Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cathar]

I don't like Kavanaugh, I don't share any of his views and I believe he should have been thrown out on the ground he has no self control and no ability to remain unbiaised, which you would think should be mendatory for judges.

But that sex scandal makes me roll my eyes, like any american sex scandal really.
Prescription exists for a reason. Precisely this kind of situation. You don't throw a 20 years old sex affair in someone's face to destroy their life. You don't keep witness testimony underhand for the time it's needed for political expedience. The time is way past, now it's time to move on.

[Il Palazzo]

We do people keep throwing that 'destroy man's life' bull? He was never at risk of criminal prosecution, or even losing his job. He was at risk of not being appointed to a position of power for the rest of his life - which is the kind of honour only a really spotless person should be awarded.

[Cathar]

Because the very mentality behind this accusation is guilty. If a crime is commited, you have to report it, and there is a time limit. Once it's expired, wether a crime has been commited or not is irrelevant, so to avoid blackmail for life.

I'm convinced Kavanaugh is guilty, is a bad person and was a shitty teenager. But now it's too late to file a report. It shouldn't even have been brought up.

Edit : Also yeah. I understand why republican officials ironized on that case, calling Ford "pleasing" and "attractive". She had no leg to stand on, and shouldn't have been taken seriously, because her testimony holds no weight at all due to prescription. Bringing her up hints at malevolent and antidemocratic intentions, dragged everyone down to the level of public opinion, prevented more in depth debate, and in general made that thing a circus.

Franckly from an outside perspective, the democratic party is the one in the wrong here, clearly.

[Il Palazzo]

But this wasn't criminal investigation! It was a job interview.

[redwallzyl]

Because the very mentality behind this accusation is guilty. If a crime is commited, you have to report it, and there is a time limit. Once it's expired, wether a crime has been commited or not is irrelevant, so to avoid blackmail for life.

I'm convinced Kavanaugh is guilty, is a bad person and was a shitty teenager. But now it's too late to file a report. It shouldn't even have been brought up.

I seriously do not get this point of view. The dude was being considered for appointment to the highest court in the land. Of course his shitty behavior is relevant. It's a reflection of his character. Is he had committed a more serious offense in the past but the statute of limitations had expired that still makes him unfit for the highest court in the land. Is it really to much to ask that the Supreme have spotless records?

[Cathar]

So what ? It's fair game? No it's not. She hasn't filed a report, so for all intent and purpose it never happened. You can't wake up 20 years after the fact and throw shade at people. This should not happen in a democratic society. And just because Kavanaugh is a shithead doesn't means he should be fair game for this kind of underhand tactics.

but the statute of limitations had expired that still makes him unfit for the highest court in the land. Is it really to much to ask that the Supreme have spotless records?

His record is spotless. Or at least, Ford's testimony doesn't counts as a spot. Because, you know, prescription. For all intent and purpose, what she said never happened.

[Il Palazzo]

Prescription is for criminal matters. This wasn't one. He was not on trial.

[Cathar]

Then why are people complaining he was hired if he was ?

If it's a job interview and he was hired, what is the leg anyone has to stand on to criticize the hiring? This is just grasping the branches, and I say that with even more frustration I am convinced they would have some legit criticism the democratic party could have levelled against him, but instead resorted to a mud dragging court of public opinion tactic. This is extremely frustrating.

[Frumple]

There were like a bloody dozen legit criticisms levelled against the fucker. By any measure worth a flying fuck kav is not qualified to be a SCOTUS justice. They were ignored by the majority party. It ended up in the court of public opinion because slightly over half the "court" that should have been doing its fucking job decided to abrogate their duties in order to get a naked partisan on the supreme court.

[Cathar]

I've been following the case on american TV. The only thing I heard what "Dr. Ford this and that". Without doing in depth digging of my own, irrelevant trivia is the only information I was provided in this case. I don't know what the democrat party thinks, but on the left leaning medias I've been following, clearly they meant to die on that hill. And so they did, F for respect

[Dorsidwarf]

Then why are people complaining he was hired if he was ?

