Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I get that- contrast when you/I was evaluated to be a lawyer- our past was compared to some objective standard- of course this senate wouldn't do anything but if we ever get to a functioning government again I would like to see some set panel (non-senators) that reviews non-legal character and gives a thumbs up or down that the senate can follow or ignore. given the political nature this whole issue was never about "did he?" or "does it matter?" it has always been "can we get away with him still?" and "can we win this one by killing him?" Way too important a position for that to be the test.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

She said he held her down, put his hand over her mouth to stifle her screams and tried to take her clothes off, while Judge turned up to music so others would not hear. That's a credible basis for an investigation into attempted rape. It is an allegation of attempted rape. To the extent the distinction matters, it is not merely an allegation of sexual battery (if you want to make the distinction, "sexual assault" is the wrong term to use).

And again, we're not at the proof stage. We haven't even had a real investigation yet.

Mind you, he could respond with, "I wasn't really going to rape her, I was just copping a feel," but he did not. Which is another reason your parsing is absurd.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

The process due was for the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings and vote, and then for the Senate to vote. That's it.

When you insist that something akin to criminal process is due here (or in campus discipline cases), you're not being honest with yourself about your own biases.

And, of course, which side of this discussion was calling for more process (more witnesses, more investigation)? Oh, right, not the side your advocating for.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Interesting. I think I understand what you are saying here, but let me see if I can use a hypothetical example and you can tell me if I am tracking you. Suppose someone makes a statement that is demonstrably false. Something like: "Hillary wasn't branded as shrill." Then, suppose someone else does a simple Google search and finds dozens of article discussing the phenomenon of Hillary being branded as shrill. If the first person were to, in your words, try to preserve his original dubious claim via semantic gamesmanship, he might say something completely off the wall like:

"I can cross reference two of just about any words and give you three pages of google links (most of which are regurgitations of the same text from aggregators). 'Ernest Borgnine nude' and 'jalapeno cheesecake' each deliver ten pages of links."

And then he might try to further distract with some childish sign off like: "Try again."

Is this a good illustration of what you are talking about? Instead of admitting he is wrong, the first person digs in and tries to preserve his dubious claim (here, that "Hillary wasn't branded as shrill") by ignoring the substance of the internet search (which is dozens of articles discussing how Hillary was branded as shrill). Instead, he engages in semantic gamesmanship, and tries to reframe the argument to be about something completely unrelated (whether you can generate lots of search hits with with random search terms). This person is not engaging in honest argumentation, because that would require him to admit he was wrong, which he is incapable of doing. So, instead, he tries to "win" the argument using distraction and semantic games so he does not have to admit that his original incorrect assertion was based not on any actual facts, but rather on his own deep-seated (albeit vehemently denied) biases.

Conservative Tears
 

I wonder how prevalent this sentiment is with conservatives who have traditionally not given a fuck about anything or anyone other than themselves--read: taxes, and abortion, and who now have exactly what they've always wanted in both instances.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.5ea7fb78ba20

TM

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

That's a very strong post. And I guess I'll just go back to the point that Republicans in the Senate who voted for Kavanaugh could surely have confirmed another nominee with similarly conservative views. And yet it seems like the sorts of biases Somin describes drove them to pick Kavanaugh because they were defending him from Democrats.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I absolutely see why it might matter in a Crim Law class. This isn't Crim Law. It's Con Law. And you aren't in any danger of passing.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

The ABA used to do this, and the GOP stopped giving weight to what it said because it was politically inconvenient.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

No. ABA is a politically biased organization, I meant something with no tie. A stand alone committee. Or even a staffed congressional office.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

How would it not have the same or similar bias issues?

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

It can’t with congress as it now is, but aren’t there staffed offices not politically appointed? What is CBO?

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

No. I said "notions of due process," which unless you're intentionally obtuse, means a relaxed standard, but one that recognizes we in America afford the accused - in every forum - a presumption of innocence.

Do you really wish to live in a world where, outside a court of law, guilty until proven otherwise is a standard? That's demented.

I'm not advocating for anyone. I'd have dinged Kavanaugh for involvement with Starr.

I'm pointing out where your thinking is flawed, a bit scary, and politically detrimental to your "team."

I don't like that Kavanaugh wound up on the court. I think he's damaged goods now, and so too is the court. And once more, if you worked for Starr, I wouldn't even shake your hand.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

This isn't con law. Con law has definable standards. Adder's right about 15% of the time. Today's 15% was his assessment that this process was entirely political. That it occurred in perverted version of a process held pursuant to con law doesn't mean it's con law. It was a free for all, an abuse of a loophole in con law that provided for hearing but failed to provide adequate rules for the hearing.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

He was credibly accused. Having been so, an actual investigation should have ensued. We did not get one. We got a blanket denial from him, along with lying on collateral issues as to his credibility. That's more than enough for a no vote based on the allegations.

But you don't need that either, because his demonstrated temperament and lies to the committee are also more than sufficient reason to vote no.

Weirdly, I do not think having worked for Starr is disqualifying, but hey, each Senator gets to decide, so whatever.

I don't recall for certain whether I shook his hand when I met him, but I'd assume so.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed on lies, not on blanket denial. I personally think the denial was a lie. But I'm speculating. I'd want more investigation before I made a decision if I were a senator.

I would not - ever - decide she was entirely truthful and he was not based solely on her testimony. I do not think a credible accusation alone shifts the burden of proof in any forum, including any truly logical person's mind.

You are right to rip the GOP for avoiding a real investigation. You are dead wrong if you believe based on a credible accusation alone, and a blanket denial, a nominee should be dinged. That's dangerous thinking.

Agreed on lies, not on temperament.

Non-negotiable from my end. Total disqualification. Do not pass go.