We are all Slave now.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Exactly. Right now, a consultant is crazily calling all of these people and telling them which telephone call numbers not to answer. And Politico is busy using all sorts of burner phones and private cells to get around that.

This is a hell of a gutsy move for that professor. Life is never going to be the same after this.

There is now a letter from people who went to her school (not necessarily with her). 200 signatures. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b04d32ebfabbc6

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There is now a letter from people who went to her school (not necessarily with her). 200 signatures. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b04d32ebfabbc6

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.

[Adder]

You think anyone's opinion is actually influenced one way or another by those letters? I do not. I think they are theater meant as cover for pre-existing judgments.

This is a particularly interesting situation, where the only possible "punishment" Kavanaugh will face is maybe having to stay in his existing lifetime appointment to the federal bench, instead of getting a promotion. And, of course, had he been convicted of this at the time (ha, there's zero chance of that at the time or for someone like him) he would never have gotten where he is.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

You think anyone's opinion is actually influenced one way or another by those letters? I do not. I think they are theater meant as cover for pre-existing judgments.

This is a particularly interesting situation, where the only possible "punishment" Kavanaugh will face is maybe having to stay in his existing lifetime appointment to the federal bench, instead of getting a promotion. And, of course, had he been convicted of this at the time (ha, there's zero chance of that at the time or for someone like him) he would never have gotten where he is.

The Republican Party's view is that it is a massive failure if they have to appoint any candidate other than a rapid ideologue. It is what their base demands and they have promised. A sensible and rational center-right moderate is the disaster they fear.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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.

I don't think it should be a crim or civil standard as in a court of law. But I'm uncomfortable with a one-in-ten chance of accuracy. That invites reckless allegations each time there's a nomination.

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.

I agree. But that ship has sailed. The court is not much more than a political instrument.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The Republican Party's view is that it is a massive failure if they have to appoint any candidate other than a rapid ideologue. It is what their base demands and they have promised. A sensible and rational center-right moderate is the disaster they fear.

The Right hates Kavanaugh. Calls him a RINO. He is the most centrist candidate of those considered.

Consider this: Kavanaugh has to withdraw, Rs hold senate (gaining Tester's and McCaskill's seats). After election, Rs will feel emboldened to pick a true lunatic like Barrett. It is possible the Ds win this battle only to wind up with someone worse?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You forget, conservatives organize and act in lockstep very quickly. For a SCOTUS seat, getting 65 people together on short notice isn't a heavy lift. Particularly when most of them are probably graduates of nearby girls' schools in DC who stayed in the Beltway, and are mostly also affluent GOP/moderate Democrat voters.

This sleuth is overthinking things.

I have to give props to Feinstein. She orchestrated this perfectly so far. They may very well pull this off, particularly if Flake and Corker decide it's payback time for Trump.

Did they not already have the names pulled together when the allegation surfaced?

Like many Republicans, you err when you think Feinstein orchestrated anything.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This is a hell of a gutsy move for that professor. Life is never going to be the same after this.

2

I am one (close) degree of separation from her.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Did they not already have the names pulled together when the allegation surfaced?

Like many Republicans, you err when you think Feinstein orchestrated anything.

Those names are easy to compile.

I don't mean that as a criticism of Feinstein. The timing indicates it's an "October surprise" type of release. The way I see it, all's fair after Merrick Garland.

And stop calling me a Republican.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The Right hates Kavanaugh. Calls him a RINO. He is the most centrist candidate of those considered.

This is not true at all. The Federalist Society types I deal with are 200% in on him. The Catholic folks who want Roe and Griswold overturned are all in as well.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Did they not already have the names pulled together when the allegation surfaced?

Like many Republicans, you err when you think Feinstein orchestrated anything.

I suspect Feinstein was actually trying very hard to do the right thing here. I applaud her.

As to the names pulled together, it sounds like that is not the case. See the twitter thread I linked to above, especially the article quoted in it by one of the women who pulled the letter together and the tweet where Prof. Leong notes that an awful lot of the women are facebook friends of each other.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

2

I am one (close) degree of separation from her.

She's the new Anita Hill. And her skeletons, if any, are all coming out. Along with many completely fake stories about her.

It's normally dangerous to attack a victim. But these aren't normal times. I think the Senate GOP is going to go after her with a vengeance.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't think it should be a crim or civil standard as in a court of law. But I'm uncomfortable with a one-in-ten chance of accuracy. That invites reckless allegations each time there's a nomination.

Certainly substantially higher than 50/50.

If I were on a board hiring a CEO, we'd likely apply a more onerous standard than one in ten. There is a large universe of capable people, and you don't play dice with your company.

As to reckless allegations, I'd wait to see if a problem emerges and we're suddenly short capable nominees. Since the question is what is best for the court and country, not what is best for the candidate, our standards should be very high.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This is not true at all. The Federalist Society types I deal with are 200% in on him. The Catholic folks who want Roe and Griswold overturned are all in as well.

I thought Barrett was their pick.

Isn't this a case of them having to be all in for any conservative nominee? I find it hard to believe they preferred him to Barrett. She's fucking loony tunes.