We are all Slave now.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Look, you asked what I thought, that's what I think. I am under no illusion that Republican Senators give a shit about what I think about the nominating process.

Well obviously they don't care about anything but "winning," and the Rs especially have lost sight about what they should be trying to "win." I agree Senators are not the avenue to get to anything resembling what is right or fair or true. And for what it's worth I am sorry your friend is getting dragged into something so horrific.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Maybe watch Advise and Consent? I don't care if he makes it or not. but FWIW I think it inevitable that Trump will get someone on.

If there is an FBI investigation on something that happened a million years and we hear that it is likely something happened, and that means he should not be on the court, god bless. But we can't just say she said this happened so he's toast, right? Beyond him, you realize how this precedent stuff works?

I think there are some crazy people out there who believe an allegation is enough. But those are fringe people. I think rational people are in general agreement that we have to determine if there's heft to this allegation before dinging him. If there is, then we adopt GGG's job interview standard (that a credible accusation backed with compelling facts should be adequate to ding him).

The GOP is not going to allow an assessment of whether there's heft to the allegation, however, as it's demanding she appear Monday or not appear at all, and she's requesting to appear later in the week. Epic game of chicken.

Here's the most interesting possibility (which I know you've considered, but is still worth stating): She doesn't show up Monday, he's confirmed, thousands of investigative journalists look into the allegation and two years from now, a slew of books come out proving she was telling the truth. Then we have a guy who engaged in sexual assault on the Supreme Court. I think you can impeach a SCOTUS Justice. What happens if the GOP is still in power? Do they push him to resign? Refute the books and support him? Monday isn't the end of this thing, but just the beginning.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It sounds like you're thinking of her not as infantry but as cannon fodder, but the whole point here is we ought not to do that to her. I think there are some Dems, notably Feinstein but also Gillibrand, for example, and, indeed, almost all the Democratic women Senators, who are on board here, and doing their best to respect what she is dealing with. Let's call these folks the decent people. I think there are others who want to take this nominee down at any cost. Let's call these folks the operatives. If the nominee isn't taken down, the operatives are going to blame the decent people. But frankly the decent people are the ones whose careers I want to advance, because some things shouldn't be partisan.

Cannon fodder is a better analogy. This is involuntary.

I'm withholding judgment on Feinstein. Her handling of this could be admirable, or it could be something very different. I don't think I know enough, so I'm not willing at this point to accuse or applaud. ETA: https://www.thedailybeast.com/anita-...er-in-hot-seat

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Maybe watch Advise and Consent? I don't care if he makes it or not. but FWIW I think it inevitable that Trump will get someone on.

Right, which is why it's kinda crazy to insist that someone is this guy, or worse, this guy with no meaningful investigation of the allegations.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

How do you do that? I think allowing counsel for the accused and accuser to engage in a short hearing before a circuit court judge in which they follow the rules of evidence and federal trial procedure. The accused and accuser both get to testify and the video and transcript are then given to both the Senate and media. That's the only fair method, unfortunately. Doing it before the Senate is a waste of time, political shitshow. Those idiots aren't intellectually fit or unbiased enough to hear such a matter.

A judge would be crazy to volunteer to participate in this unconstitutional exercise and Congress most definitely cannot compel one to do so.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think there are some crazy people out there who believe an allegation is enough. But those are fringe people. I think rational people are in general agreement that we have to determine if there's heft to this allegation before dinging him. If there is, then we adopt GGG's job interview standard (that a credible accusation backed with compelling facts should be adequate to ding him).

Let's be at least a little honest with ourselves. The only thing that is "enough" to ding him when his party is in the majority is that not dinging him is more politically damaging than dinging him.

That certainly correlates with the quantum of evidence against him, but it's not the same thing.

Also, I think we can assume that the GOP believes he did it. If they didn't, they'd be looking for an investigation to show he didn't.

What happens if the GOP is still in power?

