it is practically likely enough to take the risk that the accusations in this particular case are true.

And of course, as you said "the counterargument is valid as well".  By plainly and visibly decrying to the country that if you accuse a powerful man of sexual assault, you will have every detail of your life picked apart, your family threatened, you will be shamed, doubted and accused of all manner of horrible deeds, you are telling victims to keep silent. By telling them that unless you have a written and notarized confession, you will not be believed and nothing will be done, you are telling them to keep silent. 

The role of the court is to protect the rights of the people. While explicitly that job is performed in the courtroom, I think this is equally impactful, though I suppose it is too late to do much about that one...

Its not telling them to be silent at all. Its telling them that if you're credible and can corroborate a case against the accused, you have a voice.

Right now the narrative being pushed is ''Believe all victims''. Which is extremely wrong. Its being pushed that women should be believed no matter what they say just because they're women. It sets up and gives women power  that we can say whatever we want,whenever we want,even if we cant prove said accusation is true and we have to believed no matter what. This will effect both men and women long term if its allowed to stand and continue. 



NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick

HylianSwordsman said:
PwerlvlAmy said:

I view it as a ''facts dont care about your feelings'' type of stance. Large amount of people believe something that isn't true, we've all done it in every aspect of our lives. Just because we believe something and perceive it as a true(without proof or facts), wouldnt give us a right to defame and destroy someones life or career.

Thats why I'd stick with kav because emotions are just those, emotions. No facts present that makes Kav guilty of something at the moment and saying he should withdrawn from nomination just based off ''emotions'' isn't really a logical way to go. If we based everything off emotions rather than facts or proof,then society wouldn't be able to function properly.

So we'll see where this goes.  Give me hard proof that Kav is guilty as can be and I'll be right there saying he should be withdrawn and or impeached. Until then it doesnt make sense to not move forward and put him on the SC

Facts don't care about your feelings either though, and it's a fact that huge swaths of the population think he's a rapist, and it's a fact that this would damage the Supreme Court's reputation if he were confirmed, and it's a fact that the Supreme Court is a foundational pillar of the rule of law, and it's a fact that there are no consequences for Republicans' goals for the Supreme Court to just nominate another candidate so long as they're equally qualified, and it's a fact that Trump has a large list of such candidates. A person acting purely rationally and sitting in Trump's position would withdraw Kavanaugh and pick Amy Coney Barrett, because she's actually more conservative than he is, and nominating her would simultaneously prevent any further damage to the court's reputation, while also cornering Democrats if they're bluffing. You may feel this is unfair to men or whatever, but you know it's true, and facts don't care about your feelings. If Dems brought accusations against Barrett, they'd look like they really were just trying to come up with bogus accusations, and the public would just roll their eyes. In all likelihood, there would be no accusations and she'd sail through with multiple red state Dem votes just like Gorsuch did and become the conservative version of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, causing as much angst to liberals as RBG did to conservatives. The opportunity for Trump and Republicans is right there. They can get a more conservative judge, humiliate Democrats now, cause liberal angst for the rest of ACB's lifetime, and if Dems tried anything with sex crime accusations to stop her, they'd ruin their own reputation and cast enough doubt on the Kavanaugh accusations to give Republicans an excuse to nominate him for a future seat if Trump gets a second term (or sooner, I don't know). All it would take is for Trump to be a leader for 5 seconds and withdraw the guy. His base will follow along if he explains what he's doing and why. There's a clear conservative case to do this and you can bet if he laid out that case conservatives would follow him, and persuadable independents wouldn't buy accusations out of nowhere a second time, unless they were absurdly credible on a level beyond the Kavanaugh situation. All but the most hardcore liberals probably wouldn't believe it either, and if Dems don't try this tactic again, liberals might not like ACB but they at least won't feel like a rapist is on the court. 