If it's a job interview and he was hired, what is the leg anyone has to stand on to criticize the hiring? This is just grasping the branches, and I say that with even more frustration I am convinced they would have some legit criticism the democratic party could have levelled against him, but instead resorted to a mud dragging court of public opinion tactic. This is extremely frustrating.

I mean in what way other than the hearings held to determine whether the candidate who is about to be selected is suitable would you suggest the democrats and accusers say their piece?

[Cathar]

I mean in what way other than the hearings held to determine whether the candidate who is about to be selected is suitable would you suggest the democrats and accusers say their piece?

I am unfamiliar with the process so I can only provide my opinion, but to me those should be no brainers :
1°) Accusers should politely stfu when they have no ground for accusation.
2°) Questionning should be focused on the questions that actually matter ; impartiality, self control, reviews of the controversial arbitrations he performed as a judge.
3°) Decision should be made according to the rules of the game without the players trying to flip the board everytime they are losing

In general, the whole democratic system gains if the discussions are kept civil and standards upheld. USA always had low standards and a high propensity to explode in short outburst of popular rage that are instrumentalized from both parties, as far as I can remember, but since 2016 I saw the methodical destruction of every bit of standard it had.

Democratic standards, that's what I'm asking for.

And before someone rightly points out that Republicans do the exact same thing all the time : yes I know. That's my point.

[misko27]

I don't like Kavanaugh, I don't share any of his views and I believe he should have been thrown out on the ground he has no self control and no ability to remain unbiaised, which you would think should be mendatory for judges.

But that sex scandal makes me roll my eyes, like any american sex scandal really.
Prescription exists for a reason. Precisely this kind of situation. You don't throw a 20 years old sex affair in someone's face to destroy their life. You don't keep witness testimony underhand for the time it's needed for political expedience. The time is way past, now it's time to move on.

Kavanaugh deserves every single bit of shit thrown his way, since the man was part of the Ken Starr investigation against Bill Clinton for sexual impropriety. The man is, among his other sins, a raging hypocrite: he called for every unseemly detail of Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct to be brought to light, but now seems angered that the same thing is being done to him. It's extremely telling that his worst accusation he can level at his accusers is they are acting the same way he did 20 years ago.

I've been following the case on american TV. The only thing I heard what "Dr. Ford this and that". Without doing in depth digging of my own, irrelevant trivia is the only information I was provided in this case.

You should probably consider watching the actual hearings then, instead of getting your information second-hand! An hour of those hearings is worth any number of hours merely reading reactions to it...

If it's a job interview and he was hired, what is the leg anyone has to stand on to criticize the hiring?

That it was shit? That even former Supreme Court Justices have criticized him and said he is unfit to serve on the Court? That Republicans were interested purely in political points? It's objectively untrue that Democrats would have brought this up against any Justice nominated, as has been alleged, since Neil Gorsuch was appointed to the court without any of, despite many Democrats really wishing he was not.

1°) Accusers should politely stfu when they have no ground for accusation.

Does sending a private letter to a Senator on the Judiciary Committee violate this standard? Because that's what happened.

2°) Questionning should be focused on the questions that actually matter ; impartiality, self control, reviews of the controversial arbitrations he performed as a judge.

And we've sure learned a lot about his impartiality and self-control from these proceedings, haven't we? "I like beer, I still like beer!". Morever Supreme Court Justices aren't necessarily former Judges: there's little in the way of qualifications. what would you have us evaluate then?

3°) Decision should be made according to the rules of the game without the players trying to flip the board everytime they are losing

Again, the Gorsuch example disproves the nonsense about Democrats refusing any nomination, only this particular one. They could have withdrawn Kavanaugh at any time! He'd still have his job and everything! Trump has literally thousands of people available to nominate (his own words!). Blocking Kavanaugh would not even have stopped Republicans from confirming a different Justice, with time to spare. But they chose the damaged goods. And Democrats are to blame?

[Cathar]

Kavanaugh deserves every single bit of shit thrown his way, since the man was part of the Ken Starr investigation against Bill Clinton for sexual impropriety.