That's easy. Nothing.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Right, which is why it's kinda crazy to insist that someone is this guy, or worse, this guy with no meaningful investigation of the allegations.

I was thinking how stupid the process is. To be a lawyer, you have to show basic legal skills (bar exam) and the current process probably provides that, albeit twisted by political bias.

But we also have to pass a character and fitness component. When something like these allegations come up it seems better to have something similar. People who aren't pimping for the TV and can be relied upon to say whether a candidate meets certain objective criteria.

Point number 87 in how we could revise the country to be better ran.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

And if you think questioning without investigation by a bunch of amateurs is going to settle the question, well, I bet you'd even believe that a negative sign could be a dash.

Wait.



TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Maybe watch Advise and Consent? I don't care if he makes it or not. but FWIW I think it inevitable that Trump will get someone on.

Indeed, completely inevitable. Even in the highly unlikely event that the Dems win control of the Senate and no nomination has gone through, he would be able to find a Roe-hostile, conservative nominee who would still be able to get enough Democratic votes to prevail with the 50 vote standard. The Dems aren't going to delay this process two years.

There were multiple ways to get this particular nomination done for the Rs, but Supreme Court confirmations are the sort of thing where whatever they do is going to have a bright light on it. The Rs have such a strong proclivity to try to solve their problems by jamming stuff through, burying them, or doing them in the dead of night that just may be capable of screwing this up. In which case we'll move on to the next one and see if they've learned anything.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Wait.



TM

Sure, maybe they can solve it with a meme.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Let's be at least a little honest with ourselves. The only thing that is "enough" to ding him when his party is in the majority is that not dinging him is more politically damaging than dinging him.

That certainly correlates with the quantum of evidence against him, but it's not the same thing.

Also, I think we can assume that the GOP believes he did it. If they didn't, they'd be looking for an investigation to show he didn't.

The GOP does not believe he did it. Not at all. They think this is engineered. They're just not taking any chances. It's a strategy. There are arguments for and against it. If I were their lawyer, I'd probably err on getting him seated. Get the win under the belt, then figure a long term strategy for addressing the fallout.

I don't see any evidence yet. I see an accusation and a denial.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

A judge would be crazy to volunteer to participate in this unconstitutional exercise and Congress most definitely cannot compel one to do so.

I know. But you got a better fair solution? This senate hearing sure as hell isn't going to be one.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't think anyone has asserted that any nominee should go down simply because an accusation is made. That's obviously an imbecilic and dangerous policy.

I think the policy advocated is that where an accusation is made, there should be some investigation and the accuser should be put to his or her proofs in a forum allowing some form of direct and cross examination, but not a hearing where a bunch of Senators can merely grandstand and make closing arguments for TV at the accuser and accused, rather than ask questions intended to get to the actual truth, or lack of truth, in the allegation.

How do you do that? I think allowing counsel for the accused and accuser to engage in a short hearing before a circuit court judge in which they follow the rules of evidence and federal trial procedure. The accused and accuser both get to testify and the video and transcript are then given to both the Senate and media. That's the only fair method, unfortunately. Doing it before the Senate is a waste of time, political shitshow. Those idiots aren't intellectually fit or unbiased enough to hear such a matter.

And does the prosecutor get to call whatever witnesses they want as long as they can show relevance, so no withholding Judge from cross-examination, and is there some form of discovery, so those 100,000 documents being withheld by the Administration are subject to discovery?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Right, which is why it's kinda crazy to insist that someone is this guy, or worse, this guy with no meaningful investigation of the allegations.

That "it was someone else" defense is lunacy. I'd ignore it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

And does the prosecutor get to call whatever witnesses they want as long as they can show relevance, so no withholding Judge from cross-examination, and is there some form of discovery, so those 100,000 documents being withheld by the Administration are subject to discovery?

Full discovery. If this guy wants to be on SCOTUS, all docs have to be released and the other side given all necessary time to examine them.

The GOP's gamesmanship in this regard suggests there's something else here.