The most important fact here is that whether you feel that a society should make all decisions based on purely emotionless facts or not, emotions aren't just a part of our society, they're fundamental to it. You can't separate them out like that. This is because of one emotion in particular, trust. Trust in the institutions that make up society are what keep a society from collapsing. If you undermine trust in a society's institutions, it will not remain a society, it'll collapse into chaos. The Constitution of the United States is just a bunch of meaningless words on paper if we don't trust it. The Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches are just labels we give to a collection of people and buildings unless we trust them enough to give authority to their words and actions. You can't just keep disrespecting the feelings of half of society over and over again and expect trust to remain, and that goes for both sides. Facts don't care about anyone's feelings, but trust cares about feelings, and society is built on trust. Good decisions are built on facts, sure, but it's a fact that emotions influence trust, and a fact that damaging the institutions of society is bad, and therefore a fact that maximizing trust in the institutions that uphold society will require accounting for the emotions of that society's citizens. It's not a black or white thing, of course, as nothing is going to make everyone feel great, and nothing is going to gain universal trust. It's a balancing act, and it takes skilled leadership to navigate that balancing act and lead a society to unite around a vision for those institutions that they can trust in. It's even more difficult in a time like today with society already divided so thoroughly and rigidly along partisan and ideological lines, but that's the reality we face. We're at a tipping point right now where too much more trust lost in our institutions could cripple or utterly destroy us, and it's not worth playing around with society's trust in the highest court in the land with the final say on every law. Rule of law depends on it.

 

Also, Kavanaugh wouldn't be harmed in any way by not being confirmed. He's a judge. With a lifetime appointment. Since he can't be tried for anything he's been accused of, his career is safe. His life won't be impacted any further than it already has whether you confirm him or not at this point. Likewise, he's already as defamed as he's going to get, unless more things come out, and confirming him won't protect him from that. Doesn't make sense to confirm him to "protect" him or his career, as it won't have that effect.

Of course they will try to discredit Amy Coney Barret, she is a Trump-nominee and the democrats have pretty much decided any Trump-nominee will be unacceptable



PwerlvlAmy said:
sundin13 said:

The "Kavanaugh Precedent" relies on a large number of credible false accusers. While it is theoretically possible, I don't believe that it is practically likely enough to take the risk that the accusations in this particular case are true.

And of course, as you said "the counterargument is valid as well".  By plainly and visibly decrying to the country that if you accuse a powerful man of sexual assault, you will have every detail of your life picked apart, your family threatened, you will be shamed, doubted and accused of all manner of horrible deeds, you are telling victims to keep silent. By telling them that unless you have a written and notarized confession, you will not be believed and nothing will be done, you are telling them to keep silent. 

The role of the court is to protect the rights of the people. While explicitly that job is performed in the courtroom, I think this is equally impactful, though I suppose it is too late to do much about that one...

Its not telling them to be silent at all. Its telling them that if you're credible and can corroborate a case against the accused, you have a voice.

Right now the narrative being pushed is ''Believe all victims''. Which is extremely wrong. Its being pushed that women should be believed no matter what they say just because they're women. It sets up and gives women power  that we can say whatever we want,whenever we want,even if we cant prove said accusation is true and we have to believed no matter what. This will effect both men and women long term if its allowed to stand and continue. 

Unfortunately hard proof is virtually impossible in old cases. Unless you still have the semen inside of your body or on your clothing, it is difficult to really prove anything and even then, I'd say that most sexual assault cases come down to consent.

As far as the narrative of "Believe all Victims", I think the question is difficult because without proof either way (and assuming a Quantum Superposition-esque reality where truth exists in both contrasting states until a decision is observed), both parties are wronged. That sucks. But I think there are a few things to note. First of all, this isn't about women and men. This is about victim and actor (whether real or imaginary). Second, I do think we need to take some consideration for the potentially victimized party. This means there needs to be some degree of compromise. We shouldn't throw someone in jail as soon as someone utters an accusation, but we shouldn't immediately discard naked accusations (that is an accusation with no corresponding proof). We need to find a middle ground. Also, I think we need to consider that false accusations are generally considered to be a minority of accusations in general.