This guy is a piece of garbage in my opinion for this alone. Having candidate judged on their sexual conducts rather than on policies is one big cancer that is eating US democratic process in my humble opinion. I mean you're preaching to a convert, that stuff annoys me more than it should since the DSK scandal.

Maybe it's time you guys have a deep look into yourself and do away with victorian era mentality alltogether because it's dragging your whole political system into the dirt.

You should probably consider watching the actual hearings then, instead of getting your information second-hand! An hour of those hearings is worth any number of hours merely reading reactions to it...

You are absolutely right. I should inform myself directly, altho from my perspective (as a non-US citizen) those hearings do no affect me and do not warrant me to divert time to inform myself throughly. I am a bit upset to not have the opportunity to rely on third party analysis to have an understanding of things that does not directly concern me, but here I am having to chose between diverting a lot of effort, remain in the dark, or being subject to unreliable partisan information.

I mean, I know, woe is me. But yeah you're right.

And we've sure learned a lot about his impartiality and self-control from these proceedings, haven't we? "I like beer, I still like beer!".

In my country we throw those kind of guys out of pubs. You're preaching to a convert, that's not the problem I'm pointing at.

Morever Supreme Court Justices aren't necessarily former Judges: there's little in the way of qualifications. what would you have us evaluate then?

Alright this is the problem, right there. There is no standard. Anything goes. This is the root of the problem. You have one party trying to place a drunkard in office and the other rolling in the mud to sling dirt at him. This is a shitshow all around.
What would you evaluate ? I don't know. It's not my place to imagine standards. But I think there should be standard.

[Karnewarrior]

I mean in what way other than the hearings held to determine whether the candidate who is about to be selected is suitable would you suggest the democrats and accusers say their piece?

I am unfamiliar with the process so I can only provide my opinion, but to me those should be no brainers :
1°) Accusers should politely stfu when they have no ground for accusation.
2°) Questionning should be focused on the questions that actually matter ; impartiality, self control, reviews of the controversial arbitrations he performed as a judge.
3°) Decision should be made according to the rules of the game without the players trying to flip the board everytime they are losing

In general, the whole democratic system gains if the discussions are kept civil and standards upheld. USA always had low standards and a high propensity to explode in short outburst of popular rage that are instrumentalized from both parties, as far as I can remember, but since 2016 I saw the methodical destruction of every bit of standard it had.

Democratic standards, that's what I'm asking for.

And before someone rightly points out that Republicans do the exact same thing all the time : yes I know. That's my point.

Mate, I don't think you understand. A Supreme Court Justice has his job for life, making them the closest thing to a monarch the US has. They have egregious amounts of power handed to them without much recourse for taking that power back.

This was NOT a criminal investigation. This was trying to determine if the individual in question was worthy, not just qualified, to hold that much power for that long. There are no time limits, because frankly, every SC nominee should undergo such scrutiny in the first place. All the way back to the days when they were young kids. Because when you're appointing, with no way for the people themselves to alter the process, a supreme judge of the land, who's duty is to interpret the law of the land for the rest of their life, you should make as sure as fucking possible that that person is as perfectly clean as possible, in every possible way.

The criminality of the stuff doesn't matter, because like you said, there's a limit on how old such accusations can be. What matters is that this guy, in a period of his life where his personality and frontal cortex were presumably in full form and action, was allegedly running gang rapes on women. Was apparently getting so drunk he could not recall any of the relevant information. In fact, if you had watched the hearing, you'd know he openly admits to still drinking "lots of beer". That's not the kind of flawless conduct that one would expect of one of our nations 9 best people. That's barely conduct exemplary of a judge at all, although it's not illegal so there's no real impetus to disbar him.

Imagine if he was just handed a nuclear bomb by the senate. People would be worried if he took the bomb and said "Boy, this'll go down great with the blokes at the pub!" and proceeded to smash back 13 Heinekens and reminisce about the days when he would seduce drunk women in college. Because that's not behavior indicative of a mindset that's safe to hold that much raw power.