Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
This situation may have a silver lining. We'll finally ask the question, "Should accusations, and defenses, be believed just because they've been raised? Or should we recall why we have a thing called due process?" (And that a form of it, relaxed as it must be, should be applied even in political matters like this.)
I don't think 65 random friends of Kavanaugh have anything to say about this story. They weren't there. His one friend who claims to have been there is the only person who'd have relevant evidence if this were in a court of law.
I don't think 200 of the professor's friends have anything to say about this situation for exactly the same reason.
I understand why Feinstein used this as she did. If you believe Kavanaugh is a true threat on the Court, you have to do what you have to do. And, uh, Merrick Garland.
But the litigation of these issues by consideration of irrelevant comments from third parties? This is degradation... a sign of a country in which rational thinking and reverence for logic are fading in importance, replaced by moral panic.
|
To begin with, we should set our standards based on whom we believe should sit in judgement of us all on the highest court in the land. This should never be about civil or criminal standards of proof or process, or a trial on the reputation of the nomination. If there is one chance in ten she is right, he ought not to go on the court.
It is very much about the credibility of both the Senate and the Court, and each of them are suffering. We still have somewhere from tens of thousands to over a hundred thousand documents withheld as part of this process. We also have a Supreme Court that is rightly criticized for its partisan tendencies, with increasing numbers of votes breaking down based on the Party of the appointing President.
Also, we have a Senate applying a 50 vote rather than 60 vote standard for only the third time that I'm aware of (Thomas was confirmed with 52, Gorsuch with 54 - and I would say Thomas has been a significant contributor to the court's lack of credibility). Sixty votes drove thoughtful consensus candidates rather than partisan hacks; we should be considering whether this is the process we really want.