Additionally, you say that believe victims will effect both men and women. So does disbelieving victims. We already see the influence that this way of thinking has. We have seen it for years in the silence of rape victims, and the fear, and the mistreatment by the courts and the police systems. We see it in workplace sexual harassment and the belief that some people hold, that they have a right to your body, or that your body only serves as a sexual stimulus for them. This is already doing harm. While it is fine to acknowledge the dangers of the other extreme, we need to acknowledge that things are not good right now. Potential future issues that may or may not come to pass should not serve as a reason to not work to fix the problem we have with sexual abuse.



They're probably not going to find anything substantial that's worth revoking his nomination that being said I still don't want to see him on the supreme court. Get ready to say good bye to environmentalism or anything that doesn't line a millionaire's pocket



Around the Network
collint0101 said:
They're probably not going to find anything substantial that's worth revoking his nomination that being said I still don't want to see him on the supreme court. Get ready to say good bye to environmentalism or anything that doesn't line a millionaire's pocket

I don't think you have to worry about that. Dont give into media/press fear mongering. We'll be fine. 



NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick

PwerlvlAmy said:
collint0101 said:
They're probably not going to find anything substantial that's worth revoking his nomination that being said I still don't want to see him on the supreme court. Get ready to say good bye to environmentalism or anything that doesn't line a millionaire's pocket

I don't think you have to worry about that. Dont give into media/press fear mongering. We'll be fine. 

He's a conservative, a trump conservative more specifically. The moment a corporation pushes a case to the supreme Court he's going to be the first to bend over backwards for their anti environment or profit over  people bs. it has nothing to do with the media that's simply how that side of the political spectrum works



collint0101 said:
PwerlvlAmy said:

I don't think you have to worry about that. Dont give into media/press fear mongering. We'll be fine. 

He's a conservative, a trump conservative more specifically. The moment a corporation pushes a case to the supreme Court he's going to be the first to bend over backwards for their anti environment or profit over  people bs. it has nothing to do with the media that's simply how that side of the political spectrum works

No what you stated was fear mongering. Your second thing you stated I can't say I agree nor disagree with. Middle ground for me. That's why republicans and democrats fight over the supreme court. Democrats pick supreme court they'd stack and get people in there that would adhere their policies, same thing you're accusing trump would do. Sadly that's just the nature of how our politics work. Whether me or you like it or not



NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick

PwerlvlAmy said:
collint0101 said:

He's a conservative, a trump conservative more specifically. The moment a corporation pushes a case to the supreme Court he's going to be the first to bend over backwards for their anti environment or profit over  people bs. it has nothing to do with the media that's simply how that side of the political spectrum works

No what you stated was fear mongering. Your second thing you stated I can't say I agree nor disagree with. Middle ground for me. That's why republicans and democrats fight over the supreme court. Democrats pick supreme court they'd stack and get people in there that would adhere their policies, same thing you're accusing trump would do. Sadly that's just the nature of how our politics work. Whether me or you like it or not

I didn't say otherwise. I didn't say anything about the validity of his nomination or even much about whether or not this sexual harassment stuff is actually true all i said is that i dont want another conservative in the supreme court then you accused me of fear mongering



collint0101 said:
PwerlvlAmy said:

No what you stated was fear mongering. Your second thing you stated I can't say I agree nor disagree with. Middle ground for me. That's why republicans and democrats fight over the supreme court. Democrats pick supreme court they'd stack and get people in there that would adhere their policies, same thing you're accusing trump would do. Sadly that's just the nature of how our politics work. Whether me or you like it or not

I didn't say otherwise. I didn't say anything about the validity of his nomination or even much about whether or not this sexual harassment stuff is actually true all i said is that i dont want another conservative in the supreme court then you accused me of fear mongering

''Get ready to say good bye to environmentalism or anything that doesn't line a millionaire's pocket''

 

I considered that line fear mongering because you're assuming and getting fearful on something we dont know about yet or can even guess. That's how I saw it. 



NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